Handbook of Research On Emerging Pedagogies For The Future of Education, Trauma-Informed, Care, and Pandemic Pedagogy Aras Bozkurt

Handbook of Research on
Emerging Pedagogies for

the Future of Education:
Trauma-Informed, Care, and
Pandemic Pedagogy
Aras Bozkurt
Anadolu University, Turkey
Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.
A volume in the Advances in Educational

Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID)
Book Series
Handbook of Research on Emerging Pedagogies for the Future of Education : Trauma-Informed, Care, and Pandemic Pedagogy, edited by Aras Bozkurt, IGI Global, 2021. ProQuest
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2021 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Bozkurt, Aras, editor.
Title: Handbook of research on emerging pedagogies for the future of education:
Trauma-informed, care, and pandemic pedagogy / Aras Bozkurt, editor.
Description: Hershey, Pennsylvania : Information Science Reference, [2021]
| Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “The main
purpose of this book is to evaluate the interruption of education,
especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, report best-practices, identify
the strengths and weakness of the educational systems, provide a base
for emerging pedagogies”-- Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020056177 (print) | LCCN 2020056178 (ebook) | ISBN
9781799872757 (Hardcover) | ISBN 9781799872771 (eBook)
Subjects: LCSH: Critical pedagogy. | Distance education--Computer-assisted
instruction. | COVID-19 (Disease)--Influence.
Classification: LCC LC196 .E93 2021 (print) | LCC LC196 (ebook) | DDC
371.33/4--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020056177
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020056178
This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AE-
TID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913)
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Advances in Educational
Technologies and Instructional
Design (AETID) Book Series
Lawrence A. Tomei
Robert Morris University, USA
ISSN:2326-8905
EISSN:2326-8913
Mission
Education has undergone, and continues to undergo, immense changes in the way it is enacted and distributed to
both child and adult learners. In modern education, the traditional classroom learning experience has evolved to
include technological resources and to provide online classroom opportunities to students of all ages regardless of
their geographical locations. From distance education, Massive-Open-Online-Courses (MOOCs), and electronic
tablets in the classroom, technology is now an integral part of learning and is also affecting the way educators
communicate information to students.
The Advances in Educational Technologies & Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series explores new
research and theories for facilitating learning and improving educational performance utilizing technological pro-
cesses and resources. The series examines technologies that can be integrated into K-12 classrooms to improve
skills and learning abilities in all subjects including STEM education and language learning. Additionally, it
studies the emergence of fully online classrooms for young and adult learners alike, and the communication and
accountability challenges that can arise. Trending topics that are covered include adaptive learning, game-based
learning, virtual school environments, and social media effects. School administrators, educators, academicians,
researchers, and students will find this series to be an excellent resource for the effective design and implementa-
tion of learning technologies in their classes.
Coverage
• Curriculum Development
• Game-Based Learning
IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts
• Web 2.0 and Education for publication within this series. To submit a pro-
• Hybrid Learning posal for a volume in this series, please contact our
• Instructional Design Models Acquisition Editors at Acquisitions@igi-global.com
• Collaboration Tools or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.
• K-12 Educational Technologies
• Virtual School Environments
• Online Media in Classrooms
• E-Learning
The Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series (ISSN 2326-8905) is published by IGI Global,
701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase indi-
vidually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit
http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678. Postmaster: Send all address changes
to above address. © © 2021 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series
may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping,
or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including
classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.
Titles in this Series
For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-tech-
nologies-instructional-design/73678
Simulation and Game-Based Learning in Emergency and Disaster Management

Nicole K. Drumhiller (American Public University System, USA) Terri L. Wilkin (American Public University
System, USA) and Karen V. Srba (Saint Francis University, USA)
Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 290pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799840879) • US $195.00
Applications of Work Integrated Learning Among Gen Z and Y Students

Trevor Gerhardt (University of West London, UK) and Paulette J. Annon (London School of Economics, UK)
Business Science Reference • © 2021 • 345pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799864400) • US $215.00
Career Ready Education Through Experiential Learning

Karen Rasmussen (University of West Florida, USA) Pamela Northrup (University of West Florida, USA) and
Robin Colson (University of West Florida, USA)
Practical Perspectives on Educational Theory and Game Development

Fabio Perez Marzullo (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
Advancing the Power of Learning Analytics and Big Data in Education

Ana Azevedo (CEOS:PP, ISCAP, Polytechnic of Porto, Portugal) José Manuel Azevedo (CEOS:PP, ISCAP,
Polytechnic of Porto, Portugal) James Onohuome Uhomoibhi (Ulster University, UK) and Ebba Ossiannilsson
(International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE), Norway & European Distance and e-Learning
Network (EDEN), UK & Swedish Association for Distance Education (SADE), Sweden)
Machine Learning Approaches for Improvising Modern Learning Systems

Zameer Gulzar (BSAR Crescent Institute of Science and Technology, India) and A. Anny Leema (VIT University,
India)
Developing Mathematical Literacy in the Context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Edgar Oliver Cardoso Espinosa (Instituto Politécnico Nacional, ESCA Santo Tomas, Mexico)
701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661
E-Mail: cust@igi-global.com • www.igi-global.com
This book is dedicated to all educators and instructional/learning designers who ensured continuity
of education during the COVID-19 pandemic. All our efforts are to create a better world and to make
education accessible for anyone who pursuit knowledge.
List of Contributors
Alkış Küçükaydın, Menşure / Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey............................................ 328

Allegri, Chiara / Porto dei Piccoli, Italy........................................................................................... 401
Altinpulluk, Hakan / Anadolu University, Turkey............................................................................ 209
Altunçekiç, Alper / Gazi University, Turkey..................................................................................... 284
Ballard, Kelly M. / Bryn Athyn College, USA...................................................................................... 44
Battal, Ali / Selçuk University, Turkey................................................................................................. 66
Boldrini, Giulia / Porto dei Piccoli, Italy.......................................................................................... 401
Bozkus-Genc, Gulden / Anadolu University, Turkey........................................................................ 386
Camurati, Gloria / Porto dei Piccoli, Italy....................................................................................... 401
Charamba, Erasmos / University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa............................................. 421
Dennis, Michelle / Adler University, USA........................................................................................... 82
Ekici, Murat / Usak University, Turkey............................................................................................. 127
Falk, Audrey Faye / Merrimack College, USA................................................................................... 347
Gentile, Amber / Cabrini University, USA.......................................................................................... 44
Goksel, Nil / Anadolu University, Turkey........................................................................................... 269
Grant-Smith, Deanna / Queensland University of Technology, Australia........................................ 169
Gurgur, Hasan / Anadolu University, Turkey.................................................................................... 386
Hamutoglu, Nazire Burcin / Eskisehir Technical University, Turkey................................................ 101
Inel Ekici, Didem / Usak University, Turkey..................................................................................... 127
Kayaduman, Halil / Inonu University, Turkey.................................................................................... 66
Kesim, Eren / Anadolu University, Turkey........................................................................................ 230
Kılınç, Hakan / Anadolu University, Turkey...................................................................................... 191
Lelli, Colleen / Cabrini University, USA.............................................................................................. 44
Maggiore, Alice / Porto dei Piccoli, Italy.......................................................................................... 401
Orbon, Kate / Merrimack College, USA........................................................................................... 347
Ossiannilsson, Ebba S. I. / Swedish Association for Distance Education, Sweden............................. 16
Payne, Ryan / Queensland University of Technology, Australia........................................................ 169
Perasso, Giulia / Porto dei Piccoli, Italy........................................................................................... 401
Rodgers, Devery J. / California State University, Long Beach, USA................................................. 145

Ryan, Mark Patrick / National University, USA............................................................................... 250
Sani-Bozkurt, Sunagul / Anadolu University, Turkey....................................................................... 386
Taskiran, Ayse / Anadolu University, Turkey.................................................................................... 368
Ünveren Bilgiç, Eminer Nur / Sakarya University, Turkey............................................................... 301
Uysal, Cigdem / Anadolu University, Turkey..................................................................................... 386
Xiao, Junhong / Shantou Radio and Television University (Shantou Open University), China............ 1

Table of Contents
Preface................................................................................................................................................xviii
Acknowledgment...............................................................................................................................xxiii
Section 1
Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning
Chapter 1
From Equality to Equity to Justice: Should Online Education Be the New Normal in Education?........ 1
Junhong Xiao, Shantou Radio and Television University (Shantou Open University), China
Chapter 2
Resilient Sustainable Education for the Future of Education: Emerging Challenges............................ 16
Ebba S. I. Ossiannilsson, Swedish Association for Distance Education, Sweden
Chapter 3
Navigating the Barriers Presented by the COVID-19 Pandemic: Refections and Innovative
Educational Solutions............................................................................................................................ 44
Colleen Lelli, Cabrini University, USA
Kelly M. Ballard, Bryn Athyn College, USA
Amber Gentile, Cabrini University, USA
Chapter 4
The University Instructors’ Opinions About Emergency Remote Education in Turkey........................ 66
Halil Kayaduman, Inonu University, Turkey
Ali Battal, Selçuk University, Turkey
Chapter 5
Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching................................................................................... 82

Michelle Dennis, Adler University, USA
Chapter 6
A Road Map for the COVID-19 Pandemic Process to Ensure Quality of Assurance Active
Learning Strategies in Online Learning Environments: How to Plan, Implement, Evaluate, and
Improve Learning Activities................................................................................................................ 101
Nazire Burcin Hamutoglu, Eskisehir Technical University, Turkey


Chapter 7
Factors Infuencing Student Engagement During COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teaching............. 127
Murat Ekici, Usak University, Turkey
Didem Inel Ekici, Usak University, Turkey
Chapter 8
An Ethnographic Phenomenology of Pandemic Pedagogy: K12 Teachers’ Choices for Student
Learning............................................................................................................................................... 145
Devery J. Rodgers, California State University, Long Beach, USA
Chapter 9
Enacting Care-Ful Engagement in the (Post)Pandemic Care-Less University.................................... 169
Deanna Grant-Smith, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Ryan Payne, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Chapter 10
Opinions of Field Experts on Practices That Will Increase the Motivation Levels of Learners
During the COVID-19 Pandemic Process........................................................................................... 191
Hakan Kılınç, Anadolu University, Turkey
Chapter 11
Determination of Preschool Teacher Candidates’ Views on the Learning Management System
Used in the COVID-19 Pandemic Process.......................................................................................... 209
Hakan Altinpulluk, Anadolu University, Turkey
Chapter 12
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Field of Economics of Education: An Analysis
Based on Digital Skills........................................................................................................................ 230
Eren Kesim, Anadolu University, Turkey
Chapter 13
An Analysis of Fully Synchronous Pandemic Secondary Education.................................................. 250
Mark Patrick Ryan, National University, USA
Chapter 14
Good Vibes Only: Learning English at a Distance Within Pandemic Pedagogy................................ 269
Nil Goksel, Anadolu University, Turkey
Chapter 15
University Instructors’ Views on Distance Medical Education Activities........................................... 284

Alper Altunçekiç, Gazi University, Turkey
Chapter 16
Implementation Example for the Structured Mathematics Teaching in Learning Environments
During the Pandemic Period................................................................................................................ 301
Eminer Nur Ünveren Bilgiç, Sakarya University, Turkey

Section 2
Trauma-Informed, Care, and Pandemic Pedagogy
Chapter 17
Intolerance of Uncertainty Experienced by Faculty of Education Students in the COVID-19
Pandemic and Their Strategies to Cope With Uncertainty:................................................................. 328
Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın, Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey
Chapter 18
Pedagogy of the Pandemic: Refections of Mother-Scholar-Practitioners........................................... 347
Audrey Faye Falk, Merrimack College, USA
Kate Orbon, Merrimack College, USA
Chapter 19
Psycho-Social Well-Being of Young Learners During Emergency Remote Teaching: General
Scope and Suggestions for Improvement............................................................................................. 368
Ayse Taskiran, Anadolu University, Turkey
Chapter 20
Empowering Teachers Who Work in Inclusive Practices: E-Coaching............................................... 386
Cigdem Uysal, Anadolu University, Turkey
Sunagul Sani-Bozkurt, Anadolu University, Turkey
Gulden Bozkus-Genc, Anadolu University, Turkey
Hasan Gurgur, Anadolu University, Turkey
Chapter 21
Play Specialist-Based Intervention in the COVID-19 Era: Crisis and Opportunities of Change –
An Experience From Italy.................................................................................................................... 401
Giulia Perasso, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Giulia Boldrini, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Alice Maggiore, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Chiara Allegri, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Gloria Camurati, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Chapter 22
The Power of Inclusion: Embracing Multilingual E-Learning Opportunities in Science Education.. 421
Erasmos Charamba, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 439
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 500
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 507
Detailed Table of Contents
Preface................................................................................................................................................xviii
Acknowledgment...............................................................................................................................xxiii
Section 1
Emergency Remote Teaching and Learning
Chapter 1
From Equality to Equity to Justice: Should Online Education Be the New Normal in Education?........ 1
Junhong Xiao, Shantou Radio and Television University (Shantou Open University), China
Due to its role in addressing school closures amid the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency online education
(EoE) is politicized and assumed to be the new normal in the post-crisis age. This chapter aims to answer
the following questions: Should online education be the new normal for all, and if not, what should it be
like? After briefy introducing how the world ensures educational continuity and distinguishing EoE from
conventional online education, it examines education in the discourse of sustainable development goals,
EoE from an equality-equity-justice perspective, and lessons learnt from EoE. It is argued that instead of
OE, the new normal for all should be a package of solutions able to cater for learners of various types,
minimizing inequality and inequity to allow as many people as possible to access quality education and
hence enhance educational equity and justice. Issues related to the new normal are then discussed. The
chapter concludes by calling on educational stakeholders to use this crisis as an opportunity to think
about how to fx our already ailing educational system.
Chapter 2
Resilient Sustainable Education for the Future of Education: Emerging Challenges............................ 16
Ebba S. I. Ossiannilsson, Swedish Association for Distance Education, Sweden
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic afected all economic sectors and disrupted many areas of our lives,
especially education. More than 1.7 billion learners in over 200 countries around the world were afected,
and these numbers will continue to increase in 2021 and beyond. Therefore, the efects of the COVID-19
pandemic must be understood in order to be better prepared for future disruptions. There is a need to
recognize that education is an investment in rebuilding. The key lessons learned are that the future of
education needs to be rethought without forgetting the past. Certainly, there is room for improvement
in the technical area, but most importantly, it is critical to recognize the social dimensions of learning
and education. This conceptual chapter provides a review of the literature on several global initiatives
to shape the futures of education by focusing on resilient open education for all in the context of social
justice, human rights, and democracy.


Chapter 3
Navigating the Barriers Presented by the COVID-19 Pandemic: Refections and Innovative
Educational Solutions............................................................................................................................ 44
Colleen Lelli, Cabrini University, USA
Kelly M. Ballard, Bryn Athyn College, USA
Amber Gentile, Cabrini University, USA
As educators and students navigated the changes amid COVID-19 and the switch to on-line learning,
there became a critical need to identify and address the challenges experienced by all. This chapter
highlights the fndings and recommendations of a study that surveyed over 400 educators to gather their
perceptions of the barriers presented by COVID-19 and their experiences as they adjusted to educating
students during a pandemic. The COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey developed by the researchers focused
on educators’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on instructional practices, emotional health, and
student learning. Innovative practices to create a more equitable education with the intentional inclusion
of Trauma Informed Practices and the newly created Guideposts for Trauma Informed Strategies are
described. These guideposts can serve as recommendations for stakeholders with the goal of reimagining
pedagogical practices and educational policies including trauma informed frameworks related to equity,
access, and social-emotional learning skills for vulnerable populations.
Chapter 4
The University Instructors’ Opinions About Emergency Remote Education in Turkey........................ 66
Halil Kayaduman, Inonu University, Turkey
Ali Battal, Selçuk University, Turkey
This study explores university instructors’ opinions regarding emergency remote education practices
during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research included 248 university instructors from 29 universities
in Turkey. The fndings revealed the instructors’ positive and negative opinions, educational preferences,
and support demands. While instructors found the process useful in terms of cost-efectiveness, providing
individualized learning environments, and supporting ubiquitous learning, their negative opinions stemmed
from course-, student-, technology-, and instructor-related factors. The instructors demanded support
in technology and training aspects, and they preferred face-to-face education rather than blended and
distance education. This study suggests considering the technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) framework for professional development programs. As well, it emphasizes the importance of
open educational resources and collaboration eforts at the institution level to share digital resources to
eliminate the digital divide and digital literacy issues.
Chapter 5
Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching................................................................................... 82
Michelle Dennis, Adler University, USA
Unforeseen events, such as the global pandemic COVID-19, have the potential to necessitate abrupt
closures of the physical campuses of higher education institutions. In these situations, emergency
remote teaching procedures may be implemented to enable the continuation of courses and reduce the
magnitude of disruptions to the learning process for students and faculty members. In this chapter, the
author will evaluate best practices for the design of emergency remote teaching, faculty preparation, and
student support. Further, the author will explore efective communication strategies for the delivery of
information regarding procedural changes to students and faculty.

Chapter 6
A Road Map for the COVID-19 Pandemic Process to Ensure Quality of Assurance Active
Learning Strategies in Online Learning Environments: How to Plan, Implement, Evaluate, and
Improve Learning Activities................................................................................................................ 101
Nazire Burcin Hamutoglu, Eskisehir Technical University, Turkey
The damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in the feld of education on a global scale has caused
many school closures worldwide and prevented many students from beneftting from the educational
services in a limited way. In order to overcome this situation, educational institutions had to switch to
distance education applications. This study provides a roadmap and aims to identify teaching and learning
activities in an online learning environment considering the learning outcomes to ensure the quality
assurance with the basis of SMART goals and “Gagne’s Events of Instruction” model by including active
learning strategies. Assessments were completed by the alternative approaches, such as self-evaluation,
peer evaluation, and evaluation by the instructor. Finally, based on the identifed scenarios, an eclectic
model of scenario which is called “FlipHyb” is presented.
Chapter 7
Factors Infuencing Student Engagement During COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teaching............. 127
Murat Ekici, Usak University, Turkey
Didem Inel Ekici, Usak University, Turkey
Student engagement is an important construct of education that is strongly correlated with the quality
of learning outcomes. Educators have long been looking for ways to increase student engagement.
It has become even more critical in the global COVID-19 pandemic where schools and universities
switched to entirely online as a consequence of school closures. This chapter reports on the results of a
comprehensive study on student engagement during emergency remote teaching. The aim of this study
is to take a snapshot and explore the efects of personal and institutional variables on online student
engagement. Research data was collected from 1,027 Turkish university students from both state and
private universities. Data analysis showed that having a personal computer, owning a room for study and
household internet connection, perceived information and communication self-efcacy, past e-learning
experience, as well as course delivery format afect behavioral, emotional, and cognitive aspects of
online student engagement.
Chapter 8
An Ethnographic Phenomenology of Pandemic Pedagogy: K12 Teachers’ Choices for Student
Learning............................................................................................................................................... 145
Devery J. Rodgers, California State University, Long Beach, USA
This chapter aims to serve a constructive purpose from pandemic pedagogy by presenting practice-driven
pedagogical strategies for online teaching and learning. Through phenomenological HelpDesk analysis
from a K12 school district’s Education Technology Department, their Education Technology Specialist
presents an ethnographic empirical study on what advice was sought and given during emergency remote
teaching of 2020. Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM-2), it shows how teachers defaulted
to practices which connected them with their students, helped them stay organized for synchronous and
asynchronous instruction, and gave them “eyes on” student learning with easily accessible data. The
value of this study lies in its ability to help understand the professional learning efects of the COVID-19
pandemic and provide a guide for those who need a deeper understanding of teachers’ instructional
choices during emergency remote education.

Chapter 9
Enacting Care-Ful Engagement in the (Post)Pandemic Care-Less University.................................... 169
Deanna Grant-Smith, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Ryan Payne, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
There is a strong link between student engagement and successful educational outcomes which is
driven by the actions of and interactions with educators. In the context of pandemic pedagogies, many
educators have taken on additional responsibility for the wellbeing and engagement of their students. The
performance of this emotion work is strongly connected to an educator’s professional and philosophical
stance about the role of caring in teaching and learning. Building on the principles of care ethics with
autoethnographic refection of emergency remote teaching, this chapter presents a model of student
engagement which refects the additional needs and demands of care-based education on both educators
and students. This model outlines for the enactment of deliberate, sustainable, and care-ful engagement
based on an assessment of learner needs as well as educator investment and contributes insights for
shaping (post pandemic) pedagogical practices.
Chapter 10
During the COVID-19 Pandemic Process........................................................................................... 191
Hakan Kılınç, Anadolu University, Turkey
This study aimed to determine what applications could be used to increase the motivation levels of learners
during the COVID-19 pandemic process and what roles should be carried out by teachers, institutions,
families, and learners in this process. In this study, phenomenology design, one of the qualitative research
methods, was used. In this context, the opinions of the participants who were determined by purposeful
sampling method were consulted. The opinions obtained from the participants were analyzed with content
analysis. The fndings obtained within the scope of the study, in order to maintain the motivation levels
of the learners in the COVID-19 pandemic period, revealed the roles that teachers, institutions, families,
and learners should carry out.
Chapter 11
Used in the COVID-19 Pandemic Process.......................................................................................... 209
Hakan Altinpulluk, Anadolu University, Turkey
The aim of this study is to examine learning management systems (LMS) in the COVID-19 pandemic
process in Turkey according to preschool teacher candidates’ views. The sample group of the study
consists of 22 participants who are undergraduate students of the Faculty of Education, Pre-School
Teaching 2nd Grade. The data were collected between 4-30 December 2020. In this study, which was
carried out in qualitative research method and phenomenology design, the standardized open-ended
interview form was used as the data collection tool, and content analysis was used in the analysis of the
data. Live lectures, discussion forums, and assignments/online exams tools in the LMS were examined.
In addition, opinions on the general usability of the LMS and suggestions for the improvement of the
LMS have been presented. Some suggestions were made at the end of the research.

Chapter 12
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Field of Economics of Education: An Analysis
Based on Digital Skills........................................................................................................................ 230
Eren Kesim, Anadolu University, Turkey
Every era exists within its own paradigm, and the COVID-19 pandemic era is a game changer that requires
new perspectives. This requirement also holds true for the feld of economics of education. This era of
change requires the reevaluation of educational institutions. The economics of education are venturing
beyond traditional felds of study regarding the development of digital skills. Topics such as fnancial
administration, budget management, costs, supply and demand of educational services, and the refections
of learning losses on the knowledge economy represent the changing dynamic locus of the economics of
education regarding digital skills during the pandemic period. In this chapter, the general impact of the
pandemic on educational institutions is portrayed, the importance of digital skills in global competition
in the digital economy is discussed, and lastly, the paradigm shifts in economics of education as an
important feld of educational sciences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are described and evaluated
within the context of the economics of distance education.
Chapter 13
An Analysis of Fully Synchronous Pandemic Secondary Education.................................................. 250
Mark Patrick Ryan, National University, USA
Twenty-one grades 6-12 students were interviewed to learn about their experiences participating in a
fully synchronous virtual learning environment at a public charter school in California, USA. Students
take seven 50-minute classes four days a week and seven 30-minute classes the ffth weekday using
the Zoom platform and Google Classroom. One-third of participants were students with disabilities,
one-third English language learners, and one-third possessed neither designation. This study identifes
several themes regarding the benefts and drawbacks of an entirely synchronous learning experience
for secondary students. The participants make recommendations for their general education, special
education, and English language development teachers, including strategies to engage secondary students
more efectively, assessment suggestions, curriculum design ideas, advice about organizing Google
Classrooms in ways that are supportive of student needs, and exhortations about what teachers should
not do when planning and implementing synchronous online learning.
Chapter 14
Good Vibes Only: Learning English at a Distance Within Pandemic Pedagogy................................ 269
Nil Goksel, Anadolu University, Turkey
We live in a period when schools are involuntarily closed; human life gradually slowed down and came
to a halt due to a pandemic, but distance education is already underway. While some higher education
institutions have been struggling to meet distance education, the ones that have currently provided distance
education in many parts of the world continued to maintain their existing educational systems in the time
of the pandemic. In this connection, the central objective of this paper is to explore how online solutions
and attempts have been defned under the term of “emergency remote education” since the frst outbreak
of the pandemic and how pandemic pedagogy during COVID-19 has contributed to emergency remote
education and online education both in the world and specifcally in Turkey. As there has been a gradual
shift in higher education lately, this chapter is a response to educational crisis specifcally for English
teaching and learning at a distance from a positive perspective.

Chapter 15
University Instructors’ Views on Distance Medical Education Activities........................................... 284
Alper Altunçekiç, Gazi University, Turkey
The fact that most of the classes are based on cases and learners are normally in the feld rather than
in classrooms in medical education stands out as the biggest problem faced in conducting medical
education through distance education. The study collected data by asking open-ended questions, which
were formed by taking domain experts’ opinions, to 27 instructors working in various universities in
Turkey. The collected data were subjected to qualitative data analysis in an attempt to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of distance medical education activities, the positive and negative efects
of distance education on learners, and the difculties faced by instructors. The analysis results show
that the instructors experience difculties in terms of practical training, communication, feedback, and
classroom management in distance medical education. On the other hand, the instructors highlight that
such features of distance education as accessibility and individual learning have a positive contribution
to medical education.
Chapter 16
During the Pandemic Period................................................................................................................ 301
Eminer Nur Ünveren Bilgiç, Sakarya University, Turkey
The purpose of the study is to provide exemplary work for academicians and feld experts working in the
feld during the COVID-19 outbreak to efectively use technology in mathematics teaching environments
in the distance education process and integrate it into teaching environments. Both the course content
presented to prospective teachers and also the learning materials created by the prospective-teachers
in line with the learning acquisitions of the course have become a part of the teaching process, and the
teaching process has been structured by integrating both the course content and the prepared learning
materials into the teaching process under the TPACK theory frame.
Section 2
Trauma-Informed, Care, and Pandemic Pedagogy
Chapter 17
Intolerance of Uncertainty Experienced by Faculty of Education Students in the COVID-19
Pandemic and Their Strategies to Cope With Uncertainty:................................................................. 328
Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın, Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey
COVID-19, which emerged and turned into a global pandemic within a short time, has caused great
concern in terms of health, and it has also brought some problems to the education sector. Due to some
uncertain situations in this process and worries about the pandemic, students have been faced with
unfamiliar situations. This study aims to determine the intolerance of uncertainty that university students
in Turkey have experienced in the process of this pandemic and the strategies they have used to cope
with this situation. In this context, 179 university students participated in the study. The Intolerance of
Uncertainty Scale and an interview form were used. ANOVA was used with the independent samples t-test
and content analysis was used in the analysis of data. The data obtained showed that third-year students
in the psychological counseling and guidance program had high levels of intolerance of uncertainty and
had difculties in developing strategies to deal with uncertainty.

Chapter 18
Pedagogy of the Pandemic: Refections of Mother-Scholar-Practitioners........................................... 347
Audrey Faye Falk, Merrimack College, USA
Kate Orbon, Merrimack College, USA
This chapter explores emergency remote teaching and learning experiences at the K-12 educational levels
and in higher education within the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Since March 2020, schools at
all levels across the US and globally have ofered fully remote or hybrid learning opportunities in order
to respond to public health needs. The pandemic created a major disruption in education, as in virtually
every aspect of human activity. The authors apply a feminist lens to refect on their lived experiences
with emergency remote teaching and learning.
Chapter 19
Psycho-Social Well-Being of Young Learners During Emergency Remote Teaching: General
Scope and Suggestions for Improvement............................................................................................. 368
Ayse Taskiran, Anadolu University, Turkey
The COVID-19 pandemic, which started through the end of 2019 and which seems to continue for an
unknown period of time, has had unprecedented efects that are not limited to health conditions only,
but also include fnancial, sociological, and psychological consequences. This global pandemic forced
schools and universities to close their doors, causing a large-scale educational disruption for a large
number of learners worldwide. Despite the measures taken to compensate for education at all levels,
there still is another concern for K-12 level learners’ psycho-social well-being. This chapter elaborates
some points that should be considered in case of emergency remote teaching applications in terms of
enhancing psycho-social well-being of young learners.
Chapter 20
Empowering Teachers Who Work in Inclusive Practices: E-Coaching............................................... 386
Cigdem Uysal, Anadolu University, Turkey
Sunagul Sani-Bozkurt, Anadolu University, Turkey
Gulden Bozkus-Genc, Anadolu University, Turkey
Hasan Gurgur, Anadolu University, Turkey
Taking into account the efects of integration practices and the coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic,
e-coaching, which handles distance education practices and coaching approach together, came to the fore.
With the global epidemic of COVID-19, new ones have been added to the professional competencies
of teachers working in integration practices. In this respect, this chapter discusses the professional
competencies of teachers working in integration practices and the competencies that they should have
in order to use technology and emergency distance education applications. In addition, new approaches
have been brought to the agenda with the efect of the epidemic in order to improve the emerging
competencies of teachers and to strengthen teachers. Thus, in the new world, e-coaching, which handles
distance education practices and coaching approach together, has become important. As a result, it is
aimed to address the e-coaching approach, which ofers a hybrid perspective to empower teachers working
in integration environments in the context of their emerging new competencies.

Chapter 21
Play Specialist-Based Intervention in the COVID-19 Era: Crisis and Opportunities of Change –
An Experience From Italy.................................................................................................................... 401
Giulia Perasso, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Giulia Boldrini, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Alice Maggiore, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Chiara Allegri, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Gloria Camurati, Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
The present chapter provides insights about the play specialist-based intervention for children with a
wide range of pathologies. Telematic adaptations of pedagogical interventions are needed in order to
overcome the obstacles given by pandemic emergency and social isolation. The chapter ofers a literature
review around the role of the play specialist, providing defnitions, historical evolution, and outcomes
on children’s wellbeing. Plus, results from a research around parental wellbeing after the telematic play
specialist-based adaptation are displayed and discussed. Finally, qualitative outcomes from parent and
educator interviews over the telematic intervention are presented.
Chapter 22
The Power of Inclusion: Embracing Multilingual E-Learning Opportunities in Science Education.. 421
Erasmos Charamba, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
The year 2019 saw the emergence of COVID-19, an infectious disease spread through human-to-human
transmission. This resulted in the immediate worldwide suspension of contact classes as countries tried to
contain the wide spread of the pandemic. Consequently, educational institutions were thus left with only
one option: e-learning. E-learning is the delivery of learning experiences through the use of electronic
mail, the internet, the world wide web, and it can either be synchronous or asynchronous. Through the
translanguaging lens, this chapter reports on a qualitative study that sought to explore the crucial role
language plays in the e-learning of multilingual science students at a secondary school in South Africa.
The e-learning lessons were in the form of videos, multilingual glossaries, and narrated slides in English
and isiZulu languages. Data was collected through lesson observations and interviews held via Microsoft
Teams. This chapter suggests numerous cognitive and socio-cultural benefts of multilingual e-learning
pedagogy and recommends its use in education.
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 439
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 500
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 507
xviii
Preface
Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has turned to be a global pandemic and educational institutions were
closed to slow down the Covid-19 (Bond, 2020; Bozkurt et al., 2020). Closures of schools and inter-
ruption of education affected more than 1.6 billion enrolled students of all ages which equal nearly 90%
of the global student population. Consequently, utopic scenarios have become real, and these scenarios
have been experienced in the educational landscape globally. As a response to the Covid-19 crisis,
emergency remote teaching and learning were put into practice to ensure the continuity of education
(Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a).
Covid-19 pandemic impacted many dimensions of our lives, including education (Ali, 2020; Aristovnik
et al., 2020; Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020b; Peters et al., 2020; Quilter-Pinner & Ambrose, 2020). We have
observed that both K-12 and higher education was unprepared and fell short with current pedagogical
approaches. The pandemic revealed the flaws in our education systems and taught us that we are not
prepared for the educational crisis, which requires us to study education and emerging pedagogies such
as trauma-Informed, care, and pandemic pedagogy. The global educational crisis further indicated that
there is a need to understand the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic to be better prepared for future inter-
ruptions. Within this context, the main purpose of this book is to evaluate the interruption of education,
report best-practices, identify the strengths and weakness of the educational systems, provide a base for
emerging pedagogies. The book intends to provide a walkthrough for the education in the new normal
by distilling lessons learned and extracting the knowledge and experience gained through the Covid-19
crisis to better envision the emerging pedagogies for the future of education. From this perspective, the
value of this book lies in its ability to document these historic moments and also lies in its capacity to
provide a guide for those who need a deeper understanding to respond to the current and potential future
crisis by interpreting emerging pedagogies.
OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
The book consists of two sections. The first section (From Chapter 1 to Chapter 16) focuses on education
in the new normal and the second section (From Chapter 17 to Chapter 22) focuses on education from
the perspective of pandemic pedagogy. The book has a total of 22 chapters with invaluable insights and
critical perspectives.
Chapter 1, “From Equality to Equity to Justice: Should Online Education Be the New Normal in
Education?” by Junhong Xiao, examines emergency online education from various perspectives and
suggests that the crisis can be an opportunity to fix the broken educational system.

Preface
Chapter 2, “Resilient Sustainable Education for the Futures of Education: Emerging Challenges,” by
Ebba Ossiannilsson, focuses on futures of education on the grounds of sustainability, more specifically
through the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of United Nations. This conceptual chapter provides
a review of the literature on several global initiatives to shape the futures of education by focusing on
resilient open education for all in the context of social justice, human rights, and democracy.
Chapter 3, “Navigating the Barriers Presented by the COVID-19 Pandemic: Reflections and Innovative
Educational Solutions,” by Colleen Lelli, Kelly Ballard, and Amber Gentile, highlights the findings and
recommendations of a study that surveyed over 400 educators to gather their perceptions of the barriers
presented by COVID-19 and their experiences as they adjusted to educating students during a pandemic.
Chapter 4, “The University Instructors’ Opinions About Emergency Remote Education in Turkey,” by
Halil Kayaduman and Ali Battal, explores university instructors’ opinions regarding emergency remote
education practices during the Covid-19 pandemic. The findings revealed the instructors’ positive and
negative opinions, educational preferences, and support demands.
Chapter 5, “Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching,” by Michelle Dennis, evaluates best
practices for the design of emergency remote teaching, faculty preparation, and student support. Fur-
ther, the chapter explores effective communication strategies for the delivery of information regarding
procedural changes to students and faculty.
Chapter 6, “A Road Map for COVID-19 Pandemic Process to Ensure Quality of Assurance Active
Learning Strategies in Online Learning Environments: How to Plan, Implement, Evaluate, and Improve
Learning Activities,” by Nazire Hamutoglu, provides a road map and aims to identify while designing
teaching and learning activities in an online learning environment considering the learning outcomes to
ensure the quality assurance with the basis of SMART goals and “Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction”
model by including active learning strategies.
Chapter 7, “Factors Influencing Student Engagement During COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teach-
ing,” by Murat Ekici and Didem Inel Ekici, reports on the results of a comprehensive study on student
engagement during emergency remote teaching. The chapter shows that having a personal computer,
owning a room for study and household internet connection, perceived information and communication
self-efficacy, past e-learning experience as well as course delivery format affect behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive aspects of online student engagement should be taken into consideration.
Chapter 8, “An Ethnographic Phenomenology of Pandemic Pedagogy: K-12 Teachers’ Choices for
Student Learning,” by Devery Rodgers, aims to serve a constructive purpose from pandemic pedagogy
by presenting practice-driven pedagogical strategies for online teaching and learning.
Chapter 9, “Enacting Care-Ful Engagement in the (Post)Pandemic Care-Less University,” by Deanna
Grant-Smith and Ryan Payne, presents a model of student engagement which reflects the additional
needs and demands of care-based education on both educators and students. This model outlines for the
enactment of deliberate, sustainable and care-full engagement based on an assessment of learner needs
as well as educator investment and contributes insights for shaping (post) pedagogical practices.
Chapter 10, “Opinions of Field Experts on Practices That Will Increase the Motivation Levels of
Learners During the COVID-19 Pandemic Process,” by Hakan Kılınç, aims to determine what applica-
tions could be to increase the motivation levels of learners during the Covid-19 pandemic process and
what roles should be carried out by teachers, institutions, families and learners in this process.
Chapter 11, “Determination of Preschool Teacher Candidates’ Views on the Learning Management
System Used in the COVID-19 Pandemic Process,” by Hakan Altinpulluk, examines learning man-
xix
Preface
agement system (LMS) in the Covid-19 pandemic process in Turkey according to preschool teacher
candidates’ views.
Chapter 12, “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Field of Economics of Education: An
Analysis Based on Digital Skills,” by Eren Kesim, evaluates the general impact of the pandemic on
educational institutions, the importance of digital skills in the global competition in the digital economy,
and lastly the paradigm shifts in the economics of education as an important field of educational sci-
ences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic within the context of the economics of distance education.
Chapter 13, “An Analysis of Fully Synchronous Pandemic Secondary Education,” by Mark Ryan,
identifies several themes regarding the benefits and drawbacks of an entirely synchronous learning
experience for secondary students.
Chapter 14, “Good Vibes Only: Learning English at a Distance Within Pandemic Pedagogy,” by
Nil Goksel, explores how online solutions and attempts have been defined under the term of “emer-
gency remote teaching” since the first outbreak of the pandemic and how pandemic pedagogy during
COVID-19 has contributed to emergency remote teaching and online education both in the world and
specifically in Turkey.
Chapter 15, “University Instructors’ Views on Distance Medical Education Activities,” by Alper
Altunçekiç, examines distance medical education from the perspective of instructors at higher education.
The chapter reports that the instructors experience difficulties in terms of practical training, communica-
tion, feedback and classroom management in distance medical education. On the other hand, the chapter
also points out that characteristics of distance education such as accessibility and individual learning
have a positive contribution to medical education.
Chapter 16, “Implementation Example for the Structured Mathematics Teaching in Learning Envi-
ronments During the Pandemic Period,” by Eminer Nur Ünveren Bilgiç, provides exemplary work for
academicians and field experts working in the field during the COVID-19 outbreak to effectively use
technology in mathematics teaching environments in the distance education process and integrate it into
teaching environments.
Chapter 17, “Intolerance of Uncertainty Experienced by Faculty of Education Students in the CO-
VID-19 Pandemic and Their Strategies to Cope With Uncertainty: COVID-19 Crisis, Pedagogy, and
Education in Higher Education,” by Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın, aims to determine the intolerance of
uncertainty that university students in Turkey have experienced in the process of this pandemic and the
strategies they have used to cope with this situation.
Chapter 18, “Pedagogy of the Pandemic: Reflections of Mother-Scholar-Practitioners,” by Audrey Falk
and Kate Orbon, explores emergency remote teaching and learning experiences at the K-12 educational
levels and in higher education within the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. The chapter benefits
from a feminist lens to reflect on their lived experiences with emergency remote teaching and learning.
Chapter 19, “Psycho-Social Well-Being of Young Learners During Emergency Remote Teaching:
General Scope and Suggestions for Improvement,” by Ayse Taskiran, reports issues that should be
considered in case of emergency remote teaching applications in terms of enhancing psycho-social

well-being of young learners.
Chapter 20, “Empowering Teachers Who Work in Inclusive Practices: E-Coaching,” by Cigdem
Uysal, Sunagul Sani-Bozkurt, Gulden Bozkus-Genc, and Hasan Gurgur, aims to discuss the professional
competencies of teachers working in integration practices and the competencies that they should have
in order to use technology and emergency distance education applications.
xx
Preface
Chapter 21, “Play Specialist-Based Intervention in the COVID-19 Era: Crisis and Opportunities of
Change – An Experience From Italy,” by Giulia Perasso, Giulia Boldrini, Alice Maggiore, Chiara Al-
legri, and Gloria Camurati, provides insights about the play specialist-based intervention for children
with a wide range of pathologies. The chapter further offers a systematic review around the role of the
play specialist, providing definitions, historical evolution, and outcomes on children’s wellbeing.
Chapter 22, “The Power of Inclusion: Embracing Multilingual E-Learning Opportunities in Science
Education,” by Erasmos Charamba, reports on a qualitative study that sought to explore the crucial role
TARGET AUDIENCE AND POTENTIAL USES
This book addresses to the teachers, researchers, professionals, decision-makers, institutions and, most
importantly, main-actors from various disciplines and any individuals from the educational landscape.
The book intends to provide a walkthrough for the education in the new normal by distilling lessons
learned and extracting the knowledge and experience gained through the Covid-19 crisis.
REFERENCES
Ali, W. (2020). Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of CO-
VID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Studies, 10(3), 16–25. doi:10.5539/hes.v10n3p16
Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438.
doi:10.3390u12208438
Bond, M. (2020). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living
rapid systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191–247. http://www.asianjde.
org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/517
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., ... Paskevicius, M. (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. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3878572
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020a). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to
CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3778083
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020b). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observa-
tions from the past, insights from the present and projections for the future. Asian Journal of Distance
Education, 15(2), i–x. http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/512
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote
teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 27(March). https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/
the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
xxi
Preface
Peters, M. A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Zipin, L., Brennan,
M., Robertson, S., Quay, J., Malbon, J., Taglietti, D., Barnett, R., Chengbing, W., McLaren, P., Apple,
R., Papastephanou, M., Burbules, N., ... Misiaszek, L. (2020). Reimagining the new pedagogical pos-
sibilities for universities post-Covid-19. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–44. doi:10.1080/0013
1857.2020.1777655
Quilter-Pinner, H., & Ambrose, A. (2020). The ‘new normal’: The future of education after Covid–19.
IPPR. https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/the-new-normal
xxii
xxiii
Acknowledgment
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my family and every single individual
who contributed to my personal and professional development.
As the editor of this book, I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts by the educators and
instructional/learning designers who enabled and ensured the continuity of education during the CO-
VID-19 pandemic.
I would like to thank to the authors of this book for their contribution and I also would like to take this
great opportunity to sincerely thank the reviewers regarding the improvement of quality, coherence, and
content presentation of chapters. Most of the authors also served as referees; I highly appreciate their
double task. Without their support, this book would not have become a reality.
I sincerely thank the group at IGI Global in Hershey PA, USA, for their great help and excellent support
on this project and for providing the opportunity to publish this book.
Aras Bozkurt
Section 1
Emergency Remote Teaching
and Learning
1
Chapter 1
From Equality to
Equity to Justice:
Should Online Education Be the
New Normal in Education?
Junhong Xiao
Shantou Radio and Television University (Shantou Open University), China
ABSTRACT
Due to its role in addressing school closures amid the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency online education
(EoE) is politicized and assumed to be the new normal in the post-crisis age. This chapter aims to answer
the following questions: Should online education be the new normal for all, and if not, what should it be
like? After briefy introducing how the world ensures educational continuity and distinguishing EoE from
conventional online education, it examines education in the discourse of sustainable development goals,
EoE from an equality-equity-justice perspective, and lessons learnt from EoE. It is argued that instead of
OE, the new normal for all should be a package of solutions able to cater for learners of various types,
minimizing inequality and inequity to allow as many people as possible to access quality education and
hence enhance educational equity and justice. Issues related to the new normal are then discussed. The
chapter concludes by calling on educational stakeholders to use this crisis as an opportunity to think
about how to fx our already ailing educational system.
EMERGENCY ONLINE EDUCATION: A MAKESHIFT RESPONSE

TO SCHOOL CLOSURES AT A GLOBAL SCALE
When human-to-human transmission of coronavirus was confirmed in January 22, 2020 (World Health
Organization, 2020), the world was simply caught by surprise although reactions varied from one country
to another. Some countries immediately took precautionary measures such as practicing social distancing,
mandating mask wearing, working at home, closing high-risk venues and locations, isolating infected
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch001
Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

From Equality to Equity to Justice
neighborhoods and even shutting down whole cities while others seemed to take a wait-and-see approach
due to numerous reasons (Bozkurt et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, regardless of our efforts, all walks of life have been devastatingly hit, to varying extents,
ever since the outbreak and education is among the most severely affected worldwide because millions
and millions of families are involved. The magnitude and severity of the impact on education is echoed
by the statistics from the United Nations. As of August, 2020,
The COVID-19 pandemic has created the largest disruption of education systems in history, affecting
nearly 1.6 billion learners in more than 190 countries and all continents. Closures of schools and other
learning spaces have impacted 94 per cent of the world’s student population... (United Nations, 2020, p. 2).
When faced with this global disaster, governments, educational communities, educational institu-
tions, and individual educators all over the world have wasted no time in mobilization to deal with
school closures, which ‘has been nothing short of miraculous’ (Olcott, 2020). Indeed, the pandemic is
unprecedented and our response is also unprecedented (Bates, 2020d). Measures taken by a particular
country may be influenced by its human development level (United Nations Development Programme,
2019), albeit no evidence of consistent correlation between the two. Approaches in support of educa-
tion continuity are many and various, ranging from no-tech, low-tech to high-tech solutions (United
Nations, 2020), for example, from ‘old’ technologies used in earlier generations of distance education
such as printed materials, telephone, radio and TV to high-tech such as digital devices, online platforms
and mobile applications (Bozkurt et al., 2020; García & Weiss, 2020; McBurnie, 2020). Nevertheless,
despite this diversity, online education has emerged seemingly as ‘a victor ludorum’ (Dhawan, 2020,
p. 7) globally, both in developed and developing countries, obviously overshadowing other emergency
solutions. In light of this predominance, this chapter will focus on the ‘online’ solution.
The response to global school closures due to the coronavirus emergency is proclaimed as ‘the
largest-scale Internet-based education experiment in the human history’ (Zhang, 2020) or ‘the Great
Online-Learning Experiment’ (Zimmerman, 2020), which has caused controversy over the legitimacy
of its being labelled as online teaching, online learning, online education, or any other already existing
terminology (for the sake of convenience, the term ‘online education’ will be adopted thereafter). Critics
argue that this is not an online education experiment because online education has long been in practice
and well researched, insisting that
it [online education during the COVID-19 pandemic] was legions of dedicated instructors doing their
best to figure out how to deliver courses they had built for a physical classroom to a group of now-
dispersed students, using whatever technology and often rudimentary pedagogical practices they (with
help from their colleges’ instructional designers and faculty development staff members) could master
in a matter of days (Lederman, 2020).
In other words, the kind of online education practiced during the pandemic is ‘an abrupt mass migra-
tion of traditional college courses to the internet’ (Carey, 2020) with very limited time left for planning.
This makeshift, unplanned nature is what distinguishes it from what is already known as online education
in that the latter is often well designed in advance and appropriately informed by theoretical research
and best practice (Bozkurt et al., 2020). Therefore, online education researchers and practitioners prefer
to coin alternative terms to describe what is happening to ensure continuity of learning and teaching

during the crisis, including ‘emergency remote teaching’ (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, & Bond,
2020), ‘emergency remote instruction’ (Lederman, 2020), ‘emergency online learning’ (Bates, 2020a;
Patricia, 2020), ‘emergency remote learning’ (Bates, 2020d; Naffi, 2020), and ‘emergency remote teach-
ing’ (Aguliera & Nightengale-Lee, 2020). All of these terms share a common feature – emergency. It is
because of this feature that Welner (2020) refers to it as ‘temporary distance education’. Again, for the
sake of convenience, emergency online education (EoE) will be used as an umbrella term in this chapter
thereafter to refer to all the online technology-based education solutions adopted during COVID-19.
It is hoped that the distinction of EoE from conventional online education may help prevent the latter
from being further stigmatized, making it clear that the main purpose of EoE is ‘not to re-create a robust
educational ecosystem but rather to provide temporary access to instruction and instructional supports’
quickly enough to meet emerging urgent needs (Hodges et al., 2020), in other words, ‘whether online
teaching–learning methods can provide quality education’ is not the primary concern amid this global
crisis (Dhawan, 2020, p. 7).
Despite this gloomy prospect, EoE has actually been associated with political agendas one way or
another (Hodges et al., 2020; Selwyn, 2020), hence often creating over-optimistic expectations. As early
as April, 2020, there were assumptions that EoE was ushering in a new era of education with online
education becoming the norm, ‘which could represent the development for the next decade’ (Li, 2020;
also see Male, 2020; Puri, 2020) and the hype has been gaining momentum ever since (for example,
Raveendran, 2020; Yan, 2020). While EoE is now turning into a hot topic, research in this area is ‘of the
quick-and-dirty kind’, often centering on questions such as ‘how did students, faculty and administra-
tors react and what are they expecting in the future?’ (Bates, 2020d). In contrast, it seems that whether
online education should be the new normal is not a concern. It is simply taken for granted. In light of
this scenario, this chapter attempts to address this concern by answering the following questions:
1. Should online education be the new normal for ALL in the years to come?
2. If not, what should the new normal be like?
The rest of this chapter will first examine education in the context of the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) (United Nations, 2015) and then look at education from an equality-equity-
justice perspective before highlighting problems arising from EoE during the COVID-19 pandemic,
discussing lessons learnt and expounding on the new normal in education.
EDUCATION IN THE DISCOURSE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
In 2015, the United Nations announced its 2030 agenda for sustainable development, setting 17 SDGs,
the achievement of which is believed to be able to transform the world (United Nations, 2015). The 17
SDGs concern the people, the planet we live on, prosperity, peace, and partnership. When it comes to the
people, the United Nations are determined to eradicate poverty and hunger and ensure dignity, equality
and health (physical, mental and social well-being), for all.
Education is primarily about human being, for human beings and by human beings. This suggests
that it is basically a human-to-human transaction. Therefore, its impact extends far beyond education
itself. This is why we should not regard education merely as a human right. It is actually ‘an enabling
right with direct impact on the realization of all other human rights’ (United Nations, 2020, p. 3). And

as ‘a primary driver of progress across all 17 Sustainable Development Goals’, education is ‘a bedrock
of just, equal, inclusive peaceful societies’ (ibid.). Therefore, we are fully justified in claiming that there
will be no sustainable development without equitable quality education for all.
Of the 17 SDGs, Goal 4 is education specific – ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and
promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (United Nations, 2015). One of the key concepts regarding
this goal is equity for ALL. Whether SDG 4 is achievable by 2030 or in the farther future is one thing
and to what extent equity for ALL is realized is another. In my eyes, the latter matters far more than the
former which can serve well as a dream driving our persistent pursuit. The extent to which education is
equitable for ALL has an immediate effect on how well the other SDGs can be achieved or to what extent
our development is sustainable. In this sense, research into educational equity is of practical relevance,
both short-term and long-term, to the human society.
Furthermore, in the discourse of the 2030 agenda, education is not only about cognition but also
concerns essential services (meals, clean water, safe sheltering and so on), emotion, psychology and
healthcare (Bozkurt et al., 2020). Many countries provide meals to K-12 students. For example, in
Sweden, ‘high school pupils have by law free lunches at school, which for many pupils are the only
daily meal, especially for those whose families are poor’ (Bozkurt et al., 2020, p. 76). According to the
United Nations’ (2020) statistics, ‘the loss of school meals and other health and nutrition services in the
first months of the pandemic affected 370 million children in 195 countries’ (p. 10). Even in the most
developed countries such as the United States, ‘access to food and nutrition, housing, health insurance
and care, and financial relief measures’ was a problem for some students because of COVID-19 (García
& Weiss, 2020). A survey in April, 2020 showed 80% of the participating college students claimed that
they suffered from poor mental health (Active Minds, 2020). In a word, equity in education should not
be limited to the cognition aspect of education but extends to the above related aspects, i.e. education in
its broad sense. No efforts should be spared to enhance equity in all aspects of education.
EMERGENCY ONLINE EDUCATION IN THE DISCOURSE

OF EQUALITY, EQUITY AND JUSTICE
It is worthwhile to look at EoE from the perspective of equality, equity and justice. A carton drawn
by Tony Ruth for Design in Tech Report 2019 (Maeda, 2019) illustrates the distinction between these
concepts vividly and concisely (Figure 1).
As is clear from Figure 1, inequality arises if learners are not given the same opportunities, i.e. if they
are not treated in the same way (Horner, 2019). However, without fixing the cause of inequality in the
first place, there is no equity even if all learners are treated equally, i.e. given the same support (Paper
Pipecone, 2020), hence the need for equity literacy (Bali, 2020b). Furthermore, even if there is equity,
i.e. giving everyone what they need to succeed, which, in the case of Figure 1, means that both children
can reach the tree for apples, there is still no justice to speak of in that the opportunity is fair to one but
not to the other. As can be easily noticed, because the tree bends towards the left and the apples on the
tree hang likewise, the child on the left can access more apples than the one on the right. Therefore,
unless we do something to straighten the tree so that the apples hang evenly on both sides, there is no
fairness and hence no justice.
So when EoE is adopted as a solution to the disruption of campus-based education during COVID-19,
this may be considered to be an act of equality: everyone is given the same opportunity. But equality

does not necessarily elicit fairness. If actions are taken to enable disadvantaged learners to access EoE,
there may be equity. Similarly, equity does not necessarily elicit justice because access to EoE does not
solve its inherent limitations. Online education is not universally applicable. It may work for certain
groups of learners in certain contexts but not as well or not at all for other groups of learners in other
contexts. It is by no means a one-size-fits-all solution, a panacea for all the problems faced by all learn-
ers in all contexts during this crisis (Carey, 2020). Justice can be achieved only when other alternative
solutions are available so that all learners can have what they need and feel most comfortable with to
continue their study.
Figure 1. A visual summary of inequality, equality, equity and justice
We may as well adapt Lambert’s (2018) social justice model for open education to underpinning our
views on EoE. According to Lambert (2018), ‘social justice outcomes for Open Education do not flow
from the affordances of our technologies… but flow from our commitment to design explicitly for it
via the application of one, two or three of the principles of social justice’ (p. 227), that is, redistributive
justice, recognitive justice and representational justice which refer to ‘allocation of material or human
resources towards those who by circumstance have less’, ‘recognition and respect for cultural and gender
difference’ and ‘equitable representation and political voice’ respectively (p. 228). In the case of EoE,
when support is given to disadvantaged learners so that they can access EoE, this is redistributive justice.
It goes without saying that this is far from adequate. We should recognize the need for diversity in terms
of responses to educational disruption due to school closures, which leads to recognitive justice. EoE, as
will be delineated below, cannot cater for this diversity. Finally, by following the principle of recognitive
justice, we design and offer a package of educational solutions to learners who decide which one is most
suitable for their own conditions, that is ‘to put power of decision making in the hands of those farthest
from justice’ which is considered to be ‘one of the most empowering ways to redress injustice’ by Bali
(2020c). This is the embodiment of representational justice. As will be argued in the section on the new
normal, the ‘normal’ in education should not only recognize and respect learner differences but also
embody representational justice by offering options to learners so that they may choose what best meets
their needs and suits their conditions. Until this representational justice is realized, injustice will persist.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM EMERGENCY ONLINE EDUCATION
Of the 94% global student population affected by school closures, as many as 99% are from low and
lower-middle income countries (United Nations, 2020). Learners disadvantaged by EoE are typically
those from racial and ethnic minorities, remote areas, developing countries, or poor families (Bates,
2020a). This argument echoes findings from numerous studies and surveys (for example, Bates, 2020b;
Bizaer, 2020; Carey, 2020; Li & Lalani, 2020; Naffi, 2020). For these disadvantaged learners, problems
brought about by EoE include no or insufficient access to reliable devices such as computers, laptops,
tablets, or other smart or mobile devices, no or poor connectivity, inability to afford connectivity costs,
or lack of digital skills, all of which, however, are essential to successful online learning.
In addition to the above EoE-specific barriers, disadvantaged learners are also likely to be vulnerable
in other aspects, for example, inadequate home study conditions (Bliss, 2020), no academic support from
parents (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020; United Nations, 2020), the need for ‘food and nutrition, housing,
health insurance and care, and financial relief measures’ (García & Weiss, 2020; also see Bauer, 2020),
and psychosocial services (United Nations, 2020). These inequalities surface, regardless of modes of
emergency teaching adopted.
Attempts are made by governments, civil society and educational institutions to solve these problems
or enhance equity, for example, by using radio or television to deliver courses, providing free data or
WIFI access, lending or giving digital devices, distributing take-home study printed materials or even
getting food to those who rely on school meals and setting up hotlines to provide support to learners,
parents and even teachers (for example, Bozkurt et al., 2020; García & Weiss, 2020; United Nations,
2020). Nonetheless, disparities continue to exist and vary across and within countries, regions, school
districts, and educational institutions.
It is worth noting that many of these inequalities already existed in the pre-COVID-19 days and
even at the best of times. It is because of these barriers that disadvantaged learners are not the major
beneficiaries of online education (Lee, 2020). For example, it is a widely-known fact that there are far
more MOOC learners who already have a university degree or are studying for a university degree than
those who have no other access to higher education. In other words, COVID-19 is not the cause of these
educational inequalities; it only exacerbates the already existing barriers, putting them in the spotlight.
When online education is an option and/or when learning and teaching goes on in the conventional
campus-based mode, these inequalities are ‘out there’ for many people. Yet when schools close down
and online education is a must, they suddenly become conspicuous because every one of us is vulner-
able one way or another, tends to have ‘a more nuanced understanding of vulnerability…’ and more
importantly, may realize ‘how our responses to ameliorate the vulnerability of targeted individuals may
actually increase their vulnerability’ (Prinsloo, 2020).
Although online education had long been practiced before the COVID-19 outbreak, it did not become
‘a new normal’ then because it could not fix educational problems, including inequity and injustice in
education, an issue well expounded by Lee (2020) who tries to answer the question ‘Who opens online
distance education, to whom, and for what?’. Therefore, unless we could solve these problems, how
should online education become the new normal simply because it is used as an emergency response to
school closures during this pandemic? Inequality, inequity and injustice are deeply rooted in the human
society. It is unrealistic to imagine that they can be eliminated; the best we can do and hope for is to
enhance equality, equity and justice. If online education is a forced new normal, it is definitely not fit for
ALL, hence misaligning with SDG 4. In other words, online education should not be the new normal for

ALL, at least in the foreseeable future. In these circumstances, the online-education-as-the-new-normal

discourse is no more than an ‘“affordance” account of technological determinism’ (Lambert, 2018, p.
229). For these advocators, each new generation of technology will lead to a new normal in education.
So we have every reason to anticipate that they will champion another new normal even before online
education has actually become one.
The lessons we have learnt from EoE are valuable not because we may anticipate what education
will be like in the future but because they remind us of the importance of crafting contingency plans
for educational disruption caused by large-scale disasters. We are not short of emergency management
experience in many areas, for example in dealing with natural disasters. Nevertheless, COVID-19 has
revealed our lack of knowledge, skills and resources to minimize educational disruption in a large-scale
crisis more effectively. Indeed, ‘our public education system was not built, nor prepared, to cope with
a situation like this’ (García & Weiss, 2020). This is not the first time education is disrupted by crisis
or calamities, though not in such a scale. The problem is that we have not taken educational disruption
seriously and learnt from previous incidents that we need to craft contingency plans for this purpose.
Dhawan (2020) is right to argue that a lesson we should take from COVID-19 is that ‘planning is the
key’ (p. 17).
THE NEW NORMAL
Currently there is a debate about the future of online education. As mentioned above, there seems to be a
strong sentiment that online education will be the new normal (for example, Darby, 2020). On the other
hand, there are also voices against the ’techno-romantic’ discourse from tech utopians (Selwyn, 2011),
arguing that online education is not the future, among other things, because of resistance from students
(Herman, 2020). The South African Students Congress even called on its members to boycott EoE until
no one was left behind (Mokhoali, 2020; Mukeredze, Kokutse, & Dell, 2020). Similar sentiments from
university students are reported in other surveys (for example, College Pulse, 2020).
It seems to me that there is little point in arguing whether online education should be the new nor-
mal in education because ‘online’ is at most an external factor, not an inherent feature of education. If
online education should not be the new normal, or if it is not right to force a new normal, what should
the new normal be like?
First and foremost, the ‘normal’ in education should be a package of solutions intended to cater for
learners of various types, minimizing inequality and inequity so as to allow as many people as possible
to access quality education and hence enhance educational equity and justice. The history of educa-
tion tells us that there is no silver bullet that can ensure equity and justice for ALL. It is unethical to
designate, impose or force-implement any single solution as the ‘normal’ in education. Bates (2020b)
is right when he argues that ‘there is no one solution that fits everybody, and there is no ideal solution
for anybody. You need to craft the best solution under the circumstances for your particular context’.
Otherwise, instead of reducing inequalities, the ‘new’ normal will most likely aggravate the problem
of inequity in education, as repeatedly witnessed during the COVID-19 crisis (García & Weiss, 2020;
Prinsloo, 2020; Tam & El-Azar, 2020).
Secondly, the ‘normal’ in education is a relative concept. No ‘normal’ is fit for ALL. What proves
to be the best ‘normal’ for some may not be appropriate for others. For example, face-to-face education
may be a better ‘normal’ for K-12 learners and full-time learners in higher education in general while

online education may be more suitable for K-12 learners in very remote areas or part-time higher educa-
tion learners. Even in this case, there should be alternatives to attend to special needs of the ‘minority’
of any cohort. In other words, the ‘normal’ for a particular type of learners tends to be composed of
a popular approach and some alternatives. What really matters is that the new normal should embody
equity-mindedness, recognizing how systemic inequalities marginalize disadvantaged learners, attribut-
ing negative outcomes to institutional poor performance rather than ‘exclusively to students or perceived
deficits in students’ identities, life circumstances, or capabilities’, and reflecting on how to address these
inequalities (Harris & Woods, 2020).
Thirdly, it is of paramount importance to interpret the connotation of ‘new’ as used in the so-called
‘new normal’. Here, ‘new’ implies ‘evolving’ rather than contrasting or even intending to replace the
‘old’ as seems to be the case in today’s discourse about the future of education. The ‘normal’ today is an
evolution from the ‘normal’ of yesterday, built on historical ‘relics’ of educational development. Many
of the mistakes that have been made or repeated in today’s online education could have been avoided if
it were not regarded as something new (Baggeley, 2017) and if we have been able to learn from history
(Lederman, 2020; Moore, 2014). For example, even such an influential authority figure as President of
the Association of American Universities Hunter Rawlings ignorantly declared that ‘there is very little
good research on the best forms of online learning (and) no good studies of what constitutes bad online
pedagogy’ (Rawlings, 2013) despite the 50-year history of modern theory and practice of distance edu-
cation from which online education has evolved as a branch and the history of research and practice of
online education before the arrival of MOOCs. It goes without saying that this mindset of ‘new normal’
can lead us to the wrong direction and do more harm than good (Moore & Diehl, 2019). Therefore, it
should be abandoned.
Finally, by making a case against the online-education-as-the-new-normal-for-ALL assumption, there
is no intention to deny the role of technology in education or to decouple education from technology.
The history of educational development shows that technology has been a catalyst for equity in education
if properly utilized to serve the purpose. For example, mass education was, to a large extent, enabled
by printing, in particular movable printing, the invention of which ‘began the process of much wider
availability of text, and its mobility in book form, to a more literate population in Europe…’ (Tait, 2014,
p. 6). Before this, education was a privilege exclusively for a very small number of ‘chosen’ learners
with elite backgrounds. And now universal education is a global goal. As for distance education, from
which, as mentioned above, online education has evolved, it has been relying on technology ever since
its inception. There is no distance education without advancements in technology. To put it more spe-
cifically, the appearance of the stage coach and the railways in the 19th century ‘led to the initiation of
correspondence education’ due to their affordances of accelerating ‘mobility of print’ and supporting
interaction between learner and teacher (Tait, 2014, p. 6). This is often categorized as the first genera-
tion distance education, and the second and third generations of distance education are also defined by
technology (Anderson & Dron, 2011). Whether distance education is divided into three generations or
five generation, it is technology-led. This is also the case with the fifth generation theory of distance
education (Taylor, 2001). As is well known, the primary goal of distance education is to provide learners
disadvantaged by conventional education one way or another with access to education, hence aiming to
enhance educational equity (Bates, 2020c). This was the goal pursued in the earlier days when distance
education was the ‘prerogative’ of dedicated distance education institutions such as open universities.
Nevertheless, now that it is in the mainstream of higher education, campus-based institutions become
new major players in this sector (Xiao, 2018). As higher education gets more and more commercialized

due to various reasons, distance education, including online education is beginning to veer off course,
with the pursuit of equity no longer as a priority (Lee, 2020).
To sum up, technology has affordances to eliminate inequalities and facilitate equity (Sator & Wil-
liams, 2020). Yet, these affordances do not automatically translate into realities. As education is a human-
to-human transaction, the design of education should be primarily informed by teaching and learning
approaches, theories and methodologies rather than led by technology, an approach called ‘pedagogy
first’ by Sanky (2021). Furthermore, digital solutions ‘which are institutionalized in the aftermath of
the pandemic need to put equity and inclusion at their centre, to ensure all children may benefit from
them’ (United Nations, 2020, p. 24).
CONCLUSION
We need to consider ‘what education is ABOUT and what education is FOR’ (Bali, 2020a). Watters’
(2014) remark on open education equally applies to online education if the word ‘open’ is replaced with
‘online’:
What are we going to do when we recognize that “open” is not enough. I hope, that we recognize that
what we need is social justice. We need politics, not simply a license. We need politics, not simply tech-
nology solutions. We need an ethics of care, of justice, not simply assume that “open” does the work
of those for us.
As argued above, in the discourse of SDGs, education goes beyond disseminating academic knowl-
edge, i.e. fostering learners’ cognitive development. It is fundamentally about the development of the
whole person. Hence, learners’ daily necessities, emotion, psychology and healthcare are, to some extent,
within the scope of education. Technology is merely a tool rather than a panacea for all educational
problems. It should never be put at the heart of education. The ultimate goal of education is to promote
social justice. With this in mind, we need to ‘pursue equity in all senses so as to ensure that everyone
can meet their potential and be successful in society’ (Horner, 2020).
Learners who suffered from injustice before COVID-19 will not look forward to returning to ‘nor-
mal’ (Bozkurt et al., 2020). Black (2020) makes a convincing case for using COVID-19 as a valuable
opportunity to think about how to fix our already ailing educational system, saying that ‘plum choices
are only obvious in hindsight’. Our educational system has never been fair because we have always taken
the disadvantaged as exceptions who are in fact as normal and dignified as other learners. Just as Horner
(2020) puts it, ‘Differences should not be divided into “norm” and “not the norm”’ because the label of
being disadvantaged tends to be associated with ‘being “deficient” in some respects’ (Prinsloo, 2020).
If they are not exceptions, then we need to design the new normal with them in mind ‘so that they do
not have to be reminded regularly that they are less, have less, must be “accommodated”’ (Bali, 2020a).
Governments, educational authorities, educational institutions, civil society, and individual educators are
not patrons when it comes to ensuring equitable education for all; enabling the less privileged to enjoy
the same quality education with their privileged counterparts is not an act of ‘patronizing care’ (Bali,
2020a). It is incumbent on us to ‘seize this moment to redesign the system to deliver the excellence and
equity needed for every child to be able to thrive’ (García & Weiss, 2020, p. 32).

The United Nations call on governments around the world to ‘focus on equity and inclusion; reinforce
capacities for risk management, at all levels of the system; ensure strong leadership and coordination;
and enhance consultation and communication mechanisms’ in order to build resilient educational sys-
tems (United Nations, 2020, pp. 3-4). This is a timely call and should be used as guidelines to design
the new normal in education. It is also worth noting that ensuring equitable education should not be
left to the governments only. There should be research and actions at the macro, meso and micro levels
(Zawacki-Richter & Anderson, 2014).
From equality to equity to justice in education, the end of the road does not appear to be in sight. It
may be unrealistic to expect that SDG 4 will come true by 2030 or any time later. But it is worthwhile
to be committed to the improvement of equity and justice in education. ‘Major world events are often
an inflection point for rapid innovation’ (Li & Lalani, 2020). Education will surely have a new normal,
a much better and fairer normal for ALL in the post-COVID-19 age.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
REFERENCES
Active Minds. (2020). COVID-19 Impact on College Student Mental Health (infographic). Retrieved
from https://www.activeminds.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Student-Survey-Infographic.pdf
Aguliera, E., & Nightengale-Lee, B. (2020). Emergency remote teaching across urban and rural contexts:
Perspectives on educational equity. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 471–478. doi:10.1108/
ILS-04-2020-0100
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
Baggeley, J. (2017). Where did online education go wrong? Distance Education in China, 4, 5–14.
doi:10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2017.04.001
Bali, M. (2020a, April 16). Care is not a fad: Care beyond COVID-19. Reflecting Allowed. Retrieved
from https://blog.mahabali.me/pedagogy/critical-pedagogy/care-is-not-a-fad-care-beyond-covid-19/
Bali, M. (2020b, May 13). Literacies Teachers Need During Covid-19. Retrieved from https://www.
al-fanarmedia.org/2020/05/literacies-teachers-need-during-covid-19/
Bali, M. (2020c, May 28). Pedagogy of Care: Covid-19 Edition. Retrieved from https://blog.mahabali.
me/educational-technology-2/pedagogy-of-care-covid-19-edition/
Bates, T. (2020a, April 20). Emergency online learning and inequity: developed countries. Retrieved
from https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/04/20/emergency-online-learning-and-inequity-developed-countries/
10

Bates, T. (2020b, April 26). Crashing into online learning: a report from five continents – and some
conclusions. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/04/26/crashing-into-online-learning-a-report-
from-five-continents-and-some-conclusions/
Bates, T. (2020c, June 18). Equity and online learning: practical design steps. Retrieved from https://
www.tonybates.ca/2020/06/18/equity-and-online-learning-practical-design-steps/
Bates, T. (2020d, July 27). Research reports on Covid-19 and emergency remote learning/online learn-
ing. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/07/27/research-reports-on-covid-19-and-emergency-
remote-learning-online-learning/
Bauer, L. (2020, July 9). About 14 Million Children in the US Are Not Getting Enough to Eat. The
Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/07/09/about-14-
million-children-in-the-us-are-not-getting-enough-to-eat/
Bizaer, M. (2020, April 17). Pandemic reveals Iran’s online-learning challenges. Al-Monitor. Retrieved
from https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/04/iran-pandemic-online-learning-challenges-
coronavirus-covid19.html#ixzz6KHcmOabJ
Black, S. (2020, April 30). OPINIONISTA: Covid-19 has given us the breathing space to fix our broken
education system. Daily Maverick. Retrieved from https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2020-
04-30-covid-19-has-given-us-the-breathing-space-to-fix-our-broken-education-system/
Bliss, C. (2020, August 17). Stanford makes strides to improve online learning in pandemic environment.
Stanford News. Retrieved from https://news.stanford.edu/2020/08/17/stanford-makes-strides-improve-
online-learning-pandemic-environment/Bozkurt
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020, April 1). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19
on education. VOX. Retrieved from https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-education
Carey, K. (2020, March 13). Everybody ready for the big migration to online college? Actually, no. The
New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
College Pulse. (2020). COVID-19 on Campus: The Future of Learning. Retrieved from https://market-
place.collegepulse.com/img/covid19oncampus_ckf_cp_final.pdf
Darby, F. (2020, June 16). Sorry not sorry: Online teaching is here to stay. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sorry-Not-Sorry-Online/248993
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. doi:10.1177/0047239520934018
11

García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020, September 10). COVID-19 and student performance, equity, and U.S.
education policy: Lessons from pre-pandemic research to inform relief, recovery, and rebuilding. Eco-
nomic Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/publication/the-consequences-of-the-covid-
19-pandemic-for-education-performance-and-equity-in-the-united-states-what-can-we-learn-from-pre-
pandemic-research-to-inform-relief-recovery-and-rebuilding/
Harris, F., & Woods, J. L. (2020). Equity-Minded and Culturally-Affirming Teaching and Learning
Practices in Virtual Learning Communities. Center for Organizational Responsibility and Advancement
(CORA)/Northern Illinois University. Retrieved from https://www.niu.edu/keepteaching/workshops/
equity-in-virtual-learning.shtml
Herman, P. C. (2020, June 10). Online learning is not the future. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digitallearning/views/2020/06/10/online-learning-not-
future-higher-education-opinion
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The Difference between
Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/ar-
ticles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Horner, J. (2019, May 1). Let’s think about Equity, Equality, & Justice! Retrieved from https://psychol-
ogy.wisheights.org/2019/05/01/lets-think-about-equity-equality-justice/
Lambert, S. (2018). Changing our (dis)course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open
education. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3), 225–244. https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/
view/290
Lederman, D. (2020, June 10). What do we know about this spring’s remote learning? Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digitallearning/article/2020/06/10/what-do-we-know-
and-what-should-we-try-learn-aboutsprings
Lee, K. (2020). Who opens online distance education, to whom, and for what? Distance Education,
41(2), 186–200. doi:10.1080/01587919.2020.1757404
Li, C., & Lalani, F. (2020, April 29). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is
how. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-
online-digital-learning/
Li, X. (2020, April 28). Online learning the new normal and a sign of the future. Retrieved from https://
www.shine.cn/education/2004287134/
Maeda, J. (2019). Design in Tech Report 2019 (Section 6 Addressing Imbalance). Retrieved from https://
designintech.report/2019/03/11/%F0%9F%93%B1design-in-tech-report-2019-section-6-addressing-
imbalance
Male, B. (2020, April 26). Online learning: The ‘new normal’. Retrieved from https://www.wnypapers.
com/news/article/featured/2020/04/26/141219/online-learning-the-new-normal
12

McBurnie, C. (2020, April 8). The Role of Interactive Radio Instruction in the COVID-19 Education
Response. Open Development & Education. Retrieved from https://opendeved.net/2020/04/08/the-role-
of-interactive-radio-instruction-in-the-covid-19-education-response/
Mokhoali, V. (2020, April 20). Boycott e-learning until all students are brought on board—Sascoc. Retrieved
from https://ewn.co.za/2020/04/20/boycott-e-learning-until-all-students-are-brought-on-board-sascoc
Moore, M. G. (2014). From Radio to the Virtual University: Reflections on the History of American Dis-
tance Education from One Who Was There! Distance Education in China, 1, 24-34+58. doi:10.13541/j.
cnki.chinade.2014.01.008
Moore, M. G., & Diehl, W. C. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of distance education (4th ed.). Routledge.
Mukeredze, T., Kokutse, F., & Dell, S. (2020, April 22). Student bodies say e-learning is unafford-
able and elitist. University World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20200422075107312
Naffi, N. (2020). Disruption in and by Centres for Teaching and Learning During the COVID-19 Pan-
demic: Leading the Future of Higher Ed. Québec City: L’Observatoire Internationale sur les Impacts
Sociétaux de l’IA et du Numerique and the Government of Québec. Retrieved from https://observatoire-
ia.ulaval.ca/en/whitepaper-leading-the-future-of-higher-ed/
Olcott, D. (2020). The Leadership imperative: Back to the future after the COVID-19 pandemic. Distance
Education in China, 7, 1-6+40. doi:10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2020.07.001
Paper Pipecone. (2020, June 4). Teaching the difference between equality, equity and justice in preschool.
Retrieved from https://www.paperpinecone.com/blog/teaching-difference-between-equality-equity-and-
justice-preschool
Prinsloo, P. (2020, August 12). Rethinking student vulnerability and risk: Researching student success
and retention in open education contexts. Retrieved from https://opendistanceteachingandlearning.
wordpress.com/2020/08/12/rethinking-student-vulnerability-and-risk-researching-student-success-and-
retention-in-open-education-contexts/
Puri, R. (2020, April 10). Online Learning is the New Norm. retrieved from https://www.highereduca-
tiondigest.com/online-learning-is-the-new-norm/
Raveendran, H. (2020, August 21). Remote learning is education’s new normal. Retrieved from https://
insights.samsung.com/2020/08/21/remote-learning-is-educations-new-normal/
Rawlings, R. (2013, November 11). Cited in M. O’Neil, New council to develop standards, best practices
for online learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/
wiredcampus/new-council-to-develop-standards-best-practices-for-online-learning/48171
Sanky, M. (2021). Technology enhanced learning: getting the technology mix right (translated by Jun-
hong Xiao). Distance Education in China, 3, 24-35+60. DOI: doi:10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2021.03.003’
13

Sator, A., & Williams, H. (2020). Removing Barriers to Online Learning Through a Teaching and
Learning Lens. Victoria BC: BCcampus/ABLE Research Consultants. Retrieved from https://bccampus.
ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Report_Removing-Barriers-to-Online-Learning-Through-a-Teaching-
and-Learning-Lens.pdf
Selwyn, N. (2011). In praise of pessimism - the need for negativity in educational technology. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713–718. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01215.x
Selwyn, N. (2020, April 30). Online learning: Rethinking teachers’ ‘digital competence’ in light of
COVID-19. Manosh Lens. Retrieved from https://lens.monash.edu/@education/2020/04/30/1380217/
online-learning-rethinking-teachers-digital-competence-in-light-of-covid-19
Tait, A. (2014). From Place to Virtual Space: Reconfiguring Student Support for Distance and E-Learning
in the Digital Age. Open Praxis, 6(1), 4–16. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.6.1.102
Tam, G., & El-Azar, D. (2020, March 13). 3 ways the coronavirus pandemic could reshape education.
Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/3-ways-coronavirus-is-reshaping-education-
and-what-changes-might-be-here-to-stay
Taylor, J. (2001). 5th Generation Distance Education. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technol-
ogy., 4(1). Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511495618.002
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Re-
trieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
United Nations. (2020). Education during COVID-19 and Beyond. Policy Brief. Retrieved from https://
www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_
and_education_august_2020.pdf
United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human Development Report 2019. Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf
Watters, A. (2014, November 16). From “open” to justice. Retrieved March 28, 2017, fromhttp://hack-
education.com/2014/11/16/from-open-to-justice
Welner, K. G. (2020). NEPC Review: “Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flex-
ibility for Schools during COVID-19.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from
https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/coronavirus
World Health Organization. (2020, January 22). Timeline: WHO’s COVID-19 response. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline#event-28
Xiao, J. (2018). On the margins or at the center? Distance education inhigher education. Distance Edu-
cation, 39(2), 259–274. doi:10.1080/01587919.2018.1429213
Yan, J. (2020, July 8). Online education normalization will be the trend in the post-pandemic age. Re-
trieved from http://coaledu.cn/cinfocontent.php?id=8049
Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (Eds.). (2014). Online distance education—Towards a research
agenda. Athabasca University Press. doi:10.15215/aupress/9781927356623.01
14

Zhang, J. (2020). A resurgence of Internet-based education. Oriental Outlook, 16. Retrieved from http://
www.dooland.com/magazine/online.php?pid=MjExMjU2
Zimmerman, J. (2020, March 10). Coronavirus and the Great Online-Learning Experiment. Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/coronavirus-and-the-great-
online-learning-experiment/
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Emergency Online Education (EoE): An umbrella term for all the online technology-based educa-
tion solutions adopted to ensure educational continuity during COVID-19.
Equality: A situation in which everyone is treated in the same way.
Equity: A situation in which everyone is given what they need to succeed.
Justice: A situation in which the opportunity is fair to everyone.
New Normal: A way whereby education is expected to take place in the post COVID-19 age which
will be different from the way education was commonly practiced in the pre-COVID-19 days.
Online Education: A model of online technology-based education which is often well designed in
advanced and appropriately informed by theoretical research and best practice, hence distinguishing
itself from EoE.
15
16
Chapter 2
Resilient Sustainable Education
for the Future of Education:
Emerging Challenges
Ebba S. I. Ossiannilsson
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8488-5787
Swedish Association for Distance Education, Sweden
ABSTRACT
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic afected all economic sectors and disrupted many areas of our lives,
especially education. More than 1.7 billion learners in over 200 countries around the world were afected,
and these numbers will continue to increase in 2021 and beyond. Therefore, the efects of the COVID-19
pandemic must be understood in order to be better prepared for future disruptions. There is a need to
recognize that education is an investment in rebuilding. The key lessons learned are that the future of
education needs to be rethought without forgetting the past. Certainly, there is room for improvement
in the technical area, but most importantly, it is critical to recognize the social dimensions of learning
and education. This conceptual chapter provides a review of the literature on several global initiatives
to shape the futures of education by focusing on resilient open education for all in the context of social
justice, human rights, and democracy.
INTRODUCTION
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic affected all economic sectors and disrupted many areas of our lives,
especially education. More than 1.7 billion learners in almost 200 countries around the world have been
affected by school and university closures, and this number will continue to increase in 2021 and beyond.
The pandemic has affected not only the education of over 90% of students worldwide but also 63 million
primary and secondary school teachers.
Higher education is therefore now facing unprecedented changes and challenges. Around the globe,
there are concerns about the current disruption, the new normal, next normal, and the best post-COVID-19
normal in education (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020; Ossiannilsson, 2020a; Ossiannilsson & Sandström,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch002

Resilient Sustainable Education for the Future of Education
2020). Large organizations, such as the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) (2020, 2021), the European
Commission (2020), the International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) (2020), the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2020), the United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d, 2020e, 2020f,
2020g), and the World Economic Forum (WEF) (WEF, 2020, 2021) are united regarding the crucial
need for major paradigm shifts, especially in education, digitalization, and infrastructure.
It is critical to recognize that education is not universally free for society or individuals. However,
education is an investment in rebuilding society and capacity building. The digital revolution now af-
fects most areas of society, such as banking, healthcare, and citizen information within central and local
governments. There have also been major changes in the film and music industries in recent years. Un-
fortunately, the education sector has lagged although there were visible changes in 2020 because of the
pandemic. Despite the closures and lockdowns, an opening up of education and a culture of sharing began
to emerge, as well as changes in mindsets, attitudes, values, and culture. However, an important lesson
learned during the pandemic has concerned the difference between emergency remote education and an
educational ecosystem based on a culture of creativity and innovation, which is resilient and sustainable
(Bates, 2020; Ossiannilsson et al., 2020). Also crucial are the broad questions of what education is about
and how to prepare individuals to solve future problems that we are not yet aware of, using methods
and processes that we do not yet know about, which COL (COL Connections, 2020, p. 14) expressed as
“preparing children for their future, not our past”. They also frame it as ”is the educational profession as
we know it headed for obsolescence?” Not only is there room for improvement in the technical area, but it
is also crucial to recognize the social dimensions of learning and education. Improvements in technology
and digitization must not come at the cost of replacing human interaction and contact between teachers
and students because human interaction is crucial in learning. Therefore, it is important to embrace and
implement digital transformation, which includes people, processes, and products.
At present, experience from the pandemic continues across the globe. However, when the pandemic
ends, other crises will ensue. To be better prepared for future disruptions, such as pandemics or natural
and economic disasters, it is necessary to understand the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic at
different levels and in different contexts (Ossiannilsson, 2020a). The COVID-19 pandemic has led to
fundamental disruptions and changes in society and in our lives. It is necessary to recognize this shift
and to engage in reflective learning about what it will mean to be human in a post-pandemic society. It
is crucial to address the socio-ethical and moral dimensions of learning and education, which are high on
the agenda of social justice and human rights. Only then can resilient, sustainable education be achieved
in line with UNESCO’s Sustainability Goals (SDG) and UNESCO’s initiative regarding the futures of
education. There is, of course, a focus on SDG4 in education, which aims to ensure accessible, inclusive,
and equitable quality education and to promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. In addition, other
SDGs are crucial, as education is linked to human rights and social justice (UNESCO, 2016).
Other initiatives by UNESCO, which are relevant, is the Futures of Education initiative. This initiative
builds on the SDGs, aiming to rethink education and shape the futures by 2050 (UNESCO, 2019). The
initiative catalyzes the global debate on how knowledge, education, and learning should be rethought
in a world that is increasingly complex, uncertain, and precarious. Even of particular significance is the
call to support learning and knowledge sharing through open educational resources (OER) worldwide.
This initiative was launched by UNESCO in response to the massive disruption to education caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic.
17

This conceptual chapter provides a review of the literature on several global initiatives that address the
desired futures of education by focusing on open education for all in the context of social justice, human
rights, and democracy. The chapter is a response to current global initiatives, such as those of not only
COL, WEF, ICDE, OECD, and UNESCO but also the European Commission (EC). The author of this
chapter is from Sweden and familiar with the European context and initiatives. This short introduction
is followed by background information regarding global challenges for education, the consequences of
COVID-19, and the need for resilient, agile, and sustainable ecosystems. Following the background, a
discussion of current global initiatives is presented. Then follows conclusion and recommendations for
future initiatives in global education.
BACKGROUND
Unprecedented social, economic, and environmental challenges are ahead, driven by accelerating
globalization and rapid technological development. At the same time, these forces offer countless new
opportunities for human progress. Schools are challenged to prepare the young generation for jobs that
have not yet been created, for technologies that have not yet been invented, and for solving problems
that are not yet foreseeable. There must be shared responsibilities to seize opportunities and find solu-
tions (OECD, 2020).
The main global megatrends that shape governance are exemplified by Klynveld Peat Marwick Go-
erdeler (KPMG) Future State 2030 (KPMG, n.d.). They pointed out that at the same time we shape the
world, the world shapes us. They emphasized that global megatrends are related to individuals, society,
physical environments, and the global economy. Particularly notable and interesting is that the focus is
on people and how individuals and societies respond or fail to respond to global challenges.
To navigate this uncertainty, students need to develop curiosity, imagination, resilience, and self-
regulation. They also need to respect the ideas, perspectives, and values of others, and they need to learn
to cope with failure and rejection and move forward in the face of adversity. Their motivation will be more
than a good job and a high income; they will also need to care about the wellbeing of their friends and
families, their communities, and the planet. Education can equip learners with agency and purpose, giving
them the skills, they need to shape their own lives and contribute to the lives of others (OECD, 2020).
During the Davos Conferences in 2016, Schwab (2016), Schwab and Davis (2018), and the WEF
(2019) also pointed in this direction by advocating the fourth industrial revolution (4IR). Schwab and
Davis (2018) argued that the 4IR will change everything: how we relate to each other, the work we do,
how our economies function, and what it means to be human. This brave new world will not be based
on only technological advancements. Humans must help shape the future that we desire. The question
concerns what we need to know and what must we do make that happen? The WEF (2020) suggested
that the 4IR not only concerns technology, digitization, and digitalization but also requires a social
revolution. Ossiannilsson (2019, 2020a, 2021b) argued that the 4IR will change the way we live, work,
earn, communicate, collaborate, and relate to each other, which will include emotions, empathy, identity,
“just for me,” and “just in time” learning, personal concerns, and considerations.
During the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, distance learning solutions have been imple-
mented to ensure the continuity of education. Much of the current debate focuses on how much students
have learned during school closures. However, while this potential loss of learning may be temporary,
other consequences of the absence of traditional schooling, such as the curbing of educational aspirations
18

or disengagement from the school system, will have a long-term impact on student outcomes. Because
this “hysteresis” effect requires special attention, there are needs for strategies bringing disengaged stu-
dents back to school and effectively mitigating student disengagement in future closures (OECD, 2020).
At present, schools and universities are striving to transform teaching and learning so that students
of all ages can learn from home (Bozkurt et al. 2020). While these changes present enormous practical
and logistical problems for students, teachers, and parents (especially women), they also open up a world
of opportunity to transform learning in the 21st century. The WEF (2020) argued that pressures on indi-
viduals, organizations, and societies enduring this crisis are accelerating, blurring boundaries between
physical, digital, and biological worlds. New questions have arisen in all countries, such as the following:
• Are our educational systems preparing students for a world driven by disruptive scientifc and
technological advances in artifcial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, clean energy, and quan-
tum computing?
• Are we encouraging students to think critically about how science, technology, and innovation can
help address—or exacerbate—economic, geopolitical, environmental, and societal challenges?
The largest organizations, such as UNESCO, OECD, COL, WEF, Gartner and the EC, have launched
several initiatives on the future of education. The driving force has been the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020;
however, several initiatives were put forward previously, which have led to changes in the educational
discourse and a paradigm shift in education.
The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 has severely affected all sectors and disrupted many aspects of
our lives, especially education. In response to the disruption of education by the COVID-19 pandemic,
a global study was conducted by Bozkurt et al. (2020), which included overall views, reflections about
the educational landscape, lessons learned, and suggestions by 31 countries representing 62.7% of the
total world population. One crucial finding showed that social injustice, inequality, and the digital di-
vide have been exacerbated during the pandemic and require unique and targeted interventions if they
are to be addressed. While supportive communities and mechanisms were found to exist, parents were
overloaded by regular daily and professional duties and new educational roles, and all had experienced
trauma, psychological pressure, and anxiety to varying degrees, which required pedagogies of care, af-
fection, and empathy. The massive disruption in educational processes has signified the importance of
openness in education and highlighted issues that should be considered, such as the use of alternative
assessment and evaluation methods and concerns about surveillance, ethics, and privacy arising from
the almost exclusive reliance on online solutions
FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER

Current global initiatives on the future of education in the context of social justice and human rights
are presented and elaborated in this conceptual chapter. The overview is not exhaustive, but it can be
considered an example of what major international organizations are advocating and initiating regarding
the future, particularly the building of an ecosystem that includes resilience in education, social justice,
human rights, and sustainability. In the following section, some of the most prominent global initiatives
are described and discussed.
19

CURRENT GLOBAL INITIATIVES
The chapter is based on the approach used in current UNESCO initiatives, such as the SDG, the Futures
of Education, the OER Recommendation, and the OER Dynamic Coalition. This approach includes
the culture of lifelong learning: contributions to the Futures of Education Initiative and the COVID-19
Crisis UNESCO call for supportive learning and knowledge sharing through OER. The COL, the OECD
initiative on the Future of Education and Skills 2030, Learning Compass 2030, the WEF, and Garter’s
forecasts and outlooks for the future are examined, as well as the perspectives and initiatives of the EC.
UNESCO Initiatives
In the ongoing revolution in higher education, UNESCO, as the only UN agency with a mandate in the
educational area, is responsible for leading all its partners to the inclusion, relevance, and excellence of
all students.
UNESCO Sustainability Goals
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all UN member states in 2015, offers a
shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet both now and in the future. At its
heart are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which represent an urgent call to action by all
countries—developed and developing—in a global partnership. The SDGs focus on the path of sustain-
able development, specifically addressing social, economic, and environmental areas. They recognize
that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies for improving health
and education, reducing inequality, and spurring economic growth, while combating climate change and
working to preserve our oceans and forests (United Nations, 2016).
SDG4, which is specifically dedicated to education, focuses on ensuring accessible, inclusive, and
equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all (UNESCO, 2020). In
addition, several other SDGs are critical, as education must be considered in the context of human rights
and social justice.
The Futures of Education
UNESCO’s Futures of Education initiative aims to change the way we think about education to shape the
future. The initiative catalyzes the global collaborative debate on how knowledge, education, and learn-
ing need to be rethought in a world that is increasingly complex, uncertain, and precarious (UNESCO,
2019). The initiative goes beyond the SDGs and aims at the futures of education, which is based on
becoming and learning; that is, becoming what each individual has the potential to be and aspire to be
both personally and as a global citizen. In the initiative, UNESCO proposed nine ideas for public action
to achieve its goals and ambitions, which are shown in Figure 1.
20

Figure 1. The UNESCO initiative on nine ideas for public actions to achieve goals and ambitions
Source: UNESCO
A Culture of Lifelong Learning
Another initiative of UNESCO is lifelong learning. Millions of people, even in the richest economies,
face financial and other barriers that exclude them from learning and prevent them from realizing their
potential. The complexity and multidimensionality of the challenges faced by humans require the imple-
mentation of a holistic vision of lifelong learning. Further dislocations will be caused by climate change,
demographic shifts, and the transformation of the labor market through the 4IR. Therefore, the policy
agenda needs to prioritize lifelong learning beyond the realms of education and labor market policies
(UNESCO, 2020g).
21

There is an urgent need to create a culture of lifelong learning. The initiative is based on the argument
that creating a global culture of lifelong learning is key in addressing the challenges facing humanity, such
as the climate crisis, technological and demographic changes, as well as those caused by the COVID-19
pandemic and the inequalities it has exacerbated. While it is recognized that the effects of COVID-19
on communities have been severe, they also provide the opportunity to consider how learning could
better contribute to the creation of sustainable and inclusive societies in which people are engaged as
active and global citizens. The expert survey, conducted by the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning
(UIL), explored existing barriers and how participation could be promoted and services be made fairer,
more open, and participatory.
The work also contributed to the UNESCO Futures of Education initiative (UNESCO, 2019). Lifelong
learning strengthens the ability to cope with change and shape the futures, which is paramount because of
the disruptions and uncertainties posed by both the threats and the opportunities of demographic change,
the climate crisis, rapid technological progress, and the COVID-19 pandemic (UNESCO, 2020g). The
initiative reflects the potential contribution of lifelong learning to transforming education and creating
a more sustainable, healthy, and inclusive future. It presents a compelling vision for lifelong learning as
well as the values and principles that must underpin it. It calls on the international community to view
education as having both public and private value and to recognize lifelong learning as a new human
right. UIL Director David Atchoarena stated the following:
We are emerging from a period characterized by an excessive focus on the vocational and skills dimen-
sions of lifelong learning. Recognition of the complexity and multidimensional nature of the challenges
facing humanity requires the restoration of a holistic vision of lifelong learning.
…. As we anticipate further dislocations caused by the effects of climate change, demographic shifts and
the fundamental transformation of the labor market brought about by the fourth industrial revolution,
lifelong learning needs to be moved higher up the policy agenda, beyond the realms of education and
labor market policies.
The Lifelong Learning Report (UNESCO, 2020g) outlined the key features of the “enabling environ-
ment” needed to make lifelong learning the guiding principle of education and policy and to provide
lifelong learning opportunities to people regardless of their background or context. Looking to the future,
the report contains 10 key messages that are crucial for creating a culture of lifelong learning:
• Recognize the holistic nature of lifelong learning.

• Promote transdisciplinary research and cross-sectoral collaboration for lifelong learning.
• Place disadvantaged groups at the heart of the lifelong learning agenda.
• Establish lifelong learning as a common good.
• Ensure better and equitable access to learning technologies.

• Transform schools and universities into lifelong learning institutions.
• Recognize and promote the collective dimension of learning.
• Encourage and support local lifelong learning initiatives, including learning cities.
• Revise and revitalize learning in the workplace.
• Recognize lifelong learning as a human right.
22

UNESCO (2020g) emphasized that a vision of lifelong learning must be embedded in a broad un-
derstanding of the futures. Therefore, the consultation process was devoted to developing a collective
vision that explored the potential of lifelong learning from the perspective of different disciplines. The
vision focused simultaneously on the learner (i.e., motivation, skills, and ways of learning) and on the
social dimensions of learning (i.e., learning as a collective endeavor that strengthens the sense of com-
munity). In 2050, the achievement of this vision will have resulted in a profound cultural transformation
based on a strong awareness of the potentiality of learning. Societies will self-consciously aspire to be
learning societies, and people will identify themselves as lifelong learners. Because an ethos of continu-
ous learning will permeate all areas of life, education will be seen as much more than just completing a
course. Lifelong learning will have fundamentally changed the way the typical life course is perceived
and how people deal with its complexity. Learning pathways will no longer be tied to the categories of
age and formal education. The life course will have become more diverse, and education and learning
will occur throughout people’s lives. Formal, non-formal, and informal learning activities will permeate
all aspects of life, including work, family, civic engagement, and leisure. Regardless of age, method, or
context, learners will be able to learn whatever they want in order to update their knowledge or skills,
adapt to an ever-changing environment, get a better job, or simply for the pleasure of expanding their
skills or satisfying their curiosity. Learning to learn, managing a learning journey, and creating a learn-
ing biography will have become fundamental skills.
Understanding that all levels of learning are learner-centered represents a crucial shift in fundamental
assumptions about education and demand-led planning. Based on this understanding, learners are active
agents rather than passive recipients of prescribed knowledge. They actively shape each learning process
and its outcomes, and they use them to maximize their potential. To effectively support individuals in
building their learning biographies, legal and other formal mechanisms have been established for the
recognition, validation, and accreditation of learning outcomes acquired in different contexts. This
has led to the democratization of negotiation processes and forums to balance individual and societal
learning needs. Moreover, learning is understood as a collective process that takes place among peers,
in communities, and across generations. Education emphasizes the development of global citizens who
care about each other, other communities, and the planet. Consequently, lifelong learning is for all, and
learning opportunities can be created for the most excluded learners. A global learning ecosystem is
collectively built to inspire and empower learners by offering a wealth of opportunities.
To strive for a culture of lifelong learning is to advance education policy and to provide real opportuni-
ties for people to learn throughout their lives. This learning ecosystem fluidly integrates different learning
modalities, as well as blending formal, non-formal, and informal learning. Learning opportunities allow
for planned or spontaneous and individual or collective learning. There is easy access to face-to-face and
online learning opportunities because local infrastructure, global connectivity, and sponsored devices
are available to all. In the paradigm of lifelong learning, diversity and multifaceted ways of learning are
required at all levels, from beginners to very advanced, at a pace that suits the learner. Another issue is
the need to ensure safety standards, which includes learning about risks and rights in the online world
and improving both health and digital health literacy.
UNESCO OER Recommendation
In November 2019, at the General Conference of UNESCO, their member states adopted the Recom-
mendation on Implementation (OER), by which they agreed to further their commitment to the open
23

sharing of knowledge and learning (UNESCO, 2019). This was an important milestone in the history
and development of quality resources for all and for the advocates of open education. This recommenda-
tion was based on several conferences and declarations since 2002, when the term OER was coined at a
UNESCO conference in Paris. Subsequently, the Paris Declaration (2012), Cape Town Open Education
Declaration, Anniversary 10+ (2017), and Ljubljana Declaration (2017), were some important declara-
tions. Since its adoption in November 2019, the definition of OER has been revised (UNESCO, 2019)
to the following:
OER are learning, teaching, and research materials in any format and medium, which are publicly
available or are protected by copyright under an open license allowing free access, reuse, reuse, re-
utilization, adaptation, and redistribution by others.
The definition of open license was also revised to the following:
An open license refers to a license that respects the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner
and provides permissions granting the public the rights to access, reuse, repurpose, adapt, and redis-
tribute educational materials.
OER offer promising solutions for accessing, creating, and sharing knowledge, as well as supporting
learning at all grade levels. OER also offer benefits for teachers, teacher educators and trainers, parents,
education policy makers, and government agencies (Butcher, 2015; Cape Town Open Education Decla-
ration, 2007, 2017; Kawachi, 2014). They are also useful in a wide range of groups, including cultural
institutions (e.g., libraries, archives, and museums) and their users, researchers, civil society organizations
(e.g., professional and student associations), publishers, public and private sectors, intergovernmental
organizations, copyright holders and authors, and media and broadcasting groups. OER can help to
meet the needs of individual learners, including people with disabilities and those in marginalized or
disadvantaged groups. They can be used to effectively promote gender equality and stimulate innovative
pedagogical, didactic, and methodological approaches.
In the framework of the OER Recommendation, the following five areas are the core:
• Capacity building and use of OER: Develop the capacity of all key stakeholders in education to
create, access, reuse, repurpose, adapt, and share OER and apply open licenses in a manner con-
sistent with national copyright legislations and international obligations.
• Develop supportive policies: Governments and educational authorities and institutions should be
encouraged to establish legal frameworks to support the open licensing of publicly funded educa-
tional and research materials and to develop policies that enable the use and adaptation of OER to
support quality, inclusive education, and lifelong learning for all, supported by relevant research
in this area.
• Ensure efective, inclusive, and equitable access to quality OER: Support the adoption of policies
and programs, including relevant technology solutions, which ensure that OER in any medium
are shared in open formats and standards to maximize equitable access, co-creation, curation, and
searchability, including people in vulnerable groups and people with disabilities.
24

• Promote the creation of sustainability models for OER: Support and promote the creation of sus-
tainability models for OER at national, regional, and institutional levels, as well as the planning
and testing of new sustainable forms of education and learning.
• Promote and facilitate international collaboration: Support international collaboration among
stakeholders to minimize unnecessary duplications of OER investments and develop a global
pool of culturally diverse, locally relevant, gender-sensitive, accessible educational materials in
multiple languages and formats.
To support member states in successfully implementing the OER Recommendation, the UNESCO
OER Dynamic Coalition was launched in March 2020 (UNESCO, 2020f). This Coalition is a multi-
stakeholder group of partners dedicated to sharing expertise on the implementation, and to support
collaborative actions of the OER Recommendation.
The implementation of the OER Recommendation will contribute to the achievement of at least six
SDGs: SDG 4 (quality education); SDG 5 (gender equality); SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastruc-
ture); SDG 10 (reduce inequalities within and between countries); SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong
institutions); and SDG 17 (partnerships to achieve these goals) (UNESCO, 2020). Because access to
quality OER concerns human rights and social justice, this recommendation is vital.
Support Learning and Knowledge Sharing Due to the COVID-19 Crisis
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, UNESCO launched a call to support learning and knowledge
sharing through OER worldwide. As discussed above, the adoption of OER is one of the few available
ways to successfully achieve SDG4, which is quality education for all.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a paradigm shift in the ways in which learners of all ages access
learning. It is therefore more necessary than ever for the global community to collaborate in promot-
ing the universal access to information and knowledge through OER. The joint actions in the call were
aimed to address the challenges to learners of this and future pandemics, as well as to lay the foundation
for the systematic integration of best practices to improve knowledge sharing in the future of learning
after the COVID-19 pandemic (UNESCO, 2020). The call stimulated the implementation of the OER
recommendation described above. This call highlighted the important roles of the recently launched CO-
VID-19 Global Education Coalition and the Dynamic OER Coalition. The UNESCO Global Education
Coalition, which focuses on the development and deployment of inclusive distance learning solutions,
emphasizes the importance of the access to OER, which is fundamental in ensuring the continuity of
learning. Therefore, in the spirit of the collaborative implementation of the OER Recommendation,
UNESCO has called on the global community to support the use of OER in open exchanges of learning
and knowledge worldwide to build inclusive, sustainable, and resilient knowledge societies.
The Commonwealth of Learning
The Commonwealth of Learning (COL) is closely aligned with UNESCO. Its mandate is to empower
people through learning that leads to economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection.
COL has launched several initiatives in the areas of open education and leadership, such as the Digital
Education Leadership Training in Action (C-DELTA) program, which was a finalist in the Falling Walls
25

2020 Award in the Digital Education category. They have also launched several initiatives for the pan-
demic and post-pandemic periods.
OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030
The OECD’s initiative, the Future of Education and Skills 2030 (OECD, 2020), aims to help educa-
tion systems determine the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that students need to succeed in and
shape their futures. Their initiative is aimed at creating a shared understanding of the knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and values that students will need in the 21st century, Figure 2).
Figure 2. Future of education and skills 2030

Source: OECD
The OECD learning and teaching framework Compass 2030 which is illustrated in Figure 3, concerns
the future of education. Compass 2030 builds on the following questions: How can we prepare students
for jobs that do not yet exist, for societal challenges we cannot yet imagine, and for the use of technologies
that have not yet been invented? How can we prepare students to thrive in an interconnected world where
they must understand and value diverse perspectives and worldviews, interact respectfully with others,
and act responsibly for sustainability and collective wellbeing? The answers to such questions are not
simple. One answer is that the urgent need to open a global discussion on education must be recognized.
The initiative focused initial on curriculum redesign and the development of a conceptual framework
for learning in 2030, as change begins with the curriculum. As illustrated in Figure 3, knowledge, val-
ues, skills and attitudes form the core of the OECD’s Compass 2030 It is also obvious that one aim is to
achieve wellbeing by 2030. The learning compass is based on a circular approach to action, reflection,
and anticipation.
26

Figure 3. OECD learning compass 2030.

Source: OECD
Based on new data from different areas of science and innovation policy, the OECD showed what
challenges innovation systems are facing in the current economic crisis and what governments can do
to improve their resilience and preparedness for future crises (OECD, 2020).
European Commission
In 2011, the EC identified, understood, and visualized the major changes necessary to achieve learning in
the future, to contribute to social cohesion, socioeconomic inclusion, and economic growth (Redecker et
al., 2011). According to the vision, already in 2011, personalization, collaboration, and informalization
(i.e., informal learning) are at the heart of learning in the future. These concepts are not new in educa-
tion and training, but they must become the central guiding principle in the organization of learning and
teaching in the futures. The central learning paradigm is characterized by lifelong and life-wide learning
that is shaped by the ubiquity of information and communication technologies (ICT). To achieve the
goals of personalized, collaborative, and informalized learning, holistic changes must be made (e.g.,
curricula, pedagogy, assessment, leadership, teacher training, etc.). Mechanisms must be developed to
achieve flexible and purposeful lifelong learning and to support the recognition of informally acquired
skills (Bjursell, 2020).
27

In addition, the EC proposed a vision of the European Education Area (EEA) to be achieved by
2025. The Commission proposed new initiatives, higher investment, and greater cooperation between
member states so that Europeans of all ages will benefit from the EU’s rich education and training of-
ferings. The Communication on the EEA (2020) described how cooperation would further improve the
quality, inclusiveness, and digital green dimensions of member states’ education systems, based on the
freedom of learners and teachers to learn and work across the continent and the freedom of institutions
to network freely across Europe and beyond.
The EEA is based on six dimensions: quality, inclusion and gender equality, green and digital tran-
sition, teachers, higher education, and a stronger Europe in the world. The initiatives include how to
improve quality, with particular regard to basic skills and digital literacy, how to make school education
more inclusive and gender-sensitive, and how to improve school performance. These dimensions help
strengthen the understanding of climate change and sustainability, promote the greening of education
infrastructure, support the teaching profession, develop European universities, and improve connectivity
between educational and training institutions.
In 2020, when Europe was closed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, young people were the first
to feel the effects. To avoid lasting effects on young people’s lives, the European Commission proposed
new measures in September 2020 and adopted two initiatives to strengthen the contributions of educa-
tion and training to the EU’s recovery from the pandemic and help build a green and digital Europe. The
EC established a vision and milestones to achieve the EEA by 2025. (European Commission, 2020).
Young people have a strong interest in the future of education and training. According to the 2019
Eurobarometer survey, they consider education and training among the highest three priorities of the EU,
as well as the green transition and tackling inequalities. The EEA by 2025 will build on and develop the
following concrete actions: develop European higher education institutions; automatic recognition of
qualifications and knowledge acquired abroad in all member states; improve language learning; embed
common values; strengthen the quality of early childhood education and care; increase the employability
of graduates; support the acquisition of key competences; and strengthen digital learning.
The Commission also adopted the Digital Education Action Plan (DEAP) 2021–2027 (2020 Sep-
tember 30) as part of the education package to reflect the lessons learned from the coronavirus crisis
and develop a plan for a high-performing digital education ecosystem with digital skills improved for
the digital transformation. The updated DEAP incorporates the lessons learned from the COVID-19
pandemic and from open public consultation in which the Lifelong Learning Platform participated. It set
out a long-term vision with two strategic priorities and 14 actions to achieve them: support the develop-
ment of a high-performing digital education ecosystem and improve digital skills and competences for
the digital transformation.
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed that we are not prepared for digital transformation in sectors
such as education and training. However, it has also shown the need and willingness of stakeholders
such as education and training providers to embrace the digital transformation. Hence, the DEAP takes
into account short-term needs related to the pandemic, in addition to a broader, longer-term perspective
in the form of the two strategic priorities. Two tracks are emphasized:
Inclusion to Bridge the Digital Divide
The COVID-19 crisis and the sudden, unexpected shift to online and distance learning have revealed
the barriers of inequality in society. During this crisis, a better understanding emerged regarding the
28

barriers to digital learning, which went beyond a lack of digital skills to include the lack of stable broad-
band access, the lack of electronic devices, and the lack of a quiet place to study. Unsurprisingly, these
barriers have been the most pronounced in households with lower socioeconomic means and among
learners in disadvantaged groups. In effect, vulnerable groups became even more vulnerable, and the
digital divide increased.
Striving to include all learners, regardless of background, requires targeting interventions that benefit
disadvantaged learners. Hence, there are calls for greater attention to how non-formal and informal edu-
cation and training providers contribute to reaching hard-to-reach learners. The mastery of basic skills
is critical for inclusion. As mentioned in the European Commission’s 2017 statement on Reimagining
Education for the Digital Age, advanced or new digital skills depend on basic skills, which remains a
problem in the EU. To ensure that all learners have equal opportunities, it is crucial that this gap be closed.
Mental Health and Wellbeing Online
In the ECs public consultation for feedback on the DEAP, civil society organizations, such as the Lifelong
Learning Program (LLLP) and its members, emphasized the need for guidance and focus on mental
health support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Action needs to be taken to support learners, staff,
and the community in maintaining mental health and wellbeing. The reference to mental health is also
relevant in the context of digital education outside the COVID-19 pandemic, as there is evidence that
digital technologies negatively affect human wellbeing, particularly in younger people. The EC therefore
suggested that DigiComp should be updated to include mental health as well as artificial intelligence
(European Commission, 2020).
World Economic Forum
A study by WEF (2021) entitled, “Reimagining the future of skills: What do young people think?” found
that COVID-19 has cast a long shadow on the future of young people around the world For children
and young people who want to acquire education and skills, COVID-19 has worsened the current crisis.
Before the pandemic, they faced a growing mismatch between the skills they learned in school and those
needed for employment. At present, in the shadow of COVID-19, more than a billion students are not in
school. Moreover, millions of young people who should be entering the workforce are not finding jobs.
The WEF stressed that this moment is an important opportunity to rethink how and what education and
skills are taught to prepare students for the rapidly changing world of work. However, governments and
businesses cannot tackle this problem alone. There is a need for collaboration, networking, and coordi-
nated action on how education and skills systems can be redesigned to meet the demands of the present
and the future. Four key principles were identified to guide such changes:
• Modern skills: A gap exists between 20th-century teachers who teach 21st-century students,
which resembles a gap of 100 years. Schools and universities do not resonate with young people,
equip them with the right skills, or teach in a way that optimizes the use of modern technology.
Educators need to be aware that curricula are outdated. Moreover, companies play an important
role in knowing what skills are lacking in their employees because they can advise educators about
skills that are relevant.
29

• Soft skills: Young people need strong communication and advocacy skills so they can demand
what they need to drive change. To succeed in the workplace of the future, young people need
strong soft skills, such as communication, critical thinking, and resilience, and they need to keep
learning throughout their lives. There are needs to stop thinking that skills require high-level aca-
demic knowledge; instead, human skills should ber concidered. This crisis will lead to a new and
more responsible economy that is not based on proft-making. To achieve this economy, people
with strong soft skills are needed.
• Digital connectivity and digital learning: This crisis have taught us that online learning is pos-
sible. It has taught us how to use online tools to share, teach, and learn skills. Another theme is a
strong emphasis on the potential of digital connectivity and online learning to widen the access
to opportunities for young people around the world. There is a need to reshape the future of skills
and enable diverse online learning. By ensuring that every young person everywhere has access to
a mobile phone and the Internet, we can create an equitable future.
• Reaching vulnerable communities. Key issues are access and the decentralization of education and
understanding that it extends beyond the classroom to those who are struggling. On the corporate
side, opportunities must be available for people in vulnerable areas.
In summary, at stake is a future in which young persons never feel that they are limited because of
their circumstances. No ability is unattainable because young persons do not know who they are or where
they are. Furthermore, WEF (2021) has argued that technological innovations are changing education
and updating the skills required for today’s workplace. Building sustainable education systems requires
designing curricula that suit the 21st century, in addition to the consistent delivery of basic education
that provides a solid foundation for a lifetime of adapting and developing new skills. Specialized train-
ing should be focused on in-demand skills, and it should address the mismatch between employers’
requirements and existing training. In addition, digital literacy and Science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) skills, educational innovation, lifelong learning pathways, and 21st century
curricula are critical in post-pandemic and crisis periods.
Gartner
Gartner (2020a) emphasized the importance of preparing for the long-term implications of COVID-19 and
the “next normal” in higher education. Gartner has advocated preparation for the next normal by digitally
adapting business models and addressing the question of why it is imperative to move from cohort key
performance indicators (KPI) to competency KPIs. The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for
higher education are still unclear, and they will continue to unfold over the next few years. However, the
next normal is already emerging, and it will have implications for higher education, business models,
operating models, and product portfolios.
In addition, Garter (2020b) suggested that the current world context has forced organizations to make
better-informed and faster decisions to survive in a rapidly changing environment. As organizations begin
to transition from the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic to the next normal, many are focused on
the near future and on leveraging the changes made in organizations during the pandemic.
One reason that digital business strategies will be different in the post-pandemic period than they
were before the pandemic is the pace of adoption. Because of the potentially short window of opportu-
nity before a resurgence of the virus or a related crisis, businesses need to act quickly. Digitalization is
30

not new, but acceleration is critical. The concern is about the urgent adoption of established patterns,
many of which are digital, in addition to patterns of psychology (how do we survive?), organization (do
we equip people with the best skills and cohorts?), and governance (do we need so many rituals or can
we move faster?).
In addition, Gartner has argued that organizations need to change immediately to sustain their business
now and in the future. When the economy is doing as well as it has been over the last decade, compa-
nies have not had to make difficult decisions or deal with fundamental failures. Business and operating
models before the COVID-19 pandemic could probably be improved by certain digitization efforts, but
why change something that works well enough? Now the path is clear: accelerate digital business or
risk failure. Companies need to make better-informed, faster decisions and focus on automation, real-
time risk assessment and mitigation, continuous value creation, and agile strategy development. These
changes are imperative.
Acceleration is experienced in the search for new solutions in the face of broken assumptions. Disrup-
tion is useful because it drives progress. Now is the time to do things better instead of falling back on
what worked previously. Over time, new business practices will be developed that were forever changed
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP DURING CRISES
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities are looking ahead to define their priorities for the
next 10 years. The world is facing immense challenges, such as finding a sustainable balance between
environmental, economic, and social concerns, digital transformation, and (geo) political uncertainty.
Because being at a turning point and a time of transformation in society and universities, it is important
to take a step back and think strategically about the future. The European University Association (EUA)
conducted a large-scale consultation process that included more than 100 experts and visionaries and
a wide range of external stakeholders (Jørgensen & Claeys-Kulik, 2021). Their key questions were the
following: What should universities in Europe look like in 10 years’ time? What role should they play
in society, and how should their missions evolve? What are the core values and the key conditions that
we need to maintain? The result was Universities Without Walls: A Vision for 2030, which provides
inspiration and guidance to university leaders and academic communities. It is a call to strengthen the
role of universities in society and an invitation to all stakeholders to join forces in deeper and more
impactful collaboration. At the heart of this vision are openness and engagement based on the core
academic values of respect for knowledge and evidence, critical thinking, open debate, scientific rigor,
integrity, and ethics, in which academic freedom and institutional autonomy are essential components.
To enable the transition to distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been necessary
for teachers in all educational institutions to work collaboratively. Rapid support for professional learning
has been needed to quickly develop teachers’ ability to participate in the digital transformation. Leader-
ship has also embraced a collaborative approach in preparing for crises, which includes forward thinking,
being highly responsive, and focusing on value-based and morally grounded leadership (Gurr, 2020).
At the International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) President Forum 2020 addressed
upcoming challenges to leaders in providing resilient education. Several key themes were suggested
which impacts the delivery of education, according to Gjeldsvik (2020), the most pressing challenges
across global regions were the following:
31

Figure 4. Resilient leadership.

Source: Ossiannilsson (2020d, 2021b)
• Environmental and human factors

• Socioeconomic factors
• Equity
• Infrastructure and connectivity leading to greater inequalities in access to education, and already
marginalized groups of learners sufered the most
• Financial challenges, particularly in relation to infrastructure and connectivity
• The reputations of online and distance learning were damaged by poor quality distance education.
• Mental health issues in students and staf
• The lack of capacity building and support systems in educational ecosystems
• Policy and regulatory areas
Gjeldsvik (2020) summarized that regarding needs, leadership was at the top of the agenda. In crises,
leaders must know how to “pivot,” which was described as “leadership agility.” Some of the proposed
solutions to the main challenges were the following:
• Recalibration of curricula and assessments to develop new ways of teaching and learning; OER
and a culture of sharing are important parts of the solution.
• Partnerships between the public and private sectors to invest in the necessary infrastructure and
equipment.
• Partnerships between the education and industrial sectors to identify value propositions for both
sectors to achieve lifelong learning, relevant training and retraining, new credentials and skills
validation, and employability in an ever-changing labor market.
• Prioritizing advocacy and political infuence in relation to ope, distance, and fexible learning
quality and the overall societal value proposition.
32

To face such challenges, resilient leadership was emphasized and valued as crucial. Resilient leadership
includes and empowers people, processes, cultures, and systems, as shown in Figure 4 (Ossiannilsson,
2020d, 2021b).
Based on Khan’s framework of the three Ps, People, processes and products (Kahn, 2014), Ossian-
nilsson (2020d, 2021b) argued for a eight-P framework of resilient education and leadership: people,
process, promise, participation, policy, partnership, products, and prospective, as illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The 8-P framework of resilient education.

Source: Ossiannilsson (2020d, 2021b)
Resilient leadership might comprise the COVID leadership framework, (Happier, 2020, personal
communication) which includes Communication, Opportunities, Visions, Impact, and Development.
In addition, there might be three perspectives to consider, which should be both differentiated and em-
braced: i.e., how we think the future will be, how we want the future to be, and what the future can be.
Leadership at all levels—macro, meso, and micro—has been crucial during the pandemic. Singer
(2020) pointed out that a new human-centered approach to technology could and should start by con-
sidering what we learn in our schools and universities, and it should be related to interventions, such
as changing technology education, to align with political, economic, cultural, and humanist thinking.
This approach would lead to clarifying what is mean by design and digital literacy and how they are
empowered in curricula and course design.
Finally, universities need to focus on professionalization. Leadership should be inclusive, diverse,

communicative, and transparent, and leaders must be willing to embrace their roles, and empower oth-
ers. Similarly, the professionalization of staff will continue to be important in supporting key objectives,
such as equality, diversity, and open data management.
33

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Open education has a long history, and it gained increasing attention in 2020 as educators responded
to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its potential benefits often emerge in three areas: widening the access to
education; improving pedagogy; and promoting equal opportunities. In April 2020, UNESCO called on
the global community to support the use of OER to build inclusive, sustainable, and resilient knowledge
societies. Because local and global inequalities have been dramatically exposed during the COVID-19
pandemic, OER and open education practices (OEP) have facilitated practical and equitable approaches
to learning, teaching, and assessment in our respective contexts (Huang et al., 2020; Ossiannilsson et
al., 2020). The pandemic has also brought the adoption of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) from
the margin to the center of the educational field. According to Coursera (2020), the rise and scale of
MOOCS has increased enormously, and they estimated that more than 1.6 million learners around the
world have benefited from partner contributions to Coursera’s response to the pandemic
In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of resilience was obvious. Companies scrambled
to respond to new and unforeseen challenges, and many businesses failed. Many leaders were forced to
reassess, realign, and transform in preparation for whatever came next: a world still struggling to recover
from the crisis, or a world transformed by science and technology and ready for the future (Diana, n.d.).
It is obvious that transformation requires a holistic approach to a networked system. According to Di-
ana, transforming means changing form, appearance, structure, condition, nature, or character. Change
is nothing new; however, the dynamics of what is certain to be a more volatile and complex future,
triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, should compel us all to change. The pandemic has underscored
that the world has become a complex, interconnected system. In such systems, the understanding of the
individual parts does not automatically lead to the understanding of the behavior of the whole system,
which increases the importance of a holistic, systemic approach. With the high degree of uncertainty and
the speed at which change is likely, holistic adaptation is the only way to survive in such an environment.
Innovations in pedagogy is cruial. Kukulska-Hulme et al. (2021) proposed raising awareness of the
role of attitudes and emotions in teaching and learning. They argued that educators want their students to
pay attention in class, but ideally, they want that students should have the right attitude, and they should
be fully engaged and deeply immersed in their learning experience, which would lead to higher levels of
achievement and satisfaction. As a pedagogy, gratitude suggests considering attitude to improve wellbeing,
relationships, and learning. Practicing gratitude has been shown to lead to improving students’ ability to
focus on class and remain resilient in the face of adversity, as well as helping teachers to better cope with
stress. This approach seems germane in times of adversity, and the positive feelings it generates could
counteract the emotional anxiety and cognitive stress caused by uncertainty and insecurity during the
current pandemic. Research has indicated that people learn the best when they are in a mental state that
makes learning easier or more enjoyable. Therefore, they emphasized that in the best learning moments,
learners utilize heightened attention and engagement, which signal positive mental states that can lead
to enjoyable and effective learning. The idea of “best learning moments” builds on the psychological
concept of cognitive absorption or “flow,” which is defined as deep involvement or immersion in an
activity or task often accompanied by feelings of enjoyment. In addition, they advocated social justice
and student engagement. Some suggested pedagogical interventions, including providing equitable op-
portunities and enabling greater student participation in open and distance learning contexts.. Equity-
focused pedagogy emphasizes inclusivity and extends beyond opening up access to education by asking
how every student in a class, cohort, or program could achieve similar positive outcomes regardless of
34

their background and characteristics, such as gender, disability, or ethnicity. The pedagogical focus on
equity requires teachers to really listen to students and challenges them to address inequities that may
arise in tests and assessments and the unequal access to and skills in technology. One way to work toward
equity is through student-designed teaching and learning, which could lead to greater student ownership
and better relationships among students and between students and teachers. Other innovations are related
to enriched realities. Already at the beginning of online and distance education, Holmberg (1983, 2005)
and Moore (1989) emphasized the importance of human interaction as crucial in learning, as well as the
need to improve technology.
Pivoting to the Next Normal State
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the present era is a pivotal moment in history. While a turbulent
and tragic 2020 has heralded an uncertain 2021, one thing is clear: it will be a decidedly digital year.
Because the dramatic shift to living and working online has accelerated changes across the business
landscape, there are both opportunities and challenges. It is a historic moment in finding a new global
trend in dealing with the current situation and redefining the futures in the post-COVID-19 era.
The COVID-19 pandemic sounded a global alarm to change educational paradigms and the way the
world is perceived. Not surprisingly, the pandemic has changed the way the concept of normal is inter-
preted, as well as the way life has been lived will be lived in the future (Ossiannilsson & Sandström,
2020). Bozkurt and Sharma (2020) emphasized that “normal” is relative. Currently, various definitions
of normal now abound, such as normal, new normal, and next normal. Nevertheless, it is important
to understand that what is “new normal” in one circumstance may be “normal” in another. Similarly,
“normal” and “new normal” in some circumstances may be the “next normal” in others. These varia-
tions in the concept of normal suggest that most individuals are now living through an unprecedented
time that is marked by major shifts in understanding and interpreting life. Education has changed and
will continue to change, particularly in teaching and learning. Despite the multitude of written and oral
arguments that have already been made on this subject, there is uncertainty about what the future will
bring forward, which means that now is the time to ask what is past, what is present, and what is next?
Understanding that the world, particularly education, will never be the same, it is wise to address some
of the most critical issues in the educational landscape by focusing on lessons learned in both the past
and the present. New interpretations of such lessons must be made to ensure a solid future. Ossiannilsson
and Sandström, (2020) argued that the new normal will be about adaptation, ecosystem, sustainability,
and resilience.
A common strategy during the crises has been to maintain quality education for learners. In addition,
it became clear that in the post-pandemic period, different skills would be needed. Xie and Li (2020)
have focused on accessibility, affordability, accountability, sustainability, and social justice in the future
of education. Bozkurt et al. (2020) argued for a crucial difference between emergency distance education
and planned and deliberate quality distance education, the latter strategy being the most desirable for all
stakeholders. Ossiannilsson (2020a, 2021b) argued for the next normal and the importance of resilient
strategies built on social justice, strategic leadership, and student engagement. She also emphasized the
importance of communication, emotional intelligence, diversity, teamwork skills, ethics, and core values
in ensuring social justice and human rights.
In their study on the labor market, Carnevale, Peltier, and Campbell (2020) identified that the basic
competencies of the workforce are communication, teamwork, sales, customer service, leadership, prob-
35

lem solving, and complex thinking. They also emphasized the challenges and opportunities related to
developing skills and dispositions that were transferable across multiple careers, flexibility, resilience,
self-confidence, and initiatives in the face of career uncertainty. Sir J. Daniel (2020, September 14, per-
sonal communication) argued in favor of three assumptions to which higher education should adhere:
resilience in crises, the capacity to change to online operations, and student access to online education.
Resilience has been placed high on the list of qualities required in the emerging post-pandemic future
(Diana, n.d.;; Ossiannilsson, 2020). It has been defined as the ability to recover quickly from difficulty
and the ability to absorb and respond to sudden shocks and regain momentum. Diana argued that the
stable and predictable environment during previous decades has given way to a new norm. The new era
brings with its unprecedented challenges and shifts. The COVID-19 pandemic has served as an undeni-
able accelerant that has driven all sectors and organizations to transform. There will be intense pressure
to intelligently establish an adaptive core and a capable edge to drive resilience. Resilience must become
a high strategic priority because turbulent times, uncertainty, and new opportunities require us to be
adaptable and evolve.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected student learning on an unprecedented global scale. Education
systems have responded to this crisis in varying ways. Some have implemented homeschooling programs
and distance learning and offered free online resources, while others have delivered paper-based assign-
ments to students’ homes or used public TV and broadcast channels. However, systematic, efficient, and
scientifically collected first-hand information is still lacking, which is needed to assess the extent to which
teaching, and learning have been challenged, continued, and adapted as a result of the current crisis.
The pandemic has led to a paradigm shift in how learners of all ages access learning around the
world. It is therefore more necessary than ever for the global community to collaborate in promoting
universal access to information and knowledge through OER. UNESCO (2020d) argued that joint ac-
tion is aimed at addressing the challenges of this and future pandemic crises to learners as well as to
lay the foundation for the systematic integration of best practices to increase knowledge sharing in the
post-pandemic future of learning.
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and UNESCO,
in collaboration with the EC, conducted a survey on responses to an educational disruption to provide a
comprehensive picture of the impact of COVID-19 on global education. The survey was part of a collec-
tive effort under the UNESCO Global Education Coalition, to facilitate inclusive learning opportunities
for children and youth in the context of educational disruption and to establish approaches to developing
open and resilient education systems in the future. The findings of REDS are germane to SDG4, which
seeks to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all, particularly subgoals 4.1 and 4.4. The
findings may also provide an opportunity to reconceptualize the purpose, role, content, and delivery of
education in the future. The study aimed to identify sustainable, transformative approaches that have
emerged from the crisis and that could serve to inform good practice as schools reopen, and intended
to serve as a valuable resource to inform policymakers and practitioners about the need for resilient
education systems in the future.
36

Based on the current situation, the post-pandemic and ongoing global research and initiatives, a
framework for resilient education is shown in Figure 6. The framework contextualizes and prescribes
post-crisis resilient and agile approaches.
Figure 6. Toward a framework of resilient education
CONCLUSION
According to Jørgensen and Claeys-Kulik (2021), the universities of the future will be open, transforma-
tive, and transnational in building partnerships with a wide range of local and international stakeholders.
Their nature and structure will be hybrid, combining physical and virtual spaces in a holistic learning
and research environment that addresses the needs of a diverse university community.
Higher education has a key role to play in addressing global challenges, such as poverty and climate
change, by directly advocating the universal values of human dignity, as well as the values of science
and research. UNESCO’s Education Chief, Stefania Giannini, argued that competition between universi-
ties and between countries is increasingly over human capital. Countries that attract talented and highly
skilled people and give them opportunities to improve their skills will be the most competitive. Although
globalization has allowed people to live, learn, and work in different countries, many ordinary people
now perceive that it has been accompanied by challenges.
37

Perhaps it is now time to return to a universal perspective based on human dignity, respect, tolerance,
and shared knowledge of cultures and religions. This is a dimension in which education, and specifically
higher education, can play a crucial role. Higher education … is a “fundamental human right” and
more than ever, education is the most important infrastructure for building sustainable development and
a sustainable society and should “contribute to society as a whole.” (Giannini, 2015)
Higher education institutions are critical in advancing inclusive national and regional development
and in shaping resilient and inclusive societies. They are inextricably linked to shaping the economic,
social, and environmental fabric of our world. Higher education has a leading role to play in understand-
ing and finding solutions to the challenges that affect all countries, including the ethical dimension.
Motivation and leadership are more important than ever in managing the upheavals affecting higher
education today. Leaders must focus the energies of diverse groups and channel them into swift, decisive
actions. Moreover, the skills that have served leaders in the past must be applied in new ways, and reskill-
ing and upskilling are required by both leaders and managers. To achieve resilient educational systems
in the future, what we want may also be of value in empowering the specific, measurable, attainable,
realistic, and time-bound (SMART) approach.
It is crucial to support workforces in preparing for new and more skilled roles, as competition for talent
will become even fiercer in the near future. There is a need for employees to take personal responsibility
for their learning journeys and embrace the concept of lifelong learning. The demands of the labor market
are very much on “just for me” and “just in time learning” as well as microlearning (Corbeil, Kahn, &
Corbeil, 2020; Fifilan, 2019). Education and training providers have to keep pace with this unprecedented
change. Additionally, curriculum re design to the demands of 4IR is major challenge because it involves
complex decision-making processes and various administrative hurdles. Many departments and facul-
ties are still dominated by traditional approaches and subject-specific “silo thinking,” whereas the new
industrial age requires new ways of thinking and visionary leadership.
To strive for a culture of lifelong learning is to advance education policy and provide real opportuni-
ties for people to learn throughout their lives (Bjursell, 2020). To achieve this culture, universities need
innovative business models. The pursuit of sustainability will be another key feature of universities in
2030. Universities will make sustainability an integral part of their missions in learning and teaching,
research, innovation, and culture. The civic functions of universities must be given priority. Universities
are at the forefront of promoting a public debate on the respect for evidence-based arguments. Universi-
ties need to encourage staff engagement, and learners and researchers need to connect with society in
building bridges with other communities, external partners, and citizens, all of whom must be welcomed
as active participants in university activities. Universities and the academic community need to reach
out, open doors, and collaborate with society and the external world.
The social ethical and moral dimensions of learning and education need to be taken seriously because
they are at the top of the social justice and human rights agenda. Only then can resilient, sustainable
education be achieved in line with the global major initiatives referred to and discussed in this chapter.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
profit sectors.
38

REFERENCES
Bates, T. (2020, July 27). Research reports on COVID-19 and emergency remote learning/online learning
[Web log message]. https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/07/27/research-reports-on-covid-19-and-emergency-
remote-learning-online-learning/
Bjursell, C. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic as disjuncture: Lifelong learning in a context of fear.
International Review of Education, 66(5-6), 673–689. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711159-
020-09863-w PMID:33144741
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S., Al-Freih, M., Pete,
J., Olcott, D. Jr, Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. J., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli,
J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., ... Paskevicius, M. (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. http://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observations
from the past, insights from the present and projections for the future. Asian Journal of Distance Educa-
tion, 15(2), i–x. https://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/512
Butcher, N. (2015). A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Report for the Commonwealth
of Learning and UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215804e.pdf
Cape Town Open Education Declaration. (2007). Cape Town open education declaration: Unlocking
the promise of open educational resources. https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration
Cape Town Open Education Declaration. (2017). Cape Town open education declaration: 10th Anni-
versary. Ten directions to move open education forward. https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/cpt10/
Carnevale, A., Peltier, M., & Campbell, K. (2020). Workplace basics: The competencies employers
want. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://www.luminafoundation.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/workplace-basics.pdf
Corbeil, J. R., Kahn, B. H., & Corbeil, M. E. (Eds.). (2020). Microlearning in the digital age: The design
and delivery of learning snippets. Routledge.
Diana, F. (n.d.). Why resilience is imperative in a post-pandemic world. https://www.tcs.com/perspec-
tives/articles/why-resilience-is-imperative-in-a-post-pandemic-world
European Commission. (2020a). Young people shaping the future of education in Europe: Video confer-
ence on the European Education Area. https://ec.europa.eu/education/events/young-people-shaping-the-
future-of-education-in-europe-video-conference-on-the-european-education-area_en
European Commission. (2020b). Achieving a European Education Area by 2025 and resetting educa-
tion and training for the digital age. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_1743
European Commission. (2020c). European Education Area. https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-
in-the-eu/european-education-area_en
39

Fifilan, K. (2019, September 3). Could micro-learning make employees more engaged? HR learning
and development. https://www.raconteur.net/hr/micro-learning-engagement?utm_source=email&utm_
medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Weekly&utm_term=July-23&utm_content=1
Gartner. (2020a). Prepare for the long-term impacts of COVID-19 and the next normal in higher edu-
cation. https://www.gartner.com/en/webinars/3986713/prepare-for-the-long-term-impacts-of-covid-19-
and-the-next-norma
Gartner. (2020b, September 10). The current world context is pushing organizations to make better-
informed, faster decisions to survive in a rapidly changing environment. https://www.gartner.com/
smarterwithgartner/why-now-is-the-time-to-accelerate-digital/
Gjeldsvik, T. (2020). Secretary General’s summary of the ICDE Presidents’ Forum 2020. https://www.
icde.org/icde-news/summary-of-pf2020.
Gurr, D. (2020). Academia letters. Educational leadership and the pandemic.
Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan,
& B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 114–122). Croom Helm;
Routledge. Routledge
Holmberg. B. (2005). The evolution, principles and practices of distance education (vol 11). Oldenburg:
BIS Studien und berichte der Arbeitsstelle Fernstudienforschung der Carl von Ossietzky Universität
Oldenburg.
Huang, R., Liu, D., Tlili, A., Knyazeva, S., Chang, T. W., Zhang, X., Burgos, D., Jemni, M., Zhang, M.,
Zhuang, R., & Holotescu, C. (2020). Guidance on open educational practices during school closures:
Utilizing OER under COVID-19 pandemic in line with UNESCO OER recommendation. Smart Learning
Institute of Beijing Normal University.
Inamorato Dos Santos, A., Punie, Y., & Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016). The OpenEdu framework. Joint
Research Center.
Jørgensen, T., & Claeys-Kulik, A-L. (2021, February 6). What does the future hold for Europe’s uni-
versities? University World News.
Kahn, B. H. (2010). The global e-learning framework. Academic Press.
Kahn, B. H. (2014). Continuum in e-learning: People, process and product (P3). https://elearningindustry.
com/continuum-in-e-learning-people-process-and-product-p3
Kahn. B. H. (2020). E-learning framework and models. Academic Press.
Kawachi, P. (2014). Quality assurance guidelines for open educational resources: TIPS framework.
CEMCA.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Bossu, C., Coughlan, T., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C.,
Rienties, B., Sargent, J., Scanlon, E., Tang, J., Wang, Q., Whitelock, D., & Zhang, S. (2021). Innovat-
ing pedagogy 2021: Open University innovation report 9. The Open University. http://www.open.ac.uk/
blogs/innovating/
40

Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
doi:10.1080/08923648909526659
O’Malley, B. (2018, December 16). Higher education role is to reassert universal values. University
World News.
OECD. (2020, June 29). Education and COVID-19: Focusing on the long-term impact of school clo-
sures. OECD.
OECD. (2020). The OECD learning compass. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-
and-learning/learning/
OECD. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19: How STI systems responded to the crisis, and the challenges that
lie ahead. OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, and ACRL/Choice for a presen-
tation of the key findings from the new STI Outlook. https://www.choice360.org/webinars/impacts-of-
covid-19-how-sti-systems-responded-to-the-crisis-and-the-challenges-that-lie-ahead/
Ossiannilsson, E. (2012). Benchmarking e-learning in higher education: Lessons learned from interna-
tional projects (Doctoral dissertation). Oulu University, Finland.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2019). OER and OEP for access, equity, equality, quality, inclusiveness, and empower-
ing lifelong learning. The International Journal of Open Educational Resources, 1(2). Advance online
publication. doi:10.18278/ijoer.1.2.9
Ossiannilsson, E. (2020a). After Covid-19: Some challenges for universities. In A. Tlili, D. Burgos, & A.
Tabacco (Eds.), Education in a crisis context: COVID-19 as an opportunity for global learning. Springer.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2020b). Online open pedagogy and management. In F. Altinay & Z. Altinay (Eds.),
Online pedagogy and management for smart societies. Pegem Akademi. doi:10.14527/9786257052498.02
Ossiannilsson, E. (2020c). Quality models for open, flexible, and online learning. Journal of Computer
Science Research, 2(4).
Ossiannilsson, E. (2020d). Reflection on 21st century competences, smart learning environments, and
digitalization in education. Near East University Online Journal of Education – NEUJE. http://dergi.
neu.edu.tr/index.php/neuje/article/view/244
Ossiannilsson, E. (2021a). OER: Open to ideas, open to the world. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2021b). The new normal: Post COVID-19 is about change and sustainability. Near
East University Online Journal of Education – NEUJE.
Ossiannilsson, E., Glapa-Grossklag, J., & Zhang, X. (2019, November). Opening pathways for access,
inclusion, flexibility, and quality. Paper presented at the ICDE WCOL 2019, Dublin, Ireland.
Ossiannilsson, E., Zhang, X., Wetzler, J., Gusmão, C. M. G., Aydin, C. H., Jhangiani, R. S., Glapa-
Grossklag, J., Makoe, M., & Harichandan, D. (2020). From open educational resources to open educational
practices: For resilient sustainable education. DMS-DMK Distance et mediations des saviors – Distance
and mediations of knowledge.
41

Redecker, C., Leis, M., Leendertse, M., Punie, Y., Gijsbers, G., Kirschner, P., Stoyanov, S., & Hoogveld,
B. (2011). The future of learning: Preparing for change. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-
scientific-and-technical-research-reports/future-learning-preparing-change
Sala, A., Punie, Y., Garkov, V., & Cabrera-Giraldez, M. (2020). LifeComp: The European framework
for personal, social and learning to learn key competence. doi:10.2760/302967
Stracke, C. M., Bozkurt, A., Conole, G., Nascimbeni, F., Ossiannilsson, E., Sharma, R. C., . . . Shon, J. G.
(2020). Open education and open science for our global society during and after the COVID-19 Outbreak.
Proceedings of the Open Education Global Conference 2020. www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4275669
UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: towards a global common good? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
ark:/48223/pf0000232555
UNESCO. (2016). Sustainable development goal 4. http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/sustainable-develop-
ment-goal-4
UNESCO. (2019). Futures of education. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2020a). Covid-19 crisis: UNESCO call to support learning and knowledge sharing through
open educational resources. https://en.unesco.org/news/covid-19-crisis-unesco-call-support-learning-
and-knowledge-sharing-through-open-educational
UNESCO. (2020b). Supporting learning and knowledge sharing through open educational resources
(OER). https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/covid19_joint_oer_call_en.pdf
UNESCO. (2020c, July 1). Towards resilient education systems for the future: A new joint study launched
by UNESCO and IEA. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2020d). Recommendation on open educational resources (OER). Ref: CL/4319.
UNESCO. (2020e). OER. https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowledge-societies/oer/recommenda-
tion
UNESCO. (2020f) OER dynamic coalition. https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowledge-societies/
oer/dynamic-coalition
UNESCO. (2020g). Embracing a culture of lifelong learning: Contribution to the Futures of Education
initiative. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374112
United Nations. (n.d.). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://
sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
World Economic Forum. (2020, July 20). Reimagining the future of skills: What do young people
think? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/reimagining-future-skills-what-we-learned-young-
people?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social_scheduler&utm_term=Youth+Perspectives&utm_
content=09/01/2021+12:00&fbclid=IwAR0a5A-LA9mhvBIUvMtuTBL6xwgLTbF2lKwdk_
hQU51MEFrFfQ4QIgB7EJ4
World Economic Forum. (2021). Strategic intelligence: Education and skills. https://intelligence.wefo-
rum.org/topics/a1Gb0000000LPFfEAO?tab=publications
42

COVID-19: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered

coronavirus.
OEP: Open education practice (OEP) encompasses teaching techniques and academic practices that
draw on open technologies, pedagogical approaches, and OER to facilitate collaborative and flexible
learning. OEP may involve both teachers and learners engaging in co-creating learning experiences,
participating in online peer communities, using, creating, and sharing open educational resources (OER),
sharing experiences and professional practice, and engaging in open scholarship.
OER: OER are learning, teaching, and research materials in any format and medium, which are
publicly available or subject to copyright and published under an open license that allows free access,
reuse, reuse, adaptation, and redistribution by others.
Quality: Quality refers to the degree of excellence. When the term is used to describe people, it refers
to a particular quality or attribute that they possess. Quality is the set of characteristics and attributes of
a product or service that affect its ability to satisfy certain needs. Quality is an inherent or distinguishing
characteristic, degree, or level of excellence.
Resilience: Resilience is the capacity of a system, be it an individual, a forest, a city or an economy,
to deal with change and continue to develop. It is about how humans and nature can use shocks and
disturbances like a financial crisis or climate change to spur renewal and innovative thinking.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) or Global Goals: SDGs are a collection of 17 interlinked
goals designed as a “blueprint for achieving a better and more sustainable future for all.” The SDGs were
set in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly. They are intended to be achieved by the year 2030.
They are included in the UN Resolution for the 2030 Agenda, which is commonly known as Agenda 2030.
43
44
Chapter 3
Navigating the Barriers
Presented by the
COVID-19 Pandemic:
Reflections and Innovative
Educational Solutions
Colleen Lelli
Cabrini University, USA
Kelly M. Ballard
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3125-3839
Bryn Athyn College, USA
Amber Gentile
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1329-4071
Cabrini University, USA
ABSTRACT
As educators and students navigated the changes amid COVID-19 and the switch to on-line learning,
there became a critical need to identify and address the challenges experienced by all. This chapter
highlights the fndings and recommendations of a study that surveyed over 400 educators to gather their
perceptions of the barriers presented by COVID-19 and their experiences as they adjusted to educat-
ing students during a pandemic. The COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey developed by the researchers
focused on educators’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on instructional practices, emotional
health, and student learning. Innovative practices to create a more equitable education with the inten-
tional inclusion of Trauma Informed Practices and the newly created Guideposts for Trauma Informed
Strategies are described. These guideposts can serve as recommendations for stakeholders with the goal
of reimagining pedagogical practices and educational policies including trauma informed frameworks
related to equity, access, and social-emotional learning skills for vulnerable populations.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch003

Navigating the Barriers Presented by the COVID-19 Pandemic
INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic has created the opportunity to further define trauma and determine its implica-
tions, particularly for education. As Horesh and Brown (2020) and Bozkurt et al. (2020) have recognized,
the pandemic has been global in scope, the impact has rippled into every aspect of society and the crisis
has received unprecedented levels of documentation, like in social media. A thorough review of the ex-
periences caused by the pandemic, the reactions to it, and the subsequent learnings can guide our future
approaches. It has become even more apparent that educators need to use an empathetic approach, for
example using trauma informed practices and self-care, during such uncertain times and ensure the focus
is on supporting the learners (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). It is also important that educators receive the
support and resources necessary to ensure they are positioned to use the empathetic approach during
such times of emergency remote teaching (Hodges et al., 2020).
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic many school systems in the United States had to pivot to online
instruction, which is starkly different from the traditional, preplanned online approach (Hodges et
al., 2020). It presented many challenges and highlighted gross inequities including resources such as
technological access for our most vulnerable populations: those from low socio-economic households,
Limited English Proficient Students, and students with learning differences. Many educators experienced
frustrations and heartbreak over their perceived inability to reach and teach their students. Some teach-
ers even experienced what is known as vicarious trauma (compassion fatigue) which creates emotional
stress and concern with the stories/trauma experiences of their students. Thus, educators are expressing
a desire to ensure equitable educational opportunities for all students in the event of continued or new
interruptions of instruction and learning opportunities.
To examine the significant concerns and challenges around teaching and learning through a pandemic,
the researchers developed and administered a survey, entitled The COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey.
This instrument included 15 Likert scale questions, six open-ended narrative response questions and was
administered to over 400 educators of two suburban school districts in southeast Pennsylvania, United
States. The districts are composed of two vastly different student population demographics: socio-economic
status, race and cultural diversity, limited English proficiency, as well as students identified with low
and high incidence disabilities. The focus of this qualitative research study was to gather the educators’
perceptions of the barriers presented by COVID-19 and their experiences as they navigated this sudden
and new learning environment and adjusted to educating their students in the context of a pandemic.
The open-ended questions allowed for freedom of expression in regard to the participants’ experiences.
The information was collected and analyzed to inform the development of strategies and innovative
practices for a more equitable education with the intentional inclusion of Trauma Informed Practices
(TIP). Furthermore, these newly developed strategies can serve as recommendations for educational stake-
holders with the ultimate goal of reimagining pedagogical practices and educational policies including
trauma informed frameworks related to self-care for educators and equity, access, and social-emotional
learning support skills for all students. The findings, conclusions, and identified solutions of the study
are shared through the researcher developed Guideposts for Trauma Informed Strategies offering peda-
gogical practices that support equity and access for all students regardless of instructional modality.
As educators and students navigated the changes amid COVID-19 and the switch to on-line learning
without a clear end in sight, there became a critical need to identify and address the challenges expe-
rienced by all. Immediate and relevant support is critical to mitigate difficulties as educators navigate
the instructional and emotional challenges associated with educating their students in the context of an
45

emergency such as a pandemic. Identifying the challenges and barriers experienced through the pandemic
provided newfound information regarding the need to shift educational practices due to inherent inequi-
ties that currently exist. The data gathered supported the formation of suggested educational policies that
support educators’ well-being and foster impactful, equitable educational opportunities for all students.
A review of the literature has revealed that research in the area of moving to online instruction in
k-12 schools as a result of a catastrophe or pandemic is limited. However, as evidenced by Bozkurt et.
al (2020), there are lessons to be learned due to the spontaneous interruption of the learning experience.
Supporting the various needs specific to k-12 education, the research findings from The COVID-19
Educator Impact Survey include extensive results beyond the stated research questions. Through the
open-ended response questions, participants provided insights into their overall experiences such as their
mental health, engagement with students, communication with caregivers and administrators, etc. The
qualitative research study was guided by the following two research questions:
1. Q1: What are the educators’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on their instructional practices?
2. Q2: What are the educators’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on their emotional health?
BACKGROUND
Many teachers are never explicitly taught how to support students of trauma and are also unsure how to
address the impact it has on their own health. This fact, along with the findings revealed in the researcher
developed COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey, highlights the need for educators to be well trained re-
garding trauma informed practices and the importance of self-care in order to support themselves and
their students holistically. The seminal Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Study provided much
needed information about the neurobiological, including the cognitive, long term effects of childhood
trauma (Anda et al., 2006). The ACE study included over 17,000 participants assessing eight adverse
childhood experiences (ACEs) including abuse, witnessing domestic violence and serious household
dysfunction. The number of ACEs was used to measure “cumulative childhood stress and hypothesized
a ‘dose-response’ relationship” (Anda et al., 2006).
The ACE study and the resulting follow up studies provided much information about the effect’s
trauma can have on an individual. For example, the research suggests that early trauma or stress can
cause long term changes in the brain (as cited in Anda et al., 2006) and it has also been highly researched
and confirmed that the relationship between development, early stress, and the hippocampus, a stress-
sensitive brain region that plays a critical role in learning and memory, can cause cognitive disconnect
for all learners. The number of children affected by trauma are staggering. Duke, Pettingell, McMorris,
& Borowsky (2010) report twenty-five percent of children have been affected by physical, sexual and
emotional abuse that can be classified as traumatizing. Another important consideration needs to be
made for our youths living in economically disadvantaged communities where incidents of community
violence can be constant, with long-lasting effects. As a result, the education field has determined the
pedagogical practices and strategies to best support children, teens and young adults who have been
exposed to trauma and complex traumas.
An examination of the impact of the COVID-19 and the subsequent circumstances revealed not only
direct trauma on educators and students but vicarious trauma experienced by educators as well. As cited
in Kim & Asbury (2020), teacher stress has long been a prevalent topic of discussion among educational
46

practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. One such research study has identified a correlation between
teacher stress and the impact on students and their classroom experiences; Oberle & Schonert- Reichl
(2016) facilitated a study involving teachers who experienced high-levels of occupational stress and the
cortisol levels of their students. The findings revealed that the students educated by teachers who expe-
rience a high level of stress had increased levels of cortisol than those of their counterparts. It is clear
emotional stress experienced by teachers has a negative impact on the student experience and potentially
student learning outcomes.
As we know from the seminal work of Abraham Maslow (1943), one’s basic needs must be met
in order to reach higher level needs. Darling-Hammond and Hyler (2020) further assert that students’
social and emotional experiences influence their learning. In light of the stress experienced during the
pandemic, it is clear that educators need to focus on these basic needs in their instructional approach.
An empathetic approach and trauma informed practices for the students and the educators are critical
during such challenging times (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). Educators are in need of training, support
and resources to implement the empathetic approach in their teaching practice (Hodges, et al., 2020).
Furthermore, these findings indicate the need for formalized policies addressing and mitigating chal-
lenges related to interruptions of the teaching and learning experience.
It is recommended that The National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) system framework
(2017) be used by school systems to make improvements and organizational changes to ensure the use
of trauma informed practices. This framework was the lens utilized and referenced in the creation of the
recommended strategies and practices for educators as a result of the data provided by The COVID-19
Educator Impact Survey. The researchers refer to these strategies and pedagogical practices within their
Guideposts for Trauma Informed Strategies.
The NCTSN framework was chosen due to the distinct features that align closely with the Multi-Tiered
Systems of Support (MTSS) framework pyramid. The MTSS framework pyramid is a multi-tiered ap-
proach for the early identification and support of students with learning and emotional/behavior needs
(Sulkowski & Michael, 2014). It is also important to note that the environment or culture of the school
system, community and family partnerships, can be a positive and welcoming support for the faculty,
administration and the students to ensure well-being during unprecedented challenges.
Thus, the ultimate goal is to recommend trauma informed pedagogical practices and innovative edu-
cational policies in order to address and mitigate the stress and challenges experienced by those within
the K-12 education system.
THE COVID-19 EDUCATOR IMPACT SURVEY FINDINGS
Examining the impact of COVID-19 within the context of an educational system is critical in determin-
ing how to support educators, students, and their families through an emergency response to a local or
national crisis, such as a pandemic or any other risk of trauma and interrupted instruction/student learn-
ing. To gather this information, approximately n=400 educators were invited to participate in the The
COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey that included both Likert scale items and open-ended questions. The
participants and their corresponding sites, identified as School District 1 and District 2, were selected to
ensure representation from racially, culturally, and financially diverse school communities (see Table 1).
47

Table 1. District student demographic information for the COVID-19 educator impact survey
% of Special % of Limited
Number Economically Education English
Sites % Asian % Black % Hispanic % White
Enrolled Disadvantaged Services (Not Proficient
Gifted) Students
District 1 7500 75% N/A 33% 42% 14% 21% 13%
District 2 4100 39% 17% 11% 12% 52% 15% 6%
The narrative questions included in the survey were designed to garner information that would
identify educators’ perception of critical issues related to the impact of COVID-19. From these find-
ings and a review of relevant research, recommendations have been developed to inform policies and
practices designed to mitigate the impact of possible future local, state, or national crises and related
trauma. An analysis of the narratives in response to the key open-ended questions and related findings
are examined below:
How did the Covid-19 Pandemic Impact Your Instructional Practice?
Barrier Building Relationships With Students and Parents
One of the most significant impacts by the pandemic was on the relationships between the teachers and
their students. Participants reported that moving to an on-line teaching and learning experience nega-
tively impacted their relationships with their students. For example, one participant stated, “not seeing
students’ faces impacted meaningful interactions.” Another shared their concern related to their inclusion
students: “special education teachers lost interactions with their inclusion students as they were relegated
to working with their students with higher needs.” Disrupting the foundation for an effective student/
teacher relationship created interruptions in the teaching/learning experience and is not trauma informed.
As teachers and students experienced the disruption of their daily, in-person interactions because of
the pandemic, new concerns of building positive relationships in the up-coming school year came to the
surface. One participant explained:
I am highly concerned about starting online in the fall with kids and families; I have no relationship
already established. It is so hard to come across as personable through a screen and I always worry
about how tone can be misinterpreted. I also really worry about not creating those relationships with
my students and establishing the expectations with them first. I don’t know how well we’ll be able to
connect through a screen without building a foundation in person first. I think it will be very hard and
take more time for everyone to get on the same page about their expectations in my class, my teaching
style, and how I choose to try to build relationships virtually.
The question remained how to support teachers and their students if the need to teach virtually con-
tinued for the next school year.
48

Barriers to Instruction
In addition to fostering relationships with their students, the learning curve related to the technology
presented many challenges early on in the transition to on-line teaching and learning, both for students
and teachers. Challenges related to authentic assessments and lack of hands-on learning activities were
also evident. A fundamental issue for many families was the lack of supplies that would support their
child’s learning: paper, technology, etc. Several participants highlighted the critical “lack of one-on-one
instruction and conferences.” Not having the ability to conference with their students limited the teach-
ers’ abilities to meet their students’ individual needs, making differentiating content very challenging.
Concerns related to preparing students for the next school year were also present, “I just feel like the
students are not fully ready for first grade. I worry about their reading and writing…we tried to make
the assignments as simple as possible to complete and that meant sacrificing some writing.” Not only
were teachers unable to offer one-on-one instruction, but they also were limited in modeling capabilities
within their lessons that compounded the impact of instructional barriers.
Along with the instructional challenges identified above, many participants identified barriers within
specific grade-levels. One participant stated, “First graders were impacted as well. Having to learn ev-
erything via a screen posed challenges for them.” Another participant shared, “Kindergarten presented
numerous challenges: parents were doing the work, pre-recorded lessons without feedback from students
to determine understanding” limited teachers in their capacity to authentically assess what the students
were learning.
In addition to grade-level challenges, specialists (physical education, music, art, etc.) also experienced
barriers to their instruction. One physical education teacher illuminated the challenge of not being able
to model for the students’ specific activities for her students. Another participant declared, “Specialists
were side-lined as their content was ‘optional’...they were relegated to contacting parents because the
‘teachers were so overwhelmed’ with the instruction.” This reality left the specialist teachers feeling
marginalized and not a part of the instructional process for their students.
Concerns About Student Engagement
The data revealed that the second biggest concern for educators was student engagement and “showing
up” for online sessions. A significant number of educators reported concerns over the lack of student
engagement. One commented, “I had about 60% student engagement and I am concerned I will have the
same limited amount [if we continue virtual in the fall].” Another participant noted, “I will be concerned
that without seeing students every day some of the same issues will occur regarding lack of motiva-
tion, decreased engagement and withdrawal/frustration.” The participants reported feeling powerless in
increasing their attendance and participation.
In addition to barriers with student engagement, fostering a virtual environment that was interactive
was also difficult. For example, one participant stated, “it was difficult to teach without the interaction of
questions, teachable moments, and experiences in the classroom.” Another shared their concern related
to their students completing the school year: “I was unable to get all the students to complete the year,
as a few just bowed out of the process no matter what I did.” Many participants expressed anxiety about
their ability to reach their students in the online format, “It was a challenge to have students that did not
complete any of the work (or very little). I was unable to get in contact with them or their families. I
also found that most students [were] unresponsive to emails or messages offering them help or sugges-
49

tions.” Creating meaningful student engagement and interactive learning opportunities was a significant
barrier for instruction and may be a leading cause of worry associated with potential vicarious trauma.
Barriers to Technology Access and Use
Limited access to technology and technological support was a challenge many students faced during
the pandemic. Teachers felt that students were not able to complete their assignments and participate in
online learning due to technology needs. For example, one stated that, “Access to internet/devices isn’t
always present or equitable. Parents (some) aren’t familiar with technology and Google platform and
cannot assist their child.” Another shared, “being unable to help kids with connectivity issues, and
troubleshooting non-working links were all issues that I continued to encounter.” The pandemic illumi-
nated additional inequities in educational access experienced by students and families within vulnerable
populations and access to technology.
Equally important was the lack of proficiency in how to use the technology and programs that were
required by the districts. Many participants felt that the use of technology was a challenge that they were
unable to overcome. Some of the concerns had to do with the lack of familiarity with the technology as
well as the lack of training provided to use the technology. For example, one participant stated “Some
tech issues weren’t easy to resolve remotely. [There was a] lack of training on tech that was recommended
to be used.” The challenges with technology experienced by teachers and students were perceived to
impede the teaching and learning process.
Lack of Work Completion/Student Accountability
Challenges related to students’ lack of work completion and accountability was a hindrance to teachers’
ability to monitor their students’ academic progress. Participants’ pondered “how do we encourage work
completion?” Yet another noted, “Unfortunately, we had some students that did not join our Google
classrooms and/or complete any work.” The lack of work completion and subsequent accountability
provided additional challenges and concern for the participants. It increased their perception that they
were unable to address the various needs of their students.
Grading
Monitoring student progress was negatively affected not only by the barriers to technology access, but
also to moving to an on-line teaching/learning modality. One participant noted the challenge of “pro-
viding student grades based on work they completed independently while only receiving synchronous
instruction one time per week” and another stated, “I did not feel that expectations for how to grade were
clear.” Similarly, another responded, “I don’t know that I was able to hold as high standards as I would
have liked. It seemed that kids didn’t have to do much to get good grades….I don’t know how to fairly
hold them accountable.” Other participants shared the concern of the change of their role from “teacher
to grader.” Concerns regarding how to meet the demands of ensuring adequate student progress were
clearly noted in the data.
50

Communication
Participants reported a lack of effective communication by administration during the response to CO-
VID-19. These perceptions were derived from several factors such as not knowing enough to be prepared
for the change in the instructional format and unclear expectations of various components of instruction
(i.e.: grading, student engagement, accountability). One participant summed it up well in stating, “all the
programs were thrown at us in an email with no training.” Others noted a lack of clearly communicated
“…directives from administration based on research into best practices…they do surprisingly little to
actually lead.” Other participants emphasized the constant change in what was communicated: “changing
plans involving curriculum and teaching [was difficult]. I felt like I was told what I needed to do and
did it, then all of a sudden the plan was changed, and I had to redo everything.” The perceived ineffec-
tive communication left participants confused and frustrated about the uncertainty related to teaching,
student learning, and best practices to support effective instruction in an on-line format.
Parent Engagement
The lack of parent engagement emerged as a challenge that was difficult to overcome. Participants noted
that many parents did not join or engage in the Google classroom through the family access and did not
assist with the lessons. Participants expressed frustration in the lack of parent support to the teacher and
to the students and felt that parents “just said what I wanted to hear but never followed through” while
others were “not responding to emails.” Educators found it to be “difficult to hold the students account-
able for turning in lessons” without parental support which exacerbated the degree of frustration.
How Did Covid-19 Impact Your Emotional Health?
Much of the data rests within the emotional and mental impacts the pandemic had on the teachers and
students. Educators reported a perceived notion that the instruction was compromised. A high-level
analysis of the rich data revealed specific mental health factors affecting teachers’ instructional practices.
The following summary will be organized by the identified themes.
Anxiety
One of the most significant impacts of the pandemic was anxiety experienced by the educators. Fear of
the virus was prominent. For example, one participant summed it up by stating,
It was and is very stressful, especially in the beginning when I knew that I had been around a lot of
people and I was concerned about my families’ and my own exposure. I was also concerned for people
that I knew who had it…So overall, my stress and anxiety level was very high.
Another shared concern related to uncertainty: “Unknowns and lack of control has caused anxiety.”
Participants reported that suddenly moving to an on-line teaching and learning format negatively af-
fected their anxiety levels. Many participants expressed anxiety about their ability to reach their students
in the online format:
51

I was stressed and anxious about my ability to deliver instruction in the distance learning format. Be-
cause I don’t use a lot of technology in my regular teaching, I lacked confidence and was anxious about
trying to learn the technology to use it effectively especially given the limited time we had to be ready
for online instruction...
A participant revealed a significant amount of the “stress of on-the-job training.” Anxiety related to
the pandemic impacted the participants’ ability to complete their daily teaching tasks with ease.
Worry
Although anxiety played a significant role in the emotional distress that the participants experienced,
the sense of worry regarding factors related to COVID-19 were also present. Some of the worry had to
do with the fear of illness. For example, one participant stated, “I became sick and then hyper worried
about my family and the spread of the virus.” Others were worried for their students and their overall
wellness and education: “…I constantly worried about my students and their families and felt so help-
less at times knowing how much they struggled both with access to essentials and with academics…”
while another stated “I worried about my students lack of schedule and motivation to complete work.”
The impact on vulnerable students also was highlighted by one participant, “Many students fell through
the cracks.” Experiencing anxiety and worry was reported as negatively affecting the participants’
emotional well-being.
Work/Life Balance Struggles
Participants noted that trying to balance multiple demands of work and life while working remotely due
to COVID-19 presented many challenges and negatively affected their emotional health. One participant
summed it up well: “It seemed like an impossible task to do it all. Trying to be the teacher I want to
be, the parent, the family member, it was all too much.” Of particular concern were those who had the
responsibility of young ones at home that required their care:
Like many, I found it extremely challenging to balance working full time from home with a young toddler
in the house. A lot of anxiety, stress, and sleeplessness came from trying to be the best teacher, colleague,
wife, and mother I could be while living in the midst of a pandemic.
The work/life balance for teachers may have been challenging prior to the pandemic, but in the midst
of it the challenge seemed insurmountable to many.
Others focused on the struggle of educating their students while also assisting their own children in
their schooling:
It was hard! I have 2 young kids and between trying to teach my students, and my own children all of
my ‘self-care’ went out the window. I was working during every break, staying up until midnight doing
work and checking work. We were all stressed.
52

Isolation
Another theme that emerged in the narrative data was the feeling of being isolated and missing their
normal interactions. One participant noted,
The COVID-19 pandemic was a very sad time. Everything about it was sad. I don’t believe isolating
people from families, friends, teachers, and community members for this length of time is healthy. I
believe it created a lot of stress and sadness in the lives of many, many people.
and another stated, “It was a huge adjustment in the teaching department; but [there was] great dif-
ficulty having to cancel trips, staying at home, not being able to do the same activities outside the home
as normal.” There were many disappointments and loneliness expressed in the narrative data that included
descriptions of what was lost from normalcy.
Stressed/Overwhelmed
Participants noted a sense of increased stress and feelings of being overwhelmed during COVID-19.
These feelings were brought about from several aspects such as the change in the instructional format,
the apprehensiveness of the unknown, the lack of preparedness and decreased confidence in their in-
structional impact. One participant summed it up well in stating,
I was pretty stressed about my job. I felt that all the parts of it that I really enjoy (interacting with teen-
agers on a daily basis, the casual conversations with kids before/after class, etc.) were absent and the
parts that I don’t typically enjoy (grading and email) were all that was left. I found myself working many
more hours but being much less content with the quality of instruction and the quality of work coming
from my students. I became so disillusioned and frustrated by the lack of student engagement despite the
crazy hours that I was putting in that I sometimes cried and often couldn’t sleep.
Other participants emphasized the stress of the instructional demands due to online learning,
I really had no time to ‘turn off.’ I felt that I was compelled to answer my students as quickly as possible.
I was stressed about my slides, were they engaging, could I get my point across to the students? My mind
was constantly working and I was not sleeping as well as I could have.
Indications of educators feeling overwhelmed and stressed was expressed throughout the narrative
data as a result of the sudden interruption to traditional face-to-face teaching and needing to change
modalities without training and preparation.
Working From Home/Time and Stress
Participants noted that trying to balance multiple demands of work and life while working remotely due
to COVID-19 presented many challenges they had a hard time overcoming. Several participants indicated
that time management and stress management were particularly challenging: “The amount of time to
meet with different groups, adapt and modify so many lessons, attend live sessions, attend meetings
53

with admin, and the paperwork…[was overwhelming].” Of particular concern were those who had the
responsibility of young ones at home that required their care: “Not being in school makes it hard to do
all this and be a parent to two kids all day/night”. Participants repeatedly shared comments regarding the
increased and complex demands of working from home while balancing their personal responsibilities
and the ways in which this impacted their overall well-being.
STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
After reviewing the results of the COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey and the critical needs identified
above, the following recommendations have been developed to mitigate the effects of these challenges.
Supports for Relationships
In order to support fostering strong student and parent relationships, meaningful and regular interac-
tions and communications should be established. One participant highlighted the need for incorporating
social-emotional “check-ins” during the week. The participant remarked, “students showed up for the
social-emotional check-ins even if they didn’t show up to class-time.” Additionally, another participant
shared she was “encouraged [to have] more frequent and immediate collaboration with parents.” These
two examples highlight the importance of increasing opportunities to engage both with students and
families to foster strong connections when there is an unexpected and lengthy interruption to the delivery
of instruction.
Instructional Support
A variety of needed instructional support was identified by the participants. Guidance related to expecta-
tions for student work completion as well as how best to assess student learning in a virtual classroom
was also requested. A key concern for participants was needed support meeting the needs of students
with learning differences. On-line programs designed to support differentiated instruction were also re-
quested, “I would need an online program to help me differentiate reading for my students. One that was
academically sound for learners with significant needs AND one that could easily be used by parents at
home.” Virtual labs, ability to meet with small groups of students, as well as the opportunity to engage
with students daily were identified as key instructional support needs.
Student Engagement and Support
Transitioning from in-class instruction to a virtual classroom posed numerous challenges for teachers and
students. Support in fostering student engagement is of critical need. One participant shared, “I also think
the administration needs to be able to provide more support to teachers in reaching out to families, and a
clear, transparent process for reaching students and families who are not engaged.” Several participants
requested the need to allow for synchronous instructional opportunities while others requested support
in offering increased physical check-ins with the students. Increasing synchronous meeting times with
students offers meaningful opportunities to practice the empathetic approach in order to foster academic
learning (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020).
54

Parent Engagement and Support
During times of crisis, it is critical to engage all stakeholders, especially parents, to mitigate stressors
on students as they face the challenges related to an abrupt change in the learning experience. Offering
immediate support related to engagement, communication, and resources is necessary. One participant
identified this critical need,
...more support to students’ families [is needed]. Parents need training on how to use the technology that
their children are using. Live parent tech briefings, curriculum updates, emotional support workshops
for parents on how to support their children [is also needed]. Parents were reaching out to me to help
with their children’s emotional breakdowns and I did not know how to help. Parents also need direct
tech support. They reached out to me after not receiving help from tech help tickets. I was overwhelmed
with tech emails and frustrated parents.
Many participants echoed this need. One participant argued, “I would need the district to continue to
provide technology and internet access to families so they could access the learning platforms.” Offering
parents meaningful and frequent communication and engagement opportunities as well as technology
support and resources will enable teachers to continue to meet the academic needs of students while
fostering effective collaboration with families.
Professional Development Support
Intentional professional development to meet the demands of an abrupt interruption to the delivery of
the teaching and learning experience is warranted. Authentic professional development in self-care
strategies and on-line teaching practices are a priority. One participant shared, “I would need some pro-
fessional development on how to make better videos of myself where I can present material to students
on a screen. I would also need some help setting up google meets with entire classes.” Another shared,
participating in “professional development of new and fun ways to create resources and activities for
students and families” would be a benefit as well.
Lastly, creating time and space for colleagues to meet and collaborate around new professional devel-
opment would be critical “... time to talk and work with my team” was highlighted by another participant.
Offering opportunities for teachers to share successes and challenges and experience intentional profes-
sional development to address the immediate needs of a swift, unexpected change in the delivery of
instruction would provide a much-needed lifeline to mitigate challenges faced by teachers and students.
Administrator Support
Effective leadership is key to supporting the school community in the event of an abrupt interruption
to the delivery of instruction. Participants identified three critical expectations of building and district
leadership: communication, policies and procedures related to student expectations (work completion,
grading, etc.), and specific considerations for students with diverse learning needs. One participant il-
luminated these needs,
55

I need reasonable, consistent, and clearly communicated expectations for both myself and my students.
This includes expectations for student attendance, how to deal with students who are not attending or
engaging, late work and grading policies, expectations for providing accommodations for students with
IEPs, how materials would be distributed and collected, etc.
Another demanded, “FAR more communications and support from counselors and administrators,
especially the high school principals…[was needed].” Ensuring effective communication and clear
expectations regarding policies and procedures will enable teachers to mitigate the challenges faced by
teachers, students, and families as they navigate a pandemic or any other interruption in the teaching
and learning experience.
In addition to clear communication from building administration to teachers regarding the policies and
procedures identified above, ensuring that messaging and communication is consistent between district
and building levels to the greater school community is needed, “I would need to feel that the goals and
expectations of the central and building level administrators were more aligned because occasionally
there were mixed messages/signals, and that only added to the stress of the situation.” In challenging
times, clear, streamlined, and effective communication from administration will eliminate confusion and
minimize stress for all stakeholders.
State and National Policy Development
Although this study and its results are bound by two school districts in southeastern Pennsylvania, much
may be learned and applied to reimagining educational policies at the state and federal levels. Evaluat-
ing and creating policies related to meeting the needs of vulnerable populations cannot be left to school
districts alone. Collaborating with state and national educational leaders to identify resources that support
professional development in the areas of trauma-informed instruction as well as innovative technologies
that support distant learning is paramount.
Additionally, examining and enhancing teacher preparation and administrator certification programs
to require competencies in the areas of social emotional learning and collaboration would offer critical
foundational knowledge to support faculty and administration in meeting the needs of students and their
families, not only in the time of crisis but also in their everyday practice. Finally, and most importantly,
creating state required competencies and systems to support self-care practices for educators beyond the
standard one day obligatory “professional development” session should be implemented.
Research to Practice Using a Trauma-Informed Approach
The conceptual framework for a trauma informed approach was developed by the NCTSN, which was
formed as a collaborative network to enhance treatment, services, and access to care for traumatized
children and their families (Pynoos et al., 2008). It addresses the full range of types of trauma ranging
in age from early childhood through late adolescence. Along with many of the resources the NCTSN
has developed, the NCTSN system framework is most helpful in illustrating why becoming “trauma-
informed” should be an essential component for any education system (National Child Traumatic Stress
Network, Schools Committee, 2017).
The goal of the framework is to provide “strategic guidance” and includes core areas for educational
systems to focus on improvement and organizational change to create a trauma-informed environment.
56

The framework as proposed by the NCTSN, is rooted in the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)
framework pyramid (Sulkowski & Michael, 2014). The MTSS is used as an early identification tool
to support students with learning and behavioral difficulties. The Trauma Informed Schools Systems
Framework uses all three tiers of the MTSS but includes trauma-informed concepts and practices. It uses
a holistic and ecological approach and acknowledges the contexts in which these tiers function including
school environment/culture, community and family partnerships (2014).
Tier 1 is the foundation for “Creating a Safe Environment and Promoting Healthy and Successful
Students” and includes the backbone to support safe environments that promote healthy and success-
ful students and staff. Tier 2, “Early Intervention/Identifying Students and Staff At Risk” is the way in
which schools identify and respond to students and staff who are at risk and/or have been exposed to
trauma. Tier 3 is the level of “Intensive Support” that schools provide to students whose behaviors and/
or experiences warrant intensive interventions.
The framework goes a step further and offers ten core elements relevant for a trauma-informed school
system and can be used to make recommendations to support educators, staff and students in the class-
room. Many of these suggestions were intended for use in a traditional face-to-face format but could
also be used for distance learning or an online delivery method. The ten core elements provided by the
National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2017) include:
1. Identifying and assessing traumatic stress

2. Addressing and treating traumatic stress
3. Teaching trauma education and awareness
4. Fostering partnerships with students and families
5. Creating a trauma-informed learning environment (social/emotional skills and wellness)
6. Being culturally responsive
7. Integrating emergency management/crisis response
8. Understanding and addressing staff self-care and secondary traumatic stress
9. Evaluation and revising school discipline policies and practices
10. Collaborating across systems and establishing community partnerships
Students will be engaged when they know someone cares about them and families will be more likely
to be a supportive partner when the school is prioritizing students’ physical and emotional well-being
(Berg et al., 2017; Chafouleas et al., 2016; Lelli, 2021).
The Guideposts for Trauma Informed Strategies listed below were created by the researchers as a
result of the perceptions of the participants from the The COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey as well as
recommendations provided in the research literature. They include strategies and suggestions for educators
to consider and are meant to be used in tandem with the NCTSN framework. Following the Guideposts
for Trauma Informed Strategies, Table 2 is presented and includes recommendations stemming from
the analysis of the data garnered from the study. Recommendations are included to address an abrupt
interruption of traditional face-to-face instruction. It should be noted that these recommendations or
strategies may be used regardless of instructional delivery.
57

Guidepost 1: Relationships/Partnerships
Research has proven that the presence of a consistent, supportive adult is a great source of building re-
silience for children (Burke-Harris, 2018; Ginsburg & Jablow, 2006; Jennings, 2019) and a relationship
with a caring teacher can support students in the classroom, especially for our most vulnerable students
(Hughes, 2012; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). As stated in Lelli (2021), “teachers are uniquely positioned to
offer the safety, care, and security needed by children while promoting healthy relationships and the
motivation to learn” (p.70). Likewise, connecting with outside agencies in building partnerships can
help support the educational landscape. One example of a way to build community partnerships could
be connecting with local domestic violence agencies. Oftentimes such agencies or nonprofits provide
free education programming for local schools that promote healthy relationships. This is one example
of how schools can partner with outside various community agencies to support the curriculum.
During an unexpected interruption like the pandemic, it is especially important for teachers to build
relationships with their students so that they can support them during such extremely difficult times. It
is also imperative to support families by connecting them with community agencies.
Lastly, teachers need to connect with one another as well. Space and time are necessary for teachers
to connect with one another, commiserate and share educational practices. Whether teachers are online
or face-to-face, building relationships with each other is of utmost importance. Professional develop-
ments and additional training can contribute to relationship building. Setting aside time for educators to
converse without a strict agenda should also be provided.
To support building relationships while teaching virtually or in-person, there are a number of strate-
gies that can be implemented with relative ease, including:
• Gratitude bombs are quick emails, notes, or videos students (and teachers) can create to thank
someone or show appreciation within the school system. Combining this with literature (a read
aloud of pertinent books connecting with gratitude such as, Have You Filled a Bucket Today? by
Susan McCloud) is a way to tie in reading and writing competencies as well.
• Class websites and/or class newsletters can be created as another way to grow relationships with
caregivers. Students can make individual contributions.
• “Check-ins” with students can be done regularly--every day--to see how they are doing. Talk to
them. Share with them how you have faced problems in your life and how you solved them. When
conferring with them, review their strengths and the goals they have set for themselves.
• Cooperative learning strategies can be shared as another way to support and build student-student
relationships and social-emotional learning.
• Requests for student input about your teaching practices can be benefcial. Students will feel val-
ued when they are provided opportunities for their voices to be heard and in turn it builds stronger
student-teacher relationships.
Guidepost 2: Routines/Predictability
COVID-19, being an identified batch (mass) trauma, has created feelings of unpredictability for many
students and educators alike. One way to ease these feelings is the creation of routines to increase predict-
ability. One must note, however that strategic flexibility related to these routines is necessary to allow
grace for yourself and your students. Routines are important regardless of the instructional modality.
58

Some examples for creating routines include the delivery of check-ins (live or recorded) at the same time
every day, the inclusion of a calming activity like a read-aloud to help with dysregulation, and planning
for connections amongst peers such as an opening activity. Providing students with “agendas” for the
day ahead and providing ample transition time with announcements both written and through expressive
language will also provide students with a safe, predictable environment.
Clear communication between all parties is another consideration that should be executed to offer
security and predictability. Effective communication is critical between the teacher, the students and their
caregivers; the administration and the caregivers; and the administration and the teachers. Consistent
and frequent communication can create stronger relationships between all parties. As a result, the school
can be a strong community committed to educating the children.
Guidepost 3: Resilience/Perseverance
Resiliency is a topic that is discussed a lot in the education field today. It refers to the ability to bounce
back or recover quickly from a difficulty. In our classrooms, we can model resiliency by sharing our lived
experiences with our students and offering compassion and insight. Also, teaching students to recognize
each other’s strengths will help them to grow and change. Teaching students about growth mindset and
the role of mistakes in the learning process (Dweck, 2006) is another reminder of resilience; using effort
and strategy focused feedback encourages perseverance. All of this can be achieved by offering forma-
tive assessments with growth-oriented feedback, teaching goal setting and rewards for goal attainment,
facilitating peer feedback, reviewing long term assignments, and offering one-on-one conferencing to
support students as they work toward the goals they’ve set.
Guidepost 4: Rest/Pause
Educators, being in a helping profession field, need to ensure they are receiving appropriate rest and
self-care. Self-care helps to build resilience and support educators. In turn, self-care can decrease teacher
turnover (Brasfield, Lancaster, & Xu 2019). Teachers will only be able to master new instructional
challenges if they are in a good place both mentally and physically (Goodwin & Shebby, 2021). The
good news is that teachers can be proactively supported through the use of strategies and by instituting
a supportive framework within the school system. It is important to note there is not one way to provide
or implement self-care strategies. The following essential actions can provide the needed support for
educators in the field:
• Provide opportunities for teachers to connect with one another. This was discussed briefy in
Guidepost 1 above. While educators have been teaching remotely during the pandemic, it has been
more difcult for them to connect with each other. Continuing to provide the teachers the time to
connect is a must. This may require something else to be taken of their plate to allow the time and
space for this meaningful connection to occur.
• Encourage the use of gratitude journals. Gratitude journals may be a way to reduce stress levels,
keep negative emotions at bay, improve mental and physical health and improve sleep (Lelli,
2021).
59

Table 2. Guideposts for trauma informed strategies to support research to practice
Guidepost 1 Guidepost 2 Guidepost 3 Guidepost 4

The COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey
Relationships & Routines & Resilience & Rest &
Recommendations
Partnerships Predictability Perseverance Pause
Provide professional development to educators about
how to build relationships and be trauma informed X X X
with students in a virtual format.
Outline an effective communication plan for students
X X
and families.
Offer teachers and students opportunities to interact
X X X
“in-person” for follow up instruction.
Provide synchronous meeting times to allow teachers
the opportunity to continue their relationships with
X X
students and “check-in” with them regarding their
needs.
Provide specific community/parent outreach
regarding the importance of family engagement in the
educational process. Offering workshops, resources,
training, etc. to families so that they know that they X
play an important role along with specific things they
can do to facilitate the learning process would be
beneficial.
Offer opportunities for teachers for continued
collaborative support as well as professional X X
development related to instructional technology.
Offer teachers resources and opportunities for self-
care and clear communications regarding the status of X
students.
Provide teachers with specific techniques and
strategies to use at home to assist teachers in
prioritizing their self-care. Scheduling of specific
X
times for synchronous instruction may provide a
schedule that helps to separate the work time from the
home responsibilities
Facilitate social events, even virtual, should be
scheduled in order to provide the educators with the
X
opportunity for social interaction without a work
focus.
Provide reading materials (as a form of bibliotherapy)
and other resources as a source of distraction to the
daily circumstances may be beneficial to educators
X X X
during these times. At the very least, encouraging
collegial support to the education community should
be emphasized.
Encourage the use of self-care routines, techniques,
X X X
and stress relievers for teachers
Provide training in instructional techniques for the

X
online format.
Clear communication of expectations, available
supports, and updates are also important to alleviate X X X
stress.
60

• Recommend exercise. Any form of exercise is necessary for positive mental and physical health.
Walking, biking, swimming, yoga are all wonderful activities for wellness.
• Provide and encourage the use of reading materials. There are positive efects to reading and can
be a type of therapy known as bibliotherapy (Jack & Ronan, 2008). Beginning and maintaining a
daily habit of reading is an opportunity for rest, pause and self-care.
Although the data garnered from The COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey examines the significant
negative impact the pandemic had on the instructional practice and emotional well-being of educators,
incorporating trauma-informed practices illuminated by the Guideposts for Trauma Informed Strategies
above can do much to mitigate these significant challenges in the future. These Guideposts for Trauma
Informed Strategies are designed to not only address challenges presented by a global crisis where there
is an immediate interruption to the delivery of instruction, but more importantly, are designed to offer
a framework that may buffer the negative impact of issues that can interrupt the teaching and learning
experience.
Recommendations for future research examining a deeper look at the impact of COVID-19 on vulner-
able populations: those from low socio-economic households, Limited English Proficient students, and
students with learning differences is warranted to assess the possible long-term outcomes. Continued
investigation into the anticipated long-term educational impacts of COVID-19 (cognitive, social, and
emotional) is necessary to develop interventions designed to intervene and lessen these consequences.
Finally, research is warranted to explore the students’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on their
educational experiences to offer a comparison to those expressed by educators.
CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic and the pivot to online emergency instruction presented many challenges
for students, educators and administrators alike. The results of the qualitative research study garnered
through the responses to the COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey provided rich data about the barriers
and experiences presented by this sudden change to delivering instruction. Challenges related to effective
communication from both the district and building levels created confusion and uncertainty among the
teachers and staff. Issues related to inadequate technology for families interrupted the teaching and learn-
ing experiences and burdened the teachers to identify alternative ways in which to meet their students’
learning needs. Concerns related to meeting the academic needs of students with learning disabilities
were illuminated as well as the emotional toll participants felt as a result of COVID-19.
Through the analysis of the data, recommendations were outlined including the implementation of
Trauma Informed Practices (TIP). Additional supports were suggested through the researcher designed
Guideposts for Trauma Informed Strategies, which may reimagine pedagogical practices currently used
in school systems today. The intention is to mitigate negative impacts of future, unexpected interruptions
to the educational experience. Encouraging state departments of education to consider enhancing social
emotional learning and trauma-informed pedagogical competencies in partnership with institutions of
61

higher education may support pre-service teachers in developing the skills and strategies needed to meet
these future challenges. Inviting institutions of higher education to examine their teacher preparation
program to ensure the inclusion of these critical competencies may meet the immediate development
needs of both pre-service and in-service teachers through undergraduate and graduate programs. Finally,
encouraging local school districts and their personnel to examine and include trauma informed frameworks
may provide equity, access and social emotional learning support skills for all students while advocating
for educators’ overall well-being.
REFERENCES
Anda, R. F., Felitti, F. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C., Perry, B. D., Dube, S. R., & Giles,
W. H. (2006, April). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. A
convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and
Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186. doi:10.100700406-005-0624-4 PMID:16311898
Berg, J., Osher, D., Moroney, D., & Yoder, N. (2017). The intersection of school climate and social and
emotional development. American Institutes for Research.
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih, M.,
Pete, J., & Olcott, D., Jr., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, Jr., A. V., Roberts, J., Pazurek,
A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, ... Paskevicius, M. (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. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3878572
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to
Brasfield, M. W., Lancaster, C., & Xu, Y. J. (2019). Wellness as a mitigating factor for teacher burnout.
Journal of Education, 199(3), 166–178. doi:10.1177/0022057419864525
Burke-Harris, N. (2018). The deepest well: Healing the long-term effects of childhood adversity. Blue-
bird Publishing.
Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Overstreet, S., & Santos, N. M. (2016). Toward a blueprint for trauma-
informed service delivery in schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 144–162. doi:10.100712310-015-9166-8
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID...and beyond.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457–465. doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961
Duke, N. N., Perringell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowksy, I. W. (2010). Adolescent violence perpetra-
tion: Associations with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Pediatrics, 125(4), 778–786.
doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0597 PMID:20231180
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballentine Books.
Ginsburg, K. R., & Jablow, M. M. (2006). Building resilience in children and teens: Giving kids roots
and wings. American Academy of Pediatrics.
62

Goodwin, B., & Shebby, S. (2021). Research matters/restoring teachers’ efficacy. Educational Leader-
ship, 78(4), 76–77.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency
remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review.
Horesh, D., & Brown, A. D. (2020). Traumatic stress in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical
gaps and adapt to new realities. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(4),
331–335. doi:10.1037/tra0000592 PMID:32271070
Hughes, J. N. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and school adjustment: Progress and remaining
challenges. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 319–327. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.67228
8 PMID:22537527
Jack, S. J., & Ronan, K. R. (2008). Bibliotherapy: Practice and research. School Psychology International,
29(2), 161–182. doi:10.1177/0143034308090058
Jennings, P. A. (2019). The trauma sensitive classroom: Building resilience with compassionate teach-
ing. W. W. Norton Company.
Kim, L. E., & Ashbury, K. (2020). ‘Like a rug had been pulled from under you’: The impact of CO-
VID-19 on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(4), 1062–1083. doi:10.1111/bjep.12381 PMID:32975830
Lelli, C. (2021). Trauma-sensitive schools: The importance of instilling grit, determination, and resil-
ience. Rowman and Littlefield.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
doi:10.1037/h0054346
National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Schools Committee. (2017). Creating, supporting, and sus-
taining trauma-informed schools: A system framework. National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.
Oberle, E., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between class-
room teacher burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine,
159, 30–37. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.031 PMID:27156042
Pynoos, R. S., Fairbank, J. A., Steinberg, A. M., Amaya-Jackson, L., Gerrity, E., Mount, M. L., & Maze,
J. (2008). The National Child Traumatic Stress Network: Collaborating to improve the standard of care.
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 39(4), 389–395. doi:10.1037/a0012551
Sabol, T., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher-child relationships. Attachment
& Human Development, 14(3), 213–231. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672262 PMID:22537521

Sulkowski, M. L., & Michael, K. (2014). Meeting the mental health needs of homeless students in
schools: A Multi-Tiered System of Support framework. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 145–151.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.014
63

ADDITIONAL READING
Aguilar, E. (2018). Onward: Cultivating emotional resilience in educators. Jossey-Bass.

doi:10.1002/9781119441731
Alexander, J. (2019). Building trauma sensitive schools: Your guide to creating safe, supportive learning
environments for all students. Paul H. Brookes.
Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Overstreet, S., & Santos, N. M. (2016). Toward a blueprint for trauma
informed service delivery in schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 144–162. doi:10.100712310-015-9166-8
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Smith, D. (2019). All learning is social and emotional: Helping students develop
essential skills for the classroom and beyond. ASCD Publications.
Gibbs, S., & Miller, A. (2014). Teachers’ resilience and well-being: A role for educational psychology.
Teachers and Teaching, 20(5), 609–621. doi:10.1080/13540602.2013.844408
Gorski, P. (2020). How trauma informed are we, really? Educational Leadership, 78(2), 14–19.
PMID:33614921
Gross, K. (2020). Trauma doesn’t stop at the school door: Strategies and solutions for educators, PreK-
College. Teachers College Press.
Klapproth, F., Federkeil, L., Heinschke, F., & Jungmann, T. (2020). Teachers’ experiences of stress and
their coping strategies during COVID-19 induced distance teaching. Journal of Pedagogical Research,
4(4), 444–452. doi:10.33902/JPR.2020062805
Mansfield, C. F., Beltman, S., Broadley, T., & Weatherby-Fell, N. (2016). Building resilience in teacher
education: An evidenced informed framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2015.11.016
COVID-19 Educator Impact Survey: Researchers’ designed survey consisting of both Likert scale
questions and open-ended responses to garner perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on educators’
instructional practices and overall well-being.
Empathetic Approach: An approach derived from a willingness to deeply understand and prioritize
the social emotional needs of another during a crisis or time of difficulty.
Guideposts for Trauma Informed Strategies: Researchers’ designed approach that offers strategies
grounded in research to facilitate connection and application of theory to practice.

Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Framework: A framework that includes a multi-tiered
approach for the early identification and support of students with learning and emotional/behavior needs.
National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) System Framework: A framework used by
school systems to make improvements and organizational changes to ensure the use of trauma informed
practices.
64

Trauma: An event that causes a negative emotional and/or physical response. The response may be
immediate or latent and may impact developmental, physiological, cognitive, behavioral, and social-
emotional well-being.
Trauma Informed Practices: A structure that incorporates recognition and responding to trauma
by implementing strategies to mitigate the adverse impact experienced.
Vicarious Trauma: A term also known as compassion fatigue which creates emotional stress and
concern experienced by educators due to the stories/trauma experiences of their students.
65
66
Chapter 4
The University Instructors’
Opinions About Emergency
Remote Education in Turkey
Halil Kayaduman
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5316-1893
Inonu University, Turkey
Ali Battal
Selçuk University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
This study explores university instructors’ opinions regarding emergency remote education practices
during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research included 248 university instructors from 29 universities
in Turkey. The fndings revealed the instructors’ positive and negative opinions, educational prefer-
ences, and support demands. While instructors found the process useful in terms of cost-efectiveness,
providing individualized learning environments, and supporting ubiquitous learning, their negative
opinions stemmed from course-, student-, technology-, and instructor-related factors. The instructors
demanded support in technology and training aspects, and they preferred face-to-face education rather
than blended and distance education. This study suggests considering the technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK) framework for professional development programs. As well, it emphasizes
the importance of open educational resources and collaboration eforts at the institution level to share
digital resources to eliminate the digital divide and digital literacy issues.
INTRODUCTION
The Covid-19 outbreak has affected many areas of life. After the World Health Organization declared
the virus as a pandemic (WHO, 2020), many countries, including Turkey, implemented lockdown pro-
cedures to hinder its spread. As one of the results, universities and schools were suspended and they
rapidly moved their education practices to online environments. Accordingly, teachers, faculties, and
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch004

The University Instructors’ Opinions About Emergency Remote Education in Turkey
students were expected to adopt this new education format in a short time (Alshehri et al., 2020; Bozkurt
& Sharma, 2020; Rahiem, 2020). This rapid and unexpected transition to online has brought various
challenges. Exploring the challenges associated with the implementations of this new format in Turkey’s
higher education institutions during the Covid-19 pandemic is critical to facilitate the process for more
satisfactory learning and teaching outcomes and to guide future practices in education.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Distance education has a critical role in education and provides many advantages. Due to technological
advancements, distance education has transformed into an online format; subsequently, online campuses,
courses, and programs have emerged and become widespread due to facilitating access to learning
materials, promoting cost-effectiveness, and providing personalized learning environments (Moore &
Kearsley, 2011). With the recent Covid-19 outbreak, educational institutions have moved their practices to
an online format, taking into consideration the advantages of distance education. Although the practices
during the Covid-19 pandemic seem to be distance education, the current literature distinguishes online
or distance education from emergency remote education. While distance education is expressed as a
more planned and guided practice that offers an alternative method to face-to-face education, emergency
remote education is a sub-branch of distance education that emerged as an obligation to survive in the
time of crisis (Bozkurt et al., 2020). Given the rapid and obligatory transition to online education due
to the Covid-19 outbreak, the practices in the current situation could be considered emergency remote
education.
The research studies in the literature explained that emergency remote education revealed some of
the challenges regarding educational implementations. The digital divide is one of the problems and it is
expressed as the division between those who are able and unable to access digital technologies (Selwyn,
2004). The practices in emergency remote education highly depend on technological devices and the
internet; as a result, the digital divide became a more evident problem (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). A
recent study, which spans the reflections from many countries around the world (Bozkurt et al., 2020),
stated that the digital divide was prominent in both developed and developing countries; people access-
ing digital technologies managed the emergency remote education process better than those who do not
have them. In another study, Fishbane and Tomer (2020) pointed out that students who are unable to
afford digital technologies and high-bandwidth internet connections struggled with additional problems
to catch up with their peers in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, Bozkurt (2020a) noted
that emergency remote education practices during the Covid-19 pandemic increased social injustice and
widened the gap among students depending on the facilities they have. Hence, the digital divide could
be said as one of the challenges that emerged as a result of emergency remote education.
Digital literacy is another challenge that students, teachers, and faculties had to deal with in the
time of the Covid-19 pandemic. Digital literacy is defined as the attitude, ability, and awareness of
people to access, manage, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information through digital tools (Martin &
Grudziecki, 2006). Bozkurt et al. (2020) stated that digital literacy is necessary for emergency remote
education practices and providing only digital technologies for students and instructors may not produce
expected outcomes in education. They further explained that most of the instructors and students did
not have sufficient digital competencies and skills required for this process. A recent study conducted
in a developing university of Turkey (Alma et al., 2020) found that some students lacked the necessary
67

knowledge and skills to use the learning management system and the faculties had concerns about the
students’ digital literacy level. Adedoyin and Soykan (2020) expressed that instructors and students
with low levels of digital literacy might not fulfill their roles in online learning and teaching at the time
of the pandemic. Similarly, Trust and Whalen (2020) noted that teachers who utilized technologies in
their teaching practices regularly before the pandemic made an easier transition to emergency remote
education. Moreover, there is a relationship between digital literacy and distance education perceptions
of students (Kayaduman & Battal, 2020). Therefore, one can conclude that the digital literacies of both
instructors and students have critical importance and have become one of the key barriers as a result of
emergency remote education during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Furthermore, the instructors have additional roles when they move their educational practices to
an online format. Keast (1997) stated that changing roles and responsibilities of instructors in distance
education is one of the obstacles. When instructors moved their teaching to an online environment, they
are supposed to be not only subject matter and pedagogical expert but also technology savvy so as to
produce digital content, and guide and assess their students (Anderson et al., 2001; Bawane & Spector,
2009; Berge, 1995; Egan & Akdere, 2005). Thus, instructors may experience technical and pedagogical
problems (Conrad, 2004) and accordingly, some set of concerns may arise, especially if they teach for
the first-time in distance education (Kayaduman & Demirel, 2019). Considering the rapid and manda-
tory transition to online education due to the Covid-19 pandemic, adaptation of instructors to new roles
that come with emergency remote education may be more troublesome. The recent studies conducted
during the Covid-19 outbreak explained that faculty members had a lack of online teaching experience
(Bao, 2020) and most of them had difficulty in assessing their students’ learning (Cutri et al., 2020).
Hence, exploring this process from instructors’ perspectives is of paramount importance since they are
the main practitioners in education.
Although some studies already explored the process of emergency remote education during the Covid-19
pandemic from the perspectives of different users in the ecosystem of distance education in Turkey (Alma
et al., 2020; Bozkurt, 2020a, 2020b; Bozkurt et al., 2020; Karadağ & Yücel, 2020), very little is known
about the university instructors’ experiences. Therefore, investigating the university instructors’ opinions
about emergency remote education practices is a critical area of research for professional development
efforts and, consequently, for a more successful and sustainable implementation of distance education.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The present study aims to explore university instructors’ opinions regarding emergency remote education
practices that arose during the Covid-19 pandemic. Investigating the experiences of instructors when
implementing emergency remote education practices can first contribute to professional development
efforts and then inform decision-makers to help the transition to more efficient and effective distance
education implementations. The authors address the following research question in the scope of the study:
1. What are the university instructors’ opinions about emergency remote education practices during
the Covid-19 pandemic?
68

METHOD
The present study is qualitative (Patton, 2001) in nature and analyzes the data from open-ended questions
to reveal the university instructors’ opinions on emergency remote education practices during the Covid-19
pandemic. The case study, one of the qualitative research types, was used in the present study. Merriam
(1998) defines the case study as an in-depth description and investigation of a context. The reason for
employing this type of qualitative research is to investigate the emergency remote education practices
in their natural context to accomplish an in-depth analysis of university instructors’ opinions in Turkey.
Sampling and Procedure
The authors collected the data via an anonymous online survey from instructors working in Turkey’s
universities. Two hundred and forty-eight university instructors (158 males, 90 females) participated in
the current study. Tables 1-3 illustrate the demographic information of the participants.
Table 1. The instructor’s age groups in years
Age Group n
21-30 47
31-40 106
41-50 54
51-60 28
61 and over 13
Total 248
Note. n=number of instructors.
Table 2. The title of the instructors
Title n
Research Assistant 46
Instructor 46
Dr. Research Assistant 12
Dr. Instructor 13
Assistant Prof. Dr. 74
Associate Prof. Dr. 30

Prof. Dr. 27
Total 248
69

Table 3. The information and communication technologies that instructors have access to
n
Desktop Computer 189
Laptop Computer 241
Tablet Computer 97
Broadband Internet Connection 217
Smartphone 238
Printer 210
Office Software (Microsoft Office/Open Office, etc.) 230
Photo Editing Software 123
Video Editing Software 109
Statistics Software (SPSS, SAS, etc.) 135
The spring semester in Turkish universities generally starts at the beginning of February and ends
at the end of June. In mid-March 2020, shortly after the semester began, Turkish universities were sus-
pended by the Higher Education Council due to the Covid-19 outbreak (Bozkurt et al., 2020). After a
short break, the council allowed universities to continue their education via online format. In this direc-
tion, the universities carried out their courses whether synchronous or asynchronous format depending
on their facilities.
The data were collected from the second week of May to the last week of June via an online anony-
mous survey. The authors prepared an email containing the purpose of the study and the survey link,
and directly sent it to the instructors’ email addresses from 29 universities situated in different parts of
Turkey. The universities were randomly selected; 23 state and 6 foundation universities were included
in the current study. In total, 230 instructors from state universities and 18 instructors from foundation
universities participated in the study.
Instrument
In the scope of the study, the authors developed a survey containing demographic and open-ended ques-
tions. The demographic questions asked about gender, age, title, type of university (state or foundation),
and the information and communication technologies that they have access to. The two open-ended
questions sought to reveal the instructors’ opinions on distance education practices during the Covid-19
pandemic. The following open-ended questions were asked in this regard:
• What are your problems and suggestions about the use of information and communication tech-
nologies in education?
• What are your opinions about distance education practices during the Covid-19 pandemic (in both
aspects, positive/negative)?
70

Data Analysis
The authors followed the content analysis procedures (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013) to analyze the data
obtained from open-ended questions. Using the NVivo 12 program, the data was first imported and then
read multiple times to understand the opinions of the instructors in general. Then, the authors followed
the data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification steps to describe and interpret the
findings.
Validity and Reliability
The authors used a variety of strategies to ensure the validity and reliability of the study. First, they
randomly selected the universities in Turkey to provide a broader perspective regarding distance educa-
tion practices during the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, to ensure the credibility of the study, there was
no incentive or enforcement for instructors to participate in the study; they answered the questions
voluntarily. Third, for the transferability of the study, the authors explained in detail the instructors’
characteristics, the reason for employing the qualitative research, the instrument utilized in the study,
and the data analysis steps. Fourth, an expert holding a doctorate in the field of Educational Technol-
ogy checked the appropriateness of the themes and calculated the inter-coder reliability score using the
below formula (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Number of agreements
Reliability =
Number of agreements + Number of disagreements
The inter-coder reliability score was found to be appropriate (86%). Lastly, the authors kept the data
for the confirmability of the study.
FINDINGS
To answer the research question, the authors analyzed the data obtained from open-ended questions. Table
4 illustrates the findings regarding the university instructors’ opinions on distance education practices
during the Covid-19 pandemic. The main themes were grouped around positive and negative opinions,
education preferences, and support demands.
Instructors’ Positive Opinions Regarding Distance Education Practices

The findings revealed that some instructors had positive opinions about distance education practices.
Many instructors (f=20) first expressed that distance education practices supported ubiquitous learning
which means students could study anytime and anywhere. One said:
The absence of limitations such as time and place to learn is very nice in that it provides opportuni-
ties for students to attend the lessons whenever they want. There are very good applications that allow
individual and group studies, interactive activities, and remote exams…
71

The instructors (f=7) further acknowledged that distance education can support individualized learn-
ing. One stated that, “It is very useful in terms of individualization of education. It is an ideal method for
students to be aware of their responsibility”. In that regard, some instructors (f=4) believed that distance
education was more suitable for graduate education than associate or undergraduate education. One
stated, “I think it is more suitable for upper classes such as master’s or doctorate”.
The second positive opinion expressed by the instructors (f=19) was that distance education saved
time, energy, and costs. One instructor noted: “A positive aspect is that it has removed the barriers such as
time, space and cost for attending classes”. Similarly, the instructors (f=11) also found distance education
efficient in terms of time and energy since they could create and reuse digital content for their classes.
One articulated that, “The positive side is that I am recording lessons and students can listen again and
thus they don’t bother me too much while preparing homework”. Furthermore, some instructors (f=4)
noted the efficiency that distance education facilitated to reach many students at the same time. One
instructor stated that, “You can easily reach a large number of people in a short time”. As well, some
instructors (f=3) also considered that distance education supported technology integration in education.
Instructors’ Negative Opinions Regarding Distance Education Practices
The findings illustrated that the instructors mostly had negative opinions regarding distance education
practices. Of the negative themes, course-related factors were the most-stated factor by the instructors.
Most of the instructors (f=48) expressed that delivering courses interactively via distance education is
relatively difficult for them. One noted that, “What I find negative about distance education is the inability
to deliver interactive lessons. We feel like we are talking to a black wall because the students don’t turn
on their cameras”. Following that, the instructors (f=24) noted that measurement and evaluation methods
in distance education may not be reliable since there is not much control over the exams and assignments.
One said that, “I find the effectiveness and reliability of the exams conducted with distance education
problematic”. Furthermore, some instructors (f=21) stated that it is difficult to conduct applied courses
that require field experience via distance education. One instructor expressed:
Distance education is not very successful in applied fields. Virtual training in applications can often
fail or lead to a waste of time. It may be applicable in theoretical subjects, but we cannot say that it is
fully successful in applied fields.
In terms of student-related factors, many instructors (f=33) pointed out that students had insufficient
technological facilities such as the internet, desktop, laptop, or tablet computers and this causes problems
for implementing their courses online. One stated:
Especially in the distance education process, I and my students have limited access to technology from
time to time. Our students are expected to attend classes with a strong internet connection on the com-
puter, but not everyone has this at home.
Correspondingly, instructors (f=19) reported that most of the students do not attend classes and course
activities. One instructor articulated that, “The negative aspect of the distance education process is that
some students are unable to attend classes actively due to insufficient technological facilities”. Besides,
some instructors (f=11) stated that students’ digital literacy levels are not sufficient which negatively
72

affects distance education practices. An instructor noted: “The most negative aspect is that the students’
digital literacy levels are quite insufficient. This makes the process weary”.
Table 4. Instructors’ opinions on emergency remote education practices during Covid-19 pandemic
Main Themes f
Supporting ubiquitous learning 20
Providing cost-effectiveness principle in education 19
Facilitating to create and reuse of digital content 11
Positive Supporting individual learning 7
Facilitating to reach many students at the same time 4
More suitable for graduate education 4
Supporting technology integration in education 3
Difficulty in delivering courses interactively 48
Course-related factors Reliability issues in measurement and evaluation methods 24
Difficulty in delivering applied courses 21
Insufficient technological facilities 33
Low participation rates for classes 19
Student-related factors Digital literacy inadequacy 11
Negative Low level of motivation 10
Weak adaptation to distance education 3
Technical or infrastructure insufficiency 33
Technology-related factors
Software deficiencies 9
Requiring more effort to teach 3
Instructor-related factors Digital literacy inadequacy 3
Low level of motivation 2
Training support 15
Support Demands
Technological support 4
Face-to-face education 30
Preferences Blended education 8
Distance education 4
Note. f=frequency of data excerpts.
Furthermore, the instructors (f=10) expressed that students’ motivation levels are very low and they
do not participate in learning activities accordingly. One instructor pointed out that, “The negative side
of the distance education process is that students’ motivation is low and this prevents them from benefit-
ting the learning materials we have prepared”. As a result, some instructors (f=3) noted that students’
adaptation to distance education is relatively weak. In this regard, an instructor said that, “I think we do
not provide effective education in distance education after the cancellation process of the academic year
due to the pandemic. It was very difficult for us as well as for the students to adapt”.
73

In terms of technology-related factors, the instructors reported that having software deficiencies
and insufficient technical infrastructure negatively influenced distance education practices during the
Covid-19 pandemic. While most of the instructors (f=33) described the problems due to the internet and
virtual class software infrastructures, others (f=9) stated that they were unable to use specific software
programs due to a lack of licensing. One pointed out that, “When many students entered the system
during the online class, there were problems with the system crashing or internet interruptions”.
As the least-stated factors, the instructors described instructor-related factors that had negative effects
on distance education practices. While some (f=3) emphasized instructors’ digital literacy inadequacy,
others (f=2) reported instructors’ low level of motivation in distance education. One noted: “Of course,
distance education is not only about technology use, but it cannot be said that distance education pro-
vided by academicians over the age of 45 who cannot use technological devices and programs is a bit
problematic”. In addition to that, some instructors (f=3) thought that implementing a distance education
course requires more effort than face-to-face education.
Instructors’ Education Preferences and Support Demands
The findings further illustrated the instructors’ education preferences and support demands. In terms of
support demands, many instructors (f=15) emphasized the importance of in-service training opportuni-
ties for them so that they could improve themselves in technology integration in education and distance
education accordingly. In that regard, one of the instructors articulated:
Many programs can be used in the field of education. However, as an instructor, it is not possible to be
familiar with all of them. Basic programs specific to each discipline should be determined and correspond-
ingly training should be provided to instructors before students so that they could improve themselves.
The instructors (f=4) requested licensed or affordable software choices so that they could use them
in their courses as well. One noted that, “The licensed software of each program cannot be used due
to its prices. Providing more software choices especially for instructors and students will increase the
effectiveness of the process”.
Many instructors stated their educational preferences as a result of involving distance education practices
during the Covid-19 pandemic. While many (f=30) stated that face-to-face education practices are better
than distance education, some (f=8) preferred blended learning, which includes both face-to-face and
distance education practices, and very few (f=4) favored distance education. One instructor pointed out:
Because every person’s learning style is different, I always favor face-to-face education. I have never
found distance education as favorable. I need to make eye contact with students, I have to breathe in the
same environment with them and I should be able to observe their reactions during the class.
All in all, instructors identified positive and negative opinions regarding distance education practices
during the Covid-19 pandemic, expressed their support demands, and indicated their education prefer-
ences. In terms of positive opinions, instructors mostly stated that distance education supports ubiq-
uitous and individualized learning. Furthermore, they also noted that distance education increases the
efficiency of instructors by reducing the time and energy commitment in preparing and implementing
course activities. Despite the positive opinions, many instructors emphasized negative opinions stem-
74

ming from course-, student-, technology-, and instructor-related factors. The findings indicated that most
of the negative opinions stemmed from course structures. In this direction, the instructors mentioned
the difficulty of delivering applied courses, ensuring interaction with students in the course activities,
and providing valid and reliable exams. In addition to the course-related factors, instructors identified
negative opinions stemming from students. The instructors first expressed that students had a lack of
technical facilities such as the internet and a computer. Therefore, they stated that this situation caused
low motivation and participation in the course activities. Besides, they also said that students had a low
level of digital literacy and weak adaptation to distance education. As for the technology-related fac-
tors in negative opinions, the instructors pointed out that they had issues of implementing their online
courses due to the deficiencies of internet and software infrastructures at their institutions. On the other
hand, the instructor-related factors were least stated by them. As a consequence, while many instructors
demanded training to improve themselves in distance education practices, they preferred face-to-face
education more than distance education.
DISCUSSION
The present study investigated the university instructors’ opinions regarding emergency remote educa-
tion practices in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic to expand the existing body of knowledge. The
findings revealed the instructors’ positive and negative opinions about emergency remote education
practices, educational preferences, and support demands. According to the positive opinions, the instruc-
tors stated that the practices they have experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic were beneficial in
terms of cost-effectiveness, provided individualized learning environments for students, and supported
ubiquitous learning. Moore and Kearsley (2011) also pointed out that online distance education practices
facilitate access to course materials, support anytime and anywhere learning, increase cost-effectiveness,
and support personalized learning environments. Therefore, considering the extant practices as emer-
gency remote education (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020), the present study further contributed to the current
knowledge pool of distance education research by providing evidence from instructors’ perspectives who
experienced online teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic.
According to the findings, instructors’ negative opinions stemmed from course-, student-, technol-
ogy-, and instructor-related factors, respectively. The instructors expressed course-related factors more
than others. While instructors stated difficulty in delivering interactive lessons and applied courses, they
also expressed reliability issues in measurements and evaluation methods. In this direction, the online
teaching pedagogy of the instructors may be the source of these negative views. In terms of the online
teaching pedagogy, instructors generally maintain their traditional instructional methods and strategies
to carry out their courses when they move from face-to-face to distance education (Aydemir et al., 2016;
Roy & Boboc, 2016). However, carrying out traditional instructional methods and strategies might not be
useful in distance education. Distance education underlines the importance of student-student, student-
instructor, and student-content interactions for satisfactory learning outcomes (Moore, 1993). While
some of these interactions can occur naturally in face-to-face learning environments, they may not take
place in online learning environments without designing them. Continually, the instructors’ concerns on
the reliability issues in measurement and evaluation methods may also stem from their traditional teach-
ing pedagogies which is a continuation of face-to-face approaches. Cutri et al. (2020) articulated that
university instructors had difficulty in assessing learning outcomes and requested to know how to do a
75

formative and summative assessment during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, a lack of understanding
in online teaching pedagogy and the persistence of utilizing the traditional instructional methods and
strategies during the Covid-19 outbreak could be one of the sources of the instructors’ negative opinions.
As for student-related factors, instructors pointed out students’ inadequate digital facilities and lit-
eracy level, and low motivation and participation rates in online courses. In this direction, the digital
facilities and digital literacy level of the students may be the sources of these negative opinions. The
digital divide was an evident problem during the Covid-19 pandemic (Alma et al., 2020; Bozkurt et al.,
2020); students with no digital device or internet connection had greater difficulty than those who had
them, and had to exert more effort to level up with their peers (Fishbane & Tomer, 2020). Considering
the distance education as an alternative approach to face-to-face education and the emergency remote
education is a mandatory transition (Bozkurt et al., 2020), the digital divide may cause low motivation
and participation rates in online courses for students with no digital device and internet connection.
Furthermore, the digital divide may also cause a low level of digital literacy as well. Online education
is highly dependent on the use of technological devices and an internet connection; consequently, stu-
dents who have a low level of digital literacy may not accomplish their duties during online learning
(Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020). Since there is a correlation between digital literacy and distance education
perceptions of students (Kayaduman & Battal, 2020), inadequate digital literacy levels may also cause
low motivation and participation rates in online courses for students. Bergdahl and Nouri (2020) noted
that enabling student interactions during emergency remote education was challenging for many teachers.
Therefore, instructors’ difficulties in delivering an interactive course could stem from not only a lack of
online teaching pedagogy and the persistence of using the traditional instructional methods and strategies
as abovementioned, but could also be due to the digital divide and digital literacy level of the students.
The findings of the study revealed that the instructors’ negative opinions regarding the practices of
emergency remote education were dominant over positive opinions. Considering many instructors are
experiencing online teaching for the first time during the Covid-19 pandemic, instructors may have some
set of concerns (Kayaduman & Demirel, 2019) and various stressors and barriers could emerge if they
are not prepared (Trust & Whalen, 2020). As a consequence, the instructors demanded support in tech-
nology and training aspects, and they preferred face-to-face education rather than blended and distance
education. As stated in a comprehensive study (Bozkurt et al., 2020), there was not high-quality training
regarding how to teach online in some of the countries. Thus, the instructors in the present study might
not have received the necessary support from their respective institutions due to the rapid and obligatory
transition to online education; therefore, they have requested training and preferred face-to-face educa-
tion over blended and distance education.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Many instructors around the world have switched to online teaching due to the Covid-19 outbreak. The
instructors’ transition was rapid and obligatory rather than planned and voluntary (Bozkurt et al., 2020). In
this regard, this study investigated the opinions of university instructors to provide a better understanding
of emergency remote education practices during the Covid-19 pandemic. First, the findings revealed that
instructors had positive opinions about emergency remote education; they found this process useful in
terms of cost-effectiveness, providing an individualized learning environment for students, and sustaining
learning and teaching anytime and anywhere. Although there were also negative opinions, these posi-
76

tive opinions may facilitate the instructors’ adaptation to distance education in the future. According to
Rogers (2003), the relative advantage is critical in the adaptation process and if people see the advantage
of using innovation, they can adopt it quickly. Hence, experiencing this process and seeing the positive
aspects may be a facilitative ingredient for professional development efforts about distance education.
Second, this study presented a lack of understanding of online teaching pedagogy as one of the
reasons behind the negative opinions of instructors. Instructors tend to resume their traditional instruc-
tional methods and strategies in distance education (Aydemir et al., 2016; Roy & Boboc, 2016) and
professional development programs are mostly insufficient due to being one-shot and focusing on the
technology component of online education (Bickerstaff & Cormier, 2015; Flint et al., 2011). However,
the success of online education is beyond the use of technology and traditional instructional methods
and strategies. In this regard, considering the negative opinions of instructors about course and evalua-
tion methods in this study, one could state that student-student, student-instructor, and student-content
interactions (Moore, 1993) and formative assessment (Gikandi et al., 2011) in distance education are
of paramount importance. Hence, this study underlines the importance of increasing the awareness of
instructors’ opinions about online teaching pedagogy for better educational practices. To do this, as
(Kayaduman & Demirel, 2019) suggested, designing professional development programs by consider-
ing the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework and including topics such
as ensuring interactions and implementing formative assessment could contribute to the understanding
of instructors and produce more satisfactory teaching and learning experiences.
Third, while online teaching pedagogy is extremely critical in this process, having it carry out an ef-
fective and efficient lesson may not be enough due to the issues arising from the digital divide and digital
literacy. Students who have a low level of digital literacy and access problems to digital technologies and
the internet may not fulfill their roles in online learning (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020; Fishbane & Tomer,
2020) and instructors may experience challenges to enabling student interactions accordingly (Alshehri
et al., 2020; Bergdahl & Nouri, 2020). In this regard, the present study further revealed that the digital
facilities and digital literacy level of the students may cause low motivation and participation rates in
online courses. Therefore, it is important to eliminate the factors that cause inequalities and exclusion
in online education. Bozkurt et al. (2020) stated that the Covid-19 pandemic indicated the importance
of open educational resources and collaborative efforts among stakeholders. Accordingly, initiatives to
raise awareness of open educational resources such as massive open online courses and collaboration
efforts at the institution level to share digital resources could help mitigate the digital divide and digital
literacy issues in online education.
Lastly, decision-makers, educational planners, change-agents, administrators, and researchers could
acquire insights from the present study regarding university instructors’ opinions about the implemen-
tations during the Covid-19 pandemic. They could improve the teaching and learning experiences of
instructors and students through the implications of the study.
LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
The present study provided rich data regarding university instructors’ opinions about emergency re-
mote education practices during the Covid-19 pandemic and answered the research question at hand.
However, there is a need for future studies to eliminate the limitations of the study and to acquire a
better understanding of emergency remote education practices. First, the current study is limited by the
77

characteristics of instructors working in Turkish universities. Therefore, this limitation should be taken
into account when interpreting the findings, and future studies should include participants from differ-
ent educational institutions to investigate the experiences of instructors during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Second, the authors only collected qualitative data through online open-ended questions with a limited
number of demographic questions in the scope of the study. Hence, future studies should develop surveys
that include detailed questions about the characteristics of participants and carry out inferential statistics
measures to investigate instructors’ opinions about the implementations. Third, the authors only collected
data from instructors. Hence, future studies should also obtain data from administrators, students, and
instructional designers as well. Lastly, future studies should focus on analyzing administrative works,
the training process of instructors and students, and collaboration efforts to provide a complete picture
of emergency remote education practices.
REFERENCES
Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and
opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/104
94820.2020.1813180
Alma, M. H., Demirel, T., & Kayaduman, H. (2020). Covid-19 Pandemisine Bağli Uzaktan Eğitim Geçiş
Süreci Ve Değerlendirmesi: Iğdır Üniversitesi Örneği [The Transition Process of Distance Education
Regarding Covid-19 Pandemic: Igdir University Case]. Online International Conference of COVID-19
(CONCOVID), 127–128. https://concovid.org/dosyalar/CONCOVID-Sosyal-Bilimler.pdf
Alshehri, Y. A., Mordhah, N., Alsibiani, S., Alsobhi, S., & Alnazzawi, N. (2020). How the Regular Teach-
ing Converted to Fully Online Teaching in Saudi Arabia during the Coronavirus COVID-19. Creative
Education, 11(07), 985–996. doi:10.4236/ce.2020.117071
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a com-
puter conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. doi:10.24059/olj.
v5i2.1875
Aydemir, M., Kursun, E., & Karaman, S. (2016). Question-Answer Activities in Synchronous Virtual
Classrooms in Terms of Interest and Usefulness. Open Praxis, 8(1), 9–19. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.8.1.226
Bao, W. (2020). COVID‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking Univer-
sity. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 113–115(2), 113–115. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1002/hbe2.191 PMID:32510042
Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competency-
based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397. doi:10.1080/01587910903236536

Bergdahl, N., & Nouri, J. (2020). Covid-19 and Crisis-Promted Distance Education in Sweden. Technol-
ogy, Knowledge and Learning. doi:10.100710758-020-09470-6
Berge, Z. L. (1995). The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238348806_The_Role_of_the_Online_InstructorFacilitator
78

Bickerstaff, S., & Cormier, M. S. (2015). Examining faculty questions to facilitate instructional improve-
ment in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 74–80. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.11.004
Bozkurt, A. (2020a). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik
değerlendirmeler: Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim paradigması [The evaluations for education during and after
the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic process: New normal and new educa]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları
ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 112–142. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/auad/issue/56247/773769
Bozkurt, A. (2020b). Koronavirüs (Covıd-19) Pandemisi Sırasında İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Uzaktan
Eğitime Yönelik İmge Ve Algıları: Bir Metafor Analizi [Images And Perceptions Of Primary School
Students Towards Distance Education During Coronavirus (Covid-19) Pandemic: A Meta]. Uşak Üni-
versitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 1–23. doi:10.29065/usakead.777652
J., Olcott, J. D., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. J., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli,
of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal
of Distance Education, 5(1), 1–126. http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to Coro-
naVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi. https://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/
AsianJDE/article/view/447
Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 31–44. http://docushare3.dcc.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Ver-
sion-9844/FacultyReflectionsTeachingOnline.pdf
Cutri, R. M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E. F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: Transition-
ing to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4),
523–541. doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1815702
Egan, T. M., & Akdere, M. (2005). Clarifying distance education roles and competencies: Exploring
similarities and differences between professional and student-practitioner perspectives. American Journal
of Distance Education, 19(2), 87–103. doi:10.120715389286ajde1902_3
Fishbane, L., & Tomer, A. (2020). As classes move online during COVID-19, what are disconnected
students to do? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/03/20/as-classes-move-
online-during-covid-19-what-are-disconnected-students-to-do
Flint, A. S., Zisook, K., & Fisher, T. R. (2011). Not a one-shot deal: Generative professional develop-
ment among experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1163–1169. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2011.05.009
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A
review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
Karadağ, E., & Yücel, C. (2020). Distance Education at Universities during the Novel Coronavirus Pan-
demic: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 10(2), 181–192.
doi:10.2399/yod.20.730688
79

Kayaduman, H., & Battal, A. (2020). The Relationship Between Digital Literacy and Distance Education
Perceptions. 13th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, 2223–2227.
10.21125/iceri.2020.0533
Kayaduman, H., & Demirel, T. (2019). Investigating the Concerns of First-Time Distance Education
Instructors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(5), 85–103.
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4467
Keast, D. A. (1997). Toward an effective model for implementing distance education programs. American
Journal of Distance Education, 11(2), 39–55. doi:10.1080/08923649709526960
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development.
Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249–267. doi:10.11120/
ital.2006.05040249
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In Theoretical Principles of Distance Education
(pp. 22–38). Routledge.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.).
Cengage Learning.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Rahiem, M. D. H. (2020). The Emergency Remote Learning Experience of University Students in
Indonesia amidst the COVID-19 Crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 19(9), 1–26. doi:10.26803/ijlter.19.6.1
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation (5th ed.). Free Press.
Roy, M., & Boboc, M. (2016). Professional Development Needs of Online Teachers. Journal of Online
Learning Research, 2(3), 283–302. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/172451
Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide. New
Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362. doi:10.1177/1461444804042519
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(2), 189–199.
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/215995/
WHO. (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative research
methods in the social sciences] (9th ed.). Şeçkin.
80

Case Study: In-depth description and investigation of a context (Merriam, 1998).

COVID-19: It stands for corona virus disease and highly infectious (WHO, 2020).
Digital Divide: The division between those who can access digital technologies and those who are
unable to access them (Selwyn, 2004).
Digital Literacy: The attitude, ability, and awareness of people to access, manage, analyze, synthe-
size, and evaluate information through digital tools (Martin & Grudziecki, 2006).
Distance Education: A planned and guided practice that offers an alternative method to face-to-face
education (Bozkurt et al., 2020).
Emergency Remote Education: A sub-branch of distance education and it was stated as an obliga-
tion to survive in the time of crisis (Bozkurt et al., 2020).
University Instructors: Academic staff working at tertiary institutions to teach associate, under-
graduate, and graduate courses.
81
82
Chapter 5
Best Practices for Emergency
Remote Teaching
Michelle Dennis
Adler University, USA
ABSTRACT
Unforeseen events, such as the global pandemic COVID-19, have the potential to necessitate abrupt
closures of the physical campuses of higher education institutions. In these situations, emergency remote
teaching procedures may be implemented to enable the continuation of courses and reduce the magnitude
of disruptions to the learning process for students and faculty members. In this chapter, the author will
evaluate best practices for the design of emergency remote teaching, faculty preparation, and student
support. Further, the author will explore efective communication strategies for the delivery of informa-
tion regarding procedural changes to students and faculty.
Events such as the global pandemic COVID-19, which are unforeseen in nature and necessitate the
rapid closure of the physical campuses of institutions of higher education, highlight the importance of
the efficient implementation of best practices for the design and delivery of emergency remote teach-
ing experiences (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). Procedures for the implementation of emergency remote
teaching are similar to those required for the implementation of online education in terms of content,
but not in terms of time frame and resource needs. In the case of the former, little time is available and
resources are typically less robust, except in cases where contingency planning has been prioritized. In
the case of the latter, adequate resources and time support the effective preparation of online courses
through intentional and collaborative design, the training of faculty members to facilitate the courses,
and the integration of student supports into the online education experience.
This chapter presents three key factors which have been widely explored in the literature in terms
of their impact on the success of emergency remote teaching (Martin, Ritzhaupt et al., 2019; Outlaw
& Rice, 2015): Design, faculty preparation, and student support. In terms of design, engagement plays
an important role in the student experience and can be impacted in many ways throughout the design
process. The presentation of course content is a second area of focus within the design pillar, and many
strategies for the presentation of content may impact the student experience during periods of emergency
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch005

Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching
remote teaching. A final aspect of design, the assessment of learning, is also a key area in which best
practices may be employed to improve the design of emergency remote teaching experiences. The second
key factor, faculty preparation, can be categorized into four main areas: Expectation setting, training and
development, mentorship, and evaluation. As in the case of design, application of best practices for faculty
preparation can support a smooth transition and a positive student experience. The third factor, student
support, also impacts the student experience during times of transition. Resource and adjustment needs
of students and considerations for meeting these needs through the implementation of best practices for
outreach and community building are explored. The chapter closes with an analysis of considerations
for the implementation of effective communication protocols to ensure understanding across campus
communities, thereby impacting the ease with which students, faculty, and administrators adjust to abrupt
changes in structure as they pertain to course delivery modality.
EMERGENCY REMOTE TEACHING VS. ONLINE EDUCATION
There are multiple key distinctions that must be made between emergency remote teaching and online
education (Zimmerman, 2020). The later has been established as a very effective strategy for instruction
at the primary (Journell, 2015), secondary (Kumi-Yeboah, 2015), and post-secondary (Eom & Ashill,
2016) levels. Further, online education is structured based on best practices for course design, facilita-
tion, assessment, and faculty interaction, and, as such, requires a significant amount of preparation prior
to course delivery. This time investment allows for the accurate alignment of course- and program-level
objectives to resources, activities, and assessments. Further, this investment of time allows for the ad-
equate training of faculty members and the planned provision of student supports.
Emergency remote teaching, on the other hand, involves rapid modality changes, which allow content
that was formulated for presentation in the face-to-face format to be delivered through virtual means
(Hodges et al., 2020). Institutions that have adopted emergency remote teaching procedures in response
to the global pandemic vary widely in terms of the resources they have been able to dedicate to this
change in modality. Further, institutions of higher education differ greatly in terms of the infrastructure
that is available to support these changes. Irrespective of resources and infrastructure, there are key best
practices that can support the effective delivery of emergency remote teaching, which pertain to design,
faculty preparation, student support, and communication.
DESIGN
Course design, arguably, has the potential to make or break the educational experience, in that poorly
designed online courses often create more frustration than learning. The effective design of online
courses involves the assignment of a subject matter expert and an instructional designer and is a rigor-
ous and extended process that requires collaboration, discussion, and revision. Throughout the process
of online course design, factors such as engagement, alignment, instructional level, and workload are
considered, and the optimal result is a well-organized and engaging presentation of content, including
aligned resources, activities, and assessments, which represent an instructional level that is consistent
with the program through which the course will be offered (Baldwin et al., 2018). As referenced above,
emergency remote teaching differs significantly from online education in important ways, but many of
83

the best practices for online course design may be applied to the design of emergency remote teaching
(Hodges et al., 2020; Rahim, 2020). One best practice for the design of online courses is to include an
instructional designer (Outlaw & Rice, 2015; Stevens, 2013). The collaboration achieved by this strategy
allows for a comprehensive review and evaluation of the content, as well as its presentation. Addition-
ally, collaborative course design contributes to improved course quality (Chao et al., 2010). Further,
instructional designers may advise subject matter experts regarding technology tools (Bennett et al.,
2015), the use of which represents an additional best practice. The inclusion of technology tools is a best
practice for online course design because it promotes student engagement with content. Additionally,
it can increase student-student engagement and student-faculty engagement by providing platforms for
communication. A third best practice for online course design is the use of evaluation models to assess
online course structure (Baldwin et al., 2018). Models may be developed within institutions or by outside
organizations. These models provide a framework which may be used to assess various facets of online
courses, such as alignment, resource relevance, workload, and active learning. A fourth best practice
for online course design is to incorporate active learning elements (Koohang et al., 2016), which is as-
sociated with positive student perceptions (Fayer, 2014).
Engagement
Abrupt changes to the format of one’s regular schedule are not easy to avoid during emergency situa-
tions. With respect to college coursework, a change in format should not be equated with a change in
content (Mohmmed et al., 2020). In other words, the planned content outlined in the syllabus of the
formerly face-to-face course should be preserved as much as possible. This supports a reduction in the
stress associated with adjusting to multiple changes simultaneously. Content presented in the face-to-face
format may be preserved through the creative application of practices that facilitate student engagement
(Toquero, 2020a). One such practice is the use of multimedia.
Faculty who are accustomed to delivering lectures face to face may have notes to accompany their
lectures but typing and sharing notes may not be the best way to engage students remotely. Record-
ing a video of a lecture, on the other hand, may serve to engage students in a more effective way. This
represents an efficient strategy for connecting with students in ways similar to those used in the physi-
cal classroom. A related strategy is hosting virtual lectures via Web conferencing software, which is a
common practice in emergency remote instruction. When employing this method, there are several key
considerations pertaining to effective facilitation.
Perceptions of quality in the virtual delivery of courses vary and are impacted by prior exposure to
online content (Hixon et al., 2016), but most individuals who have attended live lectures can tell that
the length of the lecture and the degree to which activities are incorporated both directly impact engage-
ment. This phenomenon is magnified when it is applied to remote lectures, during which engagement
is impacted not only by lecture length and activities, but also by environmental factors outside of the
control of the faculty member, such as television sets and family members. Lectures that run for fewer
than 60 minutes and include activities for students tend to be perceived as engaging to most students, and
yet one hour per week does not provide adequate time to address all content. In online instruction, the
discussion board replaces (or, in some cases, complements) the lecture, for the aforementioned reasons
as well as others, and this strategy can easily be incorporated into emergency remote teaching situations.
Employing the use of the discussion board offers many benefits, key among which is the ability to
deliver content in an asynchronous manner (Affouneh et al., 2020). When utilizing this format, students
84

and faculty are not required to dissect content simultaneously. Rather, students can review resources and
prompts and post their responses when it is convenient for them to do so. Faculty can then facilitate the
discussion board by reviewing responses, posing questions, providing examples, and proposing connec-
tions as appropriate. Students can also interact with one another in this manner by posting peer responses.
Although a formal weekly discussion board is integrated into online courses during the design phase,
faculty tasked with facilitating emergency remote teaching can easily incorporate key questions from
readings or lectures and post them to the discussion board, asking students to reply, and demonstrating
their dedication to the learning experience by responding promptly and with intentionality to all students.
When providing prompts, it is of the utmost importance to ensure the prompts provided are aligned to
the resources students are asked to view prior to responding.
Presentation of Course Content
Resources may be in the form of textbook readings, journal articles or lectures. In all cases, the instruc-
tor must create prompts that align to resources. In cases where this is not done, multiple questions from
students are likely to result. Further, in cases where students do not pose questions, they may interpret
the prompts in very different ways, resulting in a discussion that is not at all consistent with the original
aims of the course. While this phenomenon may certainly exist in face-to-face courses, it is magnified
in the virtual classroom, as the instructor is not constantly present and available to direct the discussion
towards the intended aims. It is useful for faculty members engaged in emergency remote teaching who
plan to use the discussion board to create a table of alignments. The objectives for each week of the
course can be added as columns within the table and then aligned to weekly activities, weekly resources,
discussion board questions or prompts, and assessments. Viewing this content in tabular form may help
faculty to identify strategies for improving alignment, so that the resulting presentation of content flows
in a manner that is clear to students. A related suggestion for improving clarity pertains to the acces-
sibility of information.
Students have varying preferences with respect to the presentation of content. Some students learn
best when content is presented visually, and others are auditory learners. In the face-to-face classroom,
it is relatively easy to incorporate a diverse presentation of content. For instance, lectures are usually
provided in the spoken language, but are accompanied by the projection of slides onto a white board.
In emergency remote teaching, it is important to consider student preferences when translating one’s
face-to-face lecture into the virtual space.
The use of closed captioning is an excellent way to increase the accessibility of content and is also often
required to stay in compliance with policies outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (McKeown
& McKeown, 2019). Platforms such as Amara and YouTube provide faculty members with the ability
to add captioning to their lectures, but, in cases where this is not possible, simple changes can make a
world of difference for students. One strategy is to post slides or notes alongside a recorded lecture. This
will help to address students’ learning preferences and provide a more engaging presentation of content.
A related idea is to record videos of lectures using the recording feature within PowerPoint. This ensures
that content on each slide is accompanied with verbal analysis by the instructor.
85

Assessment of Learning
When implementing assessments in emergency remote teaching, it is important to follow best practice
guidelines. Rahim (2020) outlined nine criteria for the delivery of assessments in the online space in
situations where formal online course design has not been employed due to emergency conditions.
The first guideline pertains to the evaluation of requisites for the implementation of online assessment
procedures. Will students need materials in order to complete the assessments, and, if so, do they have
access to these materials? Second, the alignment between assessments and learning objectives must
be clear. It is of the utmost importance to adequately align objectives to any graded aspect of a course,
so that student performance clearly represents an understanding of course content. The third criterion
references the importance of addressing the diversity of the situations of all students. In other words, the
unique position in which each student has been placed, due to the emergency situation(s) that precipitated
the change in course modality, must be factored into any assessment plan. Additionally, criterion four
outlines the importance of establishing an effective balance of formative and summative assessments.
While formative assessment may be utilized to gauge the effectiveness of the presentation of content
prior to the end of each module, thereby informing the need for potential changes, a summative assess-
ment is administered at the end of the module, providing a summary of student learning.
The next criterion Rahim outlined references the use of online assessment to stimulate student learn-
ing. Students often learn a great deal during periods of assessment, and there are multiple opportunities
to structure activities towards this end when delivering content through virtual means. For instance, stu-
dents may be asked to conduct outside research to provide a solution to a problem. Alternately, students
may be asked to complete a simulation and then reflect on the impact of the activity. These examples
relate to the next two criteria: format and scheduling/timing. In a face-to-face course, assessments may
be conducted via an exam. This can also be done online, but requires that the faculty member enters
the exam questions into the learning management system. Once entered, determinations regarding the
length of time that is adequate must be made. Further, it is possible to proctor exams to reduce the odds
that academic dishonesty will impact results, but arrangements such as this typically take a significant
amount of time, and, as such, are typically not made in emergency remote teaching situations. Instruc-
tors may decide to allow the use of resources on exams and set timers to deter students from looking up
answers. In either case, communication, the next criterion, is key.
Faculty must clearly communicate with students regarding assessment procedures to alleviate un-
necessary fears and promote fairness through transparency. Following the assessment, high-quality
feedback, criterion eight of nine, is of the utmost importance. Particularly in cases where assessments
will require writing, faculty must provide feedback that is relevant, helpful, and targeted to the work
of individual students. Providing general feedback is not helpful, and students often perceive it as far
less meaningful. The final criterion Rahim outlined references the importance of addressing threats to
the validity of the assessment. This requires a thoughtful appraisal of the factors that may impact the
performance of each student, which do not directly relate to his/her understanding of the course mate-
rial. In emergency remote teaching, there are many threats to assessment validity, including but not
limited to poorly formulated assessment procedures, inadequate student understanding of expectations,
academic dishonesty, technology failures, and poor alignment between assessments and course content.
Due to the significant amount of time that is required to accurately select, align, and implement online
assessment procedures, some institutions have adopted alternate strategies for assessment in situations
involving emergency remote teaching.
86

One such strategy involves the use of pass/fail assessment (Stanger, 2020). In pass/fail assessment,
the use of grades is omitted to address potential validity concerns that may be associated with the rapid
design and implementation of assessment tools in a modality in which they were not intended to be
delivered. Some institutions have also permitted students to opt for a pass/fail final grade in situations
involving emergency remote teaching. This helps to provide additional options to students and faculty
alike during conditions that do not offer optimal levels of flexibility.
FACULTY PREPARATION
One important best practice for online teaching which is well documented in the literature is presence
(Bailey & Card, 2009; Baran et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2019). Presence can be demonstrated through
the use of welcome messages, personalized multimedia (Mandernach, 2009), responsiveness to student
emails, and scheduling office hours at regular intervals. A second best practice involves demonstrat-
ing support and engagement through the use of a variety of activities (Erbaggio et al., 2012; Martin,
Ritzhaupt e al., 2019). An additional best practice for online teaching involves expectation setting and
use of effective assessment methods (Baldwin & Trespalacios, 2017; Cundell & Sheepy, 2018; Lewis
& Abdul-Hamid, 2006). Faculty must clearly communicate to students what will be expected of them
during an online course. A related best practice, feedback (Alderman et al., 2012) is of the utmost
importance when teaching online, as feedback provides students with direction. These best practices
should be communicated to faculty as part of the process of preparing them to engage in the process of
emergency remote teaching.
Best practices for the preparation of faculty to facilitate online courses involve the clear presentation
of expectations (Edwards et al., 2011) combined with practice opportunities and supports, including the
delivery of regular professional development opportunities (Baran & Curreia, 2014; Coswatte Mohr &
Shelton, 2017; Frankel et al., 2020). Further, the provision of regular feedback to highlight strengths and
areas of opportunity is integral to the preparation of effective facilitators of online courses. As in the
case of online course design, emergency remote teaching situations offer administrators the opportunity
to apply best practices for training faculty in multiple ways.
Expectation Setting
Institutions that are forced to close their physical campuses and move to emergency remote teaching
must ensure that all faculty understand their new roles. Expectations must be set in an intentional man-
ner and reinforced on a regular basis. Before expectations are shared, they must be identified, which
requires administrators to quickly adapt to novel circumstances, assess limitations and opportunities,
and create best-case scenarios and steps for their implementation. The process of setting expectations for
faculty who are engaged in emergency remote teaching is inherently challenging, as an important goal
for higher education is superior learning experiences for all students. In cases where obstacles to this
goal are present, it can be challenging to quickly assess opportunities to preserve the student experience
while adhering to changes in policy that follow emergency closures of physical structures. Institutions
that employ individuals with knowledge regarding best practices for online education may consider their
organizations to be at an advantage in these situations, as they will likely find it easier to set expectations
for faculty engaged in remote teaching. Despite this presumed advantage, it is important to recognize
87

that the delivery of online education differs significantly from emergency remote teaching, and, as such,
expectations for each endeavor must be unique and clearly aligned to the intended outcome.
One effective first step when working to develop expectations is to consider the intended outcomes
(Dennis, Halbert et al., 2020). Intended outcomes of emergency remote teaching include, but are not
limited to, the effective transition to a virtual modality, presentation of course content in a manner that
is accessible and understandable, engagement of students, assessment of student learning outcomes, and
calculation of grades. If the aforementioned intended outcomes are taken as integral outcomes that must
occur, then faculty actions can be outlined in a manner that supports these outcomes. For instance, an
effective transition can be nurtured through the clear and frequent delivery of announcements, which is
a best practice which impacts student perceptions of course quality (Brown et al., 2018). This requires
that faculty craft and post announcements and then respond promptly to student questions pertaining to
the announcements. Three key expectations can be taken from this analysis: The expectation that faculty
will draft announcements, the expectation that faculty will post these announcements on a regular basis,
and the expectation that faculty will respond to student questions in a prompt manner. Asking faculty to
engage in specific steps, such as those the author has outlined above, may greatly improve the understand-
ing of expectations among faculty, irrespective of the familiarity they may have with online instruction.
After expectations have been set, it is important to communicate these expectations to faculty. It is
useful to communicate expectations through multiple modalities. First, sharing expectations in writing
is of the utmost importance. Written instructions can be referred back to if or when questions arise.
Written expectations should be organized in a manner that is easy to follow to decrease the odds that
instructions will be missed. For instance, expectations pertaining to the management of administrative
aspects of a class can be grouped together, such that faculty can review this group of tasks together and
easily refer back in situations where questions regarding administrative management present themselves.
Although the administrative management of online courses is certainly important, particularly in cases
where the institution is forced to make rapid adjustments, additional categories should be delineated in
expectation documents.
One such category may be termed discussion board management. Within this category, best prac-
tices pertaining to the facilitation of the discussion board could be shared. For instance, one expectation
might be to add prompts that are aligned to the resources for the week. A second expectation might be
to respond to the post of each student or to respond to the post of every third student, depending on the
size and level of the course. Outlining expectations pertaining to effective management of the discus-
sion board in clear terms serves to provide faculty with the direction they need, particularly in cases
where experience teaching online is minimal. A second, related category, may be termed course resource
management and could refer to the preparation and sharing of readings and lectures. A clear expectation
pertaining to this category might reference the importance of checking each link that is posted to ensure
that readings are easily accessible to students. Broken links to required readings serve to create easily
avoidable stress for students and faculty alike, but faculty teaching face-to-face courses typically do not
consider this, as it generally does not apply. As such, providing this clear direction improves the ease
with which faculty may facilitate emergency remote teaching.
An additional category of expectations might be termed feedback and grading. In emergency remote
teaching, the provision of substantial and prompt feedback can serve to keep students engaged and en-
sure that student learning outcomes are met during tumultuous times. Providing faculty who are new
to this area with direction referencing the level of detail that is expected in feedback and the desired
turnaround time for feedback and grading may help significantly, by setting expectations and reduc-
88

ing the amount of time that faculty must spend figuring out the most advantageous ways to apply best
practices. Additional parameters may certainly be included, but avoiding information overload is also
a best practice when aiming to quickly set clear and achievable expectations for faculty who are new to
emergency remote teaching.
The presentation of key best practices and expectations in a clear and well-categorized manner is a
helpful way to prepare faculty to move into the virtual space abruptly. Communication, however, must not
be limited to written direction. In cases where faculty are presented with written direction that pertains
to activities to which they are not accustomed, content is often lost due to differences in interpretation.
One strategy for preventing the loss of information and ensuring accurate understanding among large
groups of faculty is to schedule a virtual meeting utilizing web conferencing software. Key benefits
of this strategy are that it provides time for community building in the online space and models best
practices for online meeting facilitation for faculty. In addition to these benefits, virtual meetings allow
for the explanation of written guidelines. Faculty can also ask questions in real time and benefit from
the questions posed by their peers. Further, this strategy helps to demonstrate the dedication of the de-
partment to the faculty experience. Setting clear expectations has a tremendous impact on the ability of
faculty members to effectively engage in emergency remote teaching, but it is not sufficient. Resources
are also needed, in order to adequately equip faculty members with the tools they will need to inspire
learning in the remote realm.
Training and Development
There are many tool kits available that can be used to provide faculty who are accustomed to teach-
ing in the face-to-face format with the resources they need to effectively facilitate emergency remote
educational experiences (Toquero, & Talidong, 2020; Whalen, 2020; Williamson et al., 2020). These
kits categorize key strategies for engaging with students online (Whittle et al., 2020) and present best
practices for assessment and instructions for utilizing technology to facilitate the learning process, but
instructions alone do not suffice.
Virtual training delivered in real time is necessary, particularly when demonstrating the use of tech-
nology tools to faculty who will be asked to employ those tools in the online classroom. This training
allows faculty to practice key skills and explore the subtle nuances of each technology tool they will be
asked to use. In cases where this step is missed, faculty often experience challenges, which make it very
difficult for them to be effective in the online space. The provision of adequate resources and training in
their use, even when combined, serve to prepare faculty only minimally. Regular professional develop-
ment is needed to reinforce newly acquired skills.
Professional development can help faculty to gain comfort utilizing technology tools and can also
help to support and nurture the adoption of key best practices for engaging with students online (Gay,
2016). Key topics of interest include, but are not limited to, Socratic questioning on the discussion board,
providing helpful feedback, mentoring students in academic honesty, facilitating difficult dialogues,
and supporting students during times of crisis. One challenge that is often associated with professional
development planning initiatives is workload. It is important to develop opportunities that are delivered
with a regular cadence, but it is also important to get that cadence right, so that development opportunities
are perceived as helpful, rather than as a chore. Strategies for increasing faculty interest in professional
development include delivering sessions on applicable topics, delivering sessions on multiple topics,
allowing faculty to make their own selections, and involving faculty in the training delivery process.
89

While these best practices for the delivery of professional development may be applied in most online
instructional situations (Coswatte Mohr & Shelton, 2017), emergency remote teaching is characterized
by the need to abruptly adjust one’s teaching modality, and resources for adequate training often do not
exist, let alone resources for regular professional development. In cases where these resources do exist,
faculty often do not have the bandwidth to fully engage in the associated activities, given the changes
that have been made to their roles. As such, professional development offerings for faculty engaged in
emergency remote teaching must be flexible and extremely relevant, in order to encourage participation.
Sharing links to self-paced courses that focus on relevant topics is one way to support faculty engaged
in emergency remote teaching without adding to their workload in a significant manner. The assignment
of a mentor is another key strategy that helps to provide the necessary ongoing support that faculty new
to remote instruction need.
Mentorship
The assignment of mentors is a helpful way to provide regular support to faculty who are tasked with
learning and applying new strategies quickly (Baran & Correia, 2017). Faculty mentors are optimally
selected from among the current group of faculty but can be recruited from outside institutions as well.
Administrators may also serve as mentors in cases where they possess an appropriate level of experi-
ence in online course facilitation. One key to the successful implementation of a mentoring program is
expectation setting. In cases where a formal plan for mentoring is developed and implemented, more
positive outcomes and less confusion among faculty are likely to be reported.
An additional consideration for the assignment of mentors pertains to workload. Many institutions
employ at least some faculty members who teach online courses on a regular basis. In emergency situ-
ations, which require rapid modality changes and necessitate the assignment of mentors, this group of
faculty is likely to be asked to step in. In cases where selected faculty are asked to engage in additional
activities to support the effective operations of the department, adjustments to workload are often nec-
essary. Despite the need for workload adjustments, resources are often not available to support these
changes. In these cases, temporary additional compensation may be offered if financially feasible. In
cases where institutional finances are not sufficient, many faculty members gain a great deal of satisfac-
tion from the opportunity to mentor others, particularly in cases where expectations are clearly outlined
by administration and recognition is delivered on a regular basis.
Evaluation
Procedures for faculty evaluation at brick-and-mortar institutions vary widely and may be accomplished
through a combination of student end-of-term feedback surveys and classroom observations. Formal
online education typically includes comprehensive faculty evaluation procedures that involve a regular
review of the online classroom for each faculty member (Benton, 2018). It is certainly important to
exercise some degree of flexibility when evaluating faculty members during emergency situations, in
which they often lack the training, resources, and supports to serve in their role in a prepared manner
(Green, 2020). There are several best practices for the evaluation of online faculty that may be applied
in situations involving emergency remote teaching, which serve to benefit the faculty, the students, and
the institution.
90

One best practice pertains to the provision of regular feedback to faculty members. The administration
should provide faculty with the opportunity to check in on a regular basis. During check-ins, strengths
and areas of opportunity may be explored, with an emphasis on the ways in which the faculty member
has demonstrated their skills to the benefit of the students and can continue to do so. Evaluation during
emergency situations should never be punitive in nature, but, rather, should present opportunities for
greater engagement with students and provide faculty members with the opportunity to share questions
or concerns they may have regarding resources shared by the department.
STUDENT SUPPORT
Effective student support is one of the best predictors of student retention (Bailey & Brown, 2016), and
it is also particularly important during periods of organizational adjustment, such as that which resulted
from the global pandemic. There are a multitude of issues that students may face when the modality of
their program shifts suddenly. Student support services are a necessary prerequisite for student success
and can be applied to address resources and adjustment (Knudson, 2020; Petillion & McNeil, 2020;
Rahiem, 2020).
Resource Needs
First, in terms of resources, students vary widely with respect to their comfort with technology, and this
may significantly impact their ability to adjust to emergency remote teaching situations. Ensuring that
students have the resources they need to access and use technology effectively is key to the facilitation
of an effective remote learning experience. Key considerations for assessing student resource needs
must start with the identification of available and accessible resources. Students may not always have
access to technology tools. Students are not generally required to purchase computers to attend brick-
and-mortar institutions, though they certainly are required to obtain this equipment as a prerequisite
to enrolling in an online program. In addition to ensuring access, training must be provided to ensure
that all students have the necessary understanding to make use of the technology tools that are required
for their courses. Even students with optimal resources who are proficient in online course technology
often need extra support while navigating course modality changes during pandemic conditions (Van
Heuvelen et al., 2020).
Adjustment Needs
There are many adjustment-related challenges that may be faced by students whose educational experi-
ence has been abruptly shifted to the remote format (Toquero, 2020b). While some of these challenges
may be mediated by support gained from faculty (Gares et al., 2020), formal institutional supports are
also necessary. One challenge pertains to health. Institutions of higher education must provide clear
guidance regarding their policy on illness and participation in emergency remote education.
A second challenge pertains to outside events that may impact the ability of a student to engage in
remote instruction (Green et al., 2020; Jeffery & Bauer, 2020). Students with children, for instance, may
be placed into the position of teacher, if the school district attended by said children has also closed its
physical doors. To address students concerns, the implementation of best practices for online student
91

support, including regular outreach, clear communications regarding resources, community building
opportunities, and individual advising sessions may be implemented through virtual means.
In terms of resources, institutions of higher education often have multiple resources that are avail-
able to students on campus. Further, the large majority of colleges that deliver most of their courses on
campus provide their online students with the same campus-based services that are available to students
enrolled in face-to-face courses. In cases where emergency situations require the closure of physical cam-
puses, institutions that lack formal online resources must quickly adapt to support the needs of students.
In cases where online services were previously available, these services must be expanded. In the case
of the former, the rapid development of online student services poses significant challenges. Step one
involves providing the staff with the equipment and programs they need to complete their daily tasks. In
many cases, access to sensitive information, such as student data, is only available while on a physical
campus or while connected to a virtual private network. In order to access a virtual private network, staff
must have access to computers that support the necessary applications. Without this access, operations
of the university essentially cease, as no processing can be completed. The establishment of temporary
virtual student services involves sufficient considerations to warrant its own chapter, but the assumption
will be made here that such services have been operationalized and allow for student outreach and the
delivery of resources.
Outreach
First, in terms of outreach, emergency situations often necessitate demonstrations of care, and higher
education is no exception. Students who are provided with outreach from the institutions they attend
during times of crisis tend to experience higher levels of engagement, higher levels of satisfaction, and
improved retention rates (Bailey & Brown, 2016). Many online student services departments schedule
their outreach at predetermined times each term, such as several weeks ahead of a term, one week prior
to the add/drop period of the campus, one week ahead of the end of each term, and the date on which the
end-of-term feedback survey will open. In addition to these scheduled messages, online student services
teams engage in outreach on an individual basis in cases where certain parameters are met. For example,
students may receive outreach when they file for graduation, if their grades drop or if their attendance
is below the level that is expected.
Best practices for student outreach will likely not be supported by the current student services resources
of a campus (Jeffery & Bauer, 2020). As such, adjustments must be made to provide all students with at
least minimal outreach, thereby contributing to continued engagement. Email messages can be sent to
students utilizing mail merge, for instance, to ensure that at least some communication is received on a
regular basis. Another key strategy for supporting students is sharing resources.
During times of crisis, many students could greatly benefit from community resources, and yet
many are unsure how to go about obtaining these resources. Student services teams should ensure that
all students are aware of available community resources during emergency situations. For instance, the
global pandemic has led to the loss of employment for many, and the consequent need for resources in
the form of food and/or shelter. Sharing community resources pertaining to these needs with students
contributes to the success of the student and demonstrates institutional support. Students who feel
supported by the institutions they attend are far more likely to successfully complete their degrees. In
addition to outreach efforts and sharing resources, student services during emergency situations should
involve community building.
92

Community Building
Virtual engagement opportunities serve to bring together students and faculty who are geographically
distributed, connecting them through the pursuit of a shared goal. Student services teams often orga-
nize cocurricular activities on campuses to bring together groups of students, thereby contributing to
engagement. In the case of emergency remote teaching, virtual engagement is a key strategy for building
and nurturing communities of students. One strategy for remote engagement in emergency situations is
listening sessions.
Listening sessions can be scheduled online utilizing Web conferencing software. These sessions tend
to be less formally scripted and are generally intended to provide a forum for discussion. Listening ses-
sions are typically held in the aftermath of significantly traumatic events to allow students and faculty
to share their reflections in a safe space. When scheduling a listening session, it is important for the
organizers to come ready to hear what is shared without judgment. Further, it is important to prepare
resources, which can be shared with any attendees who may benefit from additional discussion or sup-
port following the conversation. Another strategy is to schedule virtual celebrations.
Holidays present an opportunity to schedule virtual celebrations, and engagement can easily be built
into remote parties with music, readings, games, and networking time. Additionally, events such as the
end of a term can be celebrated. Finally, students can be asked to come together to share feedback on
their experience in a program. If this strategy is utilized, it is important to follow up with students to
ensure they feel heard. Further, it is important to develop a response that takes into account the feedback
shared and that proposes strategies for addressing any noted deficiencies. A final strategy for providing
student support involves remote advising sessions.
Advising can easily be moved into the virtual format in cases where adequate resources are available.
In cases where the number of students is too great for current advisors to support, course-embedded ad-
vising can be built into online courses (Dennis, Fornero et al., 2020). Course-embedded advising allows
faculty members assigned to teach select courses to meet individually with each student in their course
to discuss predetermined prompts. The individual discussion of the prompts replaces one assignment,
thereby equalizing the workload for both students and faculty members. Clear and direct alignment of the
course-embedded advising session prompts to weekly and course level objectives is key to the ability of
the session to serve as an assessment point for student learning outcomes. Although emergency remote
teaching will likely not support the formal adoption of this particular strategy, given the time required
for adequate implementation, variations could be utilized by faculty who hope to provide individual
advising during times of crisis. However, it is important to note that all aspects of the emergency remote
teaching experience are best supported by effective communication.
COMMUNICATION
Direct and comprehensive communication that is easily accessible helps to support abrupt procedural
changes for students and faculty alike (Schlesselman, 2020). First, in terms of direct communication,
institutions of higher education must aim for transparency, even in cases where unknown decisions exist.
It is important to share with the campus community that information is being evaluated and provide an
estimated date by which a decision will be determined. Additionally, where possible, the solicitation of
feedback from the campus community is optimal, as it empowers staff and faculty to share their views
93

and often contributes to more balanced decisions. Messages must be accessible to benefit the campus
community.
The degree to which a communication may be deemed accessible depends on multiple factors. To ad-
dress this fact, many institutions make use of multiple communication channels to share announcements
with relevance to the campus community, such as text message, voicemail, and email. Further, emergency
communications are often shared via news media to ensure all affected parties are informed promptly.
Faculty
Faculty may employ the use of virtual office hours to communicate with their students during periods
of emergency remote teaching. This provides students with scheduled times during which they may
connect with their faculty members. Scheduling time for virtual office hours should not replace avail-
ability to meet with students by appointment, as the hours selected by the faculty members may not be
consistent with the needs of the students. In addition to scheduled office hours, faculty members should
post announcements on a regular basis.
Posting announcements via the learning management system is a best practice and preferable to the
use of email alone. When announcements are posted, students can easily refer back to the message, while
emails may easily be deleted from student inboxes. Faculty should start each course with an announce-
ment notifying students that the course has been moved to the remote format and outlining the specific
changes that will take place. Further, faculty should state the response time that students can expect from
them. Faculty should ensure their messages are consistent with institutional announcements. Announce-
ments should also be posted at the start of each week, summarizing the content that will be covered,
highlighting the resources and activities, and reviewing any assessments that will be administered. In
addition to announcements, faculty should ensure they respond to student emails promptly.
Prompt faculty responses facilitate effective communication and are a key characteristic of any
successful online course. In the case of emergency remote teaching, responding promptly is arguably
even more important. Students may have significant questions, the answers to which will allow them to
complete their weekly work. This is not to say that faculty must be constantly available to their students.
It is important to set boundaries when teaching online, lest one’s home and work life begin to merge to
the detriment of the individual. As referenced earlier, faculty should set the expectation for response
time via an announcement. If a 24-hour or 48-hour response time is stated, then students will know what
to expect and will be less likely to expect immediate responses. Parameters for student communication
should also be addressed in emergency remote teaching situations.
Students
Students who are engaged in face-to-face courses understand well the importance of showing up during
scheduled class times. Attendance is quite easily assessed through this format, as the individual is either
present or absent. In formal online courses, faculty measure attendance in specific terms, which are out-
lined in institutional policies. For instance, if a student views a resource, but does not post a reply to the
discussion board or submit an assignment, he/she may not be considered present. If, on the other hand,
a student does not review one of the resources or complete the weekly discussion, but does complete the
weekly assignment, then he/she may be considered present during that particular week. Participation
is typically defined as meaningful interaction with course activities in the virtual realm. In emergency
94

remote teaching, it is important for institutions and faculty to set parameters regarding attendance so
as to prepare students to fully participate. If no parameters are set, it will be impossible for faculty and
administration to engage in outreach in cases where students are not participating.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the global pandemic COVID-19 required institutions of higher education to rapidly adjust to
course delivery in a remote modality with few resources to support necessary changes. Despite the
challenges which are often associated with emergency remote teaching, best practices for online course
design, faculty training, and student support may be effectively implemented through careful planning
and the use of innovative strategy. The adoption of these best practices serves to improve the educational
experience for students, faculty, and administrators alike, and allows for the continuation of courses
and the reduction of disruptions to the learning process. Effective communication strategies must be
implemented throughout the process of emergency remote teaching to ensure cohesion and nurture
community within the organization.
REFERENCES
Affouneh, S., Salha, S., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2020). Designing quality e-learning environments for emergency
remote teaching in coronavirus crisis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences,
11(2), 1–3. doi:10.30476/ijvlms.2020.86120.1033
Alderman, L., Towers, S., & Bannah, S. (2012). Student feedback systems in higher education: A focused
literature review and environmental scan. Quality in Higher Education, 18(3), 261–280. doi:10.1080/1
3538322.2012.730714
Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception
of experienced instructors. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 152–155. doi:10.1016/j.ihe-
duc.2009.08.002
Bailey, T. L., & Brown, A. (2016). Online student services: Current practices and recommendations for imple-
mentation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(4), 450–462. doi:10.1177/0047239515616956
Baldwin, S., Ching, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2018). Online course design in higher education: A review of national
and statewide evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 62(1), 46–57. doi:10.100711528-017-0215-z
Baldwin, S. J., & Trespalacios, J. (2017). Evaluation instruments and good practices in online education.
Online Learning, 21(2), 104–121. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i2.913

Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. Tech-
Trends, 58(5), 95–101. doi:10.100711528-014-0791-0
95

Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2017). What motivates exemplary online teachers? A multiple case study.
In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An inter-
national compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–17). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-17727-4_33-2
Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2013). Tracing successful online teaching in higher educa-
tion: Voices of exemplary online teachers. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–41.
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2015). Technology tools to support learning design: Implica-
tions derived from an investigation of university teachers’ design practices. Computers & Education, 81,
211–220. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.016
Benton, S. L. (2018). IDEA Paper #69: Best practices in the evaluation of teaching. The IDEA Center.
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih,
M., Pete, J., Olcott, D. Jr, Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. V. Jr, Roberts, J., Pazurek, A.,
Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., ... Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the
interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis.
Coronavirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–4. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3778083
Brown, V. S., Lewis, D., & Toussaint, M. (2018). Students’ perceptions of quality across four course
development modules. Online Learning, 22(2), 173–195. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1213
Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online
course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3),
106–121. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912
Coswatte Mohr, S., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional
development: A Delphi study. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 123–140. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i4.1273
Cundell, A., & Sheepy, E. (2018). Student perceptions of the most effective and engaging online learning
activities in a blended graduate seminar. Online Learning, 22(3), 87–102. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i3.1467
Dennis, M., Fornero, S., Snelling, J., Thom, S., & Surles, J. (2020). Evaluating student perceptions of
a course-embedded faculty advising model. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 15(6),
10–21. doi:10.33423/jsis.v15i6.3592
Dennis, M., Halbert, J., DiMatteo-Gibson, D., Agada, C., & Fornero, C. (2020). Implementation of a
faculty evaluation model. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 17(5), 30–37. doi:10.33423/
jlae.v17i5
Edwards, M., Perry, B., & Janzen, K. (2011). The making of an exemplary online educator. Distance
Education, 32(1), 101–118. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.565499
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satis-
faction in university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,
14(3), 185–215. doi:10.1111/dsji.12097
96

Erbaggio, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., Hobbs, S., & Liu, H. (2012). Enhancing student engagement through
online authentic materials. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 42(2), 27–51. doi:10.17161/
iallt.v42i2.8511
Fayer, L. (2014). A multi-case study of student perceptions of online course design elements and suc-
cess. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 13. doi:10.20429/
ijsotl.2014.080113
Frankel, A. S., Friedman, L., Mansell, J., & Ibrahim, J. K. (2020). Steps towards success: Faculty train-
ing to support online student learning. Journal of Faculty Development, 34(2), 23–32.
Gares, S. L., Kariuki, J. K., & Rempel, B. P. (2020). Community matters: Student-instructor relation-
ships foster student motivation and engagement in an emergency remote teaching environment. Journal
of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3332–3335. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00635
Gay, G. H. (2016). An assessment of online instructor e-learning readiness before, during, and after course
delivery. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 199–220. doi:10.100712528-016-9115-z
Green, J. (2020). How not to evaluate teaching during a pandemic. https://www.chronicle.com/article/
how-not-to-evaluate-teaching-during-a-pandemic/
Green, J. K., Burrow, M. S., & Carvalho, L. (2020). Designing for transition: Supporting teachers and
students coping with emergency remote education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(6), 1–17.
doi:10.100742438-020-00185-6
Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Ralston-Berg, P., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2016). The impact of previous online course
experience on students’ perceptions of quality. Online Learning, 20(1), 25–40. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i1.565
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between
emergency remote teaching and online learning. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-
between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Jeffery, K. A., & Bauer, C. F. (2020). Students’ responses to emergency remote online teaching reveal
critical factors for all teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2472–2485. doi:10.1021/acs.
jchemed.0c00736
Journell, W. (2015). Practical guidelines for creating online courses in K-12 education. In T. L. Heafner,
R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments
(pp. 86–107). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6383-1.ch005
Knudson, D. (2020). A tale of two instructional experiences: Student engagement in active learning and
emergency remote learning of biomechanics. Sports Biomechanics, 1–11. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/14763141.2020.1810306 PMID:32924795
Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., Klein, D., & Nord, J. H. (2016). The importance of active learning ele-
ments in the design of online courses. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 4(2), 17–28.
doi:10.36965/OJAKM.2016.4(2)17-28
97

Kumar, S., Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teach-
ing practices: Elements of award-winning courses. Online Learning, 23(4), 160–180. doi:10.24059/olj.
v23i4.2077
Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2015). Learning theory and online learning in K-12 education: Instructional models
and implications. In T. L. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of on-
line education in K-12 environments (pp. 126–146). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6383-1.ch007
Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of
exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83–98. doi:10.100710755-006-9010-z
Mandernach, B. J. (2009). Effect of instructor-personalized multimedia in the online classroom. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–19. doi:10.19173/irrodl.
v10i3.606
Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching
practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1), 184–205. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i1.1329
Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching
practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Educa-
tion, 42, 34–43. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001
McKeown, C., & McKeown, J. (2019). Accessibility in online courses: Understanding the deaf learner.
TechTrends, 63(5), 506–513. doi:10.100711528-019-00385-3
Mohmmed, A. O., Khidhir, B. A., Nazeer, A., & Vijayan, V. J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching during
Coronavirus pandemic: The current trend and future directive at Middle East College Oman. Innovative
Infrastructure Solutions, 5(3), 1–11. doi:10.100741062-020-00326-7
Outlaw, V., & Rice, M. (2015). Best practices: Implementing an online course development & delivery
model. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(3), 1–10.
Petillion, R. K., & McNeil, W. S. (2020). Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: Impacts
of instructor practice on student learning, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Chemical Education,
97(9), 2486–2493. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00733
Rahiem, M. D. (2020). The emergency remote learning experience of university students in Indonesia
amidst the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research,
19(6), 1–26. doi:10.26803/ijlter.19.6.1
Rahim, A. F. A. (2020). Guidelines for online assessment in emergency remote teaching during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Education in Medicine Journal, 12(2), 59–68. doi:10.21315/eimj2020.12.2.6
Schlesselman, L. S. (2020). Perspective from a teaching and learning center during emergency remote teach-
ing. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(8), 1–2. doi:10.5688/ajpe8142 PMID:32934391
Stanger, A. (2020). Make all courses pass/fail now. https://www.chronicle.com/article/make-all-courses-
pass-fail-now/
98

Stevens, K. B. (2013). Contributing factors to a successful online course development process. The
Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61(1), 2–11. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.758554
Toquero, C. M. (2020a). Emergency remote education experiment amid COVID-19 pandemic. IJERI:
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 15(15), 162–172. doi:10.46661/ijeri.5113
Toquero, C. M. (2020b). Emergency remote teaching amid COVID-19: The turning point. Asian Journal of
Distance Education, 15(1), 185–188. https://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/450
Toquero, C. M., & Talidong, K. J. (2020). Webinar technology: Developing teacher training programs for
emergency remote teaching amid COVID-19. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical
Sciences, 11(3), 200–203. doi:10.30476/IJVLMS.2020.86889.1044
Van Heuvelen, K. M., Daub, G. W., & Van Ryswyk, H. (2020). Emergency remote instruction during
the COVID-19 pandemic reshapes collaborative learning in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical
Education, 97(9), 2884–2888. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00691
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(2), 189–199.
Whittle, C., Tiwari, S., Yan, S., & Williams, J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching environment: A
conceptual framework for responsive online teaching in crises. Information and Learning Sciences,
121(5-6), 311–319. doi:10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0099
Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies, and practices: Digital
technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technol-
ogy, 45(2), 107–114. doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
Zimmerman, J. (2020). Coronavirus and the great online learning experiment. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/coronavirus-and-the-great-online-learning-experiment/
Best Practice: A best practice is a set of procedures that represents the accepted or correct strategy
for accomplishing an aim.
Discussion Board: A virtual sharing forum to which instructors post questions and students post
responses.
Emergency Remote Teaching: Nonpermanent rapid adjustments to the mode of course delivery in
response to situations which are catastrophic in nature.
Engagement: Expressed interest, attention, enthusiasm, and commitment to an institution, task or

activity.
Learning Management System: A virtual domain which facilitates the management of course delivery.
Listening Session: A strategy for collecting feedback which includes a group and is led by a facilitator.
Mentorship: Advice and support which is shared by an individual who holds experience in the
subject matter on which the mentoring is being provided.
Multi-Media: Varied means for communication and presentation.
99

Online Education: Facilitation of a class which was designed for delivery through a completely
online modality. Online education involves extensive planning over a period of months.
100
101
Chapter 6
A Road Map for the COVID-19
Pandemic Process to Ensure
Quality of Assurance Active
Learning Strategies in Online
Learning Environments:
How to Plan, Implement, Evaluate,
and Improve Learning Activities
Nazire Burcin Hamutoglu

Eskisehir Technical University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
The damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in the feld of education on a global scale has caused
many school closures worldwide and prevented many students from beneftting from the educational
services in a limited way. In order to overcome this situation, educational institutions had to switch to
distance education applications. This study provides a roadmap and aims to identify teaching and learn-
ing activities in an online learning environment considering the learning outcomes to ensure the quality
assurance with the basis of SMART goals and “Gagne’s Events of Instruction” model by including active
learning strategies. Assessments were completed by the alternative approaches, such as self-evaluation,
peer evaluation, and evaluation by the instructor. Finally, based on the identifed scenarios, an eclectic
model of scenario which is called “FlipHyb” is presented.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch006

A Road Map for the COVID-19 Pandemic Process to Ensure Quality of Assurance Active Learning Strategies
INTRODUCTION
The damage caused by the Covid 19 pandemic in the field of education on a global scale has caused
many school closures worldwide and prevented many students to benefit from the educational services
and / or to benefit from it in a limited way. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization-UNESCO (2020a) while on the 16th of February only Mongolia closed their
status due to Covid-19 pandemic and China had a partially open status, the impact of pandemic spread
day by day around worldwide. It is stated that by the end of March, 169 countries around the world
closed schools and / or interrupted education, and approximately 84% of the total enrolled students (f =
1,471,046,684) were affected by this situation (UNESCO, 2020a). In order to overcome this situation,
educational institutions had to switch to distance education applications. However, it is seen that the
practices were insufficient, many dynamics of distance education, especially technology and pedagogy,
remained outside of this process. This process can be likened to hedgehogs hugging each other when
they are cold and then finding the right distance due to their spines. Accordingly, most of the practices
made could not prevent the hedgehogs from getting cold by maintaining their own distance due to the
prickling of their thorns when they got cold. Then, based on this metaphor, we can explain why distance
education applications are called Emergency Remote Teaching-ERT. This compulsory and rapid move-
ment made by many educational institutions during the crisis is nothing more than remote access (Erkut,
2020; Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust & Bond, 2020; Williamson, Eynon, & Potter, 2020). Although
examples of best practice can be seen during the pandemic, it is clear that the applications made in
general cannot go beyond accessing the learning content in an online learning environment. Most of the
best practices have seen that are incorporated with technology and pedagogy. For example, it is recom-
mended in the study of O’Keefe, Rafferty, Gunder and Vignare (2020) that Open Suny Course Quality
Rubric (OSCQR) Course Design Review Scorecard is a course-level quality rubric developed by the State
University of New York for reviewing and improving the instructional design and accessibility of online
courses based on online best practices, includes Course Overview and Information, Course Technology
and Tools, Design and Layout, Content and Activities, Interaction, Assessment and Feedback categories.
It is determined that conceptually using rubrics in educational activities and the online course review
and refresh process are implemented as a professional development exercise designed to guide online
faculty to use research-based effective practices and standards to improve the quality, effectiveness, and
efficiency of their online course design, rather than as an online course evaluation, or quality assurance
procedure (URL 1). Contrary to this, other examples (i.g uploading portable document file etc.) have
been seen during the ERT process. These practices caused the stakeholders to experience psychological
problems as well as academically. Especially considering the motivational factors. As stated in Bozkurt
(2020b) metaphoric views. In fact, the concept of “remote” reveals the difference between good practice
examples and the deficiencies in common applications. As it is stated in Bozkurt (2020b, p.120)
If we consider face-to-face lectures and distance education lessons as an equation, both sides of the
equation are equal, but the variables that make up the equation are different on both sides. For example,
a two-hour face-to-face lesson may correspond to a 20-minute synchronous lesson and different asyn-
chronous activities that support this process. Another point to be considered in this process is flexibility
in the presentation of the contents and the provision of different access options. In other words, the
learner should be able to access different contents and different access points in return for the face-to-
face course (p.120).
102

In fact, the explanation of the concept of “remote” explains that the variables in distance education
and face to face environments are different; on the other hand, it contains hints that the quality assurance
criteria of these variables are also different. Studies in the literature come together on the ground that
interventions to be made are necessary to make distance education planned, institutional and sustainable
(Hamutoğlu & Arslan, 2020). Güneş and Hamutoğlu (2020) express distance education as an umbrella
concept in the regulation and execution of learning-teaching activities and draws attention to the lively
and dynamic nature of the distance education system. In the light of all these explanations, it is pos-
sible to say that the activities carried out only change the environment to extinguish the existing fire.
Although the distance education activities should include serious planning, within the pandemic process
the applications made during the pandemic process are far from these plans, they are not integrated with
the designs in accordance with the dynamics of the online environment, and they are not aware of the
activities for implementation, evaluation and improvement. In the light of all these arguments, it can
be said that quality assurance in distance education is very important. It is thought that observing the
Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle in planning distance education activities will help ensure quality assurance
in education so that the dynamics of the “distance” concept can be applied by moving away from the
concept of “remote” in the activities.
The Aim and Significance of the Study
This study provides a roadmap for both decision makers and practitioners in the Covid 19 process in
terms of planning, implementing, evaluating and improving activities in online learning environments by
employing Gagne’s Events of Instruction model and SMART approach with active learning strategies,
which are well known in terms of instructional design and quality assurance.
In this study, it is believed that during the Covid 19 pandemic process the teaching and learning activi-
ties are moved to online learning environments without any care to provide the learning outcomes. The
worry about ensuring the learning outcomes, this study provides a road map and aims to identify while
designing teaching and learning activities in an online learning environment considering the learning
outcomes to ensure the quality assurance. Hence, this study mainly focus on the followings:
1. How to plan teaching and learning activities with active learning strategies in online learning
environments?
2. How to implement teaching and learning activities with active learning strategies in online learning
environments?
3. How to evaluate teaching and learning activities with active learning strategies in online learning
environments?
4. How to improve teaching and learning activities with active learning strategies in online learning
environments?
BACKGROUND OF THE CHAPTER
The application of educational activities during global pandemic has resulted in a movement to an
online learning environment from a traditional educational setting with not well-planned activities for
online learning dynamics. This fast reflexive learning emerged a definition which is different from
103

distance education applications. Covid 19 is the first global crisis to occur in the digital world (Bozkurt
& Sharma, 2020). As indicated in Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust and Bond (2020) emergency remote
teaching (ERT) is a
temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances and
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.
According to O’Keefe, Rafferty, Gunder, and Vignare (2020) the differences between online learning
and ERT could be visualized in Table 1 (p.7).
In this manner, it is possible to say that the Covid 19 global pandemic has affected the educational
settings with all stakeholders, and interrupted to education community most perspectives from such as
academical (i.e. institutional and program learning outcomes) as well as psychological (i.e. motivational
factors) and technical. Actually, this process, which seems to be a great loss at first sight, is actually
interpreted as an advantage in some educational circles (Bozkurt, 2020a), and as Costello, Brown, Don-
lon and Girme’s (2020) conclusions, it is calling that for other historians of futures past to help uncover
timelines, and write alternative fictions, that promote pedagogies of hope, care, justice, and a brighter
day. Because nowadays, as we approached the end of the first quarter of the century we are in, we still
observe that traditional learning approaches are trying to be squeezed between closed walls. We can say
that the Covid 19 pandemic process showed us that we were not very mistaken in these observations.
Because we have witnessed that the process carried out in many educational institutions is limited to
changing the environment. Actually distant learning is a serious process which requires a lot of planning
and designing, but during this period the only difference that we did in terms of educational activities
was to stay at home, instead of physically going to school, and try to do these activities on online plat-
forms such as Zoom, Meet, Hangout with either a free limited version or a paid license purchased by
our organizations. We observed that many of them had a lower-level of awareness about asynchronous
applications, moreover even those who had awareness were trying to teach synchronously during priorly
set teaching sessions without changing the content of the lessons that were originally planned for face-
to-face teaching. It is as if online teaching is only speaking in front of a camera and telling exactly the
same things that they regularly used to do in their physical classroom environment. We wish it was that
simple. Unfortunately, education is not just telling or speaking. Additionally, straining and pushing the
dynamics of online teaching to the limits for transferring and integrating activities that are originally
designed for conventional face-to-face teaching environments is a big mistake. These mistakes have vari-
ous aspects. For example, from the psychological aspect: there were of course good practices. However,
it can be said that uploading ordinary pdf files into the system, powerpoint presentations being too big
and artless and apparently external factors such as inefficient Internet connection and lack of necessary
hardwares lead to negative issues such as lack of motivation, exhaustion, anxiety and anger. As a matter
of fact, in the metaphor example of Bozkurt (2020b) it is stated that it is important to apply the theory
and the application in a balanced manner on the basis of instructional design in line with themes obtained
as positive metaphors (facilitator, life-long learning, readiness for teaching, structured learning, sense of
community, autonomy, independence from time and place, internal motivation and accessibility) as well
as negative metaphors (sense of loneliness, artificiality, socializing, external motivation, isolation, lack
of communication, psychological withdrawal, quality, inequality, instantaneity and emotional affinity).
104

Since human beings are social beings, planning should be made considering its psychological aspects
as well as social aspects on individuals rather than a cognitive-oriented approach in these applications.
Communal life is an important feature of the human kind which made it possible to spread to every part
of the world and it is what distinguishes us different from our cousins Homo neandertalensis, Homo
erectus, Homo soloensis, Homo floresienss, Homo denisova, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster (Harari,
2016). These applications appear to be progressing without considering the results of the studies carried
out in the field of educational technologies. In fact, interaction, which is one of the basic dynamics of
online learning, can be maintained and sustained with activities intended for improving the engage-
ment of learners in front of the screen. Teaching design principles and applications which are the body
knowledge of the field of educational technologies should be progressed and improved in a systemic,
planned, applicable, evaluable and sustainable way by integrating the approaches of theoreticians in the
field. In order to do this, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework suggested by Garrison, Anderson
and Archer, and components of the model that Mishra and Koehler (2006) addressed for technology,
pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK) and the Cognitive Load theory that John Sweller worked
on in a detailed way and other relevant components (Sweller, Van Merrienboer and Paas, 1998) should
be discussed. Additionally, practical results of the scientific studies carried out in the light of theories
and relevant models of the related components of Dual-Coding Theory proposed by Paivio (1991) and
Mayer’s (2001) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning should also be considered. The CoI model has
some applications which allow creating a sense of classroom community and it is also included in the
distant learning systems of major universities such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Open
University, similarly some learning management systems such as KhanAcademy, Canvas, Blackboard and
Moodle have tools that allow creating a sense of classroom as well. Similarly, TPACK is an important
model of the educational technologies which are thought to integrate technology and pedagogy knowledge
with content and strengthen the sense of belonging by improving the individuals’ level of being accepted
in their current environment. Lastly, cognitive load theory and multimedia design principles have also
research results and applications that allow learners to have a healthy interaction with the content. Ac-
cordingly, merely presenting an educational content with traditional methods in a way that is detached
from the principles, models and techniques of educational technologies and pedagogical approaches of
educational science certainly will not go beyond “remote” and will bring psychological outcomes of
the interactive remoteness. Negative emotions experienced as a result of being unable to contact the
instructor, being late to online exams because of various reasons, anxiety about delivering homeworks,
reports and presentations on time may affect the psychological well-being of individuals and that may
ultimately lead to traumas in the future by developing various symptoms stemming from these issues.
Similarly, instructors experience anxiety as well. Responsibilities and challenges such as evaluating
the students in a safe and reliable way, ensuring the subjects and topics are understood well, working
from home being difficult, having too much administrative tasks and Zoom meetings, and bureaucratic
processes may cause instructors feel psychologically exhausted. As a matter of fact, in the study car-
ried out by Hamutoğlu and Arslan (2020) it is stated that instructors expressed negative opinions about
having endless meetings on the Zoom platform. This statement is supported by the study carried out by
Degges-White (2020) in which they stated Zoom tiredness causes social and psychological exhaustion.
In such a difficult situation, the pandemic should be regarded as an opportunity. In fact, despite believ-
ing that nothing will be the same as before but still designing our lesson content in accordance with the
dynamics of the distant learning even in such an instability brought by the Chaos Theory will ultimately
105

bring a balance. It should be remembered that the most basic and important step is to ensure the learn-
ing outcomes. For this purpose, good practices both in the world and across Turkey should be reviewed.
Best Practices and Key Terms in Online Learning

Environment During Coronavirus Pandemic
When Covid-19 outbreak turned to be a global pandemic, educational institutions were closed to slow
down, the education community started to talk about the synchronous and asynchronous applications
which are the different application styles of online learning (Gülbahar, 2012). However, it was observed
that the practices carried out were pedagogically incomplete and did not progress on the basis of a well-
planned design. Hence, considering the dynamics of these environments in this part, it is planned to be
integrated with pedagogy suitable for the dynamics of different online learning environments. As it is
indicated in UNESCO’s (2020b) online meeting report, cities at the forefront of COVID-19 should be
recovery processes and in crafting forward-looking solutions. In the report, it is among the main aims
of doing this to share best practices and initiatives from cities’ responses to COVID-19 to allow cities
to better adapt and recover (p.4). O’Keefe, Rafferty, Gunder, and Vignare (2020) indicated key issues
of high quality instruction online in response to COVID-19 with several topics such as designing in
equity in mind, course design, course component, source management and evaluation and continuous
improvement. In their playbook, it is aimed to deliver high-quality online courses from continuity planning
during a crisis, to developing and maintaining with the keys of quality course design. It is worthwhile to
note that while equitable course design encompasses academic, pedagogical, psychological, social and
technological consideration (Keller, 2019); the course design principles consist of three trivets such as
learning goals and objectives, teaching and learning activities, and feedback and assessment that need
to be aligned (O’Keefe et al., 2020). Designing courses provide a structure for the course and clear
goals, and these goals help you enhance for creating a “map” for the course which shows an outline of
the associated course content and learning objectives for an effective teaching and learning experience
(O’Keefe et al., 2020). Finally, in the playbook, it is suggested to evaluate quality for optimizing which
is an essential part of continuous improvement, and using tools such as the Scorecard. Addition to this it
is believed that scorecard helps to ensure that course content is in alignment with current best practices.
A Brief Information Package of Based on SMART Learning Outcomes

Related With the Program Outcomes and Quality Assurance
As indicated above the difference of ERT and distance learning and their dynamics in applications, in
this part it is planned to prepare an information package which integrates both technology and pedagogy
as well as context knowledge while planning the teaching and learning activities in line with the online
learning environment dynamics to ensure the quality assurance with the basis of SMART goals and a
well-known instructional design model called “Gagne’s Events of Instruction”. SMART goals are writ-
ten as follows: 1) Specific – define exactly what is being pursued? and exactly, what is it you want to
achieve in your program or course? 2) Measurable – is there a number to track completion? and exactly
how will you track the progress or measure the outcome in your program or course? 3) Attainable –
can the goal be achieved? and exactly what are you going to do to reach the outcome in your program
or course. 4) Realistic – doable from a business perspective, and the program learning objects (LO)
should be challenging but realistic and also relevant. LO may be optimistic at first but once you develop
106

strategies to achieve the PLO or CLO, it will become more realistic. 5) Timely – can it be completed
in a reasonable amount of time? and should include a time limit by when do you want to achieve your
result? Who is responsible? (often programs name the course where it is found – curriculum map.) Will
it transfer to other institutions? (Williams, 2012). There is written a sample learning outcomes based
on SMART goals below:
[time] By the end of the [program] Mathematical Education Program [who] the graduate will be able
to [active verb/measure] ______________ [what to be mastered/achieved] ________________ [in what
context/relevance] _____________.
Instructional Design Based on Gagne’s “Events of Instruction” Model
In the part, while preparing as a brief information package for lesson plans Gagne’s events of instruc-
tion model will be taken into consideration in line with the SMART goals. This instructional design
model is well-known and it is believed that this model will be useful to provide the learning outcomes
by making instruction effective, efficient, and attractive. This model consists of nine stages and these
stages are as follows: (1) Gaining attention, (2) Informing the learner of the objective, (3) Stimulating
recall of prerequisite learning, (4) Presenting the stimulus material, (5) Providing learning guidance,
(6) Eliciting the performance, (7) Providing feedback, (8) Assessing the performance, (9) Enhancing
retention and transfer (Gagne, Wager, Golas, Keller, & Russell, 2005).
Designing Teaching and Learning Activities
This part of the book deals with teaching design and learning activities related to achievements such
as “(1) will be able to explain concepts related to polygons (remembering)”, “(2) will be able to draw a
polygon using the dynamic software program (applying-valuing-perception-set-guided response)”, “(3)
will be able to discuss on the concepts which they developed by using the dynamic software program
(creating, valuing, adaptation, origination)” which are a part of the “definition of polygon, proving the
geometrical theorems related to tetragon, parallel edge, rhombus, rectangle, square, deltoid, trapezoid,
isoscleles.” subjects of “Geometry” lesson. These outcomes are related to the program outcomes such
as “Identifies basic concepts, theories and applications”, “Thinks mathematically and uses it in daily
life” and “Thinks in a creative and critical way, and identified with the basis of cognitive, affective and
psych-motor learning domains. Allocated time for this subject in accordance with the identified outcomes
is limited to 3 teaching hours in the weekly program and is equal to 5 ECTS-credits. It is evaluated ac-
cording to some criteria such as classroom activities, non-classroom activities, mid-term exam, quiz,
homework and final exam. Since the subject is studied one week and teaching hours during a week
are 3 hours, the total working hours for classroom and non-classroom activities are 6 hours. Student
achievement level in this outcome will be evaluated with a subject follow-up test that will contribute to
the evaluation process which is set as 1 hour. In this way, the preliminary preparation of the subject has
7 hours work load and its influence on ECTS (7 hours/25 hours) is calculated as 0.28 ECTS. (Note. 1
ECTS equals 25 lesson hours. Table 2 presents the information pocket of the course sample.
107

Planning Online Learning Activities
This part deals with planning online learning activities related to the lesson learning objectives which
are written above in accordance with the SMART objective. Planning stage corresponds to (1) draw-
ing attention, (2) informing the students about the objective and (2) reminding preliminary information
stages of Gagne’s events of instruction model. In this stage, in order to draw their attention, the students
are asked the following question: “Have you ever seen a honey comb?” Then, they are informed about
the outcomes of the subject. In the last stage of the introduction part, students are asked: “Do you think
patterns on a honey comb are perfect?” and to increase their readiness to the desired level they are asked
questions such as “if yes, do you think it is possible draw a flawless/perfect polygon?”. In the develop-
ment stage of the lesson, in accordance with Gagne’s event of instruction model, learning and teaching
activities are planned about (4) presenting the stimulus material, (5) providing learning guidance, (6)
eliciting the performance and (7) feedback. In this context, a presentation will be showed to the students
in order to let them understand the concepts related to polygons better and also to let them realize that
a flawless and perfect polygon can only be drawn with dynamic software programs. After this presen-
tation, students will be introduced an interactive Web 2.0 tool for implementing the relevant concept
(PADLET) and within the context of the related instructions (Annex A) students will be asked to draw
a polygon, then the flawlessness of the polygon will be discussed. Students will be asked to achieve the
learning outcomes by using the active learning methods based on the principles given in the instructions.
After the discussion, the polygon concept, its implementations and outcomes of related subject will be
reinforced by drawing a flawless polygon on GeoGebra. The instructor will guide the students by giving
them constructive feedback. Finally, in the results stage of the lesson (8) assessing the performance, (9)
enhancing retention and transfer, students will evaluate both their own and peers’ performance by using
a rubric. The activity in the implementations for the objective of “drawing a circle based on the polygon
concept” which is related to the “circle concept and its implementations” subject is found to be reten-
tive and transferable. (Maintaining Retention and Transferability) (Annex 1a). Planned activities will be
implemented by using the break out rooms feature of Zoom platform in accordance with Buzz 66 which
is an active learning method. Additionally, to provide the scope validity of teaching, it is recommended to
be planned and applied an indicator chart which shows the relation between learning outcomes and level
of learning domains (e.g. cognitive learning, affective learning and psycho-motor learning) (Annex 1b).
Implementing Online Learning Activities
This part deals with the implementation of online learning activities planned in relation to lesson learn-
ing achievement that is written above in accordance with SMART objective, by using Buzz 66 groups
created on Zoom platform, and Padlet and GeoGebra dynamic software program. In the implementation
stage, learning-teaching activities planned in accordance with Gagne’s events of instruction model will
be implemented (Annex 1a, Annex A). Figure 1 and Figure 2 present the implementation environment
of online learning activities.
The interaction of cooperative learner groups during the learning process should be paid special
attention during the implementation. In fact, in this design, the interaction between the learner and his
buzz group is an example of “learner-learner” interaction and it can be said that the implementations
they do with their peers during process structuring will affect the quality of learning. Furthermore, the
learner interacts with the content that is presented to him with a pedagogy and technology infrastructure
108

conforming with the nature of online learning environment. During this process, the instructor’s offer-
ing “structured support” in order to let the learners achieve the outcomes of the subject also ensures a
“learner-instructor” interaction.
“Break out rooms” feature of Zoom application can be used to do this implementation. In fact, by
keeping the students with the cooperative buzz groups in a room/group can help to manage their learning
with the help learning instructions presented to them and meet the expectations. The instructor and/or
assistant in charge can visit the rooms/groups on Zoom platform to interact with learners and can give
them structured support in the light of relevant achievements. Learners can structure learning process
in cooperation with their peers as well as individually gaining experience in buzz learning groups about
the instructions presented to them related to the learning content.
This application is a teaching environment which is designed considering the dynamics of teaching
environments and in which the learning process is enriched with the technological infrastructure based
on different pedagogical approaches so that quality is ensured by meeting the learning achievements.
This design ensured the learners had a sense of classroom community in an online environment and
experience the dynamics of online learning environments with regards to taking learner’s responsibilities
in cooperative buzz groups. Different interactions experienced by learners is a result of putting the ap-
proach that serves for learning into the center and it occurs on the basis of removing the gaps stemming
from psychological factors and lack of communication.
Evaluating Online Learning Activities (Annex B)
This part aims to evaluate the learning activities carried out related to subject outcomes. Within the
context of this aim, the applications that the students are expected to perform using the PADLET ap-
plication, regarding the “(1) will be able to explain polygon-related concepts” outcome which is listed
in remember category of Bloom’s Taxonomy, will be evaluated with a “Rubric” (holistic). In addition
to this, the applications that the students are expected to perform using the GeoGebra Dynamic software
application, regarding the “(1) will be able to draw a polygon by using a dynamic software program”
outcome which is listed in apply category of Bloom’s Taxonomy, will be evaluated with a “Check List”.
The check list evaluation criteria include the “Construction Protocol” implementation steps which were
previously presented to students. Lastly, “(3) will be able to discuss the concepts and the applications
that they developed using the dynamic software program.” Regarding the applications they performed
in accordance with the outcome of the subject that is listed in the evaluation category of Bloom’s
Taxonomy, the students are expected to “Discuss on the grounds of polygon-related concepts and the
dynamic software program whether it is possible to draw a flawless and perfect polygon in real life” and
this discussion will be evaluated personally by an instructor with the help of an open-ended question.
Evaluation will be made in three ways: (a) Self-evaluation “students evaluate their own applications
according to the specified criteria”, (b) Peer evaluation “applications of the students are evaluated by
the other members of the group according to the specified criteria” and (c) Evaluation by the instructor
“applications of the students are evaluated by the instructor according to the specified criteria”. Evalu-
ation results will contribute to the final results at different rates. The rates determined for this study are
15% for self-evaluation while rates for peer evaluation (average) and instructor evaluation are 25% and
60%, respectively. Contribution of the evaluation results to the final evaluation of the first, second and
third achievements are 20%, 30% and 50%, respectively. Lastly, students with a final evaluation result
greater or equal to 85 will be given a gold badge, and those between 75 to 85 a silver badge and finally
109

those between 65 and 75 will be given a bronze badge by using the dynamics of the online learning
environment. This implementation intends to promote and reinforce learning.
Improving Online Learning Activities Based on the

Feedback From Stakeholders (Annex C)
In this part of the study, students are expected to provide feedback about the activities performed related
to the subject achievements. In this context, the questions addressed to the students are as follows: “What
is your favorite aspect of the activity?”, “Is there anything that you think “it should be included in the
activity” in the future?”, and “What do you dislike most about the activity?” and “Any other thoughts
or suggestions?” Student feedbacks will be reviewed in order to improve the next activities? This will
allow the instructors see the weaknesses and strengths of the activity they perform. Improvements will
make it possible to control the activities and strengthen the failing components by ensuring the quality
in education.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, as a conclusion, it is worthwhile to determine the importance of CITE departments in

higher education institutions. CITE departments are like an umbrella organization for integrating tech-
nology into the curriculum and pedagogy in educational settings, even online learning environments.
Additionally, ensuring the quality of teaching and learning outcomes should also be taken into consid-
eration while designing teaching and learning activities within the concept of Plan-Do-Check-Act to
close the circle. This approach is important to endure and sustain online teaching and learning activities
within the context of quality assurance while planning the course design.
Actually, during the novel Coronavirus pandemic, it is believed that the teaching and learning activi-
ties should be sustained based on different scenarios. Based on the models (Maloney & Kim, 2020) in
the article named “15 Fall Scenarios” in which fifteen different scenarios related to higher education in
the social distance / distancing period are discussed. At the end of this part, an eclectic model is going
to be proposed for this chapter.
The scenarios identified by Maloney and Kim (2020) are as follows: (1) Back to Normal, (2) A Late
Start, (3) Moving Fall to Spring, (4) First Year Intensive, (5) Graduate Students Only, (6) Structured Gap
Year, (7) Target Curriculum, (8) Split Curriculum, (9) A Block Plan, (10) Modularity, (11) Students in
Residence, Learning Virtually, (12) A Low-Residency Model, (13) A HyFlex Model, (14) A Modified
Tutorial Model, (15) Fully Remote.
Based on the identified scenarios above, an eclectic model of scenario which is called “FlipHyb” is
presented which takes into account organization, cooperation/collaboration and evaluation strategies.
Eclectic Model is based on the principle of examining all models and creating based on the advantages of
each model, and its name was written inspired by the eclectic philosophy. Accordingly, the “FlippHyb”
model, which is a new model proposal that can be applied in higher education institutions, was a model
created with the bases and abbreviations of “flipped classroom”, which means an inverted classroom,
and “hybrid / blended learning” applications used for mixed learning. Accordingly, the proposed model
follows six principles as seen in Figure 3. Moreover, the justification of the principles also take place
in Table 3.
110

Regardless of whether FlippHyp model or applications in the scenarios are proposed, the main concern
should be ensuring the quality of teaching design. Quality assurance requires using efficient learning
strategies without compromising learning objectives, regardless of the teaching environment. In times
of crises, improving the learner engagement to the learning environment by committing to quality as-
surance of activities is important.
This study deals with designing a subject based on pedagogic and technological infrastructure in
order to ensure quality. The applications that will be implemented throughout the design process should
be planned even before the school year begins. As a matter of fact, this planning process demands a lot
of time and effort but the applications performed during the global pandemic are quite different and
more difficult than the applications qualified as ERT. With this being the case, it should be regarded as
a great opportunity to benefit more from the distant education models by updating the learning content.
Instructors are recommended to review the good practices and to restructure their teaching content.
Integration of the content with the appropriate technology infrastructure and/or online learning envi-
ronment and the effort to reach learning outcomes by taking a pedagogical approach in the process will
certainly increase the quality of the educational processes. It should be remembered that the problems
experienced in this process will be detected in the first cycle of the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle and the
improvements will ensure the quality.
RECOMMENDATION
For Decision Makers and Practitioners
Decision makers should support the continuity of the education of the learners in order not to inter-
rupt the education in the Covid 19 global pandemic. In this respect, some implementation models are
mentioned above in order to ensure quality assurance in education and to ensure that decision makers
and politicians manage this process in the best way in order not to compromise the provision of learn-
ing outcomes. The “FlippHyb” model has been proposed in the book section on bringing together the
strengths and practicalities of these models. It can be said that the dynamics of this model are very
important before the planning and implementation of learning and teaching activities by practitioners.
So much so that the “FlippHyb” model, in which the strengths of traditional face-to-face and distance
education applications are integrated with a flexible approach according to the pandemic conditions,
can provide flexibility for the practitioners. The transfer of learning and teaching activities either as a
whole or a certain part to online learning environments and / or supporting them with the dynamics of
online learning environments can be a model that can be taken as a basis in ensuring the continuity of
education and making its impact less felt by reducing the impact of the global pandemic we are in. The
positioning of decision makers and politicians in accordance with the dynamics of this proposed model
can create a solid basis for practitioners in terms of developing and evaluating learning and teaching
activities in a planned manner in the next step.
For Practitioners
Practitioners are a very important foundation in the motivation of this book chapter. In fact, in line with
the dynamics of the model that decision makers take as the basis for ensuring continuity of education
111

and quality assurance in the Covid 19 global pandemic, it is recommended that practitioners plan their
learning and teaching activities. In line with, decision-makers and politicians could apply the model
presented above and practitioners can plan to what extent (all and / or part of it - mixed or fully online)
they will conduct their lessons in an online learning environment. After the implementation of this
decision, at the planning stage, practitioners can evaluate whether they have reached the course learn-
ing outcomes by designing their teaching using the Gagne’s Events of Instruction model and SMART
approach presented in the relevant section in the design of the teaching. Practitioners can benefit from
active learning strategies that are well suited to the dynamics of online learning environments and can
evaluate after planning and implementing learning and teaching activities in accordance with this strat-
egy. According to the results of the evaluation, it can help to ensure the transfer and permanence with
activities aimed at improvement, as well as support the monitoring of learning and teaching activities
by seeing whether the design serves to provide learning outcomes.
REFERENCES
Bozkurt, A. (2020a). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik
değerlendirmeler: Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim paradigması. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları
Dergisi, 6(3), 112–142.
Bozkurt, A. (2020b). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) Pandemisi Sırasında İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Uzaktan
Eğitime Yönelik İmge ve Algıları: Bir Metafor Analizi. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi,
6(2), 1–23. doi:10.29065/usakead.777652
CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi.
Costello, E., Brown, M., Donlon, E., & Girme, P. (2020). The Pandemic Will Not be on Zoom: A Ret-
rospective from the Year 2050. Postdigital Science and Education, 1-9. doi:10.100742438-020-00150-3
Degges-White, S. (2020). Zoom Fatigue: Don’t Let Video Meetings Zap Your Energy. Some ‘cheats’ to
help you beat Zoom fatigue before it beats you. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/
us/blog/lifetime-connections/202004/zoom-fatiguedont-let-video-meetings-zap-your-energy
Erkut, E. (2020). Covid-19 Sonrası Yükseköğretim, Yükseköğretim Dergisi. Çevrimiçi Erken Baskı.
doi:10.2399/yod.20.002
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instruc-
tional design. Performance Improvement, 44(2), 44–46. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140440211
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Com-
puter conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
Gülbahar, Y. (2012). E-öğrenme (2nd ed.). Pegem yayıncılık.
Güneş, E., & Hamutoğlu, N. B. (2020). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme. Uzaktan Eğitimin Geleceği In Uzaktan
Eğitimde Araştırma ve Değerlendirme (1. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
112

Hamutoğlu, N. B., & Arslan, G. (2020). Covid-19 küresel salgın dönemi: Eskişehir Teknik Üniversi-
tesi deneyimi – Yenilikçi uygulamalar. In Covid-19 küresel salgın sürecinde öğretim elemanlarının ve
öğrencilerin uzaktan eğitim deneyimlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları
(Baskıda).
Harari, N. Y. (2016). Hayvanlardan tanrılara: Sapiens. Retrieved from https://anarcho-copy.org/free/
sapiens.pdf
remote teaching and online learning. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-
emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Maloney, E. J., & Kim, J. (2020). 15 Falls Scenarios. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/
digital-learning/blogs/learning-innovation/15-fall-scenarios
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139164603
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
O’Keefe, L., Rafferty, J., Gunder, A., & Vignare, K. (2020). Delivering High-Quality Instruction Online
in Response to COVID-19: Faculty Playbook. Online Learning Consortium.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology,
45(3), 255–287. doi:10.1037/h0084295
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
The SUNY online course quality review rubric OSCQR. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://oscqr.suny.edu/
UNESCO. (2020a). Covid 19 Impact on Education. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
UNESCO. (2020b). Urban Solutions: Learning from cities’ responses to Covid 19. https://en.unesco.
org/sites/default/files/ucp_meeting_report_.pdf
Williams, C. (2012). MGMT (5th ed.). SouthWestern College Publishing.
Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital
ogy, 45(2), 107–114. doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
113

ADDITIONAL READING
Aloizou, V., Villagrá Sobrino, S. L., Martínez Monés, A., Asensio Pérez, J. I., & García Sastre, S. (2019).
Quality assurance methods assessing instructional design in MOOCs that implement active learning
pedagogies: An evaluative case study. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
McKenna, C., & Bull, J. (2000). Quality assurance of computer‐assisted assessment: Practical and stra-
tegic issues. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(1), 24–32. doi:10.1108/09684880010312659
Nerantzi, C. (2020). The use of peer instruction and flipped learning to support flexible blended learning
during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Management and Applied Research,
7(2), 184–195. doi:10.18646/2056.72.20-013
Quilter, S., & Weber, R. K. (2004). Quality assurance for online teaching in higher education: Consid-
ering and identifying best practice for e-learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(2), 64–73.
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Yu, W. C. (2011). Evaluating the reliability and impact of a quality as-
surance system for E-learning courseware. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1615–1627. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.01.020
Assessment and Evaluation (Formative Evaluation): It is the process in which variables such as
reinforcement, hint, feedback, correction, student participation, methods and strategies used, tools, and
materials are taken into account.
Checklist: It is a type of job aid used to reduce failure by compensating for potential limits of human
memory and attention and helps to ensure consistency and completeness in carrying out a task.
Gagne’s Instructional Design: The model is a systematic process that helps instructors to develop
strategies and crate activities for instructional classes.
Geogebra: It is an open source dynamic mathematics software, which was prepared by Markus
Hohenwarter in 2001 as a master’s thesis at the University of Salzburg, and later developed by an in-
ternational group that carries geometry, algebra and analysis to a single interface that can be used at all
levels from primary education to higher education.
Learning Outcomes: They are statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand and be
able to demonstrate at the end of a learning experience.
Padlet: Is an extremely easy-to-use tool that allows learners to collaborate online by posting text,
images, links, documents, videos, and voice recordings.
Rubric: It is a scoring chart that lists the criteria to be used in evaluating a study.
SMART: SMART is an approach of a set of criteria or characteristics (specific, measurable, achiev-
able, relevant, time-oriented) used to develop learning outcomes.
114
APPENDIX 1: TABLES
Table 1. Differences between online learning and ERT
Emergency Remote Teaching Optimal Online Learning

Less time for planning Teaching and learning is planned and effective
There is a more developed instructional design and planning
Assistance to design and facilitate instruction may be limited
process
Support systems for faculty and students may be limited or
Community development and engagement is built into the learning
unavailable
Not all faculty will be comfortable teaching in the online format Various support systems are in place for the learner at the start
Time may be limited for ensuring quality measures for design and
More time to prepare faculty for online facilitation
teaching
Quality assurance for learning is an ongoing part of the process
Teaching in a one-size-fits-all framework
Ensures equity and provides personalization
APPENDIX 2: FIGURES
Table 2. The information pocket of the course sample
Part I
Lesson Code Midterm T+P (Hour) Credit ECTS
Geometry IME 104 2 2+1 3 5 ECTS
Definition of polygon, proving the geometrical theorems related to tetragon, parallel edge, rhombus, rectangle,
Subject:
square, deltoid, trapezoid, isoscleles, and applications related to polygons.
Goal: To improve mathematical thinking with the help of basic geometrical definitions and theorems
Objective: To explore the characteristics of polygons with the help of relevant dynamic geometrical software programs
Category Basic Teaching Suitable for the Field
At the end of this lesson, students will:

1. be able to explain the concepts related to polygons (remembering)
2. be able to draw a polygon using the dynamic software program. (applying-valuing-perception-set-guided
Outcomes
response)
3. be able to discuss on the concepts which they developed by using the dynamic software program. (creating,
valuing, adaptation, origination)
1. Identifies basic concepts, theories and applications.

The Program Outcomes that the Lesson Learning Outcomes
2. Thinks mathematically and uses it in daily life.
are related to
3. Thinks in a creative and critical way.
1. Must have a PADLET account

Pre-requirements of the lesson
2. Must have GeoGebra application
Time: 50+50+50 min.

Self-evaluation (15%), peer evaluation (25%), instructor evaluation (60%)

1. Rubric
2. Check List
Classroom Activities Non-classroom Activities Evaluation (Monitoring) Contribution to the

Evaluation Total WorkLoad (hour)
(hour) (hour) (hour) ECTS
1 hour (individually)
7 hours/25 hours=0.28
2+1 hour 1 hour (homework) 1 hour 7 hours
ECTS
1 hour (group)
Please see other parts of the information pocket on Annex 1a.
115
APPENDIX 3
Table 3. Scenario models based on the creation of the FlippHyb model and their justification
FlippHyb Stages The Scenario Based On Justification

The idea that first year students have just started
In the webinar, Prof. Dr. Kornelia Freitag’s
university and their negative experiences about
application example at Ruhr University and Maloney
1 university life should be prevented and the reality
and Kim’s (2020) “First Year Intensive” Model in
of social distant interaction and the need to get to
Scenario 4.
know each other.
Although the Covid-19 epidemic makes this
application necessary, the thought that this
Maloney and Kim (2020) “A HyFlex Model” in situation will create an opportunity for the steps
2 Scenario 13 and “A Modified Tutorial Model” in to be taken for the coming periods and the reality
Scenario 14. of transformations in education and digital media
applications, including the second quarter of the
twenty-first century and beyond.
In accordance with the pandemic period we are
in, the effectiveness and efficiency of the campus
Maloney and Kim’s (2020) “A Low-Residency
3 application, which has been watched with the
Model” in Scenario 12.
importance of social distance, in the applications
to be presented face to face to the students.
Although this application is not directly specified in
scenarios, it is highly emphasized under the element It is a fact that includes rich pedagogical
4 of “interaction” among distance education theories applications related to learning-teaching within
(For example, Moore’s Transactional Distance this step.
Theory)
As in the fourth step, although this application is not Among the learner-centered practices and
5 included among the direct models, it is inspired by evaluations, it is an important and undeniable fact
the “Structured Gap Year” model in Scenario 6. for digital natives.
Giving the essence of the subject as realistic /
Maloney and Kim’s (2020) “A Block Plan” model
integrated / block with the fact that the subjects
6 in Scenario 9 and “Target Curriculum” model in
/ disciplines that are related to each other can
Scenario 7.
provide similar learning outcomes.
Figure 1. PADLET online learning environment

116
Figure 2. GeoGebra online learning environment (please see all stages on annex A)
Figure 3. The principles of proposed model named “FlippHyb”

Annex 1a: Activity Plan
117
Table 4.
Part I
Lesson Code Midterm T+P (Hour) Credit ECTS
Geometry IME 104 2 2+1 3 5 ECTS
Definition of polygon, proving the geometrical theorems related to tetragon, parallel edge, rhombus,
Subject:
rectangle, square, deltoid, trapezoid, isoscleles, and applications related to polygons.
Goal: To improve mathematical thinking with the help of basic geometrical definitions and theorems
Objective: To explore the characteristics of polygons with the help of relevant dynamic geometrical software programs
Category Basic Teaching Suitable for the Field
At the end of this lesson, students will:
1. be able to explain the concepts related to polygons (remembering)
2. be able to draw a polygon using the dynamic software program. (applying-valuing-perception-set-guided
Outcomes
response)
3. be able to discuss on the concepts which they developed by using the dynamic software program.
(creating, valuing, adaptation, origination)
1. Identifies basic concepts, theories and applications.
The Program Outcomes that the Lesson Learning Outcomes
2. Thinks mathematically and uses it in daily life.
are related to
3. Thinks in a creative and critical way.
1. Must have a PADLET account
Pre-requirements of the lesson
2. Must have GeoGebra application
Time: 50+50+50 min.
Self-evaluation (15%), peer evaluation (25%), instructor evaluation (60%)
1. Rubric
2. Check List
Classroom Activities Non-classroom Activities Evaluation (Monitoring)
Evaluation Total WorkLoad (hour) Contribution to the ECTS
(hour) (hour) (hour)
1 hour (individually)
7 hours/25 hours=0.28
2+1 hour 1 hour (homework) 1 hour 7 hours
ECTS
1 hour (group)
Part II
This activity will be implemented in 3 stages.
• In this first stage, the target group will be informed about the content, objective and outcomes of the
lesson. Additionally, their attention and readiness level will be increased.
• In the second stage, the target group will be given a presentation about the subject that was
Methods and Techniques Used
previously presented (in this stage narration, case study, discussion, question and answer methods will be
used).
• In the third stage, “Buzz 66” technique from the Cooperative Learning methods will be used
(Açıkgöz, 2007). This technique will be implemented via Zoom online learning platform.
Activity Implementation Environment Activity Implementation Environment
1. For this purpose, the classroom group/room feature of the Zoom application will be used.
2. When creating classroom group/room, a special attention will be paid to create the groups
heterogeneously.
3. The Buzz 66 groups will answer the questions in the instructions by using the PADLET application.
4. Practical implementations related to the outcome will be made by using GeoGebra dynamic software
program.
5. Upon completing teaching, the instructor in-charge will visit the classroom group rooms and attend the
learning environments.
6. After the activity is completed, the students are expected to self-evaluate and also be evaluated by the
instructor and their peers according to the rubric/check list (lesson outcomes (considering the polygon
concept and applications, and the construction protocol).
Learning-teaching activities:
Introduction: This part focus on starting the lesson by asking the students the following question: “have
you ever seen a honey comb?” and “how was the shape of honey comb?”.(Drawing attention)
Then, students will be informed about the outcomes of the lesson. (Informing about the objectives).
Students’ readiness level is expected to be increased to the desired level by asking them the following
Introduction
questions “do you think patterns on a honey comb are perfect?” and if yes, “is it possible to draw a
• Drawing attention
flawless/perfect polygon?” (Remembering the preliminary information).
• Informing about the objectives
Development: The students will be given an interactive presentation which intends to let them understand
• Reminding preliminary knowledge
the polygon-related concepts and applications better and recognize that a perfect polygon can only be drawn
with the help of dynamic software programs (Presenting new information by using stimulus material).
Development
After this presentation, students will be introduced an interactive Web 2.0 tool for implementing the relevant
• Presenting new information using stimulating materials

concept (PADLET) and within the context of the related instructions (ANNEX A) students will be asked
• Guiding for learning
to draw a polygon, then the flawlessness of the polygon will be discussed (Providing learning guidance).
• Eliciting the performance
Students will be asked to achieve the learning outcomes by using the active learning methods based on
• Giving feedback
the principles given in the instructions. After the discussion, the polygon concept, its implementations and
outcomes of related subject will be reinforced by drawing a flawless polygon on GeoGebra (Eliciting the
Result
performance). The instructor will guide the students by giving them constructive feedback (Feedback).
• Evaluation
Conclusion: The performance of students will be evaluated using a rubric and a check list (ANNEX B) by
•Maintaining retention and transferability
themselves, other members of the group and the instructor in charge (Evaluation).
The activity in the implementations for the outcome of “drawing a circle based on the polygon concept”
which is related to the “circle concept and its implementations” subject is found to be retentive and
transferable. (Maintaining Retention and Transferability)
118
Annex 1b: Indicator Chart Related With Learning Domains
Table 5.
Cognitive Affective Psycho-motor
What are learners being asked to value / care
What are the learners expected to know? What are the learners expected to be able to do?
for?
Learning Knowledge Skill Competence Knowledge Skill Competence Knowledge Skill Competence
Objectives
*Perception *Mechanism
*Applying
*Remembering *Receiving *Organization *Set *Complex *Adaptation
*Analyzing *Creating *Valuing
*Understanding *Responding *Characterization *Guided overt *Origination
*Evaluating
response response
LO 1: Be able
to explain the
concepts related x x
to polygons
(remembering)
LO 2: Be
able to draw a
polygon using
the dynamic
software
program. x x x x
(applying-
valuing-
perception-
set-guided
response)
LO 3: Be able
to discuss on
the concepts
which they
developed
by using the
dynamic x x x
software
program.
(creating,
valuing,
adaptation,
origination)
How will the measurement and evaluation activities of the specified learning outcomes be carried out? (Please see on Annex B)
Annex A. Instructions
Dear Students,
In this study,
1. You are expected to answer the questions below using the PADLET application. When answering
the questions, you need to discuss in Buzz 66 (groups with 6 members) groups to progress.
(Note: Having PADLET application and GeoGebra dynamic software program installed is a pre-
requirement of the lesson)
2. You should draw individually in a group by using GeoGebra dynamic software program as described
in the construction protocol below.
3. You are expected to evaluate both yourself and your friends by using the rubric and the check list
given to you at the end of the applications.
4. You are expected to answer open-ended questions individually.
119
5. You are expected to provide us feedback individually about the online learning activities to improve
the future course activities.
Good luck.
(1) Questions (PADLET Application)

Question 1. Which concepts would you use to identify a polygon and a regular polygon?
Question 2. Draw a regular polygon on paper without using a screw compass or a ruler, then share its
photograph to Padlet application.
Question 3. Draw a regular polygon on paper using a screw compass or a ruler, then share it to Padlet
application.
Question 4. In your both try-out, (using or without using a screw compass or a ruler, do you think you
drew a perfect polygon? Write your thoughts to the Padlet application,
(2) Construction Protocol (For GeoGebra Dynamic Software Program)
Figure 4a. GeoGebra online learning environment

(3) Evaluate both yourself and your friends by using the rubric and the check list
120
Annex B. Evaluation
Dear Students,
In this part, we expect you to separately evaluate yourself and 5 of your friends in the buzz 66 groups
regarding the implementation you performed. When evaluating, you are expected to follow the steps in
the Construction Protocol in the GeoGebra dynamic software program and the activities in the Padlet
application.
I. Check List (GeoGebra) (Students)
II. Rubric (Padlet+GeoGebra) (Students)
(4) Questions: Open-ended Question
Dear Students,
You are expected to individually discuss the open-ended question below about the concepts related
to polygons and the dynamic software program.
Good luck.
1. Is it possible to draw a perfect regular polygon in real life? Discuss it.
Important note: When answering the question, consider the activities we performed during the lesson.
III. Rubric (Instructor)
(5) Feedback
Annex C. Improvement
Dear Students,
We’d like to learn your thoughts about the activity.
Please answer the following questions.
1. What is your favorite aspect of the activity?

2. What do you dislike most about the activity?
3. Is there anything that you think “it should be included in the activity” in the future?”
4. Any other thoughts or suggestions?
121
Figure 4b. GeoGebra online learning environment

122
Figure 4c. GeoGebra online learning environment

123
Table 6.
Me Friend 1 Friend 2 Friend 3 Friend 4 Friend 5

In the GeoGebra
No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No
Dynamic Software Yes (1) Yes (1) No (2)
(2) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2)
Program;
Is the first circle tied
to the slider drawn?
Is the second circle
tied to the first circle
drawn?
Is the third circle
tied to the first circle
drawn?
Are the three circles
intersected?
Is the polygonal
region drawn?
Are the circles
removed?
124
Table 7.
Me My Friend 1 My Friend 2
Suggestion Partly Partly No
Yes (2) No (0) Yes (2) No (0) Yes (2) Partly (1)
(1) (1) (0)
Are the polygon-related
concepts (definitions
related to angle, side and
polygon) written in Padlet
application?
Are the polygons (based
on the size length or
angles) drawn with
and without using a
screw compass and a
ruler shared to Padlet
application?
Is the flawless of the
polygons discussed on
Padlet application?
Are the steps in
GeoGebra application
followed?
Is the regular polygon on
the milimeter graph paper
drawn with the help of
the circles?
While drawing with the
circles technique (angle-
central angle, side-radius)
is it recognized that it is
possible to draw a regular
polygon without fixing
the lengths of the sides?
Are the relationship and
differences between the
polygon and regular
polygon revealed?
Are the characteristics
of the triangle separated
by the diagonals in the
regular polygon noticed?
Are the angles of polygon
drawn with GeoGebra
equal?
Are the sides lengths of
the polygon drawn with

GeoGebra equal?
Are the triangles formed
when the polygons drawn
with GeoGebra are
divided into diagonals
equilateral triangles?
125
Table 8.
First and Last Name of the Student:

Suggestion
Yes (2) Partly (1) No (0)
Are the polygon-related concepts (definitions related to angle, side and polygon) written in
Padlet application?
Are the polygons (based on the size length or angles) drawn with and without using a screw
compass and a ruler written in Padlet application?
Are the perfectness of the polygons drawn discussed on Padlet application?
Are the steps of GeoGebra application followed when discussing the perfectness of the
polygon drawn?
When drawing on the milimetric graph paper, is it expressed that it is possible to draw a
regular polygon with the help of circles?
While drawing with the circles technique (angle-central angle, side-radius) is it expressed
that it is possible to draw a regular polygon without fixing the lengths of the sides?
Are the relationship and differences between the polygon and regular polygon revealed?
Are the characteristics of the triangle separated by the diagonals in the regular polygon
expressed?
Are angle degrees of the drawn polygons expressed?
Are side lengths of the drawn polygons expressed?
Are characteristics of the triangles that are formed when the drawn polygons are divided
into diagonals expressed?
Is the regular polygon defined?
Is the polygon defined?
Can the arguments suggested be a basis for drawing a perfect polygon in the real life?
126
127
Chapter 7
Factors Influencing Student
Engagement During COVID-19
Emergency Remote Teaching
Murat Ekici
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2189-7294
Usak University, Turkey
Didem Inel Ekici

Usak University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
Student engagement is an important construct of education that is strongly correlated with the qual-
ity of learning outcomes. Educators have long been looking for ways to increase student engagement.
It has become even more critical in the global COVID-19 pandemic where schools and universities
switched to entirely online as a consequence of school closures. This chapter reports on the results of a
comprehensive study on student engagement during emergency remote teaching. The aim of this study
is to take a snapshot and explore the efects of personal and institutional variables on online student
engagement. Research data was collected from 1,027 Turkish university students from both state and
private universities. Data analysis showed that having a personal computer, owning a room for study and
household internet connection, perceived information and communication self-efcacy, past e-learning
experience, as well as course delivery format afect behavioral, emotional, and cognitive aspects of
online student engagement.
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 was a challenge for all the countries and education systems. Due to the outbreak, many edu-
cational institutions worldwide have canceled face-to-face classes and closed their campuses. School
closures affected 94% of the world student population which is nearly 1.6 billion learners (United Na-
tions, 2020). Most countries have developed quick responses using distance learning technologies and
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch007

Factors Influencing Student Engagement During COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teaching
moved away from the traditional classroom to online learning. Developing a response is not an option;
it is an obligation for the countries because school closures have a negative impact on student achieve-
ment. Baker (2013) found that interruption of education during the teacher strike in Canada has caused a
significant decrease in test scores, especially in math. So, this mandatory transition led to the emergence
of a new concept “emergency remote teaching” (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, & Bond, 2020). In order
for this concept to be fully understood, it must be distinguished from traditional online distance educa-
tion. As it is already known, distance education is not merely putting educational content online, it is a
complex process that requires careful planning and preparation (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). In contrast
to planned online or blended forms of distance learning, emergency remote teaching (ERT) involves
the use of online learning as an alternate modality to face-to-face learning. The main goal of ERT is to
provide rapid and temporary access to instruction and educational support during an emergency or crisis.
Holzweiss et al. (2020) assert that “with proper support, students and instructors moving into the
online learning environment due to a crisis could successfully recover with fewer obstacles”. However,
neither students nor institutions were ready for this mandatory shift. On the one hand, international orga-
nizations reported that a substantial amount of students and teachers did not have access to digital tools
and internet connection during the ERT. According to UNESCO (2020), 50% of the learners worldwide
do not have a personal computer, and 43% do not have a household internet connection to keep up with
online lectures during school closures. Moreover, across OECD countries on average 9% and in some
countries over 30% of the students do not have a quiet place to study like their own room (Reimers &
Schleicher, 2020). Lack of technological resources and physical space affected not only students from
disadvantaged families but also families with multiple children (Ferri, Grifoni & Guzzo, 2020).
On the other hand, instructors were expected to learn to teach online in a short, often unrealistic
time frame (Johnson, Veletsianos, & Seaman, 2020). They have been asked to become both designers
and tutors using the tools that only a few have mastered (Rapanta et al., 2020). It was a real challenge
for those who had no experience in nontraditional learning spaces because online teaching and learning
require a completely distinct skill-set. Without providing a sound pedagogical background regarding the
use of digital tools teachers had to learn in the process. but it is difficult to say that they were successful
in that. For instance, even early career teachers in Germany do not have sophisticated digital skills and
more than half of the teachers don’t know how to assess student learning using ICT (König, Jäger-Biela,
& Glutsch, 2020).
Unfortunately, most primary and secondary schools around the world had not previously needed to
use distance education, so they did not have hardware software, or trained staff for remote education.
But luckily, as the majority of the higher education institutions already offer online or blended courses
before the pandemic, the transition to online learning was easier compared to other levels of the education
system (Brooks, Grajek & Lang, 2020). During the ERT, some institutions adopted synchronous lectures
using video conferencing software such as ZOOM, Big Blue Button, and Google Meet. Others used
asynchronous course format using learning management systems like Moodle, Canvas, and Google Class-
room. Some employed synchronous and asynchronous formats together to increase learner engagement.
Previous studies focused on the student experiences and views during ERT but the findings are
controversial. For instance, Shin and Hickey (2020) report on the detrimental effects of COVID-19 on
college students’ learning. On the contrary, Lee et al. (2021) claim that college students were flexible
enough to cope with the challenges related to the pandemic. Another concern with the ERT for some
institutions is cheating by sharing files or answers (Bilen & Matros, 2021; Lancaster & Cotarlan, 2021;
Lee et al., 2020). Therefore, focusing on engagement rather than other parameters can give more accurate
128

information about the effectiveness of remote schooling. Mandernach et al., (2011) claim that engagement
provides a more detailed picture of instructional effectiveness compared to traditional indicators such as
grades, satisfaction, and retention. Martin and Bolliger (2018) also empirically confirm the importance
of engagement in online learning for institutions. Engagement literature showed that student engagement
is a strong predictor of learning outcomes whether it is online, blended, or face-to-face. Engagement
refers to the amount of effort a student puts into learning (Kuh, 2003). By assessing student engagement,
faculty can monitor and adjust the instructional strategies they use (Mandernach et al., 2011), and can
determine the students at-risk for poor educational outcomes (O’Donnell, & Reschly, 2020). Lawson
and Lawson (2013) conceptualize engagement as a dynamic process and define student engagement
as “various states of experience of individuals as they participate in discrete activities at particular
moments in time”. As discussed above, measuring student engagement can provide reliable evidence
regarding the impact and success of the ERT process. However research on online student engagement
during ERT is limited (Bond, 2020). This study aims to take a snapshot and investigate factors affecting
student engagement in higher education settings during the COVID-19 ERT period.
BACKGROUND
Engagement
Researchers have used various terms to identify engagement including, engagement, student engagement,
academic engagement, school engagement, engagement in schoolwork (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong,
2008; Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) identify engagement as a
multidimensional construct involving distinct, yet interrelated aspects: cognitive, behavioral, and emo-
tional engagement. Cognitive engagement refers to students’ motivation and self-regulation, behavioral
engagement refers to students’ participation in learning activities, and emotional engagement students’
positive or negative emotional reactions to learning activities, peers, and academics. Researchers also
proposed additional dimensions to Fredricks and colleagues, such as academic engagement (Appleton
et al., 2006), agentic engagement (Reeve & Tseng, 2011), social engagement (Wang et al., 2016), and
collaborative engagement ( Redmond et al., 2018). The most comprehensive definition of engagement
is offered by Bond et al. (2020) which covers the previous attempts.
Student engagement is the energy and effort that students employ within their learning community, observ-
able via any number of behavioral, cognitive or affective indicators across a continuum. It is shaped by
a range of structural and internal influences, including the complex interplay of relationships, learning
activities and the learning environment. The more students are engaged and empowered within their
learning community, the more likely they are to channel that energy back into their learning, leading to
a range of short and long-term outcomes, that can likewise further fuel engagement (Bond et al., 2020).
Student engagement has been studied for decades both in the traditional and online learning environ-
ments and is widely recognized as critical for students to be successful. Engagement improves critical
thinking, self-esteem and student satisfaction (Trowler & Trowler, 2010; Webber, Krylow, & Zhang,
2013). Earlier studies have also reported that student engagement is positively correlated with academic
performance (Lee, 2014), achievement and retention (Lei, Cui & Zhou, 2018). Pascarella and Terenzini
129

(2005) claim that the impact of college is largely determined by individual effort and involvement in
the academic, interpersonal, and extracurricular offerings on campus. In a similar vein, Axelson and
Flick (2011) argue that the level of student engagement at a particular college or university is increas-
ingly seen as a valid indicator of institutional excellence. In other words, student engagement is one of
the key factors determining the quality of learning outcomes in higher education. Engagement predicts
students’ learning, grades, and achievement test scores in the short run whereas patterns of attendance,
retention, graduation, and academic resilience can be predicted over the long term (Skinner et al., 2008).
Disengagement
There are distinct conceptualizations of disengagement. Some scholars assume that engagement and
disengagement are on a continuum and disengagement is the absence of engagement (Reschly & Chris-
tenson, 2012). In contrast, some argue that engagement and disengagement are conceptually distinct
constructs (Fredricks et al., 2019). We adopt the first view and define disengagement as basically the
lack of engagement. Disengagement has been a challenge for educators to overcome because remain-
ing engaged is an important outcome of schooling (Finn & Zimmer, 2012). It is a critical factor both in
face-to-face and online learning (DeFalco, Baker & D’Mello, 2014). Research showed that behavioral
and emotional disengagements are associated with lower academic performance and increased drop-out
(DeFalco, Baker & D’Mello, 2014; Wang & Fredricks, 2014). Besides, there is a correlation between
behavioral and emotional disengagement (Wang & Eccels, 2012). Behavioral disengagement causes
emotional disengagement.
METHODOLOGY
This study employs a quantitative cross-sectional survey research design. Survey is not just a way of
collecting information (De Vaus, 2002). Survey research provides a quantitative description of trends
of a population or tests for associations among variables of a population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The survey methodology was quite suitable for the variable being investigated and the participants could
only be reached online due to quarantine measures. Research data was collected via an online form
containing demographics form and the online student engagement scale in the last week of April 2020,
after four weeks of the initiation of ERT in Turkey. The authors disseminated the online form with the
help of scholars from different universities.
Participants
Participants of the study were 1027 undergraduate students from 29 (4 private and 25 public) universi-
ties from Turkey. 63.4% of the students were female (n=651), while 36.6% of them were male (n=376).
Age range of the participants was 18-37. About half of the participants (47.9%, n=492) have not taken
any online courses before the transition, and 85.7% (n=880) indicated that they were participating in the
courses on a regular basis during COVID-19 pandemic. 82.9% (n=851) reported that their university
employed synchronous online lectures. 68.5% (n=704) had personal computers and 78.2% (n=803) had
household internet connection. 66.3% (n=681) had their own private room at home.
130

Data Collection Tools
Two data collection tools were used in this study. The first one was a personal information form includ-
ing items regarding participants’ age, gender, past e-learning experience, personal computer ownership,
internet access, computer usage experience, and perceived ICT use self-efficacy. The second was the
student engagement scale developed by Sun and Rueda (2012) and adapted into Turkish by Ergün and
Usluel (2015). The scale consists of 19 items assigned to three factors: cognitive (8 items), emotional (6
items) and behavioral engagement (5 items). The scale uses a 5‐point Likert rating (5 = strongly agree,
4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree and 1= strongly disagree). Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficients regarding the factors of the scale were calculated as .75, .88 and .63. In this study,
Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients of the factors were re-calculated as .79, .93 and .83, respectively.
Data Analysis
Research data was first screened to identify missing columns and no missing values were detected.
Then the reverse items in the online student engagement scale were re-coded and the factor scores were
calculated. Each factor score was averaged using the number of items related to that factor. Since the
research sample is big enough (>30), the distribution of the data is assumed to be normal in accordance
with the central limit theorem (Field, 2018; Stevens, 2009). To reveal each factor’s effect on students’
behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement, independent samples t-tests and analyses of variance
were conducted. Assumptions of the analyses were checked and no violations were detected. The Tukey
HSD test as Post-hoc was performed to check the direction of the difference in analyses of variance.
The threshold value for the level of significance was accepted as .05. throughout the analyses. The ef-
fect sizes (Cohen’s d and eta-squared) were also reported to evaluate the practical interpretation of the
significance of the effect in question. as suggested by Hattie (2009), the effect size magnitudes of .20,
.40, and .60 were interpreted as small, medium, and large, respectively. The authors’ did not use the
original classification suggested by Cohen (1988) because the interpretation of the effect size is highly
context-dependent (Cumming, & Calin-Jageman, 2016; Ellis, 2010).
FINDINGS
Students’ levels of engagement according to cognitive, behavioral, and emotional factors, were assessed
before any further analysis. As seen in Figure 1, students’ cognitive engagement (M = 3.68, SD = .68
) and behavioral engagement (M = 3.62, SD = .73) levels are comparatively high and the mean scores
are very close to each other whereas their emotional engagement levels (M = 2.58 , SD = 1.01) are
comparatively low. Herein, it should be noted that each engagement factor score was averaged and the
averaged mean scores can range from 1 to 5. Larger values indicate higher levels of student engage-
ment, while lower values represent lower levels of engagement. The findings related to the effects of
the investigated variables are presented below. Table 1 provides an overview of the research findings.
131

Figure 1. Engagement levels of the participants
Table 1. Overview of the findings
Variable Cognitive Behavioral Emotional

Personal computer ownership + + +
Household internet connection + + +
Having own room + + +
Past e-learning experience + + +
Course delivery method (synchronous/asynchronous) + + +
Perceived ICT use self-efficacy (office software and web
+ + +
surfing)
Note: The “+” sign indicates a positive effect.
Personal Computer Ownership
Independent samples T-tests were conducted to evaluate the effect of owning a personal computer on
engagement. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in comparisons
between participants who had a personal computer and who did not (See Table 2) in terms of cognitive
(t(1025) = 2.89, p = .000, d=.195), behavioral (t(1025) = 5.14, p = .000, d=.346) and emotional (t(1025) =
3.67, p = .000, d = .247) engagement. Participants who had a personal computer (M = 3.71, SD = .66)
had higher cognitive engagement compared to the participants who did not (M = 3.58, SD = .73). The
participants who had a personal computer (M = 3.70, SD = .71) also had higher behavioral engagement
than who did not (M = 3.45, SD = .69). Again the participants who had a personal computer (M = 2.66,
SD = 1.0) had higher emotional engagement than who did not (M=2.41, SD=1.01). Overall, students
who had personal computers to keep up with online lectures also had the higher-levels of engagement.
132

Table 2. Independent samples T-test results of student engagement scores in relation to personal com-
puter ownership
Effect Size
Engagement Group n M SD t df p Cohens’ d
Interpretation
Have 704 3.71 .66

Cognitive 2.89 1025 .000* .195 Small
Don’t have 323 3.58 .73
Have 704 3.70 .71

Behavioral 5.14 1025 .000* .346 Medium
Don’t have 323 3.45 .69
Have 704 2.66 1.0

Emotional 3.67 1025 .000* .247 Small
Don’t have 323 2.41 1.01
*p<.05
Household Internet Connection
Independent samples T-tests were conducted to evaluate the effect of owning household internet connec-
tion on engagement. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in comparisons
between participants who had internet connection at their homes and who did not (See Table 3) in terms
of cognitive (t(1025) = 2.26, p = .024, d=.171), behavioral (t(1025) = 7.04, p = .000, d=.532) and emotional
(t(1025) = 3.94, p = .000, d=.298) engagement. Participants who had household internet connection (M =
3.70, SD = .68) had higher cognitive engagement compared to the participants who did not (M = 3.58,
SD = .69). The participants who had internet connection at their homes (M = 3.70, SD = .70) also had
higher behavioral engagement than who did not (M = 3.32, SD = .75). Again the participants who had
household internet connection (M = 2.64, SD = 1.02) had higher emotional engagement than who did
not (M=2.34, SD=.97). Overall, students who had internet connection at home also had higher-levels
of engagement.
Table 3. Independent samples T-test results of student engagement scores in relation to household in-
ternet connection
Effect Size
Interpretation
Have 803 3.70 .68
Cognitive 2.26 1025 .024* .171 Small
Don’t have 224 3.58 .69
Have 803 3.70 .70
Don’t have 224 3.32 .75
Have 803 2.64 1.02
Emotional 3.94 1025 .000* .298 Small
Don’t have 224 2.34 .97
*p<.05
Having Own Room
Independent samples T-tests were conducted to evaluate the effect of having own room to study on en-
gagement. Mirroring the previous findings, the results showed that there was a statistically significant
difference in comparisons between participants who had own room to study and who did not (See Table
133

4) in terms of cognitive (t(1025) = 3.08, p = .000, d=.203), behavioral (t(1025) = 6.37, p = .000, d=.420)
and emotional (t(1025) = 4.51, p = .000, d=.298) engagement. Participants who had a personal room to
study (M = 3.72, SD = .68) had higher cognitive engagement compared to the participants who did not
(M = 3.58, SD = .69). The participants who had their own room (M = 3.72, SD = .69) also had higher
behavioral engagement than who did not (M = 3.42, SD = .76). Again the participants who had their
own room to study (M = 2.68, SD = 1.02) had higher emotional engagement than who did not (M=2.38,
SD=.98). Overall, students who had their own room to study also had higher-levels of engagement.
Table 4. Independent samples T-test results of student engagement scores in relation to having own room
Effect Size
Interpretation
Have 681 3.72 .68

Cognitive 3.08 1025 .000* .203 Small
Don’t have 346 3.58 .69
Have 681 3.72 .69

Don’t have 346 3.42 .76
Have 681 2.68 1.02

Emotional 4.51 1025 .000* .298 Small
Don’t have 346 2.38 .98
*p<.05
Past E-Learning Experience
Independent samples T-tests were conducted to evaluate the effect of past e-learning experience on en-
gagement. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in comparisons between
participants who had past e-learning experience and who did not (See Table 5) in terms of cognitive
(t(1025) = 4.41, p = .000, d = .276), behavioral (t(1025) = 2.31, p = .021, d =.144) and emotional (t(1025)
= 3.86, p = .000, d=.241) engagement. Participants who took online courses before (M = 3.77, SD =
.66) had higher cognitive engagement compared to the participants who did not (M = 3.58, SD = .70).
The participants who had past e-learning experience (M = 3.67, SD = .71) also had higher behavioral
engagement than who did not (M = 3.57, SD = .74). Again the participants who took online courses
before (M = 2.70, SD = 1.03) had higher emotional engagement than who did not (M = 2.45, SD = .99).
Overall, students have taken e-learning courses before had higher-levels of engagement.
Course Delivery Method
Independent samples T-tests were conducted to evaluate the effect of course delivery method on engage-
ment. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in comparisons between
participants who participated synchronous lectures and who did not (see Table 6) in terms of cognitive
(t(1025) = 3.95, p = .000, d = .327), behavioral (t(1025) = 6.89, p = .000, d = .571) and emotional (t(1025) =
3.83, p = .000, d = .317) engagement. Participants who took synchronous lectures (M = 3.71, SD = .67)
had higher cognitive engagement compared to the participants who did not (M = 3.49, SD = .70). The
participants who took synchronous lectures (M = 3.69, SD = .69) also had higher behavioral engagement
than who did not (M = 3.28, SD = .80). Again the participants who took synchronous online lectures (M
134

= 2.63, SD = 1.0) had higher emotional engagement than who did not (M = 2.31, SD = 1.01). Overall,
students who took synchronous videoconferencing-based lectures had higher-levels of engagement.
Table 5. Independent samples T-test results of student engagement scores in relation to past e-learning
experience
Effect Size
Interpretation
Have 535 3.77 .66

Cognitive 4.41 1025 .000* .276 Small
Don’t have 492 3.58 .70
Have 535 3.67 .71

Behavioral 2.31 1025 .021* .144 Small
Don’t have 492 3.57 .74
Have 535 2.70 1.03

Emotional 3.86 1025 .000* .241 Small
Don’t have 492 2.45 .99
*p<.05
Table 6. Independent samples T-test results of student engagement scores in relation to course delivery
method
Effect Size
Interpretation
Synchronous 851 3.71 .67

Cognitive 3.95 1025 .000* .327 Small
Asynchronous 176 3.49 .70
Synchronous 851 3.69 .69

Asynchronous 176 3.28 .80
Synchronous 851 2.63 1.0

Emotional 3.83 1025 .000* .317 Small
Asynchronous 176 2.31 1.01
*p<.05
Perceived ICT Self-Efficacy
Analyses of variance showed that the effect of perceived ICT self-efficacy on cognitive (F(2, 1023) =
38.29, p < .01, η2 = .163), behavioral (F(2, 1023) = 35.83, p < .01, η2 = .252) and emotional (F(2, 1023)
= 11.99, p < .01, η2 = .149) engagement is statistically significant (See Table 7). Post-hoc comparisons
using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the average cognitive engagement score of high efficacy group
(M = 3.68, SD = .63) was significantly higher than moderate efficacy group (M = 3.47, SD = .65) and
low efficacy group (M = 3.34, SD = .89). Again, the average behavioral engagement score of the high
efficacy group (M = 3.76, SD = .70) was significantly higher than the moderate efficacy group (M =
3.41, SD = .67) and low efficacy group (M = 3.26, SD = .83). Finally, as expected, the high efficacy
group’s average emotional engagement score (M = 2.69, SD = 1.0) was significantly higher than the
moderate efficacy group (M = 2.38, SD = .96) and the low efficacy group (M = 2.35, SD = 1.11).
Overall, as the perceived ICT self-efficacy increases, student engagement increases.
135

Table 7. Variance analyses and post-hoc comparisons results by perceived ICT self-efficacy
Efficacy n M SD F p η2 Post-hoc
Low 87 3.34 .89 38.29 .000* .163
Cognitive Moderate 279 3.47 .65 1<3, 2<3
High 660 3.68 .63
Low 87 3.26 .83
Behavioral Moderate 279 3.41 .67 35.83 .000* .252 1<3, 2<3
High 660 3.76 .70
Low 87 2.35 1.11
Emotional Moderate 279 2.38 .96 11.99 .000* .149 1<3, 2<3
High 660 2.69 1.0
*p<.05
CONCLUSION
This study sought to explore factors influencing student engagement during the emergency remote
teaching period caused by the COVID-19 outbreak in the year 2020. Data analysis showed that among
the investigated variables, student engagement is influenced by the following: course delivery method,
having own room and personal computer, internet connection at home, perceived ICT self-efficacy and
past e-learning experience.
Müller et al. (2021) stated that engagement is the key challenge for educators during ERT. Because
of the limited feedback, they were not sure about the status of the students and struggled to maintain stu-
dent engagement. The lack of student feedback becomes more evident in asynchronous sessions because
educator-student interaction decreases drastically. One important finding of the study is that the course
delivery method has a significant effect on engagement. Synchronous lectures have created higher-levels
of student engagement. The effect size was quite large, especially in behavioral engagement. Behavioral
engagement is regarded as an important predictor of academic achievement (Fredricks, 2013). This finding
corroborates with previous research. For instance, Day (2015) found that students experience disengage-
ment in a disruption scenario if they don’t see the instructor. Shim and Lim (2020) also reported that
college students like and find it useful to join synchronous sessions using video conferencing tools in
ERT. This means that institutions should prefer synchronous lectures using video conferencing instead
of asynchronous communication and seek ways to increase student-teacher interaction. Gares, Kariuki,
and Rempel (2020) also claim that student-instructor interaction fosters motivation and engagement
in ERT. Abou-Khalil et al. (2020) found that video-based lectures and screen-sharing are perceived as
way more effective by college students in increasing student engagement in ERT. However, the possible
impact of the methods and strategies used in synchronous sessions remains unclear.
Data analysis showed that those with past online learning experience have a higher-level of engage-
ment. Milligan, Littlejohn, & Margaryan, (2013) also found that prior online learning experience af-
fects student engagement positively. This effect can be explained by the fact that experienced students
know how to benefit from online learning and manage their meta-cognitive processes more successfully
compared to novice ones. The difference between the two groups was greatest in cognitive engagement
among measures of engagement. Research also showed that promoting cognitive engagement improves
136

student achievement (Rotgans et. al, 2018). It can be concluded that participation of students in e-learning
activities would increase the efficiency of emergency remote teaching or planned e-learning. If the
students become more familiar with e-learning technologies and the process of e-learning, they may
benefit more from such learning activities. Thus, e-learning must be an integral part of school learning
at all educational levels.
Another significant finding is that as students’ perception of ICT self-efficacy increases, their en-
gagement scores also increase. This finding suggests that if we improve the students’ confidence in ICT
they are more likely to be successful learners in emergency situations. Research has shown that higher
ICT-related self-efficacy leads to higher levels of student engagement (Pellas, 2014; Wolverton, Hollier,
& Lanier, 2020). However, Di Pietro et al. (2020) claim that students from disadvantaged households
of under-developed countries tend to lack digital skills because they are less exposed to digital tools
and applications. Therefore, more consideration should be given to improve students’ ICT self-efficacy.
The results of this study also showed that students with low resources also experience a disadvan-
tage in terms of engagement. Digital inequalities, which have been ignored for a long time, especially
in the context of classroom-based learning, have increased their importance during the pandemic. The
shift to online learning exacerbated existing inequalities and amplified the detrimental effects of the
digital divide. Williamson, Eynon and Potter (2020) argue that as it has consistently shown in academic
publications and the media, not all young people are well-connected and digitally savvy. In fact, there is
considerable variation in the ways they access, navigate and use the internet and other new technologies.
Studies indicated disparities between students even in the developed countries (Bozkurt et al., 2020;
Di Pietro et al., 2020; Shin & Hickey, 2020). If a student does not have a personal computer or internet
connection at home, he/she also has low behavioral and emotional engagement and is likely to get lower
grades than his/her classmates. However, it is a fact that even if these technological inequalities are
eliminated, this alone will not be enough to bring success. The results suggest that learning activities
that rely on computer-based technologies require the resolution of the digital inequality problem first to
succeed beyond establishing the necessary network infrastructure and developing tools for e-learning.
The results demonstrate that students generally have moderate behavioral and cognitive engage-
ment, but their level of emotional commitment is relatively low. In fact, their behavioral and cognitive
engagement scores nearly 40% higher than emotional engagement. One possible explanation is that
research data was collected four weeks after the transition to online learning and students were having
a post-traumatic emotional reaction. Kee (2020) claims that students struggled to adapt to a new mode
of instruction and develop a negative emotional response to online learning. Because online distance
learning limits students’ social interaction, and disrupts their discussions, group work, and interactive
projects. Zhao et al. (2020) also found that younger people including college students are more likely to
develop the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder than older people when
facing this kind of public health emergencies like COVID-19 pandemic.
As often mentioned in engagement literature, unlike other personal traits like gender, student engage-
ment is malleable. In other words, it is open to interventions aimed at improving it, and changes at the
course or institution level can make a big difference. Daniel (2020) argues that in the future educational
entities will seek flexible ways to recover the damage of pandemic and benefit from the infrastructure
they have created. In this case, online distance education will be adopted as a permanent learning delivery
method for most institutions and organizations. It is very important to use the experiences gained during
the pandemic in the future decision-making process. The results of the current study will be useful in
determining the strategies to be used by organizations in such emergency situations in the future. Deter-
137

mining the factors affecting online student engagement will contribute to the knowledge base providing
evidence for educational institutions to make decisions.
IMPLICATIONS
Although effective vaccines were developed one year after the sudden onset of the global pandemic, it
is difficult to say that the whole world will have access to vaccines and the disruption will end in the
foreseeable future. Moreover, we do not know when the next pandemic will happen and how long it
will last. Therefore, we need to be prepared for an unknown future. The experiences and knowledge we
have gained must be used in the design of learning processes to minimize the negative impact of school
closures triggered by an emergency on education. In this study, the effects of various factors on student
engagement in ERT were investigated. Implications for practitioners and policymakers as follows:
• This research provides empirical evidence on the efects of the digital divide et al and supports
the need for “need unique and targeted measures” mentioned by Bozkurt et al., (2020). Clearly,
closing the digital divide is not an option for much of the world but governments and companies
could work together to close the gap by providing low-cost internet connection or digital devices
for disadvantaged households.
• The current study revealed that simultaneous participation of the teacher and the student in the les-
son is more efective in ensuring student engagement. As a result, educational institutions should
use synchronous, or at least blended learning, in emergency scenarios. Bonk (2020) argues that as
of today, synchronous instruction remains out of reach for the majority of the world population.
But diverse modalities such as television and radio could be used to reach more students.
• The results also showed that past e-learning experience is one of the determinants of student en-
gagement. This fnding highlighted the importance of students having a digital learning culture
because the e-learning experience of the students will afect the success in such an emergency
situation. In their large-scale study, Aristovnik et al. (2020) found that students assess their least
developed skills related to the use of online learning platforms, such as BigBlueButton, Moodle,
and GoToMeeting during the ERT. In this case, e-learning should be an integral part of education
across all levels of schooling so that students can get the maximum beneft from it.
• This study also provides empirical evidence on the importance of student’s perceived ICT self-
efcacy within the context of online student engagement. If the students lack digital skills they
cannot beneft from remote schooling. Thus, more emphasis should be placed on providing stu-
dents with the necessary training to increase their digital skills and ICT self-efcacy. This is easier
to provide socio-economic support.
• In a remote teaching scenario like this one, teachers need to know how to fully take advantage
of readily-available tools and platforms for online learning, and they need to develop a skill-set.
Institutions, on the other hand, should provide pre-service and in-service training in order to im-
prove teachers’ digital competences, and their technological pedagogical knowledge.
138

LIMITATIONS
This study has certain limitations. The first one relates to the survey research methodology and the gen-
eralizability of its findings. The second one relates to the sampling strategy or coverage bias (Bautista,
2012). Research data was collected using an online questionnaire hosted on Google Forms and the students
were invited to fill out the form. So, the respondents might not have represented the entire population.
Third, participants filled the online form voluntarily and student characteristics might affect the findings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
profit sectors.
REFERENCES
Abou-Khalil, V., Helou, S., Khalifé, E., Chen, M. A., Majumdar, R., & Ogata, H. (2021). Emergency
Online Learning in Low-Resource Settings: Effective Student Engagement Strategies. Education Sci-
ences, 11(1), 24. doi:10.3390/educsci11010024
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical
conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.
doi:10.1002/pits.20303
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D. H., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psy-
chological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology,
44(5), 427–445. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438.
doi:10.3390u12208438
Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 43(1), 38–43. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
Baker, M. (2013). Industrial actions in schools: Strikes and student achievement. The Canadian Journal
of Economics. Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 46(3), 1014–1036. doi:10.1111/caje.12035
Bautista, R. (2012). An overlooked approach in survey research: Total survey error. In L. Gideon (Ed.),
Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (pp. 37–49). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-
4614-3876-2_4
Bilen, E., & Matros, A. (2021). Online cheating amid COVID-19. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 182, 196–211. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.004
Bond, M. (2020). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living rapid
systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191–247. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4425683
139

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in
student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 2. doi:10.118641239-019-0176-8
Bonk, C. J. (2020). Pandemic ponderings, 30 years to today: Synchronous signals, saviors, or survivors?
Distance Education, 41(4), 589–599. doi:10.1080/01587919.2020.1821610
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih, M.,
Pete, J., Olcott, D., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. V., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffa-
ghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., ... Rodes, V.(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. http://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462/307
CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi. http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/
index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/447
Brooks, D. C., Grajek, S., & Lang, L. (2020, April 9). Institutional readiness to adopt fully remote
learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/4/institutional-readiness-to-adopt-fully-
remote-learning
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Cumming, G., & Calin-Jageman, R. (2016). Introduction to the new statistics: Estimation, open science,
and beyond. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315708607
Daniel, J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91–96. doi:10.100711125-
020-09464-3 PMID:32313309
Day, T. (2015). Academic continuity: Staying true to teaching values and objectives in the face of course
interruptions. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 3(1), 75–89. doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.1.75
De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). Routledge Books.
Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpiński, Z., & Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on
education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets (Vol. 30275).
Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/
JRC121071/jrc121071.pdf
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpre-
tation of research results. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511761676
Ergün, E., & Usluel, Y. K. (2015). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenci bağlılık ölçeği’nin türkçe
uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1), 18–33.
doi:10.17943/etku.64661
140

Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., & Guzzo, T. (2020). Online learning and emergency remote teaching: Opportunities
and challenges in emergency situations. Societies (Basel, Switzerland), 10(4), 86. doi:10.3390oc10040086
Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Chris-
tenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131).
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5
Fredricks, J. A. (2013). Behavioral engagement in learning. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Edu-
cational psychology handbook series. International guide to student achievement (pp. 42–44). Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Wang, M. T., & Brauer, S. (2019). Profiles of school disengagement: Not all
disengaged students are alike. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook
of student engagement interventions : Working with Disengaged Students (pp. 31–43). Academic Press.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00003-6
Gares, S. L., Kariuki, J. K., & Rempel, B. P. (2020). CommUnity matters: Student–instructor relation-
ships foster student motivation and engagement in an emergency remote teaching environment. Journal
of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3332–3335. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00635
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emer-
gency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/
Holzweiss, P. C., Walker, D. W., Chisum, R., & Sosebee, T. (2020). Crisis planning for online students:
Lessons learned from a major disruption. Online Learning, 24(2), 22–37. doi:10.24059/olj.v24i2.2135
Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020). U.S. faculty and administrators’ experiences and ap-
proaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning, 24(2), 6–21. doi:10.24059/
olj.v24i2.2285
Kee, C. E. (2020). The impact of COVID-19: Graduate students’ emotional and psychological experiences.
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10911359.2020.1855285
König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school
closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 608–622. doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650
Kuh, D. G. (2003). What We’re Learning About Student Engagement From NSSE: Benchmarks
for Effective Educational Practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32.
doi:10.1080/00091380309604090
141

Lancaster, T., & Cotarlan, C. (2021). Contract cheating by STEM students through a file sharing web-
site: A Covid-19 pandemic perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–16.
doi:10.100740979-021-00070-0
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research,
policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. doi:10.3102/0034654313480891
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, jdd.12350. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1002/jdd.12350 PMID:32717106
Lee, J. S. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth
or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.807491
Lee, K., Fanguy, M., Lu, X. S., & Bligh, B. (2021). Student learning during COVID-19: It was not as
bad as we feared. Distance Education, 42(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/01587919.2020.1869529
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achieve-
ment: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(3), 517–528. doi:10.2224bp.7054
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of en-
gagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning., 22(1), 205–222. doi:10.24059/
olj.v22i1.1092
Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149–159. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.
htm
Müller, A. M., Goh, C., Lim, L. Z., & Gao, X. (2021). COVID-19 Emergency eLearning and Beyond:
Experiences and Perspectives of University Educators. Education Sciences, 11(1), 19. doi:10.3390/
educsci11010019
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2012). Student Engagement: What do we know and what should we do? Uni-
versity of Alberta.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research.
Volume 2. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.
Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem
on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life.
Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 157–170. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching dur-
ing and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science
and Education, 2(3), 923–945. doi:10.100742438-020-00155-y
Redmond, P., Abawi, L. A., Brown, A., Henderson, R., & Heffernan, A. (2018). An online engagement
framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183–204. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
142

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning
activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19
Pandemic of 2020. https://oecd.dam-broadcast.com/pm_7379_126_126988-t63lxosohs.pdf
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future
directions of the engagement construct. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19).
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1
Rotgans, J. I., Schmidt, H. G., Rajalingam, P., Hao, J. W. Y., Canning, C. A., Ferenczi, M. A., & Low-
Beer, N. (2018). How cognitive engagement fluctuates during a team-based learning session and how it
predicts academic achievement. Advances in Health Sciences Education : Theory and Practice, 23(2),
339–351. doi:10.100710459-017-9801-2 PMID:29101496
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. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578
PMID:33071405
Shin, M., & Hickey, K. (2020). Needs a little TLC: Examining college students’ emergency remote
teaching and learning experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and Higher Education, •••,
1–14. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2020.1847261
Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203843130
Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐regulation: Their
impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2),
191–204. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
Trowler, V., & Trowler, P. (2010). Student engagement evidence summary. Higher Education Academy.
UNESCO. (2020, April). Covid-19 a Global Crisis for Teaching and Learning. https://unesdoc.unesco.
org/ark:/48223/pf0000373233
United Nations. (2020). Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and Beyond. https://unsdg.un.org/
resources/policy-brief-education-during-covid-19-and-beyond
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement
trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 22(1), 31–39. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x PMID:22822296
Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engage-
ment scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43,
16–26. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008
Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college
student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 591–611. doi:10.1353/
csd.2013.0090
143

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies, and practices: Digital
ogy, 45(2), 107–114. doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
Wolverton, C. C., Hollier, B. N. G., & Lanier, P. A. (2020). The Impact of Computer Self Efficacy
on Student Engagement and Group Satisfaction in Online Business Courses. Electronic Journal of e-
Learning, 18(2), 175-188. doi:10.34190/EJEL.20.18.2.006
Zhao, Y., An, Y., Tan, X., & Li, X. (2020). Mental health and its influencing factors among self-isolating
ordinary citizens during the beginning epidemic of COVID-19. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(6-7),
580–593. doi:10.1080/15325024.2020.1761592
Asynchronous Distance Learning: It refers to the instruction and learning that do not occur in the
same place or at the same time.
Behavioral Engagement: It refers to the degree of student participation in learning activities such
as going to school, joining an online session, and doing homework.
Cognitive Engagement: It refers to the degree of cognitive involvement of the student in learning
activities and the mental effort expended. It covers the student’s use of deep learning strategies and the
deliberate regulation of cognitive processes for learning.
Disengagement: It refers to the degree of the absence of engagement.
Emotional Engagement: Students’ emotional responses to learning activities, learning environment
and people within.
Engagement: It refers to the degree of students’ attention, interest, and participation in learning activi-
ties. It is a multi-dimensional construct encompassing behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement.
ICT Self-Efficacy: It refers to one’s perception of the ability to perform specific information and
communication technologies-related tasks.
Synchronous Distance Learning: It refers to the interaction of instructors and students in different
places in real-time using communication technologies.
144
145
Chapter 8
An Ethnographic
Phenomenology of
Pandemic Pedagogy:
K12 Teachers’ Choices for
Student Learning
Devery J. Rodgers
California State University, Long Beach, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter aims to serve a constructive purpose from pandemic pedagogy by presenting practice-driven
pedagogical strategies for online teaching and learning. Through phenomenological HelpDesk analysis
from a K12 school district’s Education Technology Department, their Education Technology Specialist
presents an ethnographic empirical study on what advice was sought and given during emergency remote
teaching of 2020. Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM-2), it shows how teachers defaulted
to practices which connected them with their students, helped them stay organized for synchronous and
asynchronous instruction, and gave them “eyes on” student learning with easily accessible data. The
value of this study lies in its ability to help understand the professional learning efects of the COVID-19
pandemic and provide a guide for those who need a deeper understanding of teachers’ instructional
choices during emergency remote education.
INTRODUCTION
The Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) is a transformative challenge which caused educational insti-
tutions to close in order to slow the spread of the virus. In the United States, classes were suspended
to remote virtual learning in quarter three of the school year. In California, classes were suspended in
March, and educators went into “crisis teaching” mode. Schools helped usher in a pandemic pedagogy
with emergency remote education (ERE). What began as paper packet pick-ups from school offices im-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch008

An Ethnographic Phenomenology of Pandemic Pedagogy
mediately morphed into technology-enabled instruction, with parents as home instructors, and remote
guidance from their child’s teacher(s). Some teachers were familiar with enough instructional technology
tools and strategies to proceed with their instruction with minimal support. Other teachers had to adopt
new methodologies and pedagogies to meet students’ learning needs. As these times were unprecedented,
research has not yet addressed which technology-enabled teaching strategies have been found as promis-
ing practices. Bond (2020) notes that literature exploring the wider variety of stakeholder experiences
has been suggested to be missing. This chapter provides feedback of teachers’ experiences, as well as
the ethnographic viewpoint of an Education Technology Specialist. Using the Technology Acceptance
Model Framework (TAM-2) with HelpDesk data, this study explores “What practice-driven pedagogical
strategies are best for online teaching and learning?”
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic is burrowing a lasting effect on education. From the COVID-19 slowdown/
slide, to the impact of screen time, to home and hybrid environments for learning, it is important to explore
the varied impacts and its contributing factors. The definition of pandemic pedagogy and its burgeon-
ing influence on education will be examined. Additionally, the influence on the pandemic pedagogy by
education technology (EdTech) will be explored, due to the unprecedented impacts in K12 education.
Progressive promising practices for teaching in online spaces during the COVID-19 shutdown will then
be investigated. Lastly, the COVID phenomenon will be tempered with the researcher’s education technol-
ogy background for an ethnographic view of TAM-2 to frame how teachers’ technological pedagogical
decisions over the first nine months of the COVID-19 pandemic affect the future education outlook.
Pandemic Pedagogy
A pandemic pedagogy speaks to the approaches we employ in instructional environments to foster learning
in the context of a serious health crisis. Pedagogies during the COVID-19 pandemic have been referred
to as “distance learning,” but embody a different definition due to the duress of the times (Bozkurt
& Sharma, 2020). When face-to-face instruction quickly shifted to online learning only, ERE in K12
was deemed as “crisis instruction.” Crisis teaching, or crisis instruction, differs from the instructional
practices educators had prior to COVID-19--or have adopted since; crisis teaching were the emergency
remote teaching practices (ERTP) applied during the first few months of school shut-downs. By the first
semester of the new school year, emergency remote education (ERE) had been accepted as this brand of
distance learning. All of these trauma-informed practices are part of a pandemic pedagogy.
Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, and Bond (2020) define emergency remote teaching (ERT) as a tem-
porary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances, in contrast
to distance learning experiences that are planned from the beginning and designed to be online. Bozkurt,
Jung, et al. (2020) contrast distance education as an optional, planned activity which is grounded in theo-
retical and practical knowledge, while ERE is a mandatory, survival mode of education implemented in
times of crisis using all the resources available, including offline and/or online tools. ERTP involve the
use of fully remote teaching solutions for instruction that would otherwise be delivered face-to-face or
blended, and that will return to that format once the crisis or emergency has abated.
146

As Zimmerman (2020) reflected, what’s happening is a great online learning experiment. This is
an opportunity to test online pedagogy-centric approaches. From teachers’ online instruction, students’
online learning, and parents’ online instructional support, there are many variables within each. “What
is currently being done, emergency remote teaching, should be considered a temporary solution to an
immediate problem” (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020, p. ii). Thus, the distinction is important between the
normal, everyday type of effective online instruction and that which we are doing in a hurry with bare
minimum resources and scant time, ERE.
Pandemic Pedagogy and Education Technology
Many K12 teachers were accustomed to a face-to-face educational environment, and were unprepared to
teach fully online. Hughes, Henry and Krushnik (2020) posit that the scramble for teachers and students
to connect course content through a remote environment instead of being together in the classroom was
a considerable challenge as many other changes and uncertainties were occurring. Due to the changes in
physical space, and uncertainties in how to proceed in providing a holistic education in this thrust-upon
environment, teachers in XYZ District got up to a one-week reprieve while it and other school districts
developed crisis learning plans in accordance with perceived need and state guidance. District EdTech
were first responders. From the first day of quarantine, the district’s Education Technology Department
was called upon to not only support, but lead the charge.
Education technology is different from information technology in that the latter deals with the
hardware of technology within school settings (Rodgers, 2021). Education technology, or instructional
technology, is the branch of school support that deals with the instructional components of technical
initiatives (Rodgers, 2021). Information technologists work within information technology departments,
and in XYZ District, were the first contacted, to ensure each teaching stakeholder had a device. EdTech’s
assistance was needed with the device map, as well as how to proceed from an emergency quarantine.
In late March, the undue burdens on district EdTech departments began to exceed the capacities of its
employees. An overwhelming number of educators, parents, and students were in need of support, with
less than a handful of experts per district to bear the burden. As Hodges, et al. (2020) noticed, “While
there are resources to which faculty can turn for assistance, the scale of change...required on many cam-
puses will stress the systems that provide those resources and most likely will surpass their capacities
(para. 12).” EdTech professionals were equipped for the task, but customarily supported small groups of
stakeholders at a time. The pandemic need brought forth hundreds of requests per day--all through the
HelpDesks. Over 5000 HelpDesk e-mails were received during the first week of the pandemic: parents
around connectivity, students around access, administrators around accountability, and teachers around
their methodologies and practices.
Professional Learning with Education Technology

Education technology personnel became pedagogical and methodological experts in shaping ERE. From
the provision of distance learning websites, to the establishment of technology education platforms and
professional learning plans, EdTech specialists were part of the K12 build for pandemic pedagogy. As
“online distance education involves more than simply uploading educational content...It is a complex
process that requires careful planning, designing and determination of aims to create an effective learning
147

ecology” (Bozkurt and Sharma, 2020, p. ii), EdTech needed to support not only the physical structures
of ERE, but the professional learning as well.
Hodges, et al. (2020) make a stellar point when they ask us to “consider...effective online education
requires an investment in an ecosystem of learner supports, which take time to identify and build (para.
11).” ERE thrust teachers into a crisis learning mode, without these supports in place, and no immediate
plan on the horizon. Teachers were the largest stakeholder group for which EdTech made professional
learning plans.
Guskey (2002) defined professional development (PD) as “systematic efforts to bring about change
in the classroom practices of teachers, in their attitudes and beliefs, and in the learning outcomes of
students” (p. 2). There was a need to offer just-in-time PD during ERE to support the aim of professional
development, as well as support instructional systems during virtual remote instruction. Cavanaugh and
Dewese (2020) offer an analysis of hundreds of thousands of search terms during the crisis instruction
months of the pandemic, and discovered a large shift in search terms from the year prior, suggesting that
educators felt the need to communicate effectively in their new digital learning environments.
When the pandemic shut down schools in March 2020, teachers’ mental states and attitudes were in
crisis mode. UNESCO (2020c) found that “teachers were not equipped to organize, deliver and assess
distance learning. They lack[ed] digital skills and readiness for employing distance learning pedagogies
(para. 1).” In considering which education technology strategies and tools to employ, Venkatesh and
Bala’s (2008) integrated and upgraded model of Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
is used as the theoretical framework. TAM-2 can be used to study the perceived ease of use and per-
ceived usefulness of new technologies in relation to teacher’s attitudes towards adoption. Balancing this
theory with the fact that, “Faculty are usually more comfortable teaching online by the second or third
iteration of their online courses” (Hodges et al., 2020, para. 12), will explain adoptive principles. With
lead time of only a few days, teachers were understandably in need of support for creating a continuum
of learning for their online classes.
Methods and Frameworks
The onslaught of the pandemic created interesting learning opportunities. Williamson, Eynon, and Potter
(2020) liken the pandemic learning landscape as “ ‘experimental’...mak[ing] remote learning students,
teachers and parents into laboratory subjects whose contingent experiences and activities are being
observed for insights about the future of edtech itself” (p. 112). Indeed, education technology research-
ers can not help but see the landscape as an opportunity for understanding who was reacting to what
phenomena, and in which ways. Due to the researcher’s unique position as a K12 education technologist
during a pandemic that sent all educational functions online, the data is gathered and analyzed through
phenomenological ethnography.
Phenomenology is a form of qualitative research that creates conditions for the objective study of
topics usually regarded as subjective. The approach centers around lived experiences of a particular
phenomenon, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and guides researchers to distill individual experiences
to a universal concept. Specifically, hermeneutic phenomenology as a research methodology sees time
is a factor (Sloan & Bowe, 2014). Hermeneutic phenomenology is rooted in interpretation of the sub-
jects experiences and phenomena via the individual’s lifeworld, the idea that individuals’ realities are
invariably influenced by the world in which they live (Neubauer, Witcop & Vapiro, 2019). As this study
took place in the midst (time) of an unprecedented pandemic (phenomena), both factors are vital to an
148

understanding of teachers’ choices. This inquiry circle is the process of understanding the individual
parts along with the researcher’s understanding of each individual part, by further reference to the whole.
The outcome is then a collective from individuals of their lived experiences (Creswell, 2007).
Ethnography is a qualitative approach employing in-depth extended observation of a culture-sharing
group in which the researcher is immersed. As an Education Technology Specialist who dealt with
teachers’ concerns on a daily basis during the pandemic, the data is both the process and outcome of
the research (Agar, 1980, as cited in Creswell, 2007). By describing and interpreting the shared and
learned patterns of values, behaviors, and beliefs of the group (Harris, 1968, as cited in Creswell, 2007),
this ethnography is cognizant of the influences of historical and cultural contexts on social interactions,
such as how the pandemic affected K12 teachers. As an ethnographer, the researcher is immersed as a
participant-observer in the phenomena.
The theory used to frame this study is an enhancement on the Technology Acceptance Model. Davis’
(1989) information systems theoretical framework models how users come to accept and use a technology.
These two factors are influenced by external social, cultural, and political variables (Surendran, 2012).
Social factors include skills and facilitating conditions, like previous education technology integration
and the support of Education Technology Specialists during crisis teaching. Political factors are mainly
the impact of using technology in political crises, like the pandemic. Behavioral intention is the factor
that leads people to use the technology, which is explored in this study. Davis’ (1989) original model
suggests that when users are presented with a new technology, two major factors influence their decision
about how and when they will use it, perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use.
• Perceived usefulness (PU) – is the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would enhance his or her job performance. It is whether or not someone perceives that
technology to be useful for what they want to do.
• Perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) – Davis (1989) defned this as the degree to which a person be-
lieves that using a particular system would be free from efort. If the technology is easy to use,
then there’s easier adoption. If it’s not easy to use, there are negative attitudes towards it.
Although the initial TAM model was empirically validated, it explained only a fraction of the vari-
ance of the outcome variable. Other authors have refined the initial model, trying to find the latent
factors underlying perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (Surendran, 2012). Venkatesh and
Davis (2000) added theoretical constructs and extended the original TAM model to explain perceived
usefulness and usage intentions in terms of social influence (subjective norms, voluntariness, image) and
cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output quality, result demonstrability, perceived ease
of use). Table 1 shows an overview of Venkatesh and Davis’s proposed model, referred to as TAM-2.
149

Table 1. TAM-2 Framework
Process Variable Definition of Variable

“A person’s perception that most people who are important to him/her think
Subjective Norm he/she should or should not perform the behavior in question” (Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975, p. 302)
“Extent to which potential adopter perceive the adoption decision to be non-
Voluntariness
Social Influence mandatory” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p. 188)
“The degree to which use of an innovation perceived to enhance one’s status
Image
in one’s social system” (Moore & Benbaast, 1991, p. 195)
“The direct effect of subjective norm of intentions may subside over time with
Experience
increased system experience” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p. 189)
“An individual’s perception regarding the degree to which the target system is
applicable to the individual’s job. Job relevance is a function of the important
Job Relevance
within one’s job of the set of tasks the system is capable of supporting”
(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p. 191)
Cognitive
“In perceptions of output quality, users will take into consideration how well
Instrumental
Output Quality the system performs the tasks that match their job relevance” (Davis, Bagozzi
& Warshaw, 1992, p. 985)
“Tangibility of the results of using the innovation will directly influence
Result Demonstrability
perceived usefulness” (Moore & Benbaast, 1991, p. 203)
Note: The two processes refer to the original model’s variables. The seven variables are defined with definitive quotes from seminal
research. Reprinted from “A Study of the Relationship Between Personality Types and the Acceptance of Technical Knowledge
Management Systems (TKMS),” by Sullivan, 2012, p. 37. https://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Maureen_Sullivan_
Dissertation_2012.pdf.
The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 brought about many opportunities for change. As the narrative
moves from a framework of loss to a framework of opportunity, it is important to understand which fac-
tors have contributed to the instructional landscape in which we now abide, the sustaining role of those
factors, and how this might propel or derail any future instances. Thus, this literature review defined
a pandemic pedagogy, how contributing factors pushed education technology specialists into primary
consultant roles, how professional learning developed from these relationships, and the methods and
frameworks by which the data for this study was analyzed.
MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER
The COVID-19 pandemic created a set of unprecedented natural experiments. Using the data from
one urban school district’s HelpDesk, this study explores the requests from and solutions to educators
during the nine months following the initial stay-at-home order, March 2020-December 2020. Analysis
of these choices through the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM-2) will ensure preparation for any
future travesties. Through a phenomenological ethnographic analysis, Table 2 shows which strategies
were the most requested, and in Table 3, TAM-2 was used to ascertain which technological tools were
the most helpful. The primary research question was “What practice-driven pedagogical strategies are
best for online learning and teaching?”
As one of six education technology specialists for XYZ School District, the researcher helped hundreds
of educators per day discover the most effective ways of instructing and assessing their students during
150

ERE. There is an information technology desk, which takes care of technical issues, such as resetting
passwords and connecting to wifi. All other technological-, pedagogical-, and methodological-related
questions come into the Education Technology Department. HelpDesk questions come in through two
means, e-mail or phone call. Because of the precedence of EdTech Specialists being in the field serv-
ing educators at their school sites, and thus, unavailable via phone, stakeholders were accustomed to
sending their requests via e-mail. There is one e-mail address that is shared by the team of six; requests
and responses are sent through this means. Analysis of these requests became the first level of coding;
themes are referenced in Table 2.
Ethnographic analysis of the data included the researcher’s review of the HelpDesk tickets and the
subsequent weekly professional learning plans. The major themes of HelpDesk tickets were reviewed
weekly within a team call between the six Education Technology Specialists. These determinants were
used to decide district-wide professional learning schedules. The Superintendent had declared that
“professional learning would be dictated by the Education Technology Department, around distance
education, until further notice” (personal communication, ETT, 4/6/20). These professional learning
plans became the second level of coding; themes are referenced in Tables 2 and 3.
Analysis of requests lent to three distinct shifts in teachers’ technology use. The first being “Initial
Practices,” those tools and strategies requested and employed during the first two to three months of the
stay-at-home order, March through June 2020. The second time shift labeled as “Managing Continuity,”
was culled at the end of the semester and offered during summer support, June through August 2020.
The third time shift is labeled “Improving and Accelerating,” as parties were given time to learn what
worked and what did not, in order to revise support as needed for the fall semester, September 2020
through December 2020. TAM-2 is applied to the analysis of teacher technology use during these shifts.
During the first few weeks of pandemic shut-down, educators began teaching through the technolo-
gies they were most familiar with, then found most of them to be inadequate for the cause. HelpDesk
tickets revealed that while widely varied, the central theme of EdTech support involved some degree
of repackaging and promoting existing technology, communicating “best practice” material for remote
education, and Q&A outlets. Further analysis resolved the solutions in the field to be educators using
methods and tools which connected them with their students, helped them stay organized for synchro-
nous and asynchronous instruction, and gave them “eyes on” student learning with technologies that
offered easily accessible data. Later concerns revealed access issues; the need to calibrate the balance
between rigor and home accommodations; skill deficits; and the need to shift from a loss frame to an
opportunity frame.
Initial Practices
The first few weeks of the pandemic shut-down demanded emergency practices. There were four dic-
tates that drove practices the first two months of the stay-at-home order: 1) This is a time of confusion
and stress for all parties; 2) There was a need to get every teacher and every student online; 3) School
attendance needed to be monitored; 4) There was a need to establish a continuity of learning. These
edicts appeared in the nominal order referenced, but occurred so quickly, that it was not noticed until
analysis. As every member of Instructional Services collaborated upon solutions, EdTech worked behind
the scenes to ensure structure.
151

Table 2. Practice-driven Pedagogical Practices
Initial Practices The first three months of the pandemic shut down, March-June 2020.
Pandemic Problem Summary Description Managed By
One-on-one conversations; Stakeholder-based
What to do? How to do it? When to do it? Where
Pandemic Confusion FAQ sheet embedded on the new Distance
to go?
Learning website
Detailed hyperdoc including linked lessons
How to move from interrupted face-to-face
Crisis Instruction aligned with grade level/discipline pacing
instruction to remote virtual instruction?
plans
Google Forms, owned by District, sorted by
school then
Attendance Accountability How to account for all students?
Google Forms, owned by school, sorted by
teacher
How to continue learning plans without teacher Continuous professional development and
Continuity in Learning
pedagogy for ERE? coaching by Education Technology Specialists
Managing Continuity The summer months of the pandemic, June-August 2020.
How to meet student social-emotional support
Social-Emotional Wellness Wellness Apps
needs?
How to meet student social-emotional support
Synchronosity vs. needs and increase student engagement through Videoconferencing, screencasting, and
Asynchronosity synchronous activities and asynchronous collaborative engagement apps
accountabilities?
How to see what students were learning (or at least Apps with District- and Classroom-based data
Data-Based Engagement
doing)? outputs
Improving and Accelerating The fall semester of the pandemic, September-December 2020.
How to meet student and teacher social-emotional Wellness Partnerships with the community and
Psychosocial Support
support needs? wellness apps; more synchronous support
Apps with integration into Google Classroom;
Grading How to grade equitably?
District directives to allow students more time
Blacklisting (by IT and EdTech reporting)
How to ensure apps in use were not breaching
Data Privacy Open Educational Resources marked as
ethics and privacy laws?
violating data privacy laws
Sharing distance learning engagement
Student Engagement How to keep students engaged during ERE? strategies via professional development and
coaching
Note: “Managed By” refers to the strategies that were most successfully employed to mitigate the pandemic problem.
Pandemic Confusion and ERE Stress

When schools closed, especially unexpectedly and for unknown durations, the abrupt migration to online
learning also brought the realization that “transitions to distance learning platforms tend to be messy and
frustrating, even in the best circumstances,” (UNESCO, 2020a, para. 4) in addition to an imbalance in
life outside of the classroom. This time of confusion and stress for all parties saw this work done with
the understanding that crisis instruction was not the necessary priority, as one teacher shared, “I am
most worried about this virus and my health” (personal communication, March 30, 2020). Other dictums
152

took precedence the first month or two of crisis instruction, however mental wellness soon emerged and
remained as a necessary area of needed support. To support mental wellness, EdTech referred teachers
to the only resources known to be readily available, two online applications, HeadSpace and Calm, as
referenced in Table 3. The applications supported wellness through meditation and anti-stress exercises.
Online Accountabilities
Another primary edict was to get everyone online. In pivoting to online ERE, there was a need for two
things: a device and a learning management portal; videoconferencing was seen as essential to only
technically-advanced users. “I don’t need Skype or Meet or Zoom; I just need e-mail” (personal com-
munication, Teacher G, March 31, 2020), echoed from many teachers during the Initial Practices.
EdTech worked with IT to ensure that every teacher had a working device to take home and work
from. Some teachers had defaulted to a personal device and never had their District device serviced. These
became priority fixes for IT. Many teachers had left their devices at the school site, not knowing that a
stay-at-home order would go into immediate effect; they simply had to go back to their school site for
retrieval. It was not as easy for students. At the least, the expectation was that all students and families
would have access to devices and reliable Internet access in their homes while they were quarantined.
While the assumption was inappropriately privileged (Bozkurt, et al., 2020), many students had devices
from a middle school 1:1 grant program. Other students needed provision of devices. The District’s
Device Map was out-of-date. EdTech used the first week to determine which staid devices were at sites,
which devices were defunct at various sites, which students were not yet assigned a device, and create
a system of priority check-out. Within three weeks, every student had a device.
Online accountabilities also included helping teachers establish online classes, and helping students
enroll in those classes. The general consensus was as one teacher commented, “I’ve never taken, less
known taught an online class” (personal communication, Teacher R, April 2, 2020). There were many
references to union contracts until a Memorandum of Agreement was reached that all teachers would
maintain an online class portal. As referenced in Table 3, the applications to accomplish this were SeeSaw
and Google Classroom. Through EdTech Team determinant, Google Classroom became the District’s
“official” practice, as XYZ District was already a Google Apps District. Some teachers already used
SeeSaw or Google Classroom as assignment management within their face-to-face classes. Most teach-
ers however, needed support in creating a Google Classroom shell, navigating the interface, posting
assignments, and checking for student submissions.
The EdTech Department held one full month of Google Classroom Basics classes everyday, three
times a day. At week three of being online, Google Classroom Intermediate classes were offered as well.
Finally by week five of being online, Google Classroom Advanced professional development was offered.
The EdTech Team also offered SeeSaw Basics for the same full month, two times a week, for K-2 teach-
ers who decided to use this platform as their classroom shell. It took a full three weeks to ensure every
teacher had a Google or SeeSaw Classroom, and to get that Classroom code communicated so that it
could be posted on the newly-created Distance Learning Website and accessible for students and parents.
Lastly, getting everyone online meant ensuring everyone was connected to District support through
a webconferencing system, and that they were proficient enough in this webconferencing system to fa-
cilitate meetings and learnings of their own. As a Google Apps District, the default videoconferencing
system was Google Meet. Within two weeks, the more robust default became Zoom. Table 3 references
153

these as well as a smattering of others, like Teams and Skype, that were being used. EdTech then began
to offer daily professional development workshops on Google Meet, and beginning and advanced Zoom.
Monitor School Attendance
To receive funding based on average daily attendance (ADA) of students, there had to be a system devel-
oped for attendance-tracking. EdTech devised a Google Form, accessible from the new Distance Learn-
ing website, for all students to “check in” for daily attendance. Google Form replies have an automatic
time and date stamp, which helped mitigate tardiness. In order for teachers to see if their classroom of
students had checked in for the day, they had to know how to access the Google Spreadsheet and do a
sort for their name. This was a problem as the Teacher of Record might not be able to vouch for students’
presence in their classes. Coaching sessions were requested for this cause. “I don’t know how to find
out if my kids checked into class today” (personal communication, Teacher K, April 2, 2020), became
a frequent response. With EdTech also supporting hundreds of other requests, it was soon obvious that
students’ daily check-ins were not enough to aid school reporting and classroom accountability. Within
a few weeks, attendance was decentralized from the District, to a Sheet created by the school, shared
with the District and teacher. The teacher could then post the link within their online classrooms, and
embrace the responsibilities as teacher of record. By the “Improving and Accelerating” stage, teachers
resumed taking attendance in the District’s daily attendance-tracking application.
Once teachers’ online classrooms were set up, it was an unexpected trial to get students to enroll
in their classes. For reasons unknown, students at each grade level were unenrolled for up to a month
between face-to-face instruction and the online shift. A fully separate effort had to be organized for pa-
rental phone contact. The District and site administration was accustomed to using ParentSquare, XYZ
District’s parental information app, but teachers didn’t have access to this application. Once the expecta-
tion of online course shells was established, this was communicated to parents through ParentSquare. It
still took a bit of navigation to understand how to get their child enrolled into an online class. Just like
teachers, students were in a lurch, and parents were unprepared for ERE.
Continuity in Learning
As students were at home receiving instruction from their parents, there was a more essential need
for teachers to make direct contact, in order to help students succeed. Some teachers had shared their
private cell phone numbers--until EdTech offered a workshop on setting up a Google Voice number for
privacy. “I don’t know what’s going on. What am I supposed to tell my parents?” (personal communica-
tion, Teacher I, March 19, 2020), was a shared sentiment the first few weeks of lockdown. Parents were
referred to the District’s website, which initially held nothing but the announcement for quarantine, how
to pick up a two-week work packet from their child’s school, and food pick-up arrangements. Nothing
about continued instruction was mentioned until EdTech built the Distance Learning Website with a
page for parent information (in addition to teacher guidance, and student information). There was still a
disconnect of continuous timely information from the teacher to their students.
154

Table 3. Technically-bound Pedagogical Practices
Teachers’ Adoptability
Adoption Period
Likert 1 useful - 5 not
Initial (I),
1 easy - 5 difficult
Managing Name of Technological
Reason for Use (TAM) PU and PEOU
Continuity (MC), Pedagogical Practice
Variable Impact (TAM-2)
and Improving and
SI = SN, V, I or E
Accelerating (I&A)
CI = JR, OQ or RD
HeadSpace, Calm, Telehealth, PU=1, PEOU=3
Initial, MC and I&A mental wellness: meditation, relaxation
EASE, CareSolace SI=SN, CI=RD
PU=5, PEOU=4
Initial, MC, I&A Google Classroom, SeeSaw online course portal
SI=V, CI=JR
PU=3, PEOU=2
Initial, MC, I&A Zoom, Google Meet videoconferencing application
SI=V, CI=OQ
PU=4, PEOU=5
Initial Google Forms/Sheets attendance
SI=V, CI=JR&RD
PU=5, PEOU=3
Initial, I&A Google Voice alternate business communications line
SI=SN, CI=RD
iReady, online textbook PU=5, PEOU=2
Initial, I&A continuity of learning, assessment
resources SI=E, CI=JR
Formative, Google Slides, PU=5, PEOU=4
Initial, MC, I&A online worksheets, formative assessment
Nearpod SI=I, CI=OQ
OER (e.g., Khan Academy, online open education resources PU=4, PEOU=4
Initial, I&A
GoNoodle, Kahoot, PhET, etc.) (engagement and learning tool) SI=V, CI=JR
PU=3, PEOU=4
MC YouTube/Screencastify screencasting application
SI=I, CI=RD
PU=4, PEOU=4
MC, I&A FlipGrid formative assessment tool
SI=V, CI=OQ
Google Suite for Edu, Choice PU=5, PEOU=4
MC, I&A collaborative tools
Boards SI=E, CI=OQ
PU=5, PEOU=4
I&A Quizziz formative assessment tool
SI=V, CI=OQ
Note: These data are based on the offerings to the teachers within this study. These offerings were based on collective knowledge shared
between members of XYZ District’s education technology team, as they conferred with other county and districts’ specialists for promising
practices during the initial (Mar-Jun 2020), managing continuity (Jun-Aug), and improving and accelerating (Sept-Dec) time periods.
Teachers’ adoptability is referenced with TAM-2, with the researcher’s ethnographic assessment, averaged across all learners and all noted
periods of time.
The easiest thing for teachers to do during crisis instruction, was to continue practices they were
already undertaking in their classrooms. Unfortunately, many of these practices did not translate well
for online instruction. An example is that more than half the HelpDesk tickets one day of Week Three
in quarantine, were inquiries about how to create online worksheets in which students could interact.
“How do I make this worksheet so students can fill it out on their computer?” (personal communication,
Teacher J, April 6, 2020) was a frequent question. Teachers assigned online worksheets that were PDFs,
versus transporting those assignments to an interactive tool so that students could engage in a remote
environment--and the teacher observe student developments in real time. The need to “just get it online”
was in direct contradiction to the time and effort normally dedicated to developing a quality course.
155

XYZ District focused their efforts on providing digital materials with content-centric practices.
EdTech worked with Instructional Services to merge content from pacing guides to a comprehensive
day-by-day online distance learning plan. As Instructional Services posted grade level and discipline
assignments, EdTech converted many items for online viewing and interaction, as referenced in Table
3, so students could fully engage online.
Managing Continuity
There was a steep learning curve for crisis instruction, but after a few months, promising practices
began to emerge. EdTech observed promising practices in virtual walkthroughs, as many teachers had
requested that an Education Technology Specialist “co-teach” with them (i.e., have equivalent course
rights to ensure their classes were set up correctly and they wouldn’t have problems posting, grading,
or viewing assignments). Best practices were also confirmed by e-mail and 1:1 coaching conversations.
All promising practices were discussed in weekly meetings with Education Services, planning for future
professional development. This group of practices are referred to as “managing continuity.” There were
three dictates that drove practices at the end of the stay-at-home order and during the summer: 1) targeted
health education; 2) synchronocity vs. asynchronosity; and 3) the need for data.
Implementing Wellness Activities
Schools are hubs of social activity and human interaction. Planning for pandemic pedagogy includes not
just identifying the content to cover, but also planning how you’re going to support different types of
interactions that are important to the learning process. When schools closed, many youth missed out on
social contact essential to learning and development (UNESCO, 2020a). A few months into ERE, edu-
cators realized that they had to intentionally create spaces for students to learn together in small groups,
and reimagine digital options similar to playgrounds and cafeterias for students’ social-emotional con-
nections. Table 3 references the technology tools of reliance during the period of Managing Continuity.
Synchronicity vs. Asynchronicity
Synchronous methods of instruction include working together at the same time. Asynchronous methods
can involve the use of virtual learning environments where activities can be done independently at differ-
ent times. Teachers were faced with the options to teach online in one or both of these modes. During the
initial months, crisis instruction was almost exclusively asynchronous, to the detriment of social-emotional
connections. Managing Continuity included the use of applications for more synchronous instruction.
Over half of the teachers requesting assistance had not connected with their students via videoconfer-
ence during the first three months of ERE. This became a primary support dictum for executive leader-
ship, and thus, EdTech. Any time a teacher sent an email request for support, they were sent a Google
Meet or Zoom link back to meet with EdTech synchronously, and gain efficacy in the use of the tool. “I
feel so much more comfortable using Zoom now that I’ve been on different calls and had to use almost
all the tools,” Teacher S pronounced (personal communication, June 10, 2020).
Asynchronosity also prevailed with content delivery until educators became comfortable enough
with collaborative applications, referenced in Table 3. While teachers were avid users of Google Docs
as an online tool, HelpDesk tickets revealed a low percentage of teachers used its collaborative func-
156

tions. After six weeks of trainings on the use of the Google Suite as a collaborative tool, teachers began
to significantly use these tools in collaborative ways with students. Similarly, after trainings on the use
of other collaborative tools referenced in Table 3, and screencasting, teachers began to digitally-record
some of their lectures and lesson directions, for posting onto their Google Classroom or Seesaw.
Data Needs
There were challenges measuring and validating learning during ERE. With guidance from the California
State Department of Education (CDE, 2020) during the first few months of quarantine, XYZ District
made the decision to forgo required class assignments, assessments, and grading and instead provide
non-required, ungraded “enrichment” activities for students. This mitigated the conundrum forming
around use of technologies that gathered engagement and content mastery data.
Table 3 reflects some of the technologies used during this period, which are identified as integrated
data-gathering tools. Google Suite for Education has a data dashboard at the District level, that shows
percentages of engagement per use. If a student logged into Google Classroom, the engagement data
was marked. If a class accessed Google Slides, engagement data would show it. There are a few ways
students and their teachers can access applications; if they used the District’s single-sign-on system, en-
gagement data would be captured there as well. The culture of XYZ District had been to only engage in
these habits for the textbook companions. Otherwise, stakeholders would usually garner access directly
through a website, or via a posted link within their Google Classroom. Then the District would have
no data, so much as the content data from formative and summative assessments by classroom. Thus,
formative versus summative feedback was being prioritized.
Improving and Accelerating
By the time Fall 2020 descended, formal and informal practices had been shared across multiple dis-
tricts and organizations over the summer, about ways to improve and accelerate learning for District
stakeholders. The World Bank (2020) highlights that during ERE, “failure is common, and success is
often a result of experience and learning from past failures” (p. 1). District EdTech culled promising
practices and published a comprehensive website with examples and step-by-step instructions. While
teachers became accustomed to this resource, there were three dictates that drove practices through the
fall semester: 1) psycho-social Support; 2) data: district and classroom; and 3) engagement. practices
within these categories comprised “Improving and Accelerating.”
Psychosocial Support Needs
After the global pivot to online learning, there was widespread reporting of digital burnout and fatigue
(Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). Rhetoric had begun about being more attentive to student mental wellness,
almost at the exclusivity of educator mental wellness. The lived experience of the pandemic, “replete
with intense feelings...and chronic, prolonged experiences of stress...can undermine our ability to be
effective learners, teachers, and parents” (Pierce, 2020, p. 7). Reticently accepting crisis instruction of a
few weeks, to the realization of a few months, to the possibilities of the new school year, were shocking
adult realities affecting professional choices. The most poignant thing shared by a teacher in a September
coaching session was, “My principal called me just to see how I was doing. Not to ensure my assignments
157

were posted; not to remind me to call absentees’ parents; not to get on me about some compliance or
‘nother, but just called to sincerely inquire how I was doing. Right there, I broke down in tears. I know
he wasn’t prepared for that, but in all the hubbub, no one was asking me how I was holding up” (personal
communication, Teacher W, September 16, 2020). Apart from their provisions for students, educators
also began to take advantage of therapeutic care from telehealth counseling, and other mental wellness
options like Headspace and Calm, as referenced in Table 3.
Student Grades
As Hodges et al. (2020) reveal, the success of ERE can be measured in a variety of ways, depending
on how “success” is defined from a given stakeholder’s perspective. Typically districts look towards
state assessments and district summatives. One sentiment was repeated hundreds of times over among
teachers, “My kids aren’t even coming to class. How am I supposed to fairly grade them? I don’t know
whether it’s laziness, internet problems, or COVID” (personal communication Teacher M, November
17, 2020). In March 2020, some learning institutions converted all their classes to “pass/fail” to address
the extraordinary challenges being faced by their students and teaching staff (Burke, 2020). It was im-
possible to determine a fair grade with the possibilities of unstable Internet, inappropriate devices, and
inequitable learning environments. Additionally, without the pressures of grading, teachers could focus
on engaging students within the new demands of a pandemic pedagogy.
However with the return in the fall semester, grades were expected. Districts supported teachers to-
wards applications that gathered data at the district dashboard level, or provided classroom dashboards
that could be shared with site administrators. Teachers continuously chose applications that helped them
understand student progress with automaticity--and that spoke to the gradebook, as referenced in Table
3. There was also a switch to focus on formative assessments over summative assessments, as Liberman,
Levin and Luna-Bazaldua (2020) highlight that formative assessment during COVID-19 is crucial as
“teachers...need to understand whether students are absorbing the content that is delivered to them in
formats that differ from business-as-usual (para. 3).” Even though formative assessment applications like
Formative gave District and classroom data, many teachers switched to applications like Quizziz because
its student grade panel transferred directly into Google Classroom. The pandemic has highlighted the
need to shift to more student-centered practices and pedagogies that emphasize the process of learning
and student experience and engagement online, rather than merely being assessed at the end. However
teachers were overwhelmed with their own personal stressors from COVID-19, additional preparations
for implementing a pandemic pedagogy, and just wanted the most interoperable means of facilitating
learning with their students.
Engagement
A growing concern from ERE became the lack of student engagement. A number of students were not
coming to school. From those who were, many students were passive participants, versus active learners.
Resources needed to be employed to keep students engaged. Many of the online learning experiences
that teachers offered their students were not necessarily well planned, and there was a high probability
for suboptimal implementation, as stated in bi-monthly sync meetings with Education Services. In re-
sponse, teachers were taught how to use Breakout Rooms for collaborative groupings. While in Breakout
158

Rooms, teachers were encouraged to use collaborative applications referenced in Table 3, like Nearpod
and Google Slides, to see student developments and comment on student progression in real time.
This chapter focused upon teachers’ practice-driven instructional choices during the pandemic and used
TAM-2 as a basis for hypothesizing the effects of the variables driving their pedagogical and methodologi-
cal choices. A phenomenological outlook allowed the researcher to use common experiences to conduct
a structural analysis of what is most common, most familiar and most self-evident. The ethnographic
lens allowed the researcher to write from her own lived experience. Together, this presented some of
the challenges teachers faced, their actions with those challenges, and what contributed to those actions.
Issues, Controversies, Problems
These are unprecedented times in education and pose problems unique to the pandemic. However,
many of these issues have only been heightened, as they were already concerns in education. Equity,
technological reliability, learner support systems, and quality assurance are possible areas of evaluation
inquiry. The study also raised awareness towards a care pedagogy and success data. All of these factors
can influence the effectiveness of distance and online learning experiences (Hodges et al., 2020).
Equity
The digital divide has been undermining the academic success of students from poor families since
well before the pandemic led many schools to move their operations online (NCES, 2018). It was only
compounded and highlighted with the pandemic. Between access to devices, wifi, basic knowledge,
and advanced information, there were a multiplicity of chasms within technological equity. A parent
advocate complained that “even though [her] child has a device, it is inoperable for distance learning,
because the wifi doesn’t work in [her] area and there [were] no more hotspots to check out from [her]
school” (personal communication, April 9, 2020).
Technological Reliability
The reliability of selected technological delivery systems was key to pandemic ERE. Without access,
students nor teachers could engage properly. There were three issues: device access, wifi access, and
stability of learning applications. EdTech and IT needed to ensure every teacher had a working device.
They also needed to ensure inventory and distribution to guarantee that every student had a device.
Then there was the requirement for an Internet connection. Some students began with no hotspot. Some
students live in areas with no towers. Some students have to share bandwidth with multiple household
members, and throttle down so low, that the frustration level outweighs the learning attainment. Even
teachers were susceptible to Internet outages in their neighborhoods. Similarly, students and teachers
had to rely upon essential technology applications that might have failed during ERE. XYZ District lost
network services twice. Seesaw (2020) and Google Classroom and other Suite services (Google, 2020)
went down a few times over this period. During this nine-month period, all computer applications in
use were inoperable at least once. Tech happens!
159

Learner Support Systems
This global pandemic exposed a significant gap in teacher preparation and training for ERE, including
teaching with technology to ensure continuity of learning for students at a distance (Trust & Whalen,
2020). Exasperation expressed by Teacher G echoed this, “I have no idea how to get online and teach
my students. I will need a month of hand-holding before I feel confident enough to navigate the screen
like you are and deliver a phenomenal lesson to support my kids” (personal communication, April 27,
2020). Choice-based professional development, which had been optional, now had teachers reflecting
on its use for ERE, “I have been to this workshop at least twice before. This time, I’m really paying at-
tention” (personal communication, Teacher B, May 14, 2020).
Care Pedagogy
One of the greatest chagrins of the pandemic is the wide divide between those who stand on one side
of the COVID-19 fence, insisting that schools return to “normal” practice, versus those who stand on
the opposite end of the continuum of cautiousness, preparing for elongated timelines in virtual remote
instruction due to health concerns. America’s federal government has urged schools to open in the midst
of rising COVID-19 numbers. This message initially received effective pushback from California, it being
the first state to go into statewide lockdown. Eventually, socio-political powers prevailed to some school
districts opening, like XYZ, which has invariably “caused havoc with my mindset. I can’t concentrate on
this distance learning, trying to avoid dying from someone’s cough” (personal communication, Teacher
W, August 17, 2020).
Success Data
XYZ District first wanted to know attendance data, then engagement data, then markers around student
success. There was an initial issue with who owned, shared, and could view the Google Form for stu-
dent attendance. This concern was compounded by the onus on students, or their parents, to access the
form daily and complete it for official attendance, rather than the teacher of record taking attendance
within their classes. “My kids won’t come to class. I don’t know what to do. I have called parents, e-
mailed students, I told my principal…” (personal communication, Teacher M, December, 2, 2020) was
a concern heard multiple times a day as teachers tried to solve attendance issues. Engagement data was
skewed because the application dashboards could only display login data, rather than engagement. A
student could log in in the morning, then proceed to do other things on their computer; as long as they
didn’t close the designated applications, they were considered “engaged.” Lastly, none of the standard
success measures applied during the first few months of the COVID-19 shutdown. State testing was
cancelled; grades were suspended by the District; teachers were grasping at online tools that would help
them deliver lessons, and secondarily measure for student success.
Quality Assurance
During the second semester of the first full year of hybrid instruction, XYZ District began to look at
rigor and types of engagement. With attendance still at dismal levels, Instructional Services turned their
attention to “the depth of students’ learning, and how do we know,” (personal communication, Diretor
160

G, January 6, 2021). Pandemic metrics had included learning management system engagement, which
were just statistics of student login. “Seat time” was counted on a once-a-day submission through a
Google form the first four months, and via synchronous “camera on” time within class videoconference
the fall semester. Posted lessons were the maximum ask until August brought the ushered mandate of
synchronous instruction. Spring 2021 brought virtual walk-throughs where observational data were col-
lected as to the most promising practices and identifications made for teachers who needed ERE support.
SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are recommendations for each listed issue of concern: equity, technological reliability, learner
support systems, quality assurance, care pedagogy and success data. However each solution may not be
the best for particular learning environments.
Equity
Digital obstacles in school need to be addressed thoroughly and continually. This might start with every
school district employing an EdTech Administrator. To parse these concerns to someone whose job is
to address inequities in the digital divide, versus a multiplicity of priorities like assessment, business
services, or the whole curriculum (Rodgers, 2021) would create viable plans for comprehensive man-
agement. This role would also be able to work with IT to ensure equitable distribution of hardware,
targeted professional learning and assessment of such towards student achievement, and enrichment
opportunities as a pipeline.
Technological Reliability
The three issues surfaced within the study led to a problem with device maps, wifi, and learning applica-
tions. A device map is the location of a device, within an organization, at any given point in time. Updated
device maps should be a part of a district’s transparent review process. There is rarely clean data to start
with, and then not enough human resources to update and maintain, but we have seen with the pandemic
how valuable this inventory can be. Secondly, wifi should be a public utility (FCC, 2017), in which all
persons have equal access. Lastly, education will continue to be at the mercy of learning applications,
but EdTech Departments can assure that their districts choose those which have proven most stable.
Learner Support Systems
For years, there has been a significant gap in the delivery of professional learning with teachers, its
absorption within that population, and its translation to student achievement. This pandemic heightened
this need and the requisite for impact within professional learning. Darling-Hammond & Hyler (2020)
point to K12 solutions such as transforming educator professional learning opportunities to match cur-
rent needs, supporting mentoring, and creating time for educators to collaborate with each other and key
partners. While these provide opportunities for learning, the deeper solution might be accountabilities
for such. Districts would have to renegotiate seat time professional learning credits with the unions, for
professional learning credits including a cycle that demonstrably reflects learning.
161

Care Pedagogy
Rising COVID-19 numbers in various counties have effectively disrupted each county’s educational
continuum at least once. School districts are either in, or planning for a return to the classroom, hybrid,
or distance education. Just as there has been a rise in attention to caring for students’ social-emotional
well-being, districts should attend to the mental needs of its educators (Yoder, Posamentier, Godek,
Seibel, & Dusenbury, 2020). Impending return has heightened educator stressors (Cipriano & Brackett,
2020). Provision of optional telehealth is good, but as we have all undergone mental stressors during the
pandemic, professional support around mental wellness should be incorporated in any school district’s
re-opening plans.
Success Data
“Success” during pandemic pedagogy has to be measured differently (Williamson, Eynon & Potter,
2020). Attendance data has been addressed with the fall 2020 semester as teachers taking attendance
within their own courses, reporting it to their school offices, and those offices reporting it to the District.
Engagement and success markers are still under review for best practices. Application dashboards are
only one measure of engagement. XYZ District has begun a series of virtual walk-throughs, modeling
face-to-face observational practices learning organizations have engaged in for identification of promis-
ing practices and support of those in a pedagogic struggle. However, a certain framework for distance
learning, and specifically ERE, should be applied.
Quality Assurance
While research in the area of quality assurance during ERE is burgeoning, the field is in the beginning
stages of inquiry, by no means allowing for all the variables of ERE. Universal design for learning
(UDL) should be part of discussions around teaching and learning, as they focus on the design of learn-
ing environments that are flexible, inclusive, and student-centered to ensure that all students can access
and learn from the course materials, activities, and assignments (Hodges et al., 2020). Additionally, the
need for digital literacy--and beyond that, critical digital literacy emerged.
The pandemic highlighted the need for greater equity in the digital divide; stability among technologies;
educators to become familiar and trained in online pedagogies, the system to support mental wellness
during pandemic recovery, data discussions for markers of success during a pandemic pedagogy; and a
need to ensure quality educational supports. These are unprecedented times, and as researchers share in
practicum, the field will continue to learn from ERE.
In the case of practice-driven choices for pandemic pedagogy, institutions might want to consider
questions such as the following:
• What internal and external resources were necessary in supporting the shift to ERE? Which re-
sources will be most helpful in supporting learning post-pandemic?
162

• What situational factors were afecting teaching and learning? To what extent were we prepared
to adjust expectations, delivery, and content for teaching efectiveness?
• What are the immediate and long-term consequences of remote virtual instruction?
• What are the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) ramifcations for present ERE choices?
• How is the pandemic pedagogy being shaped by the technology tools in use? What role did the
technology infrastructure play in the adoption of particular ERE technologies? What were the
programmatic outcomes of these ERE choices?
• As educators shift back into hybrid or face-to-face instruction, which practices might they con-
tinue, and which might be enhanced?
• With digital inequities magnifed, what is the next step in closing the gap?
CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected every resident in the United States and has permanently altered the
educational landscape. Rather than the call to return to normal, education systems should aim to recover
but not replicate the past. K12 pandemic pedagogy has been found wanting, falling short of effective
pedagogical approaches. As instruction returns, it should include COVID-19 in a global and historical
context. Agreeing with Hodges, et al. (2020), “many of the online learning experiences that instructors
[were] able to offer their students…[were not] necessarily well planned, and there [was] a high prob-
ability for suboptimal implementation (para. 12).” The current use of and dependence on technology for
education provides opportunities for introspection and insight.
The chapter intends to provide a summation of instruction in the “new normal” by distilling lessons
learned and extracting the knowledge and experience gained through the COVID-19 crisis to better envi-
sion emerging pedagogies for the future of education. This study evaluates the interruption of education,
identifies the strengths and areas of growth of a professional learning system, reports best practices,
and provides a base for emerging pedagogies. This study acknowledges the multitude of barriers in a
pandemic pedagogy, and the compendium of tools and strategies for engaging students with “eyes on”
during remote instruction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
profit sectors.
REFERENCES
163

Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih,
M., Pete, J., Olcott, D. Jr, Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. V. Jr, Roberts, J., Pazurek, A.,
Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., ... Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the
interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis.
Brink, P. J., & Edgecombe, N. (2003). What is becoming of ethnography? Qualitative Health Research,
13(7), 1028–1030. doi:10.1177/1049732303253542 PMID:14502967
Burke, L. (2020, March 19). #PassFailNation. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/
news/2020/03/19/colleges-go-passfail-address-coronavirus
California Department of Education. (2020). State superintendent Thurmond announces new guidance
on grades and graduation for seniors. California Department of Education. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/
ne/yr20/yr20rel18.asp
Cavanaugh, C., & DeWeese, A. (2020). Understanding the professional learning and support needs of edu-
cators during the initial weeks of pandemic school closures through search terms and content use. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 233–238. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216073
Cipriano, C., & Brackett, M. (2020). Teachers are anxious and overwhelmed: They need SEL now more
than ever. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-04-07-teachers-are-anxious-and-overwhelmed-
they-need-sel-now-more-than-ever
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd
ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID… and be-
yond. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457–465. doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
Federal Communications Commission. (2017). Title II of the telecommunications act: FCC-17-60A1.
Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-17-60A1.docx
Future of School. (2020). Progress report on crisis schooling: National survey of America’s teachers
[Video]. https://www.futureof.school/fos-webi-replay/progress-report-on-crisis-schooling-national-
survey-of-americas-teachers
Google. (2020). Google workspace data dashboard. Google. https://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=e

n&v=status&ts=1606291199000
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3/4), 381–391.
doi:10.1080/135406002100000512
164

Hayman, J., Heiser, R., & Ishmael, K. (2018). Open learning and open communities: OER for preK-12
educators. Pre-print Chapter. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oqbzyGNNQGUVyQY3-EfxMQul-
IDjdJToPuRhQoxx5-yQ/edit#
gency remote teaching and online learning. EduCause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/
Hughes, M. C., Henry, B. W., & Kushnick, M. R. (2020, August 6). Teaching during the pan-
demic? An opportunity to enhance curriculum. Pedagogy in Health Promotion. https://doi-org/
doi:10.1177/2373379920950179
Lai, M. (2008, January 4). Technology readiness, internet self‐efficacy and computing experi-
ence of professional accounting students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(1), 18–29.
doi:10.1108/10650740810849061
Liberman, J., Levin, V., & Luna-Bazaldua, D. (2020, April 27). Are students still learning during CO-
VID-19? Formative assessment can provide the answer. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.
org/education/are-students-still-learning-during-covid-19-formative-assessment-can-provide-answer
Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2005). The role of internet self-efficacy in the acceptance of web-based electronic
medical records. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 17(1), 38–57. doi:10.4018/jo-
euc.2005010103
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Student access to digital learning resources outside
of the classroom. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098/ind_15.asp
Neubauer, B. E., Witcop, C. T., & Vapiro, L. (2019, April). How phenomenology can help us learn
from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 90–97. doi:10.100740037-
019-0509-2 PMID:30953335
Pierce, E. B. (2020). Supporting school community wellness with social and emotional learning (SEL)
during and after a pandemic. The Pennsylvania State University. https://www.prevention.psu.edu/up-
loads/files/PSU-SEL-Crisis-Brief.pdf
Rodgers, D. (2021). The confluence of K12 education technology leadership. TechTrends.
Schwartzman, R. (2020, October 6). Performing pandemic pedagogy. Communication Education, 69(4),
502–517. doi:10.1080/03634523.2020.1804602
Seesaw. (2020). Seesaw Status. Seesaw. https://status.seesaw.me/history?page=3
Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the
methodologies and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum
design. Quality & Quantity, 48(3), 1291–1303. doi:10.100711135-013-9835-3
Smith, H. A., & Hornsby, D. (2020). Towards a pandemic pedagogy: Power and politics in learning
and teaching. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341113230_Towards_a_Pandemic_Pedagogy_
power_and_politics_in_learning_and_teaching
165

Stranger, A. (2020, March 19). Make all courses pass/fail now. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
66(26). https://www.chronicle.com/article/make-all-courses-pass-fail-now/
Sullivan, M. (2012). A study of the relationship between personality types and the acceptance of techni-
cal knowledge management systems (TKMS) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. https://realkm.
com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Maureen_Sullivan_Dissertation_2012.pdf
Surendran, P. (2012, August). Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. International Journal
of Business and Social Research, 2(4), 175–178.
Surry, D. W., & Ensminge, D. (2001, July-August). What’s wrong with media comparison studies?
Educational Technology, 41(4), 32–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428679
The World Bank. (2020). Remote learning and COVID-19: The use of educational technologies at scale
across an education system as a result of massive school closings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
to enable distance education and online learning. The World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/
curated/en/266811584657843186/pdf/Rapid-ResponseBriefing-Note-Remote-Learning-and-COVID-
19-Outbreak.pdf
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(2), 189–199.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/215995/
UNESCO. (2020a). Adverse consequences of school closures. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/
educationresponse/consequences
UNESCO. (2020b). Distance learning solutions. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/education-
response/solutions
UNESCO. (2020c). Global education coalition: Teachers. UNESCO. https://globaleducationcoalition.
unesco.org/home/flagships/teachers
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2020, July 1). Identifying the source of the outbreak.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/about-epidemiology/identifying-source-
outbreak.html#:~:text=Pandemic%3A%20Event%20in%20which,large%20number%20of%20people
van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11–30. http://
www.maxvanmanen.com/files/2011/04/2007-Phenomenology-of-Practice.pdf
VanAllen, J., & Katz, S. (2020, June 15). Teaching with OER during pandemics and beyond. Journal
for Multicultural Education, 14(3/4), 209–218. doi:10.1108/JME-04-2020-0027
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four
longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020, May 21). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices:
Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and
Technology, 45(2), 107–114. doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
166

Yoder, N., Posamentier, J., Godek, D., Seibel, K., & Dusenbury, L. (2020). From response to reopen-
ing: State efforts to elevate social and emotional learning during the pandemic. The Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/
CASEL-CFC-final.pdf
Zimmerman, J. (2020, March 10). Coronavirus and the great online learning experiment. The Chronicle
for Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/coronavirus-and-the-great-online-learning-
experiment/
ADDITIONAL READING
Barbour, M., LaBonte, R., Kelly, K., Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. (2020).
Understanding pandemic pedagogy: Differences between emergency remote, remote, and online teach-
ing. Canadian E-Learning Network. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.31848.70401
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A com-
parison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology
self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. JRTE, 43(4), 343–367. doi:10.1080/15391523.2011
.10782576
Macgilchrist, F. (2019). Cruel optimism in edtech: When the digital data practices of educational technol-
ogy providers inadvertently hinder educational equity. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 77–86.
doi:10.1080/17439884.2018.1556217
McFarland, D., & Hamilton, D. (2006). Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance
model. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 427–447. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.09.009
Peters, M., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Zipin, L., Brennan, M.,
Robertson, S., Quay, J., Malbon, J., Taglietti, D., Barnett, R., Chengbing, W., McLaren, P., Apple, R.,
Papastephanou, M., Burbules, N., ... Misiaszek, L. (2020). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities
for universities post-Covid-19. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–44. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655
Rapanta, C., Botturi, C., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching dur-
Teräs, M., Suoranta, J., Teräs, H., & Curcher, M. (2020). Post-covid-19 education and education technol-
ogy ‘solutionism’: A seller’s market. Postdigital Science Education, 2(3), 863–878. doi:10.100742438-
020-00164-x
White, C. P., Ramirez, R., Smith, J. G., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face
course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34–40. doi:10.100711528-
010-0418-z
167

COVID-19: An illness caused by a virus that can spread from person-to-person, previously only
found in animals, swept the globe to cause a pandemic rise in illness.
Crisis Teaching/Instruction: Teachers’ actions: whatever needs to be done, in a crisis situation, to
keep students connected and engaged in the learning process—outside of planned online distance learning.
Education Technology: The branch of school support that deals with the instructional components
of technical initiatives.
Emergency Remote Education (ERE)/Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT)/Emergency Remote
Instruction (ERI): A temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to
crisis circumstances.
HelpDesk: Support that focuses on the end user and how their needs might be met.
Pandemic Pedagogy: Speaks to the approaches employed in instructional environments to foster
learning in the context of a serious health crisis.
Professional Learning/Development: Professional learning plans are continuous learning offerings
around organizational goals, where professional development is not seen as learning on a continuum,
but continuous learning.
Remote Virtual Learning: Occurs when students and teachers cannot be physically present in a
traditional learning environment, and all information is disseminated through a variety of digital engage-
ment opportunities.
168
169
Chapter 9
Enacting Care-Ful Engagement
in the (Post)Pandemic
Care-Less University
Deanna Grant-Smith
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5935-2690
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Ryan Payne
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
ABSTRACT
There is a strong link between student engagement and successful educational outcomes which is driven
by the actions of and interactions with educators. In the context of pandemic pedagogies, many educa-
tors have taken on additional responsibility for the wellbeing and engagement of their students. The
performance of this emotion work is strongly connected to an educator’s professional and philosophical
stance about the role of caring in teaching and learning. Building on the principles of care ethics with
autoethnographic refection of emergency remote teaching, this chapter presents a model of student en-
gagement which refects the additional needs and demands of care-based education on both educators
and students. This model outlines for the enactment of deliberate, sustainable, and care-ful engagement
based on an assessment of learner needs as well as educator investment and contributes insights for
shaping (post pandemic) pedagogical practices.
INTRODUCTION
The neoliberalization of higher education advocates the delivery of the education ‘product’ with maximum
efficiency and drawing on the least resources possible (Hölscher, 2018). This approach has transformed
higher education institutions into a “for profit” business, seeking to attract as many students as possible
while servicing their needs with the lowest feasible number of staff by relying heavily on sessional
academics to deliver teaching and lowering the ratio of academic faculty to support staff (Palmer &
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch009

Enacting Care-Ful Engagement in the (Post)Pandemic Care-Less University
Cantrell, 2019). This ‘need’ for labor efficiencies has been exacerbated in pandemic times due to losses
in international student revenues which have long propped up the higher education system under cur-
rent funding regimes (Hurley & Van Dyke, 2020). As a result, in early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic
precipitated a crisis in higher education in which educators with limited support and resources were
required to make a rapid transition to online delivery to limit community transmission of the virus on
campus through reduced physical social interactions (Weeden & Cornwell, 2020). Face-to-face instruction
was often replaced with prerecorded lectures and live webinars which resulted in a sharp reduction in
student–educator interaction. Some universities provided a short period of transition to shift instruction
online (Ebner, 2020) while others transitioned immediately without suspending offerings (Crawford et
al., 2020). Some universities even resorted to using previously recorded lectures from faculty who had
died years earlier (Kneese, 2021).
This adoption of emergency remote education (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a) is distinct from planned
online or distance education. Planned online education can be highly effective (Papastergiou, 2009;
Hodges et al., 2020), however, the ad hoc nature of emergency remote teaching may not create the
conditions needed to effectively support student learning. The disruptions to teaching caused by the
COVID-19 response measures and rapid adoption of emergency remote teaching had a significant im-
pact on educators’ abilities to support student engagement (Code et al., 2020) as reflected in university
pandemic communiqués dominated by discourses of technical connectivity rather than human connection
(Ashfaquzzaman, 2020). Although such utilitarian logics are common in crisis management (Branicki,
2020), a “strong faculty academic human caring presence” to is required to humanize emergency remote
teaching, create caring spaces and facilitate engagement (Christopher et al., 2020, p.822). Caring practices
are highly contextual and contingent. Some educators took the opportunity to include COVID within
curriculum content to enhance and contextualize learning (Hughes et al., 2020) to help students make
sense of what they were experiencing while others treated their classes as a respite from the constant
presence of COVID (mis)information on social media platforms (Paulsen & Fuller, 2020). Regardless
of approach, pandemic pedagogies (Murphy, 2020) foregrounded the resources and interaction required
to ensure learners were not only able to survive but thrive (Weeden & Cornwell, 2020).
For students, caring is a key marker of good teaching (Kuh, 2011), with good teachers described as
those who care about their discipline, their teaching, and their students and who positively influence
student engagement (Anderson, et al., 2020). We would like to believe ourselves to be good teachers un-
der this definition, and certainly strive to be so, but do not consider ourselves to be more ‘good’ or more
caring than our colleagues. Instead, using an autoethnographic approach and guided by the principles
of care ethics this chapter explores how we, as educators in different career stages and sub-disciplines,
struggled to ensure quality and care in our teaching in a time of unprecedented upheaval and change. The
COVID-19 pandemic is not the first time that educators have had to adopt emergency remote teaching
and it likely will not be the last. Swartz, Gachago and Belford (2018) describe their attempts to provide
continuity of learning during campus closures due to student protests through alternative strategies for
delivering content, conducting assessment and communicating with students but also in finding differ-
ent ways to exercise care.
Frameworks must be developed to support educator decisions about student engagement now and
in a post-pandemic learning environment. Our reflections are used to construct a model for care-full
engagement, that is care-inspired student engagement, which is cognizant of the need for and demands
of care-based education on students and educators. This model allows for the enactment of deliberate,
sustainable and care-full engagement based on an assessment of learner needs as well as the level of
170

educator investment and emotion work involved. In creating this model, the potential pitfalls of educators
taking on caring responsibilities in the context of the cooption of discourses and practices of care by the
neoliberal university are considered. We explore the tension between feeling compelled internally to care
and resisting expectations that educators will patch up the structural violence and inequities inherent in
the current system which have been further exposed by the pandemic. We conclude by advocating the
responsibility of institutions and educators to put in place safeguards and systems to care for the carers.
ENGAGEMENT AND ETHICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Student success depends on shared responsibility between students, educators and higher education
institutions for the quality and outcomes of learning. An extensive body of research has proven a strong
link between student engagement and successful educational outcomes (Trowler, 2010; Wimpenny&
Savin-Baden, 2013). Student engagement refers to “how involved or interested students appear to be in
their learning and how connected they are to their classes, their institutions, and each other” (Axelson &
Flick, 2010, p.380). Student engagement is fostered through “participation in challenging academic activi-
ties, formative communication with academic staff, involvement in enriching educational experiences,
and feeling legitimated and supported by university learning communities” (Coates, 2007, p.122). That
there are affective/emotional, cognitive and behavioral dimensions to student engagement would suggest
that it is as much a psychological as physical dynamic (Axelson & Flick, 2010; Bond et al., 2020, p.3).
Encouraging and fostering engagement has a direct benefit to students, however, achieving this
requires more than standardized institutional practices (Tinto 1993). It is nurtured by educators who
seek to create educational experiences that are active, collaborative, inclusive and enriching (Zepke &
Leach, 2010). Caring relationships with staff are often of central importance to students’ well-being
and success at university (Tett et al., 2017). Students perceive caring educators to actively foster and
maintain pedagogic relationships with them, respond to them promptly, treat them with consistency
and authenticity, have high expectations for work and behaviour, and give appropriate and meaningful
praise (Walker & Gleaves, 2016). Students believe that caring teachers do more than educate: they listen,
have insights into student needs, support them as individuals, show empathy and demonstrate an active
concern for their circumstances (Walker & Gleaves, 2016). Caring is therefore not merely a disposition
but something an educator does (Sykes & Gachago, 2016). Indeed, Fisher and Tronto (1990, p.40) argue
that care “includes everything we do to maintain, contain, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in
it as well as possible”.
Care ethics are highly applicable to higher education as they recognize the inevitable dependency
between people and are based on a relational ontology which foregrounds connection, vulnerability,
and the political contestation of needs (Bozalek et al., 2015). Epistemologically, care ethics emphasizes
compassion, negotiation, collaboration and partial perspectives in contrast to universalist justice ethics
which emphasizes impartiality and rights (Bozalek et al., 2021). As a result, using care ethics to reflect on
teaching practices is useful because it reveals the importance of power relations, working collaboratively
and being attentive to the needs of both caregivers and care receivers (Bozalek et al. 2014). As a result,
care ethics provide an alternative to the dominant neoliberal paradigm (Hughes et al. 2020; Tronto, 2017)
because it is underpinned by shared responsibility for learning and responsiveness to student wellbeing
(Keeling, 2014). In particular, Joan Tronto’s approach to care ethics stands in opposition to a neoliberal
focus on efficiency and individualism (Bozalek, et al. 2014). Rejecting an extractive stance based on
171

maximizing workloads and self-interested gain, care ethics reframes the student–educator relationship
as one of giving (Schrock, 2020).
We adopt Tronto’s approach to care ethics because it moves beyond intimate relationships to see care
as public, holistic and political. As shown in Figure 1, following Tronto (1993, 2013) care ethics as a
practice can be understood to be built on four caring key elements and corresponding moral characteris-
tics of care—attentiveness (caring about); responsibility (taking care of); competence (care giving); and
responsiveness (care receiving)—which are linked together through reciprocity (caring with). Selfcare is
required to maintain the wellbeing of the carer and ensure continuity of care, as one must first be atten-
tive to their own needs to be in the position to notice and attend to the needs of others. For the integrity
of care to be achieved all elements must be present (Bozalek et al., 2014).
Figure 1. Elements of Tronto’s framework for care ethics
METHOD
Neoliberalism in higher education has cast students as consumers and educators as a readily replaceable
pool of labor. Schwartzman (2020, p.508) suggests that neoliberalism in the context of pandemic pedago-
gies promotes resilience as a form of “rugged individualism”. This results in a position where through our
practices of care we become individualized workers and “become—and feel—individually responsible
for the failures of our own care practices or, indeed, our failures to care” (Hughes, et al., 2007, p.143).
It, therefore, takes courage and confidence to embrace what Morris and Stommel (2018) refer to as the
172

affective, flawed, nuanced, and unfolding work of teaching. An unexpected outcome of the pandemic
was a burgeoning global community of care where educators came together to share their experiences of
emergency remote teaching, in particular their challenges, tentative solutions and emotional responses.
An example of this can be seen in the musings of Australian academic Natalie Osborne, who, writing
under the Twitter handle @DrNatOsborne, created a thread in which she generously shared the daily
detail of her pandemic teaching adjustment plans. Osborne’s tweets spoke to a deep concern for her
students and colleagues and a visceral frustration with the systems and structures of higher education.
There was also a sense of growing self-confidence in her actions as an educator striving to do the best
by her students as the changes she made to how she teaches resulted in the scattering of teaching into
tiny pieces across the week (March 24, 2020). Any single day of tweets showed a rollercoaster of emo-
tions ranging from flickers of hope or joy at the adaptability of her students to lamentations of the grim
loneliness of online engagements eloquently expressed as “the silence of muted microphones and frozen
profile pics even in a well attended collaborate ultra session” (April 15, 2020).
This willingness to expose her vulnerabilities as an educator to an undisclosed public which included
peers and likely her students reminded readers that the labor of educational care work is real, and more
than just the intellectual and physical labor of creating and sharing content but also an all-encompassing
emotional labor. Her tweets and replies from her followers exemplify how care ethics can be productively
deployed to support our students, our colleagues, and ourselves. They are an example of cultivating “per-
sonal and communal strength through mutual concern and care” to foster a communication-centred and
socially responsible form of resilience in the face of the challenges presented by performing pandemic
pedagogies (Schwartzman, 2020, p.503). By sharing the highs and the lows of emergency remote teach-
ing this informal community of practice and ‘affective solidarity’ (Hemmings, 2012) supported others
to develop confidence in their exploratory and disruptive practices.
Inspired by the openness of Osborne to explore the place of care in emergency remote teaching we
take, as our data, stories about our own experiences as educators teaching in the business discipline to
explore, understand, and engage in critical reflexivity about different practices of engagement and their
material impact. We applied autoethnography as a form of reflective praxis (Holman Jones, 2007) in
which we held the dual roles of generating and analyzing data (Probst, 2016). Because autoethnography
generates knowledge by reflecting on situated standpoints and selves within systems it is an effective
approach for exploring questions of praxis and pedagogy and responding to de Acosta’s (2012, p.303)
provocation that “it is useful for anyone who thinks that they teach to explore their urge to do so” and
to reframe this thinking around care ethics.
We do not consider ourselves more caring or engaging than our colleagues. Instead, we adopted
this approach because it foregrounds the sharing of power, values lived experiences and provides the
opportunity for deep reflection (Groot et al., 2018). Autoethnography sees research as a political and
socially just and conscious act (Adams & Holman Jones, 2008) which is self-consciously value-centered
(Bochner, 1994). This strongly aligns with our teaching philosophies (Laundon et al., 2020) which see
teaching as a relational and political act. We approached this research as a collaborative exercise in which
we worked together to collectively generate, analyze and interpret our reflections (Chang et al., 2016).
Following Groot et al. (2018) we anticipated possible ethical issues by acknowledging the vulnerabilities
and power differentials of the authors based on our differing career stages, level of seniority, experience,
tenure, and disciplinary specialty.
In constructing this chapter we adapted Moriggi et al.’s (2020) green ethics of care-inspired framework
to a higher education context creating empirical or focal questions based on the five caring elements
173

and corresponding moral principles to explore our educational caring practices and to reflect on how
well they meet care needs (see Table 1). It should be noted that we depart from Moriggi et al. (2020)
in one key respect. Although self care is understood to be encompassed within the ‘caring with’ phase,
we chose to separate self care as a specific element of care in the analysis as it is often downplayed and
marginalized in educator accounts of caring practice (Lynch, 2010).
Table 1. Ethics of care-inspired analytical frame
Care Phase Empirical Questions and Analytical Focus

Care about What are we attentive to? What are our motivations for caring?
How are we able to respond to those concerns? What are our daily educational and engagement practices? How
Care for
and for whom do they care?
Care giving How do we implement practices of care? What are our ways of caring and criteria for care?
What mechanisms are in place for care receivers (our students) to respond to our practices of care? How is the
Care receiving
effectiveness of the care given assessed?
Care with How are the principles of reciprocity and mutual learning expressed throughout the process of caring?
Self care How do we practice selfcare?
A REFLECTION ON CARE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
In the following section, we reflect on each of the caring phases and the corresponding moral element
of care, highlighting key experiences and reflections.
Caring About
The caring about phase and its principle of attentiveness involves noticing unmet needs, suspending
self-interest and judgement, and recognizing the perspective, interests and needs of others (Moriggi et
al., 2020). Bozalek et al. (2014) note that it requires taking into account the uniqueness of each person’s
position in terms of economic, social, cultural, experiential and personal difference. Neglecting the needs
of others through deliberate choice or inadvertent ignorance due to habit or privilege is seen as a moral
failing (Campbell 2013). We care about our discipline, our teaching, our students and our colleagues
and thus are motivated to care as a result of our shared commitment to social justice (Hytten & Bettez,
2011) and teaching a politics of hope and possibility (Cameron, 2007). During the pandemic educators
went above and beyond, trying to ensure that student and familial support networks continued to be
strong (e.g., Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020b; Moss et al., 2020; Roca et al., 2020). At our institution during
the pandemic, all formal student evaluations were suspended. We administered short informal surveys
to understand how students were responding to their experiences in the course, sharing the results with
students and taking the feedback forward to shape course delivery.
174

Caring For
The caring for phase and its principle of responsibility involves assuming personal responsibility for
taking on the burden of responding to the needs identified. However, within care ethics responsibility is
not seen as an obligation (Bozalek et al., 2014) but is instead a practice of relationality which Moriggi
et al. (2020) believe can be best understood as response-ability as the more we engage in relations, the
more we feel both responsible and able to respond to the needs previously noticed. In one sense, this
responsibility is met by adapting teaching practices to the new learning environment we find ourselves
in and providing continuity of learning (Swartz et al., 2018). However, it is more than this. It is not only
the colloquial bread and butter of teaching built up from our daily educational and engagement practices
but also the introduction of specific activities to support students and their collective and individual
needs. For example, we set up weekly online drop-in sessions to provide students with safe spaces to
express their concerns and vulnerabilities and to seek clarification or support one-on-one from teaching
staff. These sessions were held at the same time each week. Students were not required to book in and
were guaranteed one-on-one online support from a member of the teaching team.
Care Giving
The care giving phase and its principle of competence involves the actual care work and ensuring that
needs for care are met. As a result, “as a practice of care, teaching involves more than good intentions”
(Bozalek, et al., 2015, p.262) it requires competence to do care well. Competence to care therefore en-
compasses both a technical or skills component and a moral and political component and must consider
both educator and student competence (Swartz et al., 2018). As proponents of servant-leadership (Hays,
2008)—based on a commitment to personal and student growth and protecting the rights and welfare of
others—we are committed to providing a learning environment that is enjoyable, academically rigorous,
practically-focused, and student-centred. This requires building and extending the collective competence
of our teaching teams to give care. It also requires being proactive as the institutional support offered
to students is often reactive with students increasingly being expected to identify their problems and to
know of whom, where, and how to ask for help (Tett et al. 2017). We feel ‘compelled to care’ (Walker
& Gleaves, 2016) working all hours to support students. We send whole of course cohort communiqués
encouraging students to contact us directly or to attend an online drop-in session with tutors to seek
support and respond rapidly to inquiries, particularly around the times that assessments are due.
Care Receiving
The care receiving phase and its principle of responsiveness encompasses response to the care given
and the capacity of the care receiver to receive care, comment on its delivery and reflect on its quality
and effectiveness. As responsiveness involves the reaction of the care-receiver to the care provided it
can be viewed as the feedback loop by which we can determine if the care provided is accepted by and
effective for the care receiver (Campbell, 2013). There is no doubt that educators have employed creativ-
ity, innovation and flexibility to respond to the changing circumstances and the new needs presented
by the pandemic (Hughes, et al., 2020) but responsiveness also involves continuing to solicit feedback
and listening to students, sometimes resulting in the identification of new, unmet or changing needs and
the need to update learning resources and approaches accordingly (Swartz et al., 2018). Feedback from
175

our students was positive and encouraging but also challenged us to do things differently. We chose
relatively low technology solutions such as the LMS repository and use of available software to record
lectures or run tutorials, however, had not considered the data consumption associated with viewing
recorded lectures. Following student feedback, we reduced data consumption in lectures by narrating
slides without video. Although this may not be best practice for online learning it responded directly and
immediately to student needs resulting from digital poverty in the emergency remote learning context.
Tronto (2017) notes that sometimes the care receiver cannot respond but there may be others who are in
a position to potentially assess the adequacy and effectiveness of caring acts. We followed up regularly
with the members of our teaching teams to ensure that our teaching approaches were working well for
them in addition to meeting student needs, taking on board their suggestions for improvement based on
their classroom experiences and informal discussions with students.
Caring With
In a relational web of caring, we are not solely responsible for all the caring that needs to happen (Sykes
& Gachago, 2016). The iterative process of care, caring with, can be understood through the principle
of solidarity which involves taking collective responsibility for care and embracing reciprocity of care
(Tronto, 2013). As educators care is something which we not only give to others (our students and
teaching teams) but also something we are entitled to receive from others (Skyes & Gachago, 2016).
Strength comes from recognising our mutual interdependence and realizing that we are at once both
givers and receivers of care (Tronto, 2009) and that it is only through an openness to receiving care
that trust and solidarity flourish (Tronto, 2018). As such we must share caring responsibilities with our
students and teaching teams as co-carers as this solidarity enables us to care and to cope. Ebner (2020)
advocates sharing and being open with students to engender the idea that we are all in this together. We
were open with our students that the new reliance on technology was new to us but that we would work
together to get through the semester. Most students have a pragmatic recognition of the costs and limits
of the care work we undertake and therefore appreciate us being honest about things like unavailability
or slow return of marked assignments due to other commitments. Sharing with our students reflects an
active acceptance of vulnerability (Kelchtermans, 2009) and models a willingness to accept care while
also rejecting of the idea that to require care is to have somehow failed, traits that we would like them
to carry into their postgraduate professional practise and citizenship.
Self Care
Emergency remote education has been normalized as a pathway to a new normal rather than a short term
crisis response (Murphy, 2020) with many institutions taking the opportunity to offer courses online for
the future. Schwartzman (2020) cautions that these changes, framed as the new normal in higher educa-
tion, have the potential to result in an expectation that students and educators will continue to bear the
risks associated with such change. He suggests this normalization is also accompanied by an expansion
in educator workload, in terms of teaching work and emotion work, and a concomitant reduction in insti-
tutional responsibility. Evidence of this can be seen in Swartz et al.’s (2018) account of the hours spent
updating resources and responding to student needs. However, much of this labor goes unrecognized
by employment workload models. Thus, although care and emotion work can be understood as a “gift”
(Bolton, 2000) it is important to recognize that it is not given without cost. Caring requires the carer to
176

redirect attention and energy away from themselves to those being cared for (Noddings, 2012). However,
to ensure their wellbeing and capacity to continue to care, educators must employ the practice of what
is colloquially referred to as fitting your own oxygen mask before assisting others. As educators, care
is not only something we simply do for others but also something we are entitled to receive from others
and give to ourselves (Sykes & Gachago, 2016). The wellbeing of educators is safeguarded through
practices of self care including making deliberate and informed decisions about pedagogical practice and
engagement activities through which students feel validated, encouraged and supported (Karp, 2011).
A MODEL OF CARE-FULL ENGAGEMENT
The marketisation of higher education has resulted in the creation of ‘care-less’ universities (Schrock,
2020) rooted in the Cartesian view that rational and scholarly approaches are distinct and superior to
emotional thought and feeling (Osborne & Grant-Smith, 2015). Individualized academic capitalism and
the pursuit of self-interest has resulted in a declining sense of responsibility for others, especially students,
particularly as the domesticized and feminized work of teaching and pastoral care are increasingly valu-
able but undervalued (Lynch, 2010) and thus held in low regard relative to activities like quantifiable
research outputs (Hughes et al., 2007). However, there can be dangers inherent in care and Tronto (2013)
warns of practising care in a way which reifies existing power differentials (paternalism) or which sets
the boundaries of responsibility too narrowly (parochialism). To avoid parochialism and paternalism we
argue that care-full engagement should occur at three levels – micro, mezzo and macro (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Levels of care-full engagement
Micro-Level Practices of Care

Micro-level practices are associated with the day-to-day activities of educators to engage with the needs
of individual learners. This typically occurs at the level of one-on-one instruction such as through the
provision of targeted feedback, conversation and instruction. This level of engagement requires learners
and educators to engage in a dialogue and exchange of ideas, and for students to be empowered to take
control of their learning to decide how they wish to engage with course material and individual aspects
of assessments. Examples include offering a choice of case studies to allow students to focus on areas
of interest or supervising project-based courses in which students work with the educator to develop and
177

deliver a research project. We also endeavour to create assessment regimes which are flexible and do not
have defined answers, empowering students to determine how they would tackle a real-world problem
defined in the theoretical example. Similarly, we use our learning management system to provide a wealth
of resources which allow students to select what content to utilize to convey their understanding. We
also provide extension activities for students that are not assessed but which support deeper learning in
areas of passion. We are cognizant that this approach significantly increases the amount of individual
feedback and support that students may require to feel confident to embrace this responsibility for control
over their learning. It also requires us as educators to demonstrate a high level of approachability and
openness to student ideas whether through surveys, in-class discussions, or conversations outside the
classroom. Outside class communication of this kind not only assists students with academic issues but
presents an opportunity to add an emotional dimension to student–educator relations which provides
dynamic foundations for student learning and engagement (Jia, Li & Tisworth, 2015).
Mezzo-Level Practices of Care
Lynch et al. (2020) note that the increased intake of students offset with declining resources and staffing
means that educators don’t have the time or capacity to personally know all of their students because
realistically less time can be offered to each and different pedagogical approaches are suited to larger
compared to smaller class sizes. As a result, although care and engagement are most often considered
to occur at the micro-level of individual students, extending this level of engagement and care to all
students is not sustainable particularly given increasingly large class sizes and alternatives must be
identified. Mezzo level practices of care focus on the actions of educators to engage groups or cohorts
of learners simultaneously which typically, although not exclusively, occur at the course or class level,
rather than the individual level. This level of engagement meets student information needs and fulfils
educator requirements to keep the students informed and may provide resources for interstudent rela-
tions and support. As a result, the level of educator emotion work required is comparatively low as the
engagement activities are typically transactional in nature and typically requires limited follow-up ac-
tion due to low levels of message complexity. This is not to suggest however that no caring occurs. It
is vital that educators consider the information and education needs of students. For example, research
has shown that online students need more announcements and reminders to remain engaged (Ebner,
2020). We provide weekly LMS announcements which outline the learning activities for the week and
in the tradition of constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014) draws explicit connections between learning
activities, content and assessment.
In the current learning environment, the provision of information and education is often technologically
enabled, however, without care teaching with technology can be impersonal and mechanistic (Morris &
Stommel, 2018). As a result, we strive to provide informative, authentic and enthusiastic communication
that engages students in the course. An example is introducing an element of levity such as providing
a link to a song which addresses content to be delivered (e.g. Global warming makes my beer warm by
punk band The Flangipanis in a course about business sustainability) or linking to humorous memes or
topical news pieces. Actions such as these allow students to begin to ‘know’ their educators and their
course. Effective LMS visual design can also be effective for imbuing a course with personality. Grant-
Smith et al. (2019) discuss how students recognize design as indicative of the thought, time and quality
and passion of the lecturer creating the course. This form of information provision can thus be understood
as both a labour of love and an expression of love. Finally, providing the provision of information and
178

learning resources and care-full education practices can be the gateway to more micro-level practices.
For instance, monitoring emails on the day an assignment is due (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020b), up to and
immediately following submission deadlines (which at our institution is 11:59 pm) and responding im-
mediately to students experiencing difficulties can alleviate student submission anxiety and make them
more likely to follow-up with educators following such an exchange.
Macro-Level Practices of Care
Macro-level practices focus on the actions of educators to advocate for the wellbeing and support of
learners, and perhaps other educators, with whom they may have no formal learning connection or rela-
tionship. As such, macro practices of care-full engagement respond to critiques of care ethics as parochial
and interested only in immediate interactions and responsibilities. In some sense, we see research and
advocacy are aligned to the ideas of caring as resistance (Walker & Gleaves, 2016) and care as activism
(Mariskind, 2014) in which we question academic and institutional processes, defend our students and
may even subvert processes to assist them. Care can also be shown in the types of research undertaken
both in terms of method and subject matter (Walker & Gleaves, 2016). Research of this nature often
foregrounds student voice and are of direct relevance to the wellbeing of our students such as the poten-
tial for exploitation associated with unpaid work or the impacts of work-integrated learning on student
financial and psychological wellbeing (e.g., see Grant-Smith et al., 2017). Although students may not see
the outcomes immediately, such research and scholarship is strongly aligned with advocacy and involves
applying the findings of our research to advocate for students. An example is providing submissions to
parliamentary inquiries or government reviews regarding the future of learning and teaching and fund-
ing to attempt to shape policy outcomes for the benefit of students (e.g. see Grant-Smith, Laundon, &
Feldman, 2020).
A Multi-Level Approach to Care
Noddings (1992, p.35) notes that students will “listen to who matter to them and to whom they mat-
ter”. Care-based education involves seeing each student as an individual and whole person, rather than
an empty vessel to be filled or a future worker whose employability must be of paramount importance
(Osborne & Grant-Smith, 2017; Schrock, 2020). As shown in Figure 3, each level has engagement
strategies which are specific to it. The micro-level of engagement focused on the needs of individual
students is concerned with enacting care through exchange and empowerment. By contrast, the mezzo
level of engagement attempts to enact care for a cohort of students through information and education,
while research and advocacy are used to enact care at a more systematic or institutional level. However,
rather than simply operating in isolation these three sets of engagement practices operate together to
create an ethics of care in higher education. For example, a single student may benefit from individual-
ized care offered through dialogic relationships with educators which empower them to take control
of their learning. They will also benefit from caring activities directed to toward the needs of a cohort
of students based on the communication of information and educationally-oriented activities. Finally,
although not explicitly directed toward them, systemic or institutional changes brought about by research
and advocacy also have the potential to improve their wellbeing and learning.
179

Figure 3. Practices of care
When responding to a crisis pre-existing and co-existing conditions must be recognized (Branicki, 2020).
Code et al. (2020) identified that inequitable student access to tools materials and resources during
emergency remote teaching impacted student engagement and motivation. Further research is required
into the care needs of specific cohorts of students and the impact of intersectional disadvantage in this
context (Ba, 2020). Research in this vein is beginning to emerge. For example, Ashfaquzzaman (2020)
explored the specific vulnerabilities of international students during the pandemic and how online learning
may have limited physical risk but may have unintentionally amplified and accentuated impacts on their
emotional and psychological wellbeing. Coffey et al. (2020) similarly noted the existing inequalities and
vulnerabilities experienced by young female international students were compounded by the pandemic
as they were exposed to extreme financial precarity as well as the emotional distress associated with
open discrimination. The impact on and needs of students from other equity groups such as students
from remote and regional areas, students with a disability, Indigenous students and International students
trapped by border strictions remains underexplored. This knowledge would help educators to better
understand and care for students who may not be in a position to communicate their needs, as well as
facilitate institutions to structure supports which match the needs of such equity groups.
The funding crisis in higher education precipitated by the pandemic and loss of student revenues has
seen some institutions increasing class sizes to reduce losses. Combined with the ongoing overdependence
on contingent faculty and reductions in support staff which have undermined the ability of students to
form relationships with individual faculty students (Keeling, 2014), this shift is occurring at the very
time when class sizes should be being reduced to support student engagement and to minimize nega-
tive outcomes such as isolation, a common trait in students completing online education (Gillett-Swan,
180

2017). Research is required which explores the pedagogical impact of institutional cost-saving decisions
such as these particularly concerning the effectiveness of teaching approaches, student learning, and
the capacity for educators to provide care-full engagement. Attending to the wellbeing of educators is
paramount as it is through their direct interaction and intervention that student wellbeing is advanced
(Gillett-Swan & Grant-Smith, 2020). We must consider the impact of caring decisions on others in the
web of care (Noddings, 2012). The capacity to contribute positively to student wellbeing is predicated
on the extent to which institutions exercise care toward educators, many of whom are sessional/casual
academics with precarious employment based on short term teaching contracts (Beardsworth, 2011).
An ethics of care framework “enriches the transformative potential of critical pedagogies, because it
helps expose how power and emotion operate through (ir)responsibility” (Zembylas et al., 2014, p. 200).
Finally, while educators see service gaps and attempt to patch them with care-full engagement prac-
tices future research under a theory of action (Tinto, 2005) perspective should explore the responsibility
of higher education institutions to practice their care ethics. The performance of the emotional labor
and emotion work associate with care-full engagement practices is strongly connected to an educator’s
professional and philosophical stance about the role of caring in teaching and learning (Isenbarger &
Zembylas 2006) and can have a profound impact on their commitment, satisfaction, and self-esteem
as an educator. However, while practising this ethics of care through student engagement is often a
deliberate choice by an educator, it is also becoming an expectation of the educator role which is rarely
recognized in any explicit or tangible way. Detailed work is required on the long-term impacts of emer-
gency remote teaching on educators and their capacity and willingness to “care despite the pressures
and requirements of the organization” (Tronto, 2010, p.165-166). Such work must also identify the care
educators require and their desire to continue to provide care-full engagement at the micro, mezzo and
macro levels. This could also consider how trust in institutions shapes the caring decisions of educators
and capacity to enact care.
CONCLUSION
Regardless of delivery mode, connection and care remain at the heart of pedagogy (Godley, 2020) and
the key metrics for assessing the success of pandemic pedagogies should be focused on the quality of care
and relationships (Branicki, 2020). Relational care practices are empowering and insightful, offering a
transparent process of learning (Green & de Bodisco, 2020), and “may trigger virtuous spillover effects
for society at large and benefit other caregivers and care receivers over time” (Moriggi et al., 2020).
We recognize this potential and choose to practice care-full pedagogies, but this does not come without
personal costs including significant anxiety and worry. It can be difficult to not to feel frustrated and
overburdened with caring responsibilities (Hughes et al., 2007) but we strongly believe that in addition
to the benefits accrued by those for whom we care (our students and colleagues) there are also intrinsic
rewards for us as educators. Hamington (2004, p.3) notes that “[c]are is committed to flourishing and
growth of individuals, yet acknowledges our interconnectedness and interdependence” and we cannot
deny the joy associated with witnessing growth in our students’ knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and
self-confidence.
Although caring is often perceived as a feminine trait (Keeling, 2014) and the language of care
ethics has arisen largely from women’s experience, as evidenced by the co-authorship of this paper by
a cisgender woman and cisgender man “…that is not to say that it is inaccessible to men” (Noddings,
181

2012, p. 52). Given the focus of care ethics on power and the political dimensions of care (Bozalek et
al., 2014), autoethnography allowed us to examine ethics of care in higher education and our motiva-
tions as educators for invoking it, sometimes at personal expense. How and why an educator chooses to
enact a pedagogy of care which makes students feel welcomed, encouraged to ask questions, engenders
a sense of belonging, and ownership of their learning stems from an educator’s teaching philosophy and
praxis. We strongly believe that it is through caring for others (and allowing ourselves to be cared for in
return) that we continue to learn and grow as educators. We are also aware, however, that Tronto (2021)
warns us to be careful not to position the caregiver as virtuous and care itself as a virtue. There is an
inherent tension in practising care-full engagement in which we can simultaneously be “contradictorily
positioned as caring/not able to care subjects” where our needs as academics are set against those of our
students (Hughes et al. 2007, p.132). As a result, like Carlson and Walker (2018), we can find ourselves
questioning if our practices of care simply facilitate the unfettered expansion of neoliberal ideologies
and practices in higher education by doing little more than ‘plugging the leaks’.
As the transition to emergency remote education initially unfolded, our priority was making content
available online and communicating with students about changes to assessment regimes. However, ever-
present in our thoughts was how the members of our precariously employed teaching teams were faring.
An educator’s choice to practice an ethics of care does not absolve institutions of their responsibilities in
caring for educators and students alike. Indeed, we must continue to question if it is reasonable to expect
any educator to enact care-full pedagogies if they are uncertain about their employment future or are not
provided with the technical and other support required to perform their role. Even without the pressures
of responding to a global crisis, it has been suggested that “academic institutions are ‘greedy’ in terms
of the level of commitment, work productivity and emotional engagement that they expect of employ-
ees” (Grummell et al., 2009, p.196). Many educators ‘donated’ significant unpaid labor to manage the
impact of COVID on their students and meet the imperative to move instruction online (Cantrell et al.,
2020). This ability and some might argue constrained choice, to step up and absorb more is predicated
on the expectation that we can are careless. Careless in this context is being “unencumbered by caring”
(Lynch, 2010, p.63) and therefore capable of working without limits (Grummell et al., 2009). Ironically
to become careless also requires disengagement from all other forms of ‘greedy’ labour in the academy,
especially care work, and to be prepared to freeride on the care work of others (Lynch, 2010).
A major source of injustice comes from the ability to not accept responsibility for undertaking bur-
densome responsibilities (Tronto, 2018). Tronto uses the term ‘privileged irresponsibility’ to describe
the phenomenon that allows the most advantaged in society to delegate the work of caregiving. This
understanding of care is particularly useful when considering (post)pandemic pedagogies as it draws
attention to imbalances of power such as inequality, differential opportunity and limits on autonomy. We
freely acknowledge it is only through the efforts and our precariously employed sessional teaching teams
that we were able to provide care-full engagement. Indeed, it was through their care and compassion and
the care enacted through everyday discursive practices and working relationships that we felt support
and connection (Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012). However, we also recognize the need to ensure that we do
not delegate the responsibility of care to our tutors or teaching assistants and acknowledge the duty of
care that we and the university have in ensuring students’ and fellow educators’ wellbeing. Because care
cannot be measured it becomes invisible and taken for granted, as do those who do the caring (Lynch
et al., 2020). It is imperative that sessional teaching staff are not unfairly burdened with providing care
and that their caring work is appropriately recognized and compensated. Indeed, some may argue that
it is well past time higher education institutions took their caring responsibilities seriously through ap-
182

plying reasonable academic workloads and ensuring job security and continuity for educators. It is only
through institutional care that a future beyond emergency remote education and toward a more care-full
and engaging (post) pandemic learning environment can be realised.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
profit sectors. Thanks and gratitude are extended our teaching teams— Maryse Alvis, Natalie Bowring,
Alicia Feldman, Kieran Gregory, Paolo Marinelli, Denise Gibran Nogueira, Katrina Pleming, and Sandy
Sergeant—and our students who through their generosity, collegiality and care make teaching a shared
pleasure and mutual learning experience.
REFERENCES
Adams, T. E., & Holman Jones, S. (2008). Autoethnography is queer. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, &
L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 373–390). Sage.
Anderson, V., Rabello, R., Wass, R., Golding, C., Rangi, A., Eteuati, E., Bristowe, Z., & Waller, A.
(2020). Good teaching as care in higher education. Higher Education, 79(1), 1–19. doi:10.100710734-
019-00392-6
Ashfaquzzaman, M. (2020). Pandemic pedagogy in post-COVID age. Communication Education, 69(4),
534–535. doi:10.1080/03634523.2020.1804130
Learning, 43(1), 38–43. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
Ba, O. (2020). When teaching is impossible: A pandemic pedagogy of care. PS, Political Science &
Politics, 54(1), 171–172. doi:10.1017/S104909652000150X
Beardsworth, A. (2011). How much is too much? Obligation, ambition, and coercion in the sessional
contract. English Studies in Canada, 37(1), 9–12. doi:10.1353/esc.2011.0008
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education,
1(1), 5–22.
Bochner, A. P. (1994). Perspectives on inquiry II: Theories and stories. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 21–41). Sage.
Bolton, S. C. (2000). Who cares? Offering emotion work as a ‘gift’ in the nursing labour process. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 32(3), 580–586. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01516.x PMID:11012799
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in
student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–30.
183

Bozalek, V., Watters, K., & Gachago, D. (2015). Power, democracy and technology: The potential dan-
gers of care for teachers in higher education. Alternation (Durban), 16, 259–282.
Bozalek, V., Zembylas, M., & Tronto, J. C. (2021). Introduction. In V. Bozalek, M. Zembylas, & J.
C. Tronto (Eds.), Posthuman and political care ethics for reconfiguring higher education pedagogies.
Routledge.
Bozalek, V. G., McMillan, W., Marshall, D. E., November, M., Daniels, A., & Sylvester, T. (2014). Ana-
lysing the professional development of teaching and learning from a political ethics of care perspective.
Teaching in Higher Education, 19(5), 447–458. doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.880681
Education, 15(2), i–x.
Branicki, L. J. (2020). COVID‐19, ethics of care and feminist crisis management. Gender, Work and
Organization, 27(5), 872–883. doi:10.1111/gwao.12491 PMID:32837015
Cameron, J. (2007). Teaching a politics of hope and possibility. National Conference of New Zealand
Social Science Teachers, 1-17.
Campbell, R. C. (2013). How can engineering students learn to care? How can engineering faculty
teach to care? In J. Lucena (Ed.), Engineering Education for Social Justice (pp. 111–131). Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6350-0_6
Cantrell, K., Doolan, E., & Palmer, K. (2020) Doomscrolling, Zoom overload, and COVID fatigue:
Teaching creative writing during the pandemic. NiTRO: Non-Traditional Research Outcomes, 32. https://
nitro.edu.au/articles/2020/12/4/doomscrolling-zoom-overload-and-covid-fatigue-teaching-creative-
writing-during-the-pandemic
Carlson, A., & Walker, B. (2018). Free universities and radical reading groups: Learning to care in the
here and now. Continuum, 32(6), 782–794. doi:10.1080/10304312.2018.1525925
Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F., & Hernandez, K. A. C. (2016). Collaborative autoethnography. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315432137
Christopher, R., de Tantillo, L., & Watson, J. (2020). Academic caring pedagogy, presence, and com-
munitas in nursing education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nursing Outlook, 68(6), 822–829.
doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2020.08.006 PMID:32981671
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141. doi:10.1080/02602930600801878
Code, J., Ralph, R., & Forde, K. (2020). Pandemic designs for the future: Perspectives of technology edu-
cation teachers during COVID-19. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 419–431. doi:10.1108/
ILS-04-2020-0112
184

Coffey, J., Cook, J., Farrugia, D., Threadgold, S., & Burke, P. J. (2020). Intersecting marginalities: In-
ternational students’ struggles for ‘survival’ in COVID‐19. Gender, Work and Organization. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1111/gwao.12610
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P., &
Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses.
Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 1–20.
De Acosta, A. (2012). That teaching is impossible. In R. H. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Col-
lective actions, theories, and critical reflections on education. PM Press.
EbnerN. (2020). ‘Next week, you will teach your courses online’: A reassuring introduction to pandemic
pedagogy. SSRN. doi:10.2139srn.3552124
Fisher, B., & Tronto, J. (1990). Toward a feminist theory of caring. In E. Abel & M. Nelson (Eds.),
Circles of care: Work and identity in women’s lives (pp. 35-62). State University of New York Press.
Gillet-Swan, J., & Grant-Smith, D. (2019). Addressing mentor wellbeing in practicum placement men-
toring relationships in initial teacher education. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in
Education, 9(4), 393–409. doi:10.1108/IJMCE-02-2020-0007
Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated learner.
Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20–30. doi:10.5204/jld.v9i3.293
Godley, S. (2020). A love letter to my public health students during a global pandemic. Pedagogy in
Health Promotion, 6(4), 233–234. doi:10.1177/2373379920944198
Grant-Smith, D., Donnet, T., Macaulay, J., & Chapman, R. (2019). Principles and practices for enhanced
visual design in virtual learning environments: Do looks matter? In M. Boboc & S. Koç (Eds.), Student-
centered virtual learning environments in higher education (pp. 103-133). IGI Global.
Grant-Smith, D., Gillett-Swan, J., & Chapman, R. (2017). WILWellbeing: Exploring the impacts of unpaid
practicum on student wellbeing. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education.
Grant-Smith, D., Laundon, M., & Feldman, A. (2020). Submission to the Senate Standing Commit-
tees on Education & Employment Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-ready Graduates and
Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020: Submission 18. Senate Standing Committee on
Education and Employment.
Green, A., & de Bodisco, C. (2020). Using team-based learning in discussion and writing classes. In-
ternational Review of Economics Education, 35, 100195. doi:10.1016/j.iree.2020.100195
Groot, B., Vink, M., Haveman, A., Huberts, M., Schout, G., & Abma, T. (2018). Ethics of care in
participatory health research: Mutual responsibility in collaboration with co-researchers. Educational
Action Research, 27, 1–17.
Grummell, B., Devine, D., & Lynch, K. (2009). The care‐less manager: Gender, care and new manage-
rialism in higher education. Gender and Education, 21(2), 191–208. doi:10.1080/09540250802392273
185

Hamington, M. (2004). Embodied care: Jane Addams, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and feminist ethics.
University of Illinois Press.
Hays, J. M. (2008). Teacher as servant applications of Greenleaf’s servant leadership in higher education.
Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 113–134.
Hemmings, C. (2012). Affective solidarity: Feminist reflexivity and political transformation. Feminist
Theory, 13(2), 147–151. doi:10.1177/1464700112442643
remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-
difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Holman Jones, S. (2007). Autoethnography. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. John Wiley and
Sons.
Hölscher, D. (2018). Caring for justice in a neoliberal university: The ethics of care and academic de-
velopment. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(6), 31–48. doi:10.20853/32-6-2676
Hughes, C., Clouder, L., Pritchard, J., Purkis, J., & Barnes, V. (2007). Caring Monsters? In P. Cotterill,
S. Jackson, & G. Letherby (Eds.), Challenges and negotiations for women in higher education (pp. 131-
147). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6110-3_7
Hughes, M. C., Henry, B., & Kushnick, M. (2020). Teaching during the pandemic? An opportunity to
enhance curriculum. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 6(4), 235–238. doi:10.1177/2373379920950179
Hurley, P., & Van Dyke, N. (2020). Australian investment in education: Higher education. Mitchell
Institute.
Hytten, K., & Bettez, S. C. (2011). Understanding education for social justice. Educational Foundations,
25(1-2), 7–24.
Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22(1), 120–134. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.002
Jia, M., Li, L., & Tisworth, S. (2015). Teaching as emotional work: Instructor’s empathy and students’
motives to communicate out of class. La Review Electronic de Communication, 25(3-4), 1–15.
Karp, M. M. (2011). Toward a new understanding of non-academic student support: Four mechanisms
encouraging positive student outcomes in the community college. CCRC Working Paper No. 28, Com-
munity College Research Center, Columbia University.
Keeling, R. P. (2014). An ethic of care in higher education: Well-being and learning. Journal of College
and Character, 15(3), 141–148. doi:10.1515/jcc-2014-0018

Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self‐understanding, vulnerability and
reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 257–272. doi:10.1080/13540600902875332
Klikauer, T. (2015). What is managerialism? Critical Sociology, 41(7-8), 1103–1119.
doi:10.1177/0896920513501351
186

Kneese, T. (2021). How a dead professor is teaching a university art history class. Future Tense. https://
slate.com/technology/2021/01/dead-professor-teaching-online-class.html
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2011). Student Success in College: Creating condi-
tions that matter. John Wiley & Sons.
Laundon, M., Cathcart, A., & Greer, D. (2020). Teaching philosophy statements. Journal of Manage-
ment Education, 44(5), 577–587. doi:10.1177/1052562920942289
Lawrence, T. B., & Maitlis, S. (2012). Care and possibility: Enacting an ethics of care through narrative
practice. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 641–663. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0466
Lynch, K. (2010). Carelessness: A hidden doxa of higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education, 9(1), 54–67. doi:10.1177/1474022209350104
Lynch, K., Ivancheva, M., O’Flynn, M., Keating, K., & O’Connor, M. (2020). The care ceiling in higher
education. Irish Educational Studies, 39(2), 157–174. doi:10.1080/03323315.2020.1734044
Mariskind, C. (2014). Teachers’ care in higher education: Contesting gendered constructions. Gender
and Education, 26(3), 306–320. doi:10.1080/09540253.2014.901736
Moriggi, A., Soini, K., Bock, B. B., & Roep, D. (2020). Caring in, for, and with nature: An integrative
framework to understand green care practices. Sustainability, 12(8), 3361. doi:10.3390u12083361
Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy.
Hybrid Pedagogy Inc.
Moss, G., Allen, R., Bradbury, A., Duncan, S., Harmey, S., & Levy, R. (2020). A duty of care and a
duty to teach: Educational priorities in response to the COVID-19 crisis. UCL Institute of Education.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9081/pdf/
Murphy, M. P. (2020). COVID-19 and emergency eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of
higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy, 41(3), 492–505. doi:10.
1080/13523260.2020.1761749
Noddings, N. (2012). The language of care ethics. Knowledge Quest, 40(5), 52–56.
Osborne, N., & Grant-Smith, D. (2015). Supporting mindful planners in a mindless system: Limitations
to the emotional turn in planning practice. The Town Planning Review, 86(6), 677–698. doi:10.3828/
tpr.2015.39
Osborne, N., & Grant-Smith, D. (2017). Resisting the ‘employability’ doctrine through anarchist peda-
gogies and prefiguration. Australian Universities Review, 59(2), 59–69.
Palmer, K., & Cantrell, K. (2019, May 6). The casualities of academia: A response to The Conversation.
Overland.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact
on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2008.06.004
187

Paulsen, P., & Fuller, D. (2020). Scrolling for data or doom during COVID-19? Canadian Journal of
Public Health, 111(4), 490–491. doi:10.1726941997-020-00376-5 PMID:32642969
Probst, B. (2016). Both/and: Researcher as participant in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research Jour-
nal, 16(2), 149–158. doi:10.1108/QRJ-06-2015-0038
Roca, E., Melgar, P., Gairal-Casado, R., & Pulido-Rodriguez, M. (2020). Schools that ‘open doors’ to
prevent child abuse in confinement by COVID-19. Sustainability, 12(11), 4685. Advance online publi-
cation. doi:10.3390u12114685
Schrock, L. (2019). Supporting caring teachers in universities: An ethics of care perspective to the
teacher-student relationship. In M. Fotaki., G. Islam, & A. Antoni (Eds.), Business ethics and care in
organizations (pp. 187-200). Routledge.
Schwartzman, R. (2020). Performing pandemic pedagogy. Communication Education, 69(4), 502–517.
doi:10.1080/03634523.2020.1804602
Swartz, B., Gachago, D., & Belford, C. (2018). To care or not to care: Reflections on the ethics of
blended learning in times of disruption. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(6), 2659.
doi:10.20853/32-6-2659
Sykes, P., & Gachago, D. (2018). Creating ‘safe-ish’ learning spaces‒attempts to practice an ethics of
care: The ethics of care and academic development. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(6),
83–98. doi:10.20853/32-6-2654
Tett, L., Cree, V. E., Mullins, E., & Christie, H. (2017). Narratives of care amongst undergraduate stu-
dents. Pastoral Care in Education, 35(3), 166–178. doi:10.1080/02643944.2017.1363813
The Flangipanis. (n.d.). Global warming makes my beer warm. https://flangipanis.bandcamp.com/track/
global-warming-makes-my-beer-warm
Tinto, V. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16–21. PMID:10124451
Tinto, V. (2005). Moving from theory to action. College Retention: Formula for Student Success, 3,
317–333.
Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge.
Tronto, J. (2009). Joan Tronto: Interview. Ethics of care: Sharing views on good care. https://ethicsof-
care.org/joan-tronto/
Tronto, J. (2017). There is an alternative: Homines curans and the limits of neoliberalism. International
Journal of Care and Caring, 1(1), 27–43. doi:10.1332/239788217X14866281687583
Tronto, J. C. (2010). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality, and purpose. Ethics & Social Welfare,
4(2), 158–171. doi:10.1080/17496535.2010.484259
Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice. NYU Press.
Tronto, J. C. (2018). Higher education for citizens of caring democracies: The ethics of care and aca-
demic development. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(6), 6–18. doi:10.20853/32-6-2710
188

Tronto, J. C. (2021). Response-ability and responsibility: Using feminist new materialisms and care
ethics to cope with impatience in higher education. In V. Bozalek, M. Zembylas, & J. C. Tronto (Eds.),
Posthuman and political care ethics for reconfiguring higher education pedagogies. Routledge.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy.
Walker, C., & Gleaves, A. (2016). Constructing the caring higher education teacher: A theoretical frame-
work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 65–76. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.013
Weeden, K. A., & Cornwell, B. (2020). The small-world network of college classes: Implications for
epidemic spread on a university campus. Sociological Science, 7, 222–241. doi:10.15195/v7.a9
Wimpenny, K., & Savin-Baden, M. (2013). Alienation, agency and authenticity: A synthesis of the
literature on student engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 311–326. doi:10.1080/135625
17.2012.725223
Zembylas, M., Bozalek, V., & Shefer, T. (2014). Tronto’s notion of privileged irresponsibility and the
reconceptualisation of care: Implications for critical pedagogies of emotion in higher education. Gender
and Education, 26(3), 200–214. doi:10.1080/09540253.2014.901718
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learn-
ing in Higher Education, 11(3), 167–177. doi:10.1177/1469787410379680
ADDITIONAL READING
Anderson, V., Rabello, R., Wass, R., Golding, C., Rangi, A., Eteuati, E., Bristowe, Z., & Waller, A.
(2020). Good teaching as care in higher education. Higher Education, 79(1), 1–19. doi:10.100710734-
019-00392-6
Learning, 43(1), 38–43. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
Christopher, R., de Tantillo, L., & Watson, J. (2020). Academic caring pedagogy, presence, and com-
munitas in nursing education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nursing Outlook, 68(6), 822–829.
doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2020.08.006 PMID:32981671
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011) Autoethnography: An overview. FQS: Forum Qualita-
tive Sozialforschung, 12(1), art. 10.
Ford, J., Ison, J., McKenzie, L., Cannizzo, F., Mayhew, L. R., Osborne, N., & Cooke, B. (2020). What
ongoing staff can do to support precariously employed colleagues. Australian Universities Review,
62(1), 57–62.
Groot, B., Vink, M., Haveman, A., Huberts, M., Schout, G., & Abma, T. (2018). Ethics of care in
participatory health research: Mutual responsibility in collaboration with co-researchers. Educational
Action Research, 27, 1–17.
189

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2011). Student Success in College: Creating condi-
tions that matter. John Wiley & Sons.
Autoethnography: An approach to qualitative research that systematically uses self-reflection and

personal experience to analyze and understand cultural, political, and social phenomena.
Care Ethics: A feminist philosophical perspective which uses a relational and context-bound ap-
proach toward morality and decision making and which emphasizes the importance of response to the
individual. Also referred to as ethics of care.
Emergency Remote Teaching: Technologically enabled teaching practices adopted rapidly in re-
sponse to a crisis. Different to online teaching as it is intentioned for short term situations.
Emotion Work: The labor involved in providing authentic care. See Bolton (2000) for a discussion
of the difference between emotion work and emotional labour.
Managerialism: The belief that the performance of all organizations can be optimized by the ap-
plication of generic management skills and theory. See Klikauer (2015) for a critique of managerialism.
Neoliberalism: The political-ideological project of advocating for the privatization of key institutions
such as education, reducing human relations to competition, and emphasizing the ideals of self-reliance
and individualism while downplaying or ignoring power and privilege.
Privileged Irresponsibility: The ability of the most advantaged and privileged to delegate care work.
Sessional Academic: An individual who is contracted to take on teaching responsibilities for a spe-
cific unit of study (such as one class for a semester). They typically hold short-term or casual fractional
contracts with no legal expectation of ongoing work.
Structural Violence: A form of violence wherein some social structure or institution may cause
harm by preventing people from meeting their basic needs.
Theory of Action: A connected set of propositions, a logical chain of reasoning that explains how
change will lead to improved practices.
190
191
Chapter 10
Opinions of Field Experts
on Practices That Will
Increase the Motivation
Levels of Learners During the
COVID-19 Pandemic Process
Hakan Kılınç
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4301-1370
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to determine what applications could be used to increase the motivation levels of learners
during the COVID-19 pandemic process and what roles should be carried out by teachers, institutions,
families, and learners in this process. In this study, phenomenology design, one of the qualitative research
methods, was used. In this context, the opinions of the participants who were determined by purpose-
ful sampling method were consulted. The opinions obtained from the participants were analyzed with
content analysis. The fndings obtained within the scope of the study, in order to maintain the motivation
levels of the learners in the COVID-19 pandemic period, revealed the roles that teachers, institutions,
families, and learners should carry out.
INTRODUCTION
A situation that occurs anywhere in the world can be the cause of other unpredictable situations. To ex-
plain this situation, it is necessary to look at the chaos theory. The chaos theory is based on the butterfly
effect (Lorenz, 1972), which explains that the flutter of a butterfly in Asia can turn into a storm around
the world. The most recent event that can be given as an example of this situation can be shown that the
coronavirus (Covid-19) case that emerged in Wuhan, China at the end of 2019 turned into a pandemic
and affected the whole world in a short time. With the definition of COVID-19 as a global epidemic by
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch010

the World Health Organization (WHO), a worldwide differentiation has started to emerge in social life
(Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health, 2020: 5). Flights were canceled, football competitions were
postponed / canceled, congresses and symposiums could not be held, face-to-face education was sus-
pended, and restrictions on curfew emerged. Therefore, it is not enough to evaluate these developments
and changes in social life only in the health sector. In this context, it can be said that as a result of this
global epidemic, unusual difficulties have been experienced all over the world in sociocultural, political,
economic, psychological and many areas that are difficult to foresee (Bozkurt et al., 2020). However,
education is one of the areas affected by this situation. With the Covid-19 pandemic, a new perspective
has been brought to all applications in education (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020).
With the Covid-19 pandemic process, a number of measures were taken together, due to its rapid
spread from person to person, physical contact between individuals was tried to be controlled and the
pandemic was tried to be controlled, and in this context, educational institutions of all levels were closed
in a total of 191 countries. With the closure of schools, the education of 1.6 billion learners, corresponding
to approximately 90% of the total student population, has been disrupted all over the world (UNESCO,
2020). With the closure of the schools, unlike planned distance education activities, emergency distance
education processes were put into practice in order to ensure the continuity of education (Bond, 2020;
Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020; Hodges et al., 2020). It has been observed that many institutions have experi-
enced negativities due to the fact that educational institutions were caught unprepared for this process.
Negativities experienced in educational environments can be effective for a long time depending on the
degree of influence of learners and cause negative attitudes such as insecurity, low motivation and lack
of self-confidence (Akmansoy, 2012).
Adversely affecting learners’ motivation in the learning process is undoubtedly a situation that will
reduce learning outcomes. With the Covid-19 pandemic process, the separation of learners from learning
environments, peers and instructors is considered as a situation that will decrease the motivation levels
of learners. Motivation, one of the most important factors affecting the speed, intensity, direction and
persistence of human behavior (Fırat et al., 2018), is one of the most important components of learning
processes (Chaiprasurt & Esichaikul, 2013; Miltiadou & Savenye, 2003). Motivation, defined as a pro-
cess that initiates and maintains behaviors (McMillan & Forsyth, 1991), helps learners gain knowledge,
develop social qualities, increase initiative, insist on activities, improve their performance, and develop a
sense of discipline (Singh et al., 2012). Keller (1979) expresses motivation as stimulating, directing and
maintaining behaviors. From this point on, motivation can be seen as the power that enables a person
to move towards a certain goal.
The motivation of learners has a very important place in the learning and teaching process (Keller,
1979; Keller, 2010). In addition, one of the factors that explain the success or failure of learners in learn-
ing environments is motivation (Akbaba, 2006; Fryer & Bovee, 2016; Giesbers et al., 2014). Motivation
in learning environments affects what learners will learn, how they will learn and when they will learn
(Barak et al., 2016; Deimann & Bastiaens, 2010). Studies show that learners with high motivation in
learning environments achieve success in difficult learning situations, enjoy the learning process, perform
deep learning, and are determined and creative (Semmar, 2006). However, many studies have revealed
that low motivation negatively affects the learning processes of learners in learning environments (Chen
& Jang, 2010; Hartnett et al., 2011). Therefore, it can be said that motivation in learning environments
is an element that will increase continuous participation and interaction in these environments (Cerasoli
et al., 2014). In this context, it is seen as an important element to know the practices that will increase
192

the motivation levels of learners whose motivation levels were negatively affected by the Covid-19
pandemic process, and to determine the responsibilities of instructors, institutions, families and learners.
IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
In the Covid-19 pandemic period, the inability of learners to go to schools caused them to enter a different
system in both their learning processes and socialization. United Nations (2020) states that at least 91%
of the learners around the world are affected by the school interruption. In parallel with health measures,
states decide to return to distance education in order to ensure continuity in education and not to fall
into gaps in learners (Yamamoto & Altun, 2020). While distance education provides an opportunity to
establish active communication between instructors and learners who live in different places, it provides
instructors and learners with an individual and collaborative work environment independent of many
variables (Altıparmak, Kurt, & Kapıdere, 2011). In addition, the recorded course videos can be watched
later and learners can access many materials such as documents and videos individually whenever they
want (Solak, Ütebay, & Yalçın, 2019). However, the sudden occurrence of such a large-scale change
brought about the wrongful use of distance education.
With the Covid-19 pandemic, in which the whole world was caught unprepared, it can be said that
homeschooling has a profound effect on the social lives and learning processes of children in planning
and running the work of parents. This effect first manifested itself in the form of deteriorating daily
habits and problems of adaptation and acceptance to the new process. Distance education has started to
be carried out online at an unprecedented extent and speed without pre-tests. Likewise, student evalu-
ations have brought a lot of uncertainty for everyone. This situation is not only a short-term problem,
but it is expected to have long-term results by increasing its effect (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020). The
interruption of face-to-face education by schools and universities has deeply affected learners, instruc-
tors and families (UNESCO, 2020). In this period, it can be said that the number of studies conducted
on young individuals who are severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of both education
and socialization are not yet sufficient (Yakar et al., 2020). Based on this point, this study is thought to
be important in determining what needs to be done in order not to decrease the motivation levels, which
play an important role on the learning outcomes of learners who are negatively affected in the learning
processes with the Covid-19 pandemic period. In addition, it can be stated that with this study, it will
contribute to filling the gap in the literature regarding the things to be done in learning processes during
the pandemic period.
AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study is to ensure that learners, one of the groups adversely affected by the Covid-19
pandemic, do not decrease their motivation levels in their learning processes; To determine the roles
that instructors, institutions, families and learners should carry out. The research questions determined
for this purpose are as follows:
• In the Covid-19 pandemic process, what are the roles that educators should carry out in order not
to decrease the motivation levels of learners?
193

• In the Covid-19 pandemic process, what are the roles that institutions should carry out in order not
to decrease the motivation levels of learners?
• In the Covid-19 pandemic process, what are the roles that families should carry out in order not to
decrease the motivation levels of learners?
• In the Covid-19 pandemic process, what are the roles that learners should carry out in order not to
decrease the motivation levels of theirs?
METHOD
Phenomenology design, one of the qualitative research methods, was used within the scope of this study.
Phenomenology design, which is a research design that focuses on facts that we are aware of but do not
have an in-depth and detailed understanding, is an inquiry strategy in which the researcher tries to define
the essence of human experiences about a phenomenon explained by the participants (Creswell, 2003).
RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
In this study, criterion sampling method, which is one of the purposeful sampling methods, was pre-
ferred. The basic understanding in the criterion sampling method is to study all situations that meet a
predetermined set of criteria. A set of previously prepared criteria can be used here, as well as developed
by the researcher (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2011). As a criterion, it was considered that the participants were
graduates of education faculty. 9 participants contributed to the study conducted within this scope. The
demographic information of the participants is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic information of participants
Participant (Nickname) Gender Seniority Year Profession

Masal Female 35 Open and Distance Learning
Ali Male 26 Computer Education and Instructional Technology
Mustafa Male 40 Open and Distance Learning
Okan Male 12 Open and Distance Learning
Computer Education and Instructional Technology,
Esra Female 10
Mobile Technologies
Nil Female 10 Open and Distance Learning/Computer Engineering
Open and Distance Learning, Instructional

Tuna Male 7
Technologies
Ege Male 6 Open and Distance Learning
Hasan Male 7 Open and Distance Learning
194

DATA COLLECTION TOOL
Structured interview questions were asked to learn the opinions of the experts participating in the study
on the research questions. Before the interviews, the content validity of the structured interview form
was obtained by obtaining the opinions of three experts working on qualitative research methods and the
final version was given. The structured interview form, which was finalized in line with the opinions of
field experts, consists of four open-ended questions. These; (i) In the Covid-19 pandemic process, what
are the roles that educators should carry out in order not to decrease the motivation levels of learners?
(ii) In the Covid-19 pandemic process, what are the roles that institutions should carry out in order not
to decrease the motivation levels of learners? (iii) In the Covid-19 pandemic process, what are the roles
that families should carry out in order not to decrease the motivation levels of learners? (iv) In the Co-
vid-19 pandemic process, what are the roles that learners should carry out in order not to decrease the
motivation levels of theirs?
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Content analysis method was used to analyze the data. The main purpose in content analysis is to reach
the concepts and relationships that can explain the collected data. For this purpose, the data collected
must first be conceptualized, then organized in a logical manner according to the emerging concepts
and the themes explaining the data must be determined accordingly (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2011). In this
context, the data obtained from the participants were transferred to the computer environment and the
content analysis phase started. Content analysis carried out within the scope of the study was performed
using NVIVO 12 qualitative data analysis program. The codes were determined as a result of the content
analysis of the raw data obtained from the interviews. The codes obtained are presented in the findings
section of the study.
FINDINGS
In this section, the findings obtained within the scope of the study are presented under related headings.
In the Covid-19 Pandemic Process, the Roles That Instructor Should

Carry Out in Order to Prevent the Motivation Levels of Learners
Within the scope of the study, firstly, an answer was sought to the question of what roles instructors
should carry out in order not to decrease the motivation levels of learners during the Covid-19 pandemic
process. Accordingly, the sub-themes shown in Figure 1. were obtained in the light of the data obtained
from the participants.
195

Figure 1. Instructors’ roles
When the sub-themes obtained under the main theme of the roles of the instructors are examined, it
is seen which roles the instructors should carry out in the Covid-19 pandemic process. In this context,
the sub-theme obtained and emphasized the most by the participants was the theme of the need to be
in constant communication with the learners. Three more sub-themes were obtained depending on this
theme. The views obtained in the context of these themes are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Participants Opinions
“... It should be able to communicate with learners in a healthy way and not cause them to stay away
Okan
from the lesson ...”
“...Continuity of communication and interaction, which is frequently emphasized in the theoretical
approaches of open and distance learning, is important. In this direction, it is extremely important
Masal
that the instructors not only give homework or projects for the lesson, but also increase the dialogue
with the learners…”
“... It can be supported by voice call, video (PC camera, phone camera or webcam) to eliminate the
Tuna
deficiencies in communication ...”
196

Another sub-theme that has been acquired under the main theme of the roles of the instructors about
the good use of the systems used in this process by the instructors and making the learners believe in
these systems. The opinions obtained in this context are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Esra “... Tutors must make the learners believe in the system ...”
“...Continuity of communication and interaction, which is frequently emphasized in the theoretical
approaches of open and distance learning, is important. In this direction, it is extremely important
Masal
that the instructors not only give homework or projects for the lesson, but also increase the dialogue
with the learners…”
“... It can be supported by voice call, video (PC camera, phone camera or webcam) to eliminate the
Tuna
deficiencies in communication ...”
Mustafa “... They should know the system used well and use its advantages in lessons ...”
“... The point to be noted in this regard is the possibility that learners have never used these
Ali platforms. In this case, the tutorial must first be familiar with the platform used. Then, by organizing
a mini course for learners, learners can avoid difficulties in these systems... ”
Another sub-theme obtained under the relevant main theme was that an effective distance education
design should be made. The opinions obtained in this context are shown in Table 4.
Table 4.
Ege “... An effective distance education design should be made ...”
“...In order not to decrease the motivation levels of learners during the Covid-19 pandemic process,
the instructors must definitely make the lesson more interesting. In addition, instructors should
Hasan
focus on innovative theoretical frameworks such as universal design principles adapted to design
principles...”
Views on other sub-themes that have been obtained within the scope of the roles that instructors
should assume are shown in Table 5.
Table 5.
Nil “... The course process should be facilitated, the student should not be overloaded ...”
Okan “... Innovative technologies such as augmented and virtual reality should be used ...”
“... Instructors will provide the necessary motivation to support this learning process with the various learning
Masal
environments they will offer to the learners as well as effective presentation skills ...”
“... Flexibility in projects or assignments can be recognized so that learners can become familiar with digital
Tuna
platforms ...”
197

Figure 2. Institutions’ roles
In the Covid-19 Pandemic Process, the Roles That Institutions Should

The themes reached under this main theme are shown in figure 2.
The first of the sub-themes acquired within the scope of the roles that institutions should carry out
was directed to the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. The opinions obtained in this context
are shown in Table 6.
Another sub-theme obtained under the relevant main theme was for the establishment of technical
teams in order to eliminate possible problems that may occur in the system. The opinions obtained in
this context are shown in Table 7.

Another sub-theme acquired within the scope of the roles of institutions was on obtaining the views
of the learners in this process and thus identifying the faults in the system. The views obtained under
this theme are shown in Table 8.
The opinions expressed within the scope of other sub-themes obtained within the scope of the roles
that institutions should carry out are shown in Table 9.
198

Table 6.
Okan “... Applications such as online activity, video casting and webtv should be used…”
“... In order not to decrease the motivation levels of learners during the Covid-19 pandemic process, institutions
Hasan
should take measures to strengthen their distance education infrastructures…”
“... The institution should not make any mistakes in managerial tasks such as adjusting the course time and running
Mustafa
the infrastructure without any errors ...”
“... One of the priorities of the institution ensures a healthy communication between the instructor and the learner
Masal
...”
“...In this case, institutions must first strengthen their infrastructure in order to avoid problems in distance
Ege education. In the absence of infrastructure or in cases where the source to strengthen the infrastructure cannot be
provided, professional support (or systems such as Zoom) is required…”
“...Institutions; by preparing digital media such as online discussion forms and designing activities for group work
Nil
to ensure learner-learner interaction, it can also minimize the deficiency in this matter…”
Table 7.
“... The crashes that occur in the system reduce the motivation of the learners to the lesson. Teams that will provide
Nil
continuous technical support should be formed ... ”
Ali “... it can be a unit that will provide support to instructors ...”
“... Technicians who will be assigned to fix system malfunctions should ensure that possible problems are solved
Esra
before they reach serious dimensions at the time of the lessons.”
Table 8.
“... The institution should listen to the learners. There are many problems in the process. should take measures to
Tuna
minimize them. Learners motivation decreases in a mechanism where no decision is made... “
“... For the demands and suggestions of the learners, they should regularly conduct research such as questionnaires
Ege
and interviews and quickly include the results in the system ...”
Table 9.
Hasan “... Institutions should make a very detailed study plan for learners and check it online ...”
Okan “... in this process, instructors should be supported in financial, technological and pedagogical issues..”
“... institutions are required to inform instructors and learners about the platform or system to be used. It is possible
Masal to send this as a presentation file to all instructors and learners, as well as to prepare informative content about this
platform by the selected education platform experts ... ”
Mustafa “... Families should be informed about the distance education system by the institutions ...”
199

In the Covid-19 Pandemic Process, the Roles that Families Should

Another research question determined within the scope of the study was about the roles that families
should carry out in order not to decrease the motivation levels of learners during the Covid-19 pandemic.
In this context, the themes obtained in line with the opinions of the participants are shown in figure 3.
Figure 3. Families’ roles
The first sub-theme obtained within the scope of roles that families should carry out was on creating
a necessary working environment. The opinions obtained in this context are shown in Table 10.
Table 10.
Ege “... It is necessary to provide a suitable environment and technical infrastructure ...”
Esra “... Actions that will distract learners should be avoided ...”
Hasan “... Activities such as watching TV and listening to music should not be done in the environment of learners ...”
Another sub-theme obtained about the roles that families should carry out was that they should sup-
port learners in all circumstances. The opinions obtained in this context are shown in Table 11.
The opinions obtained in line with the other sub-themes within the scope of the relevant main theme
200

Table 11.
“... The most difficult stakeholder families in the process. They suddenly learned distance education. they can think
Tuna their kids are surfing the internet. However, learners may be listening to lectures and doing research. therefore they
should support the learners … ”
Nil “... Families should support learners and take measures to meet their children’s needs ...”
“... Families should support their children. They have to be role models for them to support them. They should
Mustafa
support their children financially and morally… ”
Table 12.
Okan “... In this period, it is necessary not to burden the learners more than necessary ...”
“... During the Covid-19 pandemic, families are of critical importance in order not to decrease the motivation levels
Ali
of learners and they should meet the psychological and technological needs of their children ...”
Masal “... It must enable them to overcome the epidemic psychology ...”
Figure 4. Learners’ roles

201

In the Covid-19 Pandemic Process, the Roles That Learner Should

Carry Out in Order to Prevent the Motivation Levels of Theirs
The last research question determined within the scope of the study was about the roles that learners
should carry out to maintain their motivation levels during the covid-19 pandemic. In this context, the
themes reached in line with the opinions obtained from the participants are shown in figure 4.
The first sub-theme obtained within the scope of the roles that learners should carry out was directed
towards good planning. The opinions obtained in this context are shown in Table 13.
Table 13.
Ali “... A good learning planning should be done ...”
Ege “... Learners should carry out the preparation processes as usual ...”
“... Repeating the course materials, videos or reviewing the topics of the course will make an important
Nil
contribution to the motivation of the learners..”
Another sub-theme obtained within the scope of the roles that learners should carry out was that it
was necessary to be in constant communication with instructors and institutions. The opinions obtained
in this direction are shown in Table 14.
Table 14.
Hasan “... When needed, you should contact the instructor or the institution without hesitation ...”
Ege “... they should get support from instructors ...”
“... learners should not hesitate to interact with each other. Particularly, the exchange of ideas in the online
Nil discussion forms or the interviews and conversations about the course will enable learners to become more familiar
with these platforms and to continuously exchange information with each other…”
Table 15.
Masal “....Lessons should be followed day by day...”
Mustafa “...An active role should be taken in the lessons…”

“... Learners should listen to the lesson as seriously as in the face-to-face training and engage in activities such as
Ege
answering and asking questions ...”
202

Another role that learners should carry out in order to maintain the level of motivation for the learn-
ing process during the Covid-19 period was to follow the lessons regularly. The opinions obtained in
this context are shown in Table 15.
Another role that learners should undertake in the Covid-19 period was that they had to work to
improve their self-learning skills and technology literacy levels. The opinions obtained in this context
Table 16.
“... During the Covid-19 pandemic process, the first of the responsibilities that learners should carry out in order
Okan not to decrease their motivation levels is the need to increase their self-learning skills and technological literacy
levels in this period ...”
Esra “... They should care about their assignments and other work and feel responsible ...”
Ali “... Learners need to take responsibility for their own learning ...”
Views on other roles that learners should carry out in the Covid-19 period are shown in Table 17.
Table 17.
“... they must immediately convey the problems experienced in the lessons (if there is a instructors who does not
Mustafa teach, an instructor who does not read homework, an instructor who does not communicate) to the necessary
authorities ...”
“... He/She needs to turn on his camera on platforms where there are live lessons. Thus, he/she will have an
Masal
important effect on his/her concentration in the lesson… ”
Nil “... To get rid of the pandemic psychology, the lessons should be concentrated...”
“... A working environment should be prepared in a home environment, free of items that may distract during the
Tuna
course participation process…”
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
Within the scope of the study, firstly, an answer was sought to the question of what roles instructors
should carry out in order to maintain the motivation levels of learners during the Covid-19 pandemic. In
this context, when the results obtained in line with the opinions of the field experts are examined, it is
seen that the most important role that the instructors should carry out in this process is communication.
In this context, it was concluded that during the Covid-19 period, which affected the whole world, in-
structors should be in constant communication with learners. This result is similar to the results obtained
within the scope of a study conducted by Çakın, Külekçi Akyavuz (2020) and Rapanta et al. (2020).
Within the scope of these studies, emphasized that during the Covid-19 pandemic process, instructors
should prioritize communication. In addition to this, other findings obtained in the study conducted by
the Çakın, Külekçi Akyavuz (2020), were performing entertaining activities in the lessons and sending
203

joyful music. These findings coincide with the finding that the lessons learned within the scope of this
study should be interesting. Therefore, it has been concluded that in pandemic processes such as Covid-19,
instructors should make the lessons more interesting. In this process, it is another result that the instruc-
tors should make use of social media tools to communicate. In addition to this, the other result obtained
was that the instructors should take the role of guides and give quick feedback to the learners. Within
the scope of the study carried out by Lumsden (1994), it was stated that instructors’ conversations with
learners in a constructive manner positively affected the motivation of learners. Considering that high
motivation increases academic success, performance and permanence (Kılınç, 2020; Fırat et al., 2018),
it can be said that practices that will increase the motivation levels of learners should continue during
the pandemic period. Also, it was concluded that individuals involved in the learning process should
be familiar with innovative technologies such as augmented and virtual reality. In the studies carried
out in this context, Altınpulluk, Kesim and Kurubacak (2020) and Altınpulluk (2019) emphasize that
innovative technologies should be employed in learning processes. In this way, it can be stated that the
learning process will be more efficient.
Within the scope of the study, the roles that institutions should carry out were also mentioned. Ac-
cordingly, it has been concluded that the most important task that institutions should carry out is to
provide the necessary infrastructure and to follow this process to identify and correct the deficiencies in
the system. In a study conducted on this subject, it was stated in Ak et al. (2020) that the trainings that
can be offered through the Internet, radio and television should be designed by providing the necessary
infrastructure in the pandemic period. At this point, it is of great importance to follow the education
process and to take the necessary steps. Establishing technical teams stands out as an important element
in eliminating the deficiencies. Another important point here is that the trainers and other personnel
involved in this process should be supported financially, technologically and pedagogically.
One of the most important factors in maintaining the motivation levels of learners in the Covid-19
period is undoubtedly families. In this process, it can be stated that families are the most affected parts
besides the learners. At this point, it is important to determine the roles that families should carry out
during the pandemic period. In this context, the first of the findings obtained in the scope of the study
carried out was at the point of meeting the necessary technological and psychological needs. The neces-
sity of technological tools and internet connection at the point of reaching the learning environment in a
period such as the pandemic period when learners are confined to their homes has once again emerged.
At this point, in addition to providing these tools, families should also take an active role in the puri-
fication of learners from the pandemic psychology. However, it is also important to prepare a learning
environment free of distracting elements. In the study conducted by Çakın, Külekçi Akyavuz (2020),
it was stated that some of the problems related to families during the pandemic period were listed as
technological inadequacy, anxiety, and lack of support. Therefore, it can be stated that the deficiencies
in these points should be eliminated. In particular, it can be said that families who need psychological
support should be free of their own concerns. Also, considering that there is a positive relationship be-
tween learners ‘success in education and their parents’ education and socio-economic status (Björklund
& Salvanes, 2011), it can be stated that family structure has an important effect on learner motivation.
The good academic infrastructure of families also affects the motivation and success of learners in
learning processes (Ak et al. 2020)
It can be said that the learners who constitute the subject of this study should also know their roles
in the pandemic process and fulfill these roles. In this context, it can be stated that learners during the
pandemic period should primarily work to improve their self-learning skills and technology literacy
204

levels. However, it has been concluded that with the support they receive from their families, they should
get rid of the pandemic psychology and focus on the learning process. In this process, it is an important
requirement that they follow the lessons daily and actively participate in the lessons. In addition, there
should be no distracting elements in the work environment. The results obtained within the scope of
the study carried out by Azzi-Huck and Shmis (2020) are similar to these results. Accordingly, learn-
ers should remove distractions from their learning environment. In addition, learners need to work on
technological deficiencies.
SUGGESTIONS
Suggestions that can be made based on the findings obtained within the scope of this study, which is
limited to nine participants and practices that will increase the motivation levels of learners in the Co-
vid-19 pandemic period, are listed as follows:
In order to overcome the negativities that may occur in education environments with radical changes
with the Covid-19 epidemic; It can be stated that the studies referring to the opinions of instructors,
institutions and learners should increase. In particular, an awareness can be created for families and
learners who have technological difficulties to access these tools. In this way, various aid campaigns can
be organized. In-service training can be given to instructors and learners who are not too familiar with
the distance education system. It is thought that the instructors should improve themselves at the point
of developing learning materials in this process. In particular, the instructors should be more meticulous
about course design.
REFERENCES
Ak, M., Şahin, L., Çiçekler, A. N., & Ertürk, M. A. (2020). Kovid-19 Küresel Salgın Sürecinde İstanbul
Üniversitesi Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulamalarına Genel Bir Bakış. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi,
40(2), 1-10.
Akbaba, S. (2006). Eğitimde motivasyon. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Der-
gisi, 13, 343–361.
Akmansoy, V. (2012). Kaos Teorisi ve Eğitime Yansımaları (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Mehmet
Akif Ersoy University, Institute of Education Sciences, Burdur, Turkey.
Altinpulluk, H. (2019). Determining the trends of using augmented reality in education between 2006-
2016. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1089–1114. doi:10.100710639-018-9806-3
Altinpulluk, H., Kesim, M., & Kurubacak, G. (2020). The Usability of Augmented Reality in Open and
Distance Learning Systems: A Qualitative Delphi Study. Open Praxis, 12(2), 283–307. doi:10.5944/
openpraxis.12.2.1017
Altıparmak, M., Kapıdere, M., & Kurt, İ. D. (2011). E-Öğrenme ve Uzaktan Eğitimde Açık Kaynak
Kodlu Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemleri. In Akademik Bilişim’11 - XIII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı
Bildirileri Kitabı içinde (pp. 319-327). Malatya.
205

Azzi-Huck, K., & Shmis, T. (2020). Managing the impact of COVID-19 on education systems around
the world: How countries are preparing, coping, and planning for recovery. World Bank. Retrieved
from: https:// blogs.worldbank.org/education/managing-impact-covid-19-education-systems-around-
worldhow-countries-are-preparing
Barak, M., Watted, A. & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining
aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49–60. .Compedu.2015.11.010
doi:10.1016/j
Björklund, A., & Salvanes, K. G. (2011). Education and family background: Mechanisms and policies.
In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol.
3, pp. 201–247). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00003-X
rapid systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191–247.
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.
CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1). Advance online publication.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.3778083
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19 on
education. VoxEU.org. Retrieved from: https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-education 05.01.2021
Çakın, M., & Külekçi Akyavuz, E. (2020). Covid-19 süreci ve eğitime yansıması: Öğretmen görüşlerinin
incelenmesi. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 6(2), 165–186.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly
predict performance: A 40‐ year meta‐ analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. doi:10.1037/
a0035661 PMID:24491020
Chaiprasurt, C. & Esichaikul, V. (2013). Enhancing motivation in online courses with mobile communi-
cation tool support: A comparative study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 14(3), 377-401.
Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self‐ determination
theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.
Deimann, M. & Bastiaens, T. (2010). The role of volition in distance education: An exploration of its
capacities. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1). .V11i1.778
doi:10.19173/irrodl
Fırat, M., Kılınç, H., & Yüzer, T. V. (2018). Level of intrinsic motivation of distance education students
in e‐learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 63–70. doi:10.1111/jcal.12214
206

Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2016). Supporting students’ motivation for e‐ learning: Teachers matter
on and offline. Intenet and Higher Education, 30, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.003
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay
between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50. doi:10.1111/jcal.12020
Hartnett, M., George, A. S., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning en-
vironments: Complex, multifaceted and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 20–38. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.1030
remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. Retrieved from: https://medicine.hofstra.edu/
pdf/faculty/facdev/facdev-article.pdf
Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instruc-
tional Development, 2(4), 26–34. doi:10.1007/BF02904345
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach.
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3
Kılınç, H. (2020). Çevrimiçi Grup Tartışmalarının Öğrenenler Üzerindeki Etkisinin Çeşitli Değişkenler
Açısından İncelenmesi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Örneği (Doctoral Dissertation).
Anadolu University, Social Sciences Institute, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Lorenz, E. N. (1972). Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in
Texas? Paper presented at 139th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Washington, DC.
Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student Motivation. Research Roundup, 10(3).
McMillan, J. H., & Forsyth, D. R. (1991). What theories of motivation say about why learners learn.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1991(45), 39–52. doi:10.1002/tl.37219914507
Miltiadou, M., & Savenye, W. C. (2003). Applying social cognitive constructs of motivation to enhance
student success in online distance education. AACE Journal, 11(1), 78–95.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching dur-
Sağlık Bakanlığı, T. C. (2020). COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 enfeksiyonu) genel bilgiler, epidemioloji ve
tanı. Bilimsel Danışma Kurulu Çalışması.

Semmar, Y. (2006). Distance learners and academic achievement: The roles of selfefficacy, self‐ regulation
and motivation. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 12(2), 244–256. doi:10.7227/JACE.12.2.9
Singh, S., Singh, A., & Singh, K. (2012). Motivation levels among traditional and open learning under-
graduate students in India. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
13(3), 19–40. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1050
207

Solak, H. İ., Ütebay, G., & Yalçın, B. (2020). Uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin basılı ve dijital ortamdaki
sınav başarılarının karşılaştırılması. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 41–52.
UNESCO. (2020). School closures caused by Coronavirus (Covid-19). UNESCO. Retrieved from https://
en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
United Nations. (2020). Covid-19 Response. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-
communications-team/united-nations-working-mitigate-covid-19-impact-children
Yakar, B., Kaygusuz, T. Ö., Pirinçci, E., Önalan, E., & Ertekin, Y. H. (2020). Knowledge, attitude and
anxiety of medical students about the current COVID-19 outbreak in Turkey. Family Practice and Pal-
liative Care, 5(2), 36–44. doi:10.22391/fppc.737469
Yamamoto, G. T. & Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve çevrimiçi (online) eğitimin önlenemeyen yükselişi.
Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-34.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (8th ed.). Seçkin
Yayınları.
COVID-19: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is defined as illness caused by a novel coro-
navirus now called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; formerly called
2019-nCoV), which was first identified amid an outbreak of respiratory illness cases in Wuhan City,
Hubei Province, China.
Distance Learning: It is learner-centered learning where learners are away from each other and
learning resources in the context of time and / or space. It is the result of the distance education system.
Learner: A person who is still learning something.
Learning Environments: Any environment, cultural context, or educational approach in which the
instruction and learning occur.
Learning Outcomes: It is all of the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors that learners are aimed
to acquire at the end of a learning activity and/or process.
Motivation: It is the process of learners’ acting with their own desires and wishes to achieve a spe-
cific goal.
Phenomenology Design: It is a research design that focuses on facts that we are aware of but do not
have an in-depth and detailed understanding, is an inquiry strategy in which the researcher tries to define
the essence of human experiences about a phenomenon explained by the participants.
208
209
Chapter 11
Determination of Preschool
Teacher Candidates’ Views
on the Learning Management
System Used in the COVID-19
Pandemic Process
Hakan Altinpulluk
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4701-1949
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to examine learning management systems (LMS) in the COVID-19 pandemic
process in Turkey according to preschool teacher candidates’ views. The sample group of the study
consists of 22 participants who are undergraduate students of the Faculty of Education, Pre-School
Teaching 2nd Grade. The data were collected between 4-30 December 2020. In this study, which was
carried out in qualitative research method and phenomenology design, the standardized open-ended
interview form was used as the data collection tool, and content analysis was used in the analysis of the
data. Live lectures, discussion forums, and assignments/online exams tools in the LMS were examined.
In addition, opinions on the general usability of the LMS and suggestions for the improvement of the
LMS have been presented. Some suggestions were made at the end of the research.
INTRODUCTION
The Covid-19 outbreak spread rapidly, starting from Wuhan, China, first throughout China and then
all over the world. The process is still continuing, after it was classified as a global pandemic by the
World Health Organization on March 11, 2020 (WHO, 2020). The rapid transmission of this pandemic
from person to person revealed the necessity of people not to have physical contact, and this situation
has brought the concepts of social distance and social isolation to the literature. With these measures,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch011

it is aimed to ensure that people interact without physical contact and to control the pandemic (Val-
lance, 2020). Most governments around the world have launched a joint initiative to curb the spread of
this highly contagious disease by imposing lockdown, social / physical distance, face-to-face education
withdrawal, and immigration restrictions (Gonzalez et al.2020).
The Covid-19 pandemic has profoundly affected the ongoing actions and habits related to social life
in many countries. Educational organizations were one of the institutions most affected by this process
(Atasoy, Özden & Kara, 2020). Interrupting the education process, which continues in a planned and
regular system, more than foreseen affects the education process negativelyInterrupting face-to-face
education due to reasons such as earthquakes, pandemics, terrorism and social events makes planning
educational activities extremely important. In such suddenly developing situations, producing alterna-
tive methods to educational activities will enable education to continue where it left off (Bayburtlu,
2020). When the literature is examined, it is seen that one of the first interventions to manage the current
situation in previous pandemics is the closure of schools (Hens et al., 2009). In this pandemic, like the
previous pandemics, schools have been suspended in many countries (Sahu, 2020; Viner et al., 2020).
Along with this pandemic, the largest social experiment in the history of the world took place naturally
with about 1.6 billion students (Zimmerman, 2020).
In its report on the closures of face-to-face educational institutions, UNESCO announced that on April
4, 2020, at least 91.3% of students in the world did not attend school, and the highest percentage was
reached. Within the scope of this study, as shown in Figure 1, according to the latest data obtained on
December 24, 2020, 205 million students were affected by the restrictions in their countries (UNESCO,
2020).
Figure 1. Global monitoring of school closures caused by covid-19

(UNESCO, 2020)
Various measures have been sought to minimize the negative effects of the unpredictable Covid-19
pandemic on educational activities. At this point, distance education emerges as a method that has been
brought to the agenda during the pandemic process and started to be applied intensively (Karakuş et al.,
2020). Well-planned online distance learning experiences are significantly different from online lessons
offered in the event of a crisis or disaster (Hodges, et al., 2020).
210

With the closure of the schools, unlike planned distance education activities, emergency remote teach-
ing processes were put into practice in order to ensure the continuity of education. While the concept
of “remote” emphasizes physical distance, the concept of “distance” emphasizes physical, interactional
and psychological distance. Emergency remote teaching tries to produce temporary solutions for the
needs. It is described as an effort to sustain education with the means available in times of crisis (Bond,
2020; Bozkurt et al., 2020). Due to the sudden and urgent transition experienced during the pandemic
process, it was not possible for both educational institutions, students and educators to make prepara-
tions (Turan & Gürol, 2020).
After the first cases in Turkey, were suspended for a short time teaching in all universities. Later, it
was decided by the Higher Education Council (YÖK) that education at universities would continue with
the distance education method. The development of distance education system in Turkey is based on a
very old history. Universities have tried to adapt quickly to this process, which started with the pandemic
(Karadağ & Yucel, 2020; Serçemeli & Kurnaz, 2020).
There are many technologies that can be used for distance education. Some of these technologies
have been gaining popularity in recent years as artificial intelligence (AI) (Crowe, LaPierre & Kebritchi,
2017), augmented reality (AR) (Altinpulluk, Kesim & Kurubacak, 2020), social networks (Firat et al.,
2017; Poellhuber, Anderson & Roy, 2011), Internet of Things (IoT) (Lamri et al., 2014). To understand
the adoption of technology, previous scholars have used theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1970), technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), or unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003). In recent years, learning management systems
(LMSs) have become increasingly popular in higher education. It is preferred in academic institutions
because it allows easier course management, content management, evaluation and reporting (Draskovic,
Misic & Stanisavljevic, 2016). According to Gasamyeh (2017), LMSs refer to software applications and
web-based technologies that assist learning and teaching processes as an ICT that plays an important
role in higher education. The use of LMSs during the Covid-19 pandemic is a vital need to continue the
emergency remote teaching process (Zwain, 2019).
Problem Statement
The Covid-19 pandemic brought about a process that had never occurred before, such as the fact that
students at all levels in Turkey continue their educational activities remotely. When the literature is
examined, although there are a lot of studies on coronavirus and Covid-19 in the field of medicine due
to the nature of the process experienced, studies in educational sciences and distance education are
limited. In order to fill this gap in the literature and reveal the effects of the process, research should be
done in all branches of science. It is an inevitable fact that the reflections of the pandemic on education
will be in very different dimensions in pedagogical, psychological, technological, methodological and
economic contexts. In this context, it seems important to examine the views of undergraduate students
who are teachers canditates about the LMS used in the Covid-19 pandemic process while the effects of
the pandemic continue. Revealing student perceptions and opinions about the LMS used has a critical
role in determining the positive and negative aspects of emergency remote teaching experienced for the
first time. It is thought that determining student experiences regarding this process will contribute to
the literature in terms of informing educators about the necessary ways to create a qualified learning
environment.
211

In the literature, the views of teachers (Duban & Şen, 2020; Korkmaz & Toraman, 2020), students
(Akgün, 2020; Baber, 2020; Chen, Kaczmarek & Ohyama, 2020; Görgülü-Arı & Hayır-Kanat, 2020;
Kapasia et al., 2020; Sever & Özdemir, 2020; Yılmaz İnce, Kabul & Diler, 2020; Yolcu, 2020) or
academicians (Durak & Çankaya, 2020; Sayan, 2020) on distance education practices in the Covid-19
pandemic period have been tried to be determined.
There is no study examining the views on LMS, one of the most critical technological components
in the distance education process. In this context, it is of great importance to take students’ opinions and
suggestions during the process and to look at them from their point of view.
Purpose of the Study
In this study, the negative and positive aspects of the live lectures, discussion forums, assignments and
online exams sections of LMS, one of the emergency remote teaching applications during the Covid-19
pandemic, were determined according to the views of preschool teacher candidates. Moreover, views
on the general usability of the LMS used were examined and suggestions on how an LMS should be are
also offered. The aim of this study is to examine learning management system (LMS) in the Covid-19
pandemic process in Turkey according to preschool teacher candidates’ views.
In this context, in order to achieve the purpose of the research, answers to the following research
questions are sought:
1. What are your opinions about the Live Lecture module in LMS used in distance education applica-
tions during the Covid-19 pandemic process?
2. What are your opinions about the Discussion Forum module in LMS used in distance education
applications during the Covid-19 pandemic process?
3. What are your opinions about the Assignment/Online Exam module in LMS used in distance
education applications during the Covid-19 pandemic process?
4. What are your opinions about the general usability of LMS used in distance education applications
during the Covid-19 pandemic process?
5. What are your suggestions regarding LMSs used in distance education applications during the
Covid-19 pandemic process?
METHOD
Qualitative method was used in this study. Qualitative research is a process in which individuals’ situa-
tion, facts, thoughts and opinions about a subject are revealed through observation, interview and docu-
ment analysis (Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun, 2011). It was used in this study, since the qualitative method
is appropriate when the verification of the phenomenon is the goal (Yin, 2011).
Research Design
Phenomenology is a qualitative research design in which experiences related to phenomena are questioned
by focusing on human experiences created by this reality in order to understand social reality (Ersoy,
2016). In the phenomenology design, the common meaning of concepts or phenomena experienced by
212

a few people is explained (Creswell, 2013). In this context, the phenomenon of the present research has
been determined as the opinions of pre-school teacher candidates about the LMS they have experienced
and the modules of the LMS.
Study Group
The sample group of the study consists of 22 participants who are undergraduate students of the Faculty
of Education, Pre-School Teaching 2nd Grade. While determining the sample group of the study, the
criterion sampling was used, which is the sampling method based on selecting situations that meet certain
criteria before the study (Patton, 2014). Basically, two criteria were determined in the study. The first is
that the students participate in the study on a voluntary basis, and the second is that they regularly attend
the distance education classes. Details about the study group are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Study group
Characteristic Category Number

Female 20
Gender
Male 2
Yes 22
Computer ownership status at home
No 0
Yes 22
Internet ownership status at home
No 0
1 (Very Slow) 1
2 (Slow) 2
Internet connection speed 3 (Average) 6
4 (Fast) 12
5 (Very Fast) 1
1 (Very little) 0
2 (Little) 0
Technology use competence 3 (Moderate) 11
4 (Good) 9
5 (Very Good) 2
Data Collection Tool

In phenomenological studies, data are usually obtained through interviews (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013).
The data collection tool used in this study is the standardized open-ended interview form developed by
the researcher. Standardized open-ended interviews are a type of interview that consists of a carefully
written series of questions in a specific order and each participant is asked questions in the same style
and order (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013). Since face-to-face interviews can be risky for health in pandemic
conditions, the Google forms environment has been used. In the first part of the form, demographic
213

characteristics such as gender, computer ownership at home, Internet ownership status at home, Internet
connection speed, and technology use competence are included. Then, 5 open-ended questions were
asked to the participants and their opinions were requested. The survey link was shared in the LMS
environment and the process that started on December 4, 2020 was terminated on December 30, 2020.
Data Analysis
Participants ‘ online responses to research questions were analyzed by content analysis. With content
analysis, data are defined, categorizing related data within certain themes and presented to the reader
in an understandable way (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013). In this study, all data were reviewed in detail and
similar statements were divided into themes. In data analysis, examined modules of LMS are grouped
as positive and problematic aspects. After this stage, technical and instructional analyzes were carried
out. This structure has been implemented in all modules. Codes were used instead of the names of the
participants in the direct quotations.
Validity and Reliability
Validity is one of the strengths of qualitative research, and determining whether the findings are cor-
rect or not from the perspective of the reader, the participant, and the researcher (Yıldırım & Şimşek,
2013). The standardized open-ended interview form was finalized by obtaining approval from 3 faculty
members in order to ensure content validity before being presented to participants on the Google Forms
platform. Qualitative researchers should determine the steps of the processes as much as possible for the
consistency or stability of their research (Creswell, 2013). In order to ensure the reliability of this study,
the researchers acted in accordance with the recommendations stated for qualitative research. After ana-
lyzing the data, the reliability study was carried out and the consistency in the coding was checked with
2 faculty members. In calculating consistency between coders, the level of compliance was determined
as .88 by using Miles and Huberman’s (1994) formula Reliability = Number of Agreements / (Total
Number of Agreements + Disagreements)’. Again, within the scope of reliability, during the analysis
process, categorization was made for themes and sub-themes, and the opinions of the participants were
directly presented in their original form.
Limitations of the Study
There are some limitations to this study. The study is limited to 22 pre-school teacher candidates. This
study is limited by the experience of the participants with the LMS they use. These experiences are
limited to the Covid-19 pandemic period. In addition, the study is limited to qualitative research meth-
ods and phenomenology design. It is limited to standardized open-ended interview questions as a data
collection tool.
FINDINGS
The findings obtained in this study were prepared in line with research questions. The themes and sub-
themes that emerged as a result of the analysis are presented in tables.
214

Participants’ Views on Live Lectures
The aspects that participants deem problematic and the emerging themes related to the use of live lec-
tures are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Problematic aspects of live lectures used in the covid-19 pandemic process
• Camera failure due to software problems

• Low camera resolution
• Broken audio connections
• Poor microphone quality
• Lack of technical support
Technical • Self-closing of sessions
• Breakdowns due to the slowness of the internet
• Inefficient mobile interface
• Failure to load some course records
• Limited system permissions granted to students
• Inability of faculty members to use the system
• Not preferred to turn on the camera by instructors
• No screen sharing
• Completion of courses by reading only presentations
Live Lectures Problematic Aspects • Eye-tiring presentation designs
• Insufficient information transfer of faculty members
• Failure of faculty members to attend classes on time
• Non-interactive chat interface
• Putting classes early hours
• Students who do not have a camera and microphone feel
Instructional pressure
• Long course times
• Absence of interaction
• Distractions in the course environment
• The act of writing to ask questions is time consuming
• Difficulty concentrating on the lesson with pandemic
stress
• Annoying to look at the screen
• Health problems caused by sitting at the computer for
long periods of time
As seen in Table 2, the participants listed some problematic aspects in technical and instructional
terms. Some of the opinions of the participants describing the problematic aspects of live lecture prac-
tices in the pandemic process are given below:
• P12: We do not attend classes due to some systemic problems. That’s why some instructors think
we’ve neglected the lessons. Some of our teachers want audio and video participation. Since not
everyone has these opportunities, I would like the students to be shown a little more understanding.
• P16: Since the lessons cannot be conducted in a classroom environment, it can lead to distractibil-
ity. In addition, system-related problems have negative refections on live lessons. For example,
events such as breaking of from the lesson, not being able to attend the lesson, freezing, and loss
of sound and vision greatly reduce the quality of the lesson. In my opinion, the duration of some
live lessons is also very long, and, it is not efcient when we only look at the computer screen.
215

• P19: Looking at the screen is annoying and harmful to our health, and it also causes focusing
problems.
The aspects that participants deem positive and the emerging themes related to the use of live lectures
Table 3. Positive aspects of live lectures used in the covid-19 pandemic process
• Ease of connection from various technological

environments
Technical • Participation anytime anywhere
• Ability to watch the lessons from the recording
• Sending invitations before the course begins
• Simultaneous communication with instructors and other
Live Lectures Positive Aspects students in the pandemic
• Not interrupting education
• Possibility of teaching with videos, presentations and
Instructional images
• Absence of classroom noise
• Creating a real classroom atmosphere
• Ability to ask questions instantly
• A suitable learning environment for shy students
As seen in Table 3, the participants listed some positive aspects in technical and instructional terms.
Some of the views of the participants describing the positive aspects of live lecture practices in the
pandemic process are given below:
• P2: I like the recording of the lessons. Because when I cannot attend the live session, I can listen
to that topic later. Another feature I like is that there is no classroom noise. This allows me to focus
better.
• P14: It gives you the chance to ask questions about the subject instantly.
• P21: It allows to take the lesson in a quiet environment. So, there is no hum in the classroom en-
vironment. And since it is recorded, we can watch it again and make notes.
Regarding the live lectures, it can be seen that the participants are struggling with technical problems
such as camera and audio connections. In terms of learning processes, it is understood that there are
negativities about the academicians and the presentations prepared. On the other hand, it can be inter-
preted that possibilities such as connecting and watching from anywhere at any time and the absence of
classroom noise provide a very effective learning environment.
Participants’ Views on Discussion Forums
The aspects that participants deem problematic and the emerging themes related to the use of discussion
forums are shown in Table 4.
216

Table 4. Problematic aspects of discussion forums used in the covid-19 pandemic process
Technical • Non-functional notification panel

• Discussions not like in class
Discussion Forums Problematic Aspects • Setting a time limit
Instructional
• No feedback from instructors
• The need for a moderator from within the classroom
terms. Some of the opinions of the participants describing the problematic aspects of discussion forums
in the pandemic process are given below:
• P4: We see the notifcations late due to the system.

• P7: It is a problem that the answers given are visible to everyone.
• P20: It would be nice if we could also see the opinions of our teachers.
Table 5. Positive aspects of discussion forums used in the covid-19 pandemic process
Technical • Social network features such as like, reply

• Asynchronous interaction
• Increasing participation in class
• Ensuring preliminary preparation
• Enabling measurement of preliminary information
• Seeing different views
Discussion Forums Positive Aspects • Questions leading to research
Instructional
• An opportunity to indicate ideas that cannot be expressed
in live lectures
• Ability to repeat courses
• Allowing free expression of thoughts
• Providing peer learning
• Providing a sense of community
Some of the views of the participants describing the positive aspects of discussion forums in the pan-
demic process are given below:
• P1: There are brainstorming processes in discussion forums. Since it leads to thinking about the
subject, it both increases active participation and makes learning more permanent.
• P9: I fnd discussion forums useful for topic repetition and I like it.
• P17: We need information to participate in discussion forums. In this way, we study regularly.
Regarding discussion forums, it is understood that it is not a substitute for discussions in the classroom
setting. However, by providing asynchronous interaction, it can be interpreted that discussion forums
are effective in terms of requiring preparation for the lesson.
217

Participants’ Views on Assessment Tools
Participants were asked for their opinions on assignment and online exam modules. The aspects that
participants deem problematic and the emerging themes related to the use of assignments are shown in
Table 6.
Table 6. Problematic aspects of assignments used in the covid-19 pandemic process
• Failure to display plagiarism rates

Technical
• Problems caused by file size and format in uploads
• Assignment due dates
Assignments Problematic Aspects • Failure to understand assignment instructions
Instructional • Unfair assessment of assignments
• Giving heavy assignments with no regard for
pandemic psychology
terms. Some of the opinions of the participants describing the problematic aspects of assignments in the
pandemic process are given below:
• P5: Assignments are overwhelming. In this process, these assignments and quizzes cannot be the
defnitive indicator of our success, diligence or knowledge. But there is no other choice. Also, the
assignments are overlapping. And because they are all challenging, time is a problem. For this
reason, we may not be able to show our full performance in lessons.
• P11: Interpretative information is requested from us for assignments. However, we are students
who have been trained with a multiple-choice test culture as our education system.
• P15: Assignments are very difcult and takes a long time to do.
Table 7. Positive aspects of assignments used in the covid-19 pandemic process
• Practical and easy-to-use

Technical • Sending notifications by email
• Easy to understand upload interface
Assignments Positive Aspects
• Assignments leading to research
Instructional • Learning knowledge based on interpretation
• Reinforcement of learning
Some of the views of the participants describing the positive aspects of assignments in the pandemic
process are given below:
• P16: As evaluation criteria, I fnd assignments more comprehensive and efective. It encourages
research in a more detailed, original and academic way by examining articles and books.
• P17: What I like about having assignments are that we have enough time.
218

• P22: Assignments are very useful for conveying what we have learned.
Regarding assignments, although the evaluation is seen as unreliable and unfair problem, it is un-
derstood that homework encourages research. In addition, it can be stated that the assignment upload
interface is designed in an easy-to-understand way. It can be said that it provides a more permanent
learning process as it encourages interpretative knowledge.
The aspects that participants deem problematic and the emerging themes related to the use of online
exams are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Problematic aspects of online exams used in the covid-19 pandemic process
• Internet disconnections during the exam

• Instructors’ failure to adjust the online exam settings
Technical correctly
• Limited right to take the exam
Online Exams Problematic Aspects • Failure to return to the previous question
• Limited information measurement in a short time
• Panic and stress during the exam process
Instructional
• Guidance to rote learning
• Allowing to cheat
terms. Some of the opinions of the participants describing the problematic aspects of online exams in
the pandemic process are given below:
• P7: Exam time is reduced in order not to cheat in online exams. In addition, the number of right to
take the exam should be increased.
• P10: In a very short time, we answer questions with a system that we cannot return to the previous
question. Since even the thinking time is very short, it causes me to give answers below my level
of knowledge by causing me to panic. Also, experiencing an unexpected setback during the exam
lowers motivation.
• P16: The possibility of internet disconnection scares me a lot.
The aspects that participants deem positive and the emerging themes related to the use of online
exams are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Positive aspects of online exams used in the covid-19 pandemic process
• Grading at the end of the exam

Technical • Preparing questions in various formats
Online Exams Positive Aspects • Producing mixed random questions
• Creating a real exam atmosphere
Instructional
• Objective evaluation
219

Some of the views of the participants describing the positive aspects of online exams in the pandemic
process are given below:
• P4: Online exams are very practical and good.

• P6: In order to be successful in online exams, we need to study, understand the topics and have
enough knowledge. This enables us to learn subjects as in face-to-face education.
• P17: It is very positive that we can quickly learn our grade in the online exam.
Regarding online exams, grading takes less time than assignment can be interpreted as a positive
situation. However, potential technical problems during the exam process and panic / stress due to the
short duration can be interpreted as disadvantages of quizzes.
Views on General Usability of the LMS
In the Covid-19 pandemic process, the aspects that the participants deem problematic and the emerging
themes regarding the general usability of the LMS are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Problematic views on the general usability of LMS experienced in the covid-19 pandemic process
• Slowdown during peak hours

• Sudden logout
• Inability to use it effectively at low internet speeds
Technical
• Unable to take automatic attendance
LMS Usability Problematic Aspects • Problems logging into the system
• Coercion of people without technological devices
• Limited interaction
Instructional • Insufficient communication channels with the faculty
member
Table 11. Positive views on the general usability of LMS experienced in the covid-19 pandemic process
• Easy-to-understand interface

• Functional notification panel
Technical • Sending notifications by e-mail
• Providing activity reports
• Functional search section
LMS Usability Problematic Aspects • Providing a safe learning environment in the comfort
of home in a pandemic
• Increasing technological skills
Instructional • Providing a low-cost learning
• Ensuring emergency remote education continuity in
the pandemic
• Fun to use
220

As seen in Table 10, problematic dimensions related to LMS are presented. Some of the opinions of the
participants describing the general problematic aspects of LMS in the pandemic process are given below:
• P8: The only thing I do not like is the infrastructure problems because of the use of too many
students.
• P18: It is bad that it logs out after a certain period of time.
• P20: Faculty members take the attendance manually and have difculty.
In the Covid-19 pandemic process, the aspects that the participants deem positive and the emerging
themes regarding the general usability of the LMS are shown in Table 11.
As seen in Table 11, positive dimensions related to LMS are presented. Some of the opinions of the
participants describing the general positive aspects of LMS in the pandemic process are given below:
• P1: I really like that it is a very easily usable system.

• P13: I think it is an easy-to-use system with various opportunities ofered to students and teachers
by considering each course and its content separately.
• P20: Giving us information such as course invitations, messages, discussions via e-mail. In addi-
tion, we can quickly access our lessons and assignments.
It can be said that there are technical problems related to LMS such as slowing down and login prob-
lems during peak hours and these should be eliminated. On the other hand, LMS has been found useful
in terms of providing a suitable and cost-effective learning environment in the pandemic.
Suggestions on LMS
The suggestions presented and the emerging themes for the improvement of the LMS used in the Co-
vid-19 pandemic process are shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Suggestions for improving LMS experienced in the covid-19 pandemic process
• In addition to e-mail, sending SMS should also be used for notification.
• Infrastructure should be strengthened
• More interactive materials should be used in live lectures.
• Sound and image quality should be improved
LMS Suggestions • Usage reports and analytical information should be presented to students
• Socialization opportunities should be increased
• Reliable evaluation methods should be applied
• Should be developed to work offline
• It should be designed in accordance with practical based lessons
Some suggestions are given in Table 12 for better design of LMS. Some of the suggestions for the
further development of LMSs used in the pandemic process of the participants are given below:
• P10: Sending SMS might be better.

• P14: The system can be developed to ensure active participation of the student.
221

• P19: I recommend strengthening the infrastructure of the LMS. Because I think the pandemic pro-
cess will take longer than expected. The system sometimes does not open our recorded courses,
such errors need to be corrected.
Accordingly, it can be said that especially the technological infrastructure should be strengthened in
order to improve the LMSs. In addition, it can be suggested that technical improvements should be made
in the system of practice-based courses and reliable evaluation systems should be developed.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The aim of this study is to examine learning management system (LMS) in the Covid-19 pandemic
process in Turkey according to preschool teacher candidates’ views. The first sub-aim of the study is
to determine the dimensions that are liked and considered problematic about the live lecture module in
LMS used in distance education applications during the Covid-19 pandemic process. In this study, one
of the favorable aspects about the live lecture module emerged as “the opportunity to watch the lessons
from the recording”. Similar to this finding, in a study examining the opinions of prospective teachers
on Covid-19, the dimension of allowing the opportunity to watch the lesson again in the process was
shown as a positive outcome (Görgülü-Arı & Hayır-Kanat, 2020). Turan and Gürol (2020), on the other
hand, showed that the ability to watch the lecture videos again was an advantage in the study, which
examined the stress perceptions and views of university students who took online courses during the
Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, Durak and Çankaya (2020) showed that re-watching the recorded les-
sons was the most positive situation in their study, which examined the emergency distance education
processes from the perspective of academics.
In this study, another aspect that is liked about live lectures was determined as “having a suitable
learning environment for shy students”. Görgülü-Arı and Hayır-Kanat (2020), found live lessons useful
in terms of creating a comfortable environment for shy students in support of this finding. Durak and
Çankaya (2020), on the other hand, supports the findings in this study and finds live lessons useful in
terms of enabling introverted students to participate more actively. The fact that it creates a real classroom
atmosphere is another positive finding obtained with live lectures. In the study (Sakarya & Zahal, 2020),
which examined student views on distance violin education during the Covid-19 pandemic process, it
is seen that the theme “feeling like you are at school” was reached. “The absence of classroom noise”
in live lectures is one of the findings obtained in this study. Turan and Gürol (2020), on the other hand,
supported the finding in this study by determining the lack of crowd in the classroom as an advanta-
geous theme in their study, in which they examined the views of students during the pandemic process.
“Possibility to ask questions about the subject instantly” is another positive outcome experienced in
live lectures. Similarly, in their study, Sakarya and Zahal (2020) emphasized that positive gains such as
“receiving feedback” and “asking questions” under the sub-theme of outcomes can be achieved through
live lessons.
Along with the aspects that are liked about the live lessons, the dimensions seen as problematic are
also examined in this study. One of the themes seen as problematic is “absence of interaction”. According
to Yurtbakan and Ayıldız (2020), during the Covid-19 isolation period, students stated that they could
not interact with the teacher in distance education and this made it difficult to understand. Similarly,
Durak and Çankaya (2020) supports the finding in this study with the theme of “interaction problems”.
222

It was found that technical problems such as low camera resolution, audio disconnection, low micro-
phone quality and slow internet can be experienced intensely during live lessons. Different studies also
support this finding. According to Sever and Özdemir (2020), technical problems such as sound inter-
ruption and limited internet access are listed. In their study, Sakarya and Zahal (2020) found that there
are difficulties such as connection interruption, sound interruption, and sound quality. Karakuş et al.
(2020), on the other hand, states that internet / connection problems are the most experienced problem
in their study on teacher candidates. Similarly, in the study conducted by Görgülü-Arı and Hayır-Kanat
(2020), it is emphasized that technical deficiencies are the biggest problem. The difficulties of faculty
members in using the system and insufficient communication channels with faculty members are among
the problematic situations related to live lectures in this study. Supporting this, Turan and Gürol (2020)
described communication problems with the instructor and the inability of the instructor to teach online
as problematic situations. It is observed that concentration difficulties are experienced in live lectures
due to pandemic stress. Sever and Özdemir (2020) supports this finding and states that students have
problems in adapting to lessons. Çetin and Özlem (2020) stated that psychological problems such as being
in quarantine for a long time, fatigue, anxiety, and hopelessness affect students. In the study conducted
by Sakarya and Zahal (2020), the psychological findings that prevent concentrating on the live lecture
are listed as feeling weird, feeling anxious and nervous. Similarly, in the study conducted by Turan and
Gürol (2020), it was observed that students are generally stressful in distance education practices. In
live lessons, there are negative factors such as the teaching of the presentations by just reading them
and the presentation designs being eye-straining. Similarly, Atasoy, Özden, and Kara (2020) found that
the materials, methods and techniques, and presentation designs used by faculty members in e-courses
do not attract the attention of students. Turan and Gürol (2020) also found that the course contents are
not suitable for online education.
Distance education is the processes in which synchronous (live lectures, webinars, online chats, etc.)
and asynchronous (recorded videos, reading texts, events, discussion forums, etc.) activities are designed
for a purpose. Although today it is mostly designed with synchronous processes, asynchronous activities
and learning materials are also a part of distance education (Bozkurt, 2020). Discussion forums are one
of them. One of the positive opinions about discussion forums in this study was determined as allowing
the repetition of the lessons. Sakarya and Zahal (2020) state that asynchronous activities have a positive
effect as they provide opportunities to see mistakes and repeat topics.
Distance education is based on the evaluation processes as well as the presentation of the content
with educational technologies. There is a need for studies to use process-oriented assessment-evaluation
approaches as well as solely result-oriented assessment and evaluation approaches, which is one of the
problems of the education system. In this context, the use of technology-supported alternative assessment-
evaluation tools is necessary for the success of new distance education studies (Bozkurt, 2020). In this
study, some findings were obtained about the assignment and online exam module, which are assessment
tools in the LMS. In this study, many students stated that they found assignment useful. Regarding as-
signments, in the study conducted by Kaysi (2020), it was found that the most preferred assessment tool
by students is digital assignment. Similarly, according to Radha et al. (2020), satisfaction with online
evaluation systems is seen as 73%.
Some problematic aspects of assignments and online exams, which are online assessment tools, also
draw attention. For example, similar to the finding that it allows cheating especially in online exams, in
the study conducted by Görgülü-Arı and Hayır-Kanat (2020), a theme called “not reliable measurement
to evaluate” was reached. Turan and Gürol (2020) reached a similar conclusion as “difficulties in e-exam
223

and homework evaluation processes”. Genç and Gümrükçüoğlu (2020), on the other hand, found that
regarding online exams, students do not see these exams as fair. Similarly, Durak and Çankaya (2020)
emphasize that a reliable evaluation cannot be made. Especially in the online exam format, a problem
was reported in the form of limited knowledge measurement in a short time. Similarly, Turan and Gürol
(2020) supports this finding by revealing the time constraint theme during the online examination pro-
cess. Problems arising from size and format during assignment uploads emerged as another difficulty
faced by students. Sakarya and Zahal (2020), on the other hand, emphasized the problems of uploading
and downloading files, supporting this finding. Students complain about the pandemic psychology be-
ing ignored and given heavy assignment. Turan and Gürol (2020), on the other hand, showed that heavy
assignments were the second most problematic factor in their study, in which they determined the views
of students about the online education process.
Regarding the positive aspects of the LMS used, the participants emphasized that their technological
skills have increased in the process. Kaysi (2020) similarly highlights that the distance learning experi-
ences of university students increase during the pandemic. Görgülü-Arı and Hayır-Kanat (2020) sup-
port the finding in this study with the results they reached as “enabling active use of technology” and
“the opportunity for students to adapt to online education”. Students emphasize that the LMS is fun to
use. Motivation is one of the most important components in distance education (Fırat, Kılınç & Yüzer,
2018). According to Yurtbakan and Ayyıldız (2020), student motivation in LMSs increases thanks to the
inclusion of entertaining activities. Again, according to Turan and Gürol (2020), the use of the distance
education system was expressed as very fun and enjoyable. In this study, students liked LMS in terms
of providing a safe learning environment in the comfort of home in the pandemic. Sakarya and Zahal
(2020) confirmed this, emphasizing that being at home adds comfort to the learning process. In this
study, the students stated that their education expenses decreased and a low-cost learning system was
used. Görgülü-Arı ve Hayır-Kanat (2020) support the finding in this study by stating that they offer less
costly education.
There are also negative opinions about the usability of the LMS. For example, a similar emphasis has
been made by Görgülü-Arı ve Hayır-Kanat (2020) regarding the difficulty of students who do not have
technological and economic opportunities. Apart from this, the lack of communication channels with
the faculty member is another negative opinion. Keskin and Özer Kaya (2020) stated in their study that
49.9% of the students could not communicate easily with the instructors in this process. Similarly, in the
study conducted by Buluk and Eşitti (2020), the lack of good communication activities of students with
instructors in the distance education process was shown as the most important obstacle.
In this study, students also made some suggestions for the improvement of LMS. One of them is that
socialization opportunities should be increased. Similarly, Serçemeli and Kurnaz (2020) states that nega-
tive aspects such as socially isolated feelings in students are detected and should be eliminated. Students
also point out the need to allow more interactive materials to be used in live lectures. Kaysi (2020), on
the other hand, supports this finding with his suggestion that “rich content should be prepared in order
to increase students’ interest in the live lectures”.

In this study, the opinions and suggestions of the undergraduate students studying in the preschool
teaching department about modules such as online lectures, discussion forums, assignments / online
exams in LMSs used in Covid-19 pandemic process as well as the usability of LMS are presented. Stud-
ies in different contexts can be suggested to researchers. Researches can be conducted with students of
different demographic characteristics at different universities. According to the opinions of the distance
education experts, it can be investigated how to improve the distance education applications during the
224

pandemic process. Instead of the phenomenological qualitative research used in this study, quantitative
studies can be done with questionnaires and scales. With social network analysis and learning analytics,
in-depth research can be carried out by collecting data on students using different data collection tools.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(4), 466–487.
Akgün, A. İ. (2020). Covid-19 sürecinde acil durum uzaktan eğitimi yoluyla verilen muhasebe eğitimine
yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 208–236.
Altinpulluk, H., Kesim, M., & Kurubacak, G. (2020). The usability of augmented reality in open and
distance learning systems: A qualitative delphi study. Open Praxis, 12(2), 283–307.
Atasoy, R., Özden, C., & Kara, D. N. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi sürecinde yapılan E-ders uygulamalarının
etkililiğinin öğrencilerin perspektifinden değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Studies, 15(6), 95–122. doi:10.7827/
TurkishStudies.44491
Baber, H. (2020). Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learn-
ing during the pandemic of Covid19. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(3), 285-292.
Bayburtlu, Y. S. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi dönemi uzaktan eğitim sürecinde öğretmen görüşlerine göre
Türkçe eğitimi. Turkish Studies, 15(4), 131–151. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.44460
Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. Paper presented at the Curriculum,
Technology & Transformation for an Unknown Future 2010, Sydney, Australia. https://www.research-
gate.net/publication/285012845_Indicators_of_engagement
rapid systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191–247. http://asianjde.org/ojs/
Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik
Dergisi, 6(3), 112–142.
A global outlook to the interruption of education due to Covid-19 Pandemic: Navigating in a time of
Buluk, B., & Eşitti, B. (2020). Koronavirüs (COVİD-19) sürecinde uzaktan eğitimin turizm lisans
öğrencileri tarafindan değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Awareness, 5(3), 285–298.
Çetin, C., & Anuk, Ö. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi sürecinde yalnizlik ve psikolojik dayaniklilik: Bir kamu
üniversitesi öğrencileri örneklemi. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(5), 170–189.
225

Chen, E., Kaczmarek, K., & Ohyama, H. (2020). Student perceptions of distance learning strategies
during COVİD‐19. Journal of Dental Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/jdd.12339
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
Crowe, D., LaPierre, M., & Kebritchi, M. (2017). Knowledge based artificial augmentation intelligence
technology: Next step in academic instructional tools for distance learning. TechTrends, 61(5), 494–506.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 319–340.
Draskovic, D., Misic, M., & Stanisavljevic, Z. (2016). Transition from traditional to LMS supported
examining: A case study in computer engineering. Computer Applications in Engineering Education,
24(5), 775–786. doi:10.1002/cae.21750
Duban, N., & Şen, F. G. (2020). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının Covid-19 pandemi sürecine ilişkin görüşleri.
Turkish Studies, 15(4), 357–376. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.43653
Durak, G., & Çankaya, S. (2020). Emergency distance education process from the perspectives of aca-
demicians. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 159–174.
Ersoy, F. (2016). Fenomenoloji. In A. Saban & A. Ersoy (Eds.), Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri. Anı
Yayıncılık.
Fırat, M., Altınpulluk, H., Kılınç, H., & Büyük, K. (2017). Determining open education related social
media usage trends in Turkey using a holistic social network analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory
and Practice, 17(4).
Fırat, M., Kılınç, H., & Yüzer, T. V. (2018). Level of intrinsic motivation of distance education students
in e‐learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 63–70.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in educa-
tion. McGraw-Hill.
Gasaymeh, A. M. (2017). Faculty members’ concerns about adopting a learning management system
(LMS): A developing country perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 13(11), 7527–7537. doi:10.12973/ejmste/80014
Genç, M. F., & Gümrükçüoğlu, S. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) sürecinde ilâhiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin
uzaktan eğitime bakışları. Turkish Studies, 15(4), 403–422. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.43798
Gonzalez, T., De La Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., & Sacha, G.
M. (2020). Influence of COVİD-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLoS
One, 15(10), e0239490.

Görgülü-Arı, A. & Hayır-Kanat. M. (2020). Covid-19 (Koronavirüs) üzerine öğretmen adaylarının
görüşleri. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 459-492.
226

Hens, N., Ayele, G. M., Goeyvaerts, N., Aerts, M., Mossong, J., Edmunds, J. W., & Beutels, P. (2009).
Estimating the impact of school closure on social mixing behaviour and the transmission of close contact
infections in eight European countries. BMC Infectious Diseases, 9(187), 1–12. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-
9-187
teaching and online learning. EducauseReview. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/
Kapasia, N., Paul, P., Roy, A., Saha, J., Zaveri, A., Mallick, R., ... Chouhan, P. (2020). Impact of lock-
down on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVİD-19 pandemic in
West Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105194.
Karadağ, E., & Yücel, C. (2020). Yeni tip koronavirüs pandemisi döneminde üniversitelerde uzaktan
eğitim: Lisans öğrencileri kapsamında bir değerlendirme çalışması. Yükseköğretim Dergisi. doi:10.2399/
yod.20.730688
Karakuş, N., Ucuzsatar, N., Karacaoğlu, M. Ö., Esendemir, N., & Bayraktar, D. (2020). Türkçe öğretmeni
adaylarının uzaktan eğitime yönelik görüşleri. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (19),
220–241. doi:10.29000/rumelide.752297
Kaysi, F. (2020). Covid-19 salgını sürecinde Türkiye’de gerçekleştirilen uzaktan eğitimin değerlendirilmesi.
5th International Scientific Research Congress (IBAD - 2020).
Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, Ç. (2020). Are we ready for the post-Covid-19 educational practice? An
investigation into what educators think as to online learning. International Journal of Technology in
Education and Science, 4(4), 293–309.
Lamri, M., Akrouf, S., Boubetra, A., Merabet, A., Selmani, L., & Boubetra, D. (2014). From local teach-
ing to distant teaching through IoT interoperability. In Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies
and Learning (IMCL), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 107-110). IEEE.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expande sourcebook. Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice.
SAGE Publications.
Poellhuber, B., Anderson, T., & Roy, N. (2011). Distance students’ readiness for social media and col-
laboration. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 102–125.
Radha, R., Mahalakshmi, K., Kumar, V. S., & Saravanakumar, A. R. (2020). E-Learning during lock-
down of Covid-19 pandemic: A global perspective. International Journal Of Control And Automation,
13(4), 1088–1099.
Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19): Impact on educa-
tion and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus, 2019(4), 4–9. doi:10.7759/cureus.7541
Sakarya, G., & Zahal, O. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi sürecinde uzaktan keman eğitimine ilişkin öğrenci
görüşleri. Turkish Studies, 15(6), 795–817. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.44504
227

Sayan, H. (2020). Covid-19 pandemisi sürecinde öğretim elemanlarının uzaktan eğitime ilişkin
görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. AJIT-e: Bilişim Teknolojileri Online Dergisi, 11(42), 100–122. doi:10.5824/
ajite.2020.03.004.x
Serçemeli, M., & Kurnaz, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi döneminde öğrencilerin uzaktan eğitim ve
uzaktan muhasebe eğitimine yönelik bakiş açilari üzerine bir araştirma. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler
Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), 40–53.
Sever, M. ve Özdemir, S. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) sürecinde öğrenci olma deneyimi: Bir fotoses
(photovoice) çalışması. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 31(4), 1653–1679.
Turan, Z., & Gürol, A. (2020). Eğitimde acil bir dönüşüm: Covid-19 pandemisi döneminde çevrim içi ders
alan üniversite öğrencilerinin stres algıları ve görüşleri. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 17(2), 222–242.
UNESCO. (2020). Covid-19 educational disruption and response. https://en.unesco.org/Covid19/edu-
cationresponse
Vallance, P. (2020). ‘If anyone tells you a date they’re using a crystal ball’: When can we really expect
coronavirus to end? https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-when-
will-it-end-date-outbreak-stop-a9414196.html
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 425–478.
Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., ... Booy, R. (2020). School
closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVİD-19: A rapid system-
atic review. The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/S2352-
4642(20)30095-X
WHO. (2020). Coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic. World Health Organization. https://www.
who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayınları.
Yılmaz İnce, E., Kabul, A., & Diler, İ. (2020). Distance education in higher education in the COVİD-19
pandemic process: A case of Isparta Applied Sciences University. International Journal of Technology
in Education and Science, 4(4), 343–351.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford Publications.
Yolcu, H. H. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi sürecinde sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının uzaktan
eğitim deneyimleri. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 237–250.
Yurtbakan, E., & Akyıldız, S. (2020). Sınıf öğretmenleri, ilkokul öğrencileri ve ebeveynlerin Covid-19
izolasyon döneminde uygulanan uzaktan eğitim faaliyetleri hakkındaki görüşleri. Turkish Studies, 15(6),
949–977. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.43780
Zimmerman, J. (2020). Coronavirus and the Great Online-Learning Experiment. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Coronavirusthe-Great/248216
228

Zwain, A. A. A. (2019). Technological innovativeness and information quality as neoteric predictors of

users’ acceptance of learning management system: An expansion of UTAUT2. Interactive Technology
and Smart Education, 16(3), 239–254. doi:10.1108/ITSE-09-2018-0065
Assignment: Mind or body work that a student should do in relation to a particular subject or unit.
Homework.
COVID-19: It is an infectious disease caused by the most recently discovered coronavirus called
SARS-COV-2.
Discussion Forum: A web-based platform where asynchronous communication is provided and
messages are sent between students and instructors in distance education.
Distance Education: A synchronous and asynchronous learning system where students and teaching
staff are physically distant.
Learning Management System (LMS): Distance education platform with components such as live
lectures, discussion forums, evaluation modules and messaging systems.
Live Lecture: It is an LMS module that displays simultaneous video conferencing, screen sharing,
chat, and lecture presentations.
Online Exam: It is an online test module used to measure the knowledge of students in a particular
subject, unit, or course.
Pandemic: It is a name given to infectious diseases that threaten the health of people living around
the world.
Phenomenology: It is a qualitative research design that examines the experiences of the participants.
229
230
Chapter 12
The Impact of the COVID-19
Pandemic on the Field of
Economics of Education:
An Analysis Based on Digital Skills
Eren Kesim
ABSTRACT
Every era exists within its own paradigm, and the COVID-19 pandemic era is a game changer that
requires new perspectives. This requirement also holds true for the feld of economics of education.
This era of change requires the reevaluation of educational institutions. The economics of education
are venturing beyond traditional felds of study regarding the development of digital skills. Topics such
as fnancial administration, budget management, costs, supply and demand of educational services,
and the refections of learning losses on the knowledge economy represent the changing dynamic locus
of the economics of education regarding digital skills during the pandemic period. In this chapter, the
general impact of the pandemic on educational institutions is portrayed, the importance of digital skills
in global competition in the digital economy is discussed, and lastly, the paradigm shifts in econom-
ics of education as an important feld of educational sciences caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are
described and evaluated within the context of the economics of distance education.
INTRODUCTION
The economic systems of countries are increasingly becoming integrated with each other. The success
of a country in the global economic system may hang in the balance of understanding the intricacies of
the complex system that holds it all together. A significant characteristic of the global economy is the
difficulty in predicting the events and developments that may take place within this system. All the pa-
rameters that comprise the global economy are easily influenced by rapid and unforeseen developments
around the world. To face the realities of global competition, new skills are needed and new fields of labor
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch012

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Field of Economics of Education
are emerging. As such, constantly keeping the current knowledge base up to date is of great importance
in the process of globalization (Tapscott, 2015). The greatest leverage of all countries with knowledge
societies participating in global competition is their trained, qualified labor force. Achieving this goal,
however, depends on the restructuring of educational institutions in the knowledge society, and raising
individuals in accordance with the requirements of the era (Wheeler, 2015).
Education today is also defined by strategic investment conducted in order to develop the knowledge,
skill and competences of all individuals in a society. Increasing the quality of the education system en-
hances the ability for high quality production. By aiming to improve the skills required by the developing
economic system, education serves its current economic function by accelerating social development.
As developing technologies require that individuals graduate with new skills, economic and educational
institutions contribute to the achievement of societal goals through common efforts in developing soci-
ety (Afşar, 2011). In times of social change, regarding the roles of educational institutions, evaluating
this process and the importance of education adapting to changing circumstances becomes even more
valuable. The strategic roles of education in the process of change can be summarized as contributing
to society through individual expertise, fulfilling personal responsibilities for the society, transferring
cultural heritage to future generations, and developing personal skills in accordance with changes (Trill-
ing & Fadel, 2009, p.12).
Historically, disasters have deeply impacted human life and pandemics have had dire consequences
in the collective memory of mankind. As such, a multidimensional analysis of the causational relation-
ships of all the disasters and pandemics faced by humankind is required. Since all these setbacks deeply
impact social structure and all social institutions, the clear understanding of the pandemic period and
an interdisciplinary approach to minimize its effects are needed. Studies on a global and local scale of
all the negative effects of the pandemic period, primarily in the field of medicine, but also regarding
pedagogic, economic, political, and cultural dimensions, have strategic importance (Okumuş, 2020).
The 2019 COVID pandemic has once again demonstrated the strategic importance of the health and
education fields as state funded public services with high social benefits. From the very first day of the
crisis, health workers and educators have exerted great effort to keep the public healthy, and inform and
educate the public, which demonstrates the importance of the educational policies required for the effec-
tive use of available resources to develop the human capital stock of a nation. Economics and education
have constantly interacted with each other and every significant advancement in the education system
directly influences the economy, while the principles and concepts of the economic system come to life
in the education system. This interconnectedness continues to hold true regarding the reciprocal effects
of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy, and education as a whole. In this intense process of change, it
is important that all individuals in a society are raised as productive individuals. Qualified labor, which
is considered a scarce resource, is of great importance to all countries in the creation of new resources
to replenish depleted resources and the rational use of existing resources. This is why the importance of
economics of education has risen, to meet the need to properly analyze all variables to contribute to the
balanced cultivation of countries’ development of current skills of their human resources and raise the
qualified labor they require (Brewer, Hentschke & Eide, 2010; Hanushek & Woessmann, 2020; Lewin,
2020).
231

BACKGROUND
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has spread all around the world in a very brief period of time.
During this period, the social structures of countries have been exposed to change and transformation
previously unheard of. As one of the foundational institutions that constitute social structure, education
has also been intensely impacted by the pandemic. Regarding educational institutions, the first and most
important precaution taken to minimize the impact of the pandemic was suspending educational and
instructional activities in schools for some time. The extension of the school closures has caused educa-
tional institutions to face some unprecedented problems (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020). The emergency
measures taken by educational institutions in such situations are covered widely in studies on emergency
remote education, along with the distinction being made between online learning and emergency actions
(Bond, M., 2020; Hodges, et al., 2020). The issue at hand, however, refers to the balancing mechanisms
inherent in the interaction between economics and education, how the COVID-19 pandemic has threat-
ened that balance, and how the economics of education as a field helps in dealing with that threat.
All nations are confronted with economic uncertainties with unprecedented fundamental dynamics.
The uncertainty that seeps into social institutions as a whole cannot be resolved by educational institu-
tions on their own through increased budgeting and additional financial sources. In the medium and
long term, the expectations from education in resolving the uncertainty are constantly increasing. Under
these circumstances, education systems must adapt to an economy based on innovation and knowledge,
train a labor force appropriate for that dynamic system, be able to analyze threats and opportunities in
a world of fierce competition, and restructure new and dynamic policies for collaboration opportunities
shaped by the new technologies of the digital world (Kay & Greenhill, 2011).
One of the influences of the pandemic has been on the transition between levels of education. Some
students found themselves in the pandemic period while advancing from secondary education to higher
education, while others were caught after graduation from higher education during their initiation into
professional life. The closure of schools, coupled with the sudden stagnation of the economy, has left
the younger population confronting previously unheard-of challenges. The increased uncertainty in
educational and instructional activities as well as working life has increased anxiety not only from a
pedagogical perspective, but also from a social and economic perspective. Rooted in the heart of this
anxiety is what the world will be like after the pandemic, and whether or not the labor market will de-
mand new skills from individuals (Daniel, 2020).
Today, education emphasizes a strategic investment made to develop the knowledge, skills and com-
petences of all individuals in the society. Increasing the quality of the education system enhances the
capacity for quality production in the economy. By aiming to train a labor force that meets the quantita-
tive and qualitative needs of an economic system developing through its current economic function,
education accelerates social growth. In the process of economic growth and development, countries need
well-qualified human resources. Such well-qualified labor force trained by educational institutions ensure
that countries achieve their determined goals during their development (Petko, 2014).
THE IMPORTANCE OF DIGITAL SKILLS IN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
The digital economy develops through an increase in investment towards broadband internet infrastruc-
ture. New products can be developed through the opportunities provided by the digital economy, the
232

innovation competences of companies increase, and with an increase in efficiency digital services can
achieve higher quality. In the digital era, in which an intense and rapid process of change emerged and
spread throughout the world, digital technologies also tend to constantly develop. The development of
individuals’ innovation, creative thinking, and entrepreneurship skills are critical in creating added value
in economic activities in the digital age (OECD, 2013).
The economic function of education is fundamental to human progress. Due to this significance, coun-
tries around the world are taking into consideration the individuals that are to be trained by educational
institutions when determining policies to inject some dynamism into their economic systems. This is
due to the fact that well-qualified labor has become the most important variable today. Formal and mass
education have important roles and goals in the economy. In this period of change and uncertainty, the
transformation of the labor market has made it mandatory that education systems prepare students for
the jobs of the future. The destructive effect created by newly developing technologies are constantly
antiquating skills of traditional occupations, transforming the state of being equipped with new skills
into an adaptation to change reflex for individuals (Robinson & Aronica, 2015).
In their 2012 “World Development Report” on the theme of gender equality and development, the
World Bank ranked countries by trade zones and per capita income. This classification placed countries
with less than 1005 dollars of per capita income in low-income economies, countries between 1006-
12,275 dollars of per capita income in medium income economies, and countries with over 12,276 dollars
of per capita income in high income economies (World Bank, 2012, pp. 389-390). This classification
has ensured the reevaluation of the concept of the middle income trap that requires a new approach to
the growth and development paradigm in the knowledge economy. In general terms, the middle income
trap refers to the situation where after reaching a certain per capita income, a country’s economy fails
to progress any further. In other words, the middle income trap reflects the stagnation of the income
levels of their economy. In the economies of countries that have fallen into this trap, the current labor
market cannot develop much, savings and therefore investments cannot reach the desired levels, and the
specialization of the industrial sector along with the diversity of this sector cannot reach desired levels
(Eğilmez, 2012).
From a historical perspective, the initial stages of countries’ economic growth tend to be quicker.
That being said, as they approach the medium income level determined by the World Bank classifica-
tion, this growth may decelerate. The reduction of accumulated capital also plays a role in this process in
addition to a reduction of efficiency and nation-wide productivity. For unhindered advancement towards
their set goals in the future, countries must escape the middle income trap they fall prey to. This difficult
process which entails structural reforms requires a nation-wide increase in productivity and efficiency.
This, in turn, is possible through the development of educational institutions and investment in human
capital (Gürlesel, 2014).
To escape the middle income trap, countries must restructure their educational institutions in ac-
cordance with the current paradigm of the knowledge economy. This is due to the fact that the natural
resources of countries are insufficient to compete in the knowledge economy. The foundation of the new
economic paradigm lies in individuals raised in accordance with the requirements of the era, endowed
with the potential to adapt to change, and equipped with high-level skills. Innovation reflects another
unique reality that props up countries in the fierce competition of the knowledge economy. Supported
by the development of students’ creative thinking skills and imaginations, innovation has the potential
to increase countries’ per capita income through the production of products with high added value. In
this regard, educational and economic institutions must correctly analyze the new knowledge economy
233

paradigm and initiate new policies to raise a dynamic young population who can create high added
value (Şirin, 2016).
The establishment of research and innovation centers and training entrepreneurs that correctly in-
terpret the global knowledge economy are strategically important in countries’ creating brands based
on innovation in the future. To be able to produce high value added outputs, flexible and innovative
thought processes, and the ability to practically apply new knowledge based on product development
and technology to meet human needs in real life are required. In this regard, universities have started to
focus on the production of high added value and commercialized marketable knowledge in addition to
their research and instruction activities. Therefore, the collaborations between universities and industrial
institutions have accelerated, and the technology transfer efforts of universities have gained strategic
importance in national development (Geuna & Rossi, 2017).
Digital technologies that penetrate every aspect of daily life have an increasingly destructive influence
on societies by resulting in constantly accelerating rate of change. During the transition stage of the busi-
ness world and economic system to the digital age, due to the structuring of most education systems in
accordance with the social dynamics of the industrial society, educational institutions must also rapidly
complete their adaptation to the new era in which learning is based on digital technologies (Bates, 2019).
In the current digital age, where artificial intelligence applications are intensely used in all aspects of
work, if occupational skills are not updated then smart machines and devices may execute current jobs
much faster and better without human intervention. This creates a situation that has frequently had dire
consequences in the labor market throughout history. Certain occupations are becoming obsolete due
to developing technologies. Thus, the only way to keep up with the digital age is to be equipped with
the skills required by the digital age. In an era where development efforts are concentrated in life-long
learning, countries which restructure their education systems to have a competitive understanding in the
global economy and graduate their students with the skills required by the digital age to prepare them
for life are the ones that will succeed (De Franceschi, 2018).
As an educational stage where individuals acquire the basic skills of the occupations they wish to
conduct in the future, higher education plays a key role in the economics of education. As with other
institutions, the pandemic has caused universities to suspend educational and instructional activities for
a period. In this regard, the instructional activities performed by using learning management systems
must be studied from a perspective of the economies of higher education institutions. Investments made
in learning management systems and preparation of course content may lead to a significant difference
in the costs borne by higher education institutions providing educational services during the pandemic.
Therefore, executing educational investments suitable to the nature of distance education to increase
the quality of the service provided by higher education institutions is highly important in the efforts to
ensure individuals are equipped with digital skills (Alawamleh, 2020).
Van Laar et al. (2017, pp. 582-583) placed 21st century digital skills under two categories. The first
consists of core skills. Within this category lies information management, communication, collabora-
tion, creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, and technical skills. The second category consists
of contextual skills. The skills in this category are ethical awareness, cultural awareness, flexibility,
self-direction, and life-long learning. In the future occupations report of the World Economic Forum, a
future analysis conducted for employment markets summarized the higher-level skills expected to rise
to the forefront by 2025 as follows (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020a, p. 36):
234

• Analytic thinking and innovation

• Active learning and learning strategies
• Complex problem-solving
• Critical thinking and analysis
• Creativity, originality and initiative
• Emotional intelligence
• Leadership and social infuence
• Reasoning, problem-solving and ideation
• Persuasion and negotiation
• Technology use, monitoring and control
• Technology design and programming
• Resilience, stress tolerance and fexibility
• Troubleshooting and user experience
• Service orientation
• System analysis and evaluation
In addition to the apparent setbacks reflected in the current economy caused by the uncertainty cre-
ated worldwide by the COVID-19 pandemic, the ICT sector has managed to transform this crisis towards
positive outcomes through its own dynamics. This sector, established on the philosophy of utilizing digital
technologies dynamically and fit to purpose, provided important contributions for the development of
the digital infrastructures of government organizations, the health sector, and educational institutions
throughout the pandemic. In addition, many companies in the ICT sector provided tablet donations,
broadband packets and synchronous videoconferencing platforms as services to students to alleviate digital
inequalities and ensure effective distance education services, which reflects the importance of public
and private sector collaborations during crises. The negative impact of the pandemic has re-emphasized
the importance of employment in the field of ICT. The most basic strategy to raise individuals trained
in this field is to foster students’ digital skills before they graduate from higher education institutions
(European Commission, 2020).
Diverging from the traditional educational paradigm, the educational paradigm of the 21st century
centers on the constant dynamic of skills required by the era rather than the accumulation and storage
of information. After graduating from educational institutions, depending on the force and effect of the
speed of change, individuals have been mandated to develop their current skills. This situation requires
the implementation of educational policies that ensure the constant continuation of vocational develop-
ment after graduation to compete in the labor market. A significant driver of this is the global labor
market transformation. The new digital economy is driven by the fact that the fast flow of information,
constant information acquisition, digitally interconnected country economies, and well-qualified human
capital and labor are in constant demand. This in turn increases the urgency of focusing more on the
digital skills required by the digital economy (Castells, 2010).

Digital skills are the dynamic aspect that ensure the development of the digital economy. Therefore, the
need for digital skills is increasing every day, driven by the rapid transformation of ICTs. The changing
direction of the labor market, the method in which current work is done, and the need to use digital skills
in real life require that younger generations put greater effort into acquiring digital skills. The develop-
ment of e-commerce, the diversification of customer expectations, the requirement of preparing web
sites that correctly analyze change trends in the market, the increasing importance of cloud computing
235

and big data for institutions, the need for the appropriate use of social media and the Internet, and the
need to access current and correct information in real life are all examples of the practical applications
of digital skills that must be further developed (OECD, 2016).
The occasional setbacks and challenges faced in social life requires the youth trained by education
systems to be better qualified. This is due to the rising need for youths who can swiftly adapt to rapidly
changing circumstances. In the changing new paradigm of economic growth and development, these
circumstances refer to the processes to which new generations may contribute dynamism. This dynamism
was referred to earlier as digital skills and competences. As such, the economic development process in
the knowledge society is only possible through the efforts of individuals equipped with the skills and
competences required by the knowledge economy (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009).
The 2020 Horizon Report has determined that alternative and new approaches in education, the change
in student numbers in higher education, the economics and costs of higher education, the jobs and skills
of the future, and the development of online education processes are the new subjects that stand out in
the fields of education and economics. The prediction that the number of adults who want to prioritize
their vocational development processes and individuals who wish to receive distance education will
increase has mandated that universities update the distance education programs they currently provide
and diversify the online programs they offer. These developments may be considered the precursors to
the establishment of a new learning ecosystem for future higher education systems. This new ecosystem
must also encompass an awareness of future occupations and an effective approach to prepare students
for newly developing work models. In anticipating a future where the interaction between the global
economy and newly developing fields of industry will carry even greater importance for higher educa-
tion institutions, these institutions must effectively make use of their current resources to maximize their
efforts in developing the skills of individuals (Brown et al., 2020, pp.5-6).
The fundamental shift in the dynamics of the labor market caused by the digital economy has raised
the expectations of all sectors in their hiring and employment processes regarding the skills of job ap-
plicants. The highly-sought actors of the labor market have become individuals who are open to constant
occupational development, can use digital tools effectively, and can contribute to innovative and fast
problem solving and knowledge production. This situation has had a dynamic field of influence on the
education systems of all countries regarding updating their human training policies and the ability to
invoke the current skills of youths in accordance with the needs of the era (Trilling & Fadel, 2009, p.25).
In the future occupations report prepared by the World Economic Forum, the following occupations
are expected to be in high demand in all fields (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020a, p. 30):
• Data analysts and scientists

• Artifcial intelligence and machine learning specialists
• Big data specialists
• Digital marketing and strategy specialists
• Process automation specialists

• Business development professionals
• Digital transformation specialists
• Information security analysts
• Software and applications developers
• Internet of things specialists
• Project managers
236

• Business services and administration managers

• Database and network professionals
• Robotics engineers
• Strategic advisors
• Management and organization analysts
• Fintech engineers
• Mechanics and machinery repairers
• Organizational development specialists
• Risk management specialists
Even a passing glance at these occupations reemphasize the digital skills people will need to have to
succeed at these jobs. How are people meant to consider these occupations, let alone acquire the skills
required to be employed in them in the current situation, where the jobs they already have are in constant
threat and they face the possibility of unemployment every day? The correct management of the pandemic
requires the creation of rationally structured crisis management strategies at all stages of the crisis. Social
distancing rules and the closure of businesses during the first stages of the crisis has changed the current
work structure. The management of economic processes has provided a new perspective on continuing
to work using internet technologies from home, especially for currently employed people. At this point,
the current digital skill capacities have been a difficult test, especially for countries unprepared for the
crisis. The influence of the dynamic nature of ICT on work life requires that future technologies which
may emerge are properly utilized. This is possible by establishing educational programs to endow students
with digital skills. The reality of digitalization is that the development of digital skills is mandatory for
the digital economy. The pandemic has once again proven this (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020b).
THE CHANGING ASPECTS OF THE ECONOMICS OF

EDUCATION DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Human capital theory, considered significant in the science of economics, studies the investments made
in education and training activities by individuals regarding their future lives. These investments are
strategically important not only for individuals, but also for the labor market. Productivity based on
employing qualified labor in labor markets emphasize the growth potential for national economies. The
commonality between human capital investments and physical capital investments is the revelation of
the effectiveness of short-term expenditures in the medium and long term (McCall, 2014, p. 391).
Traditionally, investment refers to all expenses made with the expectation of certain eventual income
or returns. In economics, the transformation of short-term consumption expenses into medium and long-
term investments is quite important. Change processes also transform the meaning assigned to the con-
cept of investment in economics. While investments in physical capital such as buildings and machines
were of importance in the past, today the concept of human capital has surpassed the value of physical
capital, and has become central to the investment policies of countries. In its essence, investment in hu-
man capital refers to focusing on education due to its potential to increase future income of individuals.
The most strategic aspect of human capital investments for countries is the externality these investments
create which benefits both individuals and societies (Woodhall, 1995, pp. 24-25).
237

Among the current production factors, capital carries strategic value for countries. An increase in
the amount of capital also allows a country to achieve its employment capacity and thereby increase
national income. In the process of economic growth, investment in human capital is just as strategi-
cally important as investment in physical capital. The increase of the production power of an economy
depends on increasing the investments being made. Investments in humans along with physical capital
investments allow countries to produce higher quality products and increase their competitive strength.
The field of economics of education, which emerges from the intense interaction between the institutions
of education and economy, in essence focuses on the current role of education in the process of social
development. Quality education provided to individuals also economically represents an investment in
mankind. With the analysis of the economic reflections of investments in education, economics of educa-
tion has emerged as a field of specialty. (Afşar, 2011; McCall, 2014). Economics of education studies the
social and economic determiners of education along with the economic outcomes that emerge. Within
the scope of the specialty field of economics of education, individual wages, current employment status,
and their influence on economic growth are analyzed (Toutkoushian, 2006).
The repercussions of the COVID 19 pandemic on the economy as a social institution must be stud-
ied within the context of the current structure of the knowledge economy. The knowledge economy has
fundamentally different dynamics from the economic structures of agricultural and industrial societies.
The knowledge economy is a complex and global structure in which all the economies of the world
are interconnected. Sudden and long-lasting uncertainties such as disasters and pandemics may deeply
impact this complex structure. The COVID 19 pandemic originating in China and spreading throughout
the world has directed the global knowledge economy into uncertainty-based new directions during the
pandemic period. This period has also caused great economic deceleration. Economies dependent on
goods and services from China have encountered a chain reaction crisis due to the dwindling supply of
raw materials. The uncertainty caused by being unable to determine when the pandemic will end deeply
impacts all social institutions, but it primarily influences the economy (McKibbin & Fernando, 2020;
Schwab & Malleret, 2020).
Four themes stand out from the acceptance of education as a strategic variable for all countries today.
One theme is the importance education has for individuals themselves. This theme may be summarized
by the reality that students must discover the limits of their own skills and must constantly develop
themselves and prioritize occupational advancement to succeed in their work lives. The second theme
is social reality. Society expects individuals to receive good education and perpetuate social continuity.
Injecting dynamism into social functioning is only possible in social reality through acquiring the best
possible education. The third variable that ensures the acceptance of education as a strategic variable
is culture. Through education, the cultures of societies may be passed on to future generations. The
final theme that accepts education as a strategic variable is economics. The process of change that has
emerged in the information age has mandated the digital transformation of the labor market and business
world. The increase of competition in the global market also increases the expectation from individuals
to constantly develop their skills if they are to take part in the economic system. These expectations also
entail that countries constantly increase the budget allocated to education (Robinson & Aronica, 2015).
From a systems approach perspective, the effects of the global pandemic have been felt in all of the
subsystems of social structure. Due to the unforeseeable risk of the pandemic period, country economies
shrunk, however due to their strategic importance public spending in the fields of health and education
services increased in the short term. The high demand for health and cleaning supplies for hygiene and
protection, along with the technological hardware, tools and equipment required to ensure the continuation
238

of distance education services have necessitated their prioritization when allocating financial resources
(Schleicher, 2020).
Around the world, as a result of suspending face-to-face instruction, current instructional activities
are being restructured into online classes with the use of various learning management systems. The
budgets previously allocated by countries for the additional required technology investments, however,
may prove insufficient. Therefore, there is a need for new financial sources to upgrade and develop the
technological infrastructure of schools to help them prepare web-based instruction and online course
design. Due to the prolonged uncertainty caused by the pandemic, the fact that formal education activities
will be on hiatus for an extended period of time will require a sustainable budget management approach
for all countries. In other words, for educational institutions to continue functioning, all countries will
need to create extra resources in their budgets for education (Al-Samarrai, Gangwar & Gala, 2020).
Another serious effect of COVID-19 on the economics of education is the possible income loss in the
future caused by the extended closure of schools around the world. Individuals who do not acquire skills
from schools – especially applied skills – may face high alternative costs in the future. Inter-country and
even intra-country differences in development results in students living in low socioeconomic districts
that lack the opportunity to compensate for learning losses outside of school through technological
facilities, thus leading to even greater income losses (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2020).
While attempts have been made to induce dynamism in educational and instructional processes dur-
ing the pandemic partially through distance education activities, the field of vocational and technical
education which is especially based in practice and application has been negatively impacted by school
closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Collaborations with industrial organizations in vocational
and technical education could not be achieved during the pandemic due to the shrinking economy and
closure of businesses, the increase in social distancing and hygiene rules, and the need to follow the
aforementioned rules. In the knowledge society, the driving force in rebuilding the economy is the indi-
viduals that learn in a way to meet the requirements of the era. The fact that these individuals will not
have developed their skills adequately due to their exclusion from the applied training processes is an
issue that may negatively impact the post-pandemic economies (Schleicher, 2020).
While this stems from the fact that young individuals hoping to enter the labor market in the future
will suffer lost income due to their lack of the necessary skills, there are also indirect costs to national
economies in the medium and long term. Whether it be the deceleration of the functioning of the eco-
nomic system or the limitations in the skills of individuals due to school closures during the pandemic,
the economic growth of countries are being negatively impacted. The possibility of an extended CO-
VID-19 pandemic may cause certain fundamental issues to emerge in education that will prevent it from
executing its economic function (Hanushek & Woessman, 2020).
The transition of educational services provided by higher education institutions to a global scale re-
quires it to be analyzed from a global higher education economy perspective, focusing on the supply and
demand of higher education services. The field of economics of higher education, as with other fields of
expertise, has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The difficulties in the continuation
of higher education for foreign students have caused economic and social losses for both the students
and the countries in which the higher education institutions are located. The setbacks that emerged due
to insufficient technological tools to access distance education services provided to students upon their
return to their countries has limited the education services provided as a whole to foreign students. For
countries who try to acquire foreign currency influx and to finance their higher education system through
239

the income obtained from foreign students, the precautions taken during the pandemic and the closure of
higher education institutions have caused a significant reduction in financial resources (Arnove, 2020).
The sudden realization the novel coronavirus that emerged in 2019 was not a passing seasonal version of
influenza, the rapid spread of the virus and the world-halting immediate consequences shifted research in
almost all fields to focus on this issue. The harsh awakening caused by the interconnectedness of nearly
everyone and every thing resulted in the awareness that humanity as a whole must take a deeper look at
how the world it has shaped functions. As such, studies in the field of education have bloomed with a
plethora of research in both the immediate and long term effects of the pandemic (Bozkurt & Sharma,
2020). Considering how the global influence of the pandemic revealed interconnected issues in the way
we live, a more interdisciplinary approach would be beneficial.
As this book chapter, in which the influence of the COVID 19 pandemic on the economics of educa-
tion from a digital skills in the knowledge economy context was discussed comes to a close, the following
recommendations may be made for future researchers and practitioners:
• A detailed technological infrastructure cost analysis of the construction and development of learn-
ing management systems used by higher education institutions by country during the pandemic
may be conducted.
• The infuence of the emergency education policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic
on school management processes may be comparatively analyzed based on countries.
• The socioeconomic impact of the closures of higher education institutions due to the COVID-19
pandemic on the cities those institutions are located may be analyzed.
• The number of interdisciplinary studies on the impact of the learning loss caused by school clo-
sures on the knowledge economy during the pandemic may be increased.
• The potential for administrators at all levels of educational institutions to exhibit leadership dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic may be comparatively studied across nations to provide insight for
future education policies.
• Research projects that utilize artifcial intelligence in each stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (di-
agnostics, treatment etc.) based on university-industry collaboration may be prioritized.
• The pandemic has caused us to question the postmodern era. In preparation for the age that follows
the postmodern era, transformation strategies for all institutions of society may be established by
the leadership of educational institutions of all countries.
• The paradigm shift in traditional occupations caused by the pandemic may be analyzed from the
perspective of future vocations, and projections may be made regarding the changing aspects of
the future labor market.

• The development of a virtual higher education model strategy for the efective management of the
pandemic may be ensured through the participation of representatives from all universities in any
given country.
• The preference of distance education practices and their use may be ensured by the development
or support of locally developed learning management systems and synchronous live classroom
applications.
240

• The economics of education and economics of distance education courses in graduate education
programs may be restructured regarding the changes in the knowledge economy, and course con-
tent may be updated to refect practical applications.
• Economics of education, which represents an important feld of expertise in educational sciences,
may be studied within the context of subcategories of expertise and specialization regarding new
paradigm shifts in the feld of educational science and theory. As such, a scientifc platform to
unite scientists, researchers and academics in the felds of economics and education, economics
of distance education and knowledge economy from various institutions around the world needs
to be established. This would allow countries to take advantage of the expertise of these people
during crisis management processes such as the pandemic period, where the need for urgent action
plans arise.
• The production potentials of vocational and technical education institutions during the pandemic
may be analyzed to prevent the spread of future pandemics, and to develop the necessary edu-
cational policies to train individuals who will produce value added products. Feasibility studies
regarding the implementation of industry 4.0 paradigms in all vocational and technical education
institutions may be conducted. The strengths and weaknesses of these schools may be determined,
and artifcial intelligence centers sponsored by industry collaborations may be established.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
An analysis of certain fundamental studies within the scope of economics of education during the
COVID-19 pandemic reveals important topics being researched by these studies. These topics may be
categorized as; costs of school and workplace closures (Suwantika, et al., 2020), digital divide (Ramsetty
& Adams, 2020), education budgets and public private partnerships (Mitra, 2020), educational financing
(Al-Samarrai, Gangwar & Gala, 2020), effects of economic conditions on education during the pandemic
process (Schleicher, 2020), higher education economics (Alawamleh, 2020; Ross, 2020), reflections of
learning losses on the economic system (Burgess, 2020; Hanushek & Woessmann, 2020), the labour
market policy (Fujita, Moscarini & Postel-Vinay, 2020), and the unemployment cost of COVID-19 (Şahin,
Tasci & Yan, 2020). A review of the literature did not reveal any studies focusing on the influence of the
Covid-19 pandemic on the field of economics of education. Therefore, the need for this book chapter
as a conceptual evaluation of the influence of the Covid-19 pandemic on economics of education based
on digital skills arose.
As with other pandemics, the damage ultimately caused by the COVID 19 pandemic may not be
quantified and analyzed precisely. However, within the current crisis management process, the repercus-
sions of the COVID 19 pandemic in educational institutions must be acutely analyzed in all regards. The
negative aspects of these repercussions must be studied and urgent solutions must be proposed, and this
difficult time may be transformed into an opportunity by re-determining the duties and responsibilities
of schools as social systems. Face-to-face education has been on hiatus for an extended period of time
as schools have remained closed around the world due to the pandemic. During this period, all countries
have attempted to restructure their educational and instructional processes thanks to digital environments
by taking advantage of technological solutions. In the knowledge society where the paths to access new
and current information is diversifying, the accelerated implementation of digital transformation poli-
241

cies due to the pandemic may be considered a positive development and opportunity for developing the
adaptation to change reflexes of educational institutions (Zhao, 2020).
In the worldwide COVID 19 pandemic, people first utilized the problem solving methods they used in
accordance with the results they historically yielded. However, due to the multifaceted and global scale
of the current issue, reducing the effects of the pandemic require new perspectives. When approached
from an economic system perspective, the new work systematics that emerged from increased social
distancing and business closures, the reduction in consumption processes and demand, and the uncer-
tainty created by the long duration of precautions have influenced the economic behaviors of people. The
current interaction between social institutions spreads these negative aspects to all social institutions in
general. Therefore, the implementation of crisis management based on effective leadership represents
the most rational approach to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic (Baltacı, 2020).
Facing the extension of the pandemic period, countries must revise their previously prepared economy
and education plans. As a result of the decline in the socioeconomic circumstances of the families of
students in risk groups during the pandemic, the increase in school dropout rates, the reduced demand
for vocational and technical education resulting from setbacks in the labor market and economic system,
the reduced mobility of employees and student exchanges due to travel restrictions, and all other chal-
lenges caused by the pandemic call for a detailed analysis of all possible issues regarding educational
economy during the pandemic (Lewin, 2020).
Within the scope of precautions taken during the pandemic, policies to reduce opportunity inequali-
ties around the world must be developed. Students deprived of education from schools as a social system
face challenges such as insufficient internet infrastructure, lack of computers and other technological
facilities, and living conditions which aren’t conducive to studying and keeping track of online classes,
all of which require the rapid implementation of social and economic policies to achieve social develop-
ment goals (Arnove, 2020).
Developing countries hoping to overcome the middle income trap have been forced to revise their
education and economy policies they implemented due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, considering
the fact that not all countries are at the same level of development, the unforeseeable chaos that emerges
may work against the developing countries. The COVID-19 pandemic appears to be an extremely chal-
lenging emergency, based on past experience. At this point, it is apparent that the time has come for a
new paradigm to be developed for all countries.
The speed of change and the influence of the uncertainty it creates is represented by an irrefutable
reality in the knowledge society. The totality of social institutions must further develop their defense
mechanisms against the unforeseeable change tendencies of the future. One of the most significant of
these mechanisms are digital skills. Endowing individuals with these skills along with their cultures and
philosophies may greatly increase the social benefit created in educational experiences. The fact that
digital skills are some of the most lacking skills in need of development during the COVID-19 pandemic
has once again been emphasized. As such, underdeveloped countries must quickly and effectively revise
their strategic plans and educational policies they had previously prepared for emergencies. We must
keep in mind that all previous challenges were overcome by individuals schooled according to the edu-
cational paradigm required by their era. The subject of digital skills which reflects one of the dynamic
aspects developing in economics of education has reestablished its strategic importance in the struggle
against the COVID-19 pandemic. The destructive influence of new technologies has also enabled the
emergence of creative ideas in the labor market and the employability of individuals with these ideas in
242

the digital age. The setbacks caused by the closure of schools during this period must be overcome as
soon as possible through alternative approaches.
During the pandemic, almost all countries briefly resumed activities at educational institutions of all
levels, then shut down again. The provision of distance education during this shutdown has increased
educational costs. The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economics of distance education
may be summarized as follows:
An emerging trend as a result of the scramble to continue educational processes has been providing
education services through television, which may be considered an alternative solution to reduce op-
portunity inequalities. The costs required by this situation must be analyzed in detail. The first of these
costs are the TV broadcasting costs. If educational services are to be provided to the masses through
television, depending on the country, the need arises for appropriate and sufficient quantities of televi-
sion channels. For these channels to present their educational broadcasts effectively, broadcast studios
must be built, and the necessary technological infrastructure needs to be implemented to provide these
broadcasts through the internet, terrestrial, cable, and satellite broadcasts. The procurement and assem-
bly of the equipment required for these studios to create broadcast programs along with the operational
costs of the studios, the employment and fees/wages of experts to run the studio, the cost of power, and
all similar broadcast expenses must be calculated precisely during the pandemic.
Another potential cost that may emerge when providing students educational services during the
pandemic are the costs associated with preparing TV programs. TV program shoots may be conducted
in studios or various other environments. Within this expense lies scriptwriting, screenwriting, royalties
and copy rights, instructional design to make course material presentable on television, and possible costs
related to outsourcing for course materials if necessary. Some of the costs associated with the preparation
of TV programs are also involved in online course materials. Scriptwriting and screenwriting, royalties
and copy rights, instructional design to adapt course material for online presentation are all items that
must be considered. If educational policymakers, authorities, and institutions intend to procure services
or outsource the task of online course materials, the fees associated with this sector must also be taken
into account. Beyond these costs, the user expenses to be borne by the students who demand educational
services during the pandemic must also be considered. Students receiving education will have to use a
receiver of some sort, along with associated elements such as a satellite dish. Therefore, each viewer
will need hardware such as the satellite dish to be installed. If viewers already have cable TV or digital
platforms in their homes, they may be able to receive the broadcasts through them. However, the mem-
bership subscription fees of these platforms are another cost to consider. TV broadcasts may be viewed
online without subscription fees. The national Internet infrastructures of most countries will need to be
prepared for overloads and service interruptions due to these overloads, while the costs of the precau-
tions against these setbacks may increase end user costs.
The expenses regarding conducting classes through learning management systems must also be
mentioned at this time. Learning Management Systems (LMSs) usually allow for a duration of use in
exchange for a license fee. Once the license expires, the renewal will require repayment. Preparing an
LMS is extremely time consuming and costly, and developing one under pandemic conditions may not
be feasible, timely, or even possible. Simply having an LMS suitable for distance education is not suf-
ficient either. For courses to be conducted interactively, video conference systems are required. These
systems also require license fees to be used. Video conference systems are usually integrated into the
LMSs. This provides a degree of ease of use to the user by gathering the learning management system and
video conference system under a single platform. Another significant expense regarding online courses
243

is recording the courses conducted using video conference systems, as the storage of these recordings
may be quite costly. These recordings may be stored in the cloud or on the servers of the educational
institution. Either approach incurs cost. In summary, when designing an online system, all possible
expenses must be considered in detail during the pandemic.
The pandemic period is likely to continue until the vaccination of the majority of the population is
completed. As such, educational institutions around the world must take new precautions which will reveal
new costs to be incurred. Due to the troublesome period expected following the pandemic, educational
institutions need to expand their physical footprints. This requires the construction of new classrooms to
accommodate the optimum number of students, or rearranging the seating in current classrooms to reduce
student capacity. Such an expansion would increase both construction, and operational costs of buildings.
In the case of schools unable to expand their buildings, alternating use of the same classrooms at dif-
ferent times will take place. To ensure a healthy classroom environment in this use case, the classrooms
must be ventilated, cleaned, and sterilized, all of which require additional expenses. When the student
capacity of laboratories used in practical or applied courses at schools is reduced, either the number of
laboratories will need to be increased or the current laboratories will be used in turns around the clock.
This would cause the emergence of further expenses regarding consumables and additional staff.
The most significant loss of higher education institutions during the pandemic has been the inability
to conduct practical lessons face-to-face. Students have been mostly unable to work in applied areas
such as laboratories and clinics. This situation may cause students to insufficiently acquire the skills
required of them from a practical perspective. This, in turn, may negatively impact their potential future
income and ability to compete in the labor market. During the pandemic, private universities have lost
a significant number of students. Certain countries highly focused on teaching have seen their income
from foreign students reduced to a trickle due to health concerns.
Generally, the pandemic period has shown that the economics of education as a field is distinct in that
it influences social structure, and yet is also influenced itself by social structures such as the economy and
national resources. This is due to the fact that the foundation of progress on a national and even global
level lies in the education of knowledgeable, qualified, adaptable individuals with the skills required to
trigger progress. When this education is abruptly put on hiatus under unforeseen circumstances such as
pandemics, hard times are precisely when these individuals and resources are required to meet needs
and thereby adapt to the situation and keep the cogs turning as opposed to stumbling through the crisis
and failing to adapt. This societal cycle, which the field of economics of education focuses on, relies on
new studies and ideas to keep the cycle going.
REFERENCES
Afşar, M. (2011). Eğitimin ekonomik temelleri ve ekonomik büyüme [Economic fundamentals of educa-
tion and economic growth]. Anadolu Üniversitesi Basımevi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Al-Samarrai, S., Gangwar, M., & Gala, P. (2020). The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on education financ-
ing. World Bank Group Education. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/479041589318526060/
pdf/The-Impact-of-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-on-Education-Financing.pdf
244

Alawamleh, M. (2020). COVID-19 and higher education economics. Journal of Economics and Economic
Education Research, 21(2), 1–2. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/covid-19-and-higher-education-
economics-1533-3604-21-2-e001.pdf
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learn-
ers in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. https://www.
oecd-ilibrary.org/education/21st-century-skills-and-competences-for-new-millennium-learners-in-oecd-
countries_218525261154
Arnove, R. F. (2020). Imagining what education can be post-COVID-19. Prospects, 49(1-2), 43–46.
doi:10.100711125-020-09474-1 PMID:32836419
Baltacı, A. (2020). Kriz dönemlerinde yönetim ve liderlik [Management and leadership in times of crisis].
In E. Okumuş (Ed.), Küresel salgınlara farklı bakışlar. Psikolojk, sosyolojik, dini, kültürel, tarihi, hukuki
ve siyasi analizler [Different perspectives on global epidemics. Psychological, sociological, religious,
cultural, historical, legal and political analyzes] (pp. 529–560). Eski Yeni Yayınları.
Bates, A. W. T. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for teaching and learning (2nd ed.). https://
opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage
index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/517/331
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observa-
Education, 15(2), i–x. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4362664
Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., & Eide, E. R. (2010). Theoretical concepts in the economics of educa-
tion. In D. J. Brewer & P. J. McEwan (Eds.), Economics of education (pp. 3–8). Elsevier.
Brown, M., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Brooks, C., Grajek, S., Alexander, B., Bali, M., Bulger, S. R.,
Dark, S., Engelbert, N., Gauthier, A., Gibson, D. C., Gibson, R., Lundin, B., Veletsianos, G., & Weber,
N. (2020). 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report. Teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE. https://
library.educause.edu/resources/2020/3/2020-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition
Burgess, S. (2020, June 16). How we should deal with the lockdown learning loss in England’s schools.
VoxEU & CEPR. https://voxeu.org/article/how-we-should-deal-lockdown-learning-loss-england-s-schools
Castells, M. (2010). The information age. Economy, society, and culture. End of Millennium (2nd ed.,
vol. 3). Wiley & Blackwell.
Daniel, J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1-2), 91–96. doi:10.100711125-
020-09464-3 PMID:32313309
De Franceschi, C. (2018). Italy. Prioritising human capital. In M. Neufeind, J. O’Reilly, & F. Ranft
(Eds.), Work in the digital age. Challenges of the fourth industrial revolution (pp. 471-482). Rowman
& Littlefield International.
245

Eğilmez, M. (2012, December 16). Orta gelir tuzağı ve Türkiye [Middle-income trap and Turkey]. https://
www.mahfiegilmez.com/2012/12/orta-gelir-tuzag-ve-turkiye.html
European Commission. (2020). Digital education action plan 2021-2027. Resetting education and train-
ing fort he digital age. Brussels: Comission staff working document. https://ec.europa.eu/education/
education-in-the-eu/digital-education-action-plan_en
Fujita, S., Moscarini, G., & Postel-Vinay, F. (2020, March 30). The labour market policy response to
COVID-19 must save aggregate matching capital. VoxEU & CEPR. https://voxeu.org/article/labour-
market-policy-response-covid-19-must-save-aggregate-matching-capital
Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2017). The university and the economy. Pathways to growth and economic de-
velopment. Edwar Elgar Publishing.
Gürlesel, C. F. (2014). Kalkınmada yeni paradigma bütünsel kalkınma yaklaşımı [New paradigm in
development holistic development approach]. In M. Dinçer (Ed.), Yeni paradigma [New paradigm] (pp.
269–283). Optimist.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessman, L. (2020). The economic impacts of learning losses. Education Working
Papers, No. 225. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/education/the-economic-impacts-of-learning-
losses-21908d74-en.htm
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/
Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2011). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills. In G. Wan &
D. M. Gut (Eds.), Bringing schools into the 21st century (pp. 41–65). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-
007-0268-4_3
Lewin, K. M. (2020). Contingent refections on coronavirus and priorities for educational planning and
development. Prospects, 49(1-2), 17–24. doi:10.100711125-020-09480-3 PMID:32836423
McCall, B. P. (2014). Human capital. In D. J. Brewer & L. O. Picus (Eds.), Encyclopedia of education
economics & finance (Vol. 1, pp. 391-393). Sage Publications.
McKibbin, W., & Fernando, R. (2020). The economic impact of covid-19. In R. Baldwin & B. W. Di
Mauro (Eds.), Economics in the time of covid- 19 (pp. 45–51). CEPR Press.
Mitra, R. (2020). COVID-19 is killing education budgets: Are educational public-private partnerships
an answer? Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 255–264. doi:10.1108/JPCC-07-
2020-0056
OECD. (2013). Supporting investment in knowledge capital, growth and innovation. OECD Publish-
ing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/supporting-investment-in-knowledge-capital-
growth-and-innovation_9789264193307-en
OECD. (2016). New skills for the digital economy. Measuring the demand and supply of ICT skills at
work. 2016 Ministerial meeting on the digital economy technical report. OECD Publishing. https://
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/new-skills-for-the-digital-economy_5jlwnkm2fc9x-en
246

Okumuş, E. (2020). Afetleri çok yönlü okumanın önemi [The importance of reading disasters from mul-
tiple perspectives]. In E. Okumuş (Ed.), Küresel salgınlara farklı bakışlar. Psikolojk, sosyolojik, dini,
kültürel, tarihi, hukuki ve siyasi analizler [Different perspectives on global epidemics. Psychological,
sociological, religious, cultural, historical, legal and political analyzes] (pp. 13–50). Eski Yeni Yayınları.
Petko, M. C. (2014). Economic development and education. In D.J. Brewer, & L. O. Picus (Eds.), En-
cyclopedia of education economics & finance (Vol. 1, pp. 245-248). Sage Publications.
Ramsetty, A., & Adams, C. (2020). Impact of the digital divide in the age of COVID-19. Journal of
the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 27(7), 1147–1148. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa078
PMID:32343813
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought. How the Covid-19
pandemic is changing education. OECD & Global Education Innovation Initiative. https://read.oecd-
ilibrary.org/view/?ref=133_133390-1rtuknc0hi&title=Schooling-disrupted-schooling-rethought-How-
the-Covid-19-pandemic-is-changing-education
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools. The grassroots revolution that’s transforming
education. Viking Penguin.
Ross, J. (2020). Economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic for higher education: A circuit
breaker in Australian universities’ business model? Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7),
1351–1356. doi:10.1080/07294360.2020.1825350
Şahin, A., Tasci, M., & Yan, J. (2020). The Unemployment Cost of COVID-19: How High and How
Long? Technical Report. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. doi:10.26509/frbc-ec-202009
Schleicher, A. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on education. Insights from education at a glance 2020.
OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-
glance-2020.pdf
Schwab, K., & Malleret, T. (2020). Covid 19: The great reset. World Economic Forum. Forum Publishing.
Schwab, K., & Zahidi, S. (2020a). The future of jobs report 2020. World Economic Forum. https://www.
weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020
Schwab, K., & Zahidi, S. (2020b). Global competitiveness report special edition 2020: How countries
are performing on the road to recovery. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/reports/
the-global-competitiveness-report-2020
Şirin, S. R. (2016). Yol ayrımındaki Türkiye. Ya özgürlük ya sefalet [Turkey at the crossroads. Either
freedom or misery] (11th ed.). Doğan Kitap.
Suwantika, A. A., Zakiyah, N., Diantini, A., Abdulah, R., & Postma, M. J. (2020). The role of admin-
istrative and secondary data in estimating the costs and effects of school and workplace closures due to
the covid-19 pandemic. Data, 5(4), 98. doi:10.3390/data5040098
Tapscott, D. (2015). The digital economy: Rethinking promise and peril in the age of networked intel-
ligence. 20th anniversary edition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
247

Toutkoushian, R. K. (2006). Economics, theories of. In F. W. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational

leadership and administration (Vol. 1, pp. 315-318). Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412939584.n188
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between
21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72,
577–588. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s. Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Crown House
Publishing.
Wilson, A. (2010). Knowledge power: Interdisciplinary education for a complex world. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203858035
Woodhall, M. (1995). Human capital concepts. In M. Carnoy (Ed.), International encyclopedia of eco-
nomics of education (2nd ed., pp. 24–28). Pergamon Press.
World Bank. (2012). World development report 2012. Gender equality & development. The World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/4391
Zhao, Y. (2020). COVID-19 as a catalyst for educational change. Prospects, 49(1-2), 29–33.
doi:10.100711125-020-09477-y PMID:32836421
ADDITIONAL READING
Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open. How web technology is revolutionizing education. Jossey-Bass.
Gallardo-Echenique, E. E., Marqués-Molías, L., Bullen, M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2015). Let’s talk about
digital learners in the digital era. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learn-
ing, 16(3), 156–187. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2196
Hobikoğlu, E. H. (2019). The economics of creativity (G. Sart, Ed.). Aba Yayınevi.
Li, F. (2017). The economics of distance education. In G. Johnes, J. Johnes, T. Agasisti & L.L.-Torres
(Eds.), Handbook of contemporary education economics (pp. 381-397). Edward Elgar Publishing.
doi:10.4337/9781785369070.00022
Li, F. (2018). The expansion of higher education and the returns of distance education in China. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 242–256. doi:10.19173/
irrodl.v19i4.2881
Li, F., & Chen, X. (2012). Economies of scope in distance education: The case of Chinese research
universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 117–131.
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1151
Lupton, D. (2015). Digital sociology. Routledge.
248

Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2018). The economics of distance education: Boxing match or productive
dialogue? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(1), 14-23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
full/10.1080/00091383.2018.1413900
Ribble, M., & Bailey, G. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools. International Society for Technology in
Education.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. McGraw-Hill.
Budget Management in Digital Schools: Schools in the future must be approached as a digital reality
rather than physical structures. Establishing the expense items of digital schools during a teaching year,
calculating technology costs, and determining the effectiveness of the educational service provided will
all make the budget management process of digital schools a popular approach in the future.
Cost Management in Educational Institutions During Crises: Educational institutions must use
certain fundamental resources that incur cost and the possible emergence of unforeseen quantifiable and
unquantifiable cost parameters must be rationally managed in crisis situations.
Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions: Digital transformation, in essence,
begins with endowing students with the culture of technology in higher education institutions in hopes
of raising individuals who understand the post-modern era and knowledge economy.
Economics of Higher Education in the Digital Age: The increasing importance of added value
through things like patents, innovation, and research and development activities in economic competition
for countries has mandated greater expense on education per student by higher education institutions and
an increase in the quality of educational services. The future will be shaped by the paradigm of added
value in the digital age being created in the higher education economy by both public and foundation
universities.
Knowledge-Based Economic Competition: The competitive process influencing all economies on
a global scale is based on the philosophy of creating new knowledge. Investments in education institu-
tions and the increase in quality of educational systems represents an especially important parameter of
knowledge-based competition in the global economy (Wilson, 2010).
Management of the Digital Transformation in Educational Institutions: The management of the
digital transformation process in educational institutions, which places technology culture at its core,
represents the need to prepare students for real life through the rational use of available resources.
Understanding and Interpreting the Digital Economy: Understanding and interpreting the digital
economy, where the economic system on a global scale is built on new developing technologies, is defini-
tive for countries’ reflexive ability to train individuals who produce digital technologies, internalize them,
create added value, and stand out in the fierce competition that has emerged in the changing labor market.
249
250
Chapter 13
An Analysis of Fully
Synchronous Pandemic
Secondary Education
Mark Patrick Ryan
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7332-7202
National University, USA
ABSTRACT
Twenty-one grades 6-12 students were interviewed to learn about their experiences participating in a
fully synchronous virtual learning environment at a public charter school in California, USA. Students
take seven 50-minute classes four days a week and seven 30-minute classes the ffth weekday using the
Zoom platform and Google Classroom. One-third of participants were students with disabilities, one-third
English language learners, and one-third possessed neither designation. This study identifes several
themes regarding the benefts and drawbacks of an entirely synchronous learning experience for second-
ary students. The participants make recommendations for their general education, special education,
and English language development teachers, including strategies to engage secondary students more
efectively, assessment suggestions, curriculum design ideas, advice about organizing Google Classrooms
in ways that are supportive of student needs, and exhortations about what teachers should not do when
planning and implementing synchronous online learning.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to explore student perceptions and recommendations for teachers after
their participation in twelve weeks of fully synchronous online learning using Virtual Interactive Real-
time Instructor-led (VIRI) Classroom Technology because of the global COVID-19 pandemic that
forced closure of schools worldwide and cancellation of Face to Face (F2F) classes. This “emergency
remote teaching” (ERT) was defined by Hodges et al (2020) and differentiated from online learning
because of the exigent circumstances demanding the shirt to ERT. While the entire Los Angeles Unified
School District transitioned to using the Schoology™ learning management system (LMS) platform
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch013

An Analysis of Fully Synchronous Pandemic Secondary Education
and required middle and high school students to check in once per week for an hour or less with their
teachers, the charter school that participated in this study chose to require 100% of its grades 6-12 stu-
dents to participate in a fully synchronous learning experience using the Google Classroom™ LMS.
The leadership of that school, after consultation with parents, students, and staff, made the decision that
fully synchronous learning would almost assuredly result in the least learning loss – a concern which has
been in the forefront of policy decisions, local, state, and federal budget allocations, and on the hearts
and minds of parents and educators who fear that an entire generation of young people worldwide will
have experienced learning loss from which they cannot recover.
Each student was issued a Chromebook device with portable hotspot for internet access and provided
various opportunities to learn how to use the Zoom™ videoconferencing platform. Various school created
instructional videos on how to use Zoom™. Written instructions were emailed to students and parents,
posted to the school’s website and social media sites, and printed copies made available for students
when the Chromebooks and hotspots were issued. Students who did not attend one or more classes were
telephoned and given technology support over the phone by either a student or staff technology helper to
successfully login to their synchronous classes. As necessary, Facetime™ and Skype™ were used with
students for whom the verbal instructions were inadequate. Of the school’s approximately 750 enrolled
students about 40 were unable to be reached by school staff telephonically. The school then sent staff
to the homes of those students to provide socially distanced in-person technology support to help those
students access their synchronous learning classes. Those in-home ‘tech support’ sessions included any
necessary trade out of inoperative technology equipment and in-person instruction in the proper way
to access their classes. One hundred percent of the school’s students had a Chromebook and hotspot
and were successfully able to access synchronous learning by the end of the second week of pandemic-
forced online instruction, and the school boasted a 96.4% daily attendance rate at classes from the period
beginning March 19, 2020 (the third day of pandemic virtual instruction) through the end of May 2020.
The charter school participating in this study had already used Chromebooks in classrooms when
students were on campus, but their use was sporadic at best. The school required all 42 of its creden-
tialed teachers to use the Google Classroom™ platform because, over the course of the previous eight
months, the school had conducted more than 35 hours of professional development on the Google Suite
for Education™ and supported all teachers in transitioning to that platform for most assignment distribu-
tion and collection. There were some teachers who used the Chromebooks daily, most used them about
twice a week, and several teachers used them about once a week. Once the pandemic hit, the school
held professional development sessions to teach teachers how to use the Zoom platform for synchronous
teaching and learn some best practices for synchronous learning prior to ‘being thrown into the deep end
of the pool’ and having to teach synchronously full time. It is worth noting that about one-third of the
school’s teachers had successfully participated in a three-semester unit university professional develop-
ment extension course on the topic of online teaching during the summer of 2020.
The school provided various professional learning community (PLC) sessions between March and
December of 2020 for the purpose of discussing what was and was not working in distance learning and
how to improve synchronous teaching techniques. Included in those professional learning community
meetings were opportunities for subject area and grade level groups of teachers to explore available
technology tools that would best support student engagement, mastery of content standards, formative
and summative assessment, and lesson planning and delivery. Between March and May, teacher PLCs
identified several tools for the school to purchase. After much discourse, and based on the requests of
teachers, the school purchased schoolwide licenses of the following technology-based tools:
251

• Flowcabulary™ – “a library of songs, videos and activities for K-12 online learning”... “using hip
hop and rap songs to engage students” to learn all academic subjects” (http://www.fowcabuary.
com)
• Freckle™ – a “diferentiation platform lets teachers diferentiate both what and how students learn.
This means that students are engaged at their academic level, on topics that interest them, while
also learning in the way that’s best for them.” (https://www.freckle.com/diferentiation-platform/)
• Gizmos™ - “a tool with hundreds of online simulations with lesson materials, supporting re-
search-based strategies to build deep conceptual understanding in math and science” (http://www.
explorelearning.com)
• Nearpod™ - “an interactive lesson planning and delivery tool” (http://www.nearpod.com)
• Newsela™ - “a platform that takes real and new written content from trusted providers such as
newspapers and magazines and turns it into learning materials that support students’ opportunity
to read, comprehend, and write in response to informational text – a key Common Core standard
strand” (http://www.Newsela.com)
• STAR Renaissance™ - “the most comprehensive K–12 interim and formative assessment suite
available—universal screening, progress monitoring, and goal-setting data to move every student
forward’ (https://www.renaissance.com/products/star-assessments/)
Between March and June 2020, the school required all students to participate in seven class periods
per school day of 50-minute synchronous lessons four days a week, and a fifth day each week with
30-minute classes. This same schedule continues into the 2020-2021 academic year.
During the summer of 2020, after having taught from March 16 through the end of May, the school
offered the optional university course on best practices for synchronous learning. In addition, each of the
six purchased platforms noted above had teachers who became subject matter experts in their use, and
those teachers in turn became coaches for colleagues on how to integrate those tools into daily lesson
planning, delivery, and assessment practices. There were also opportunities for teachers to learn about
how to effectively incorporate physical activity breaks and socioemotional learning activities seamlessly
into synchronous learning lesson plans.
The school began the 2020-2021 academic year in distance learning mode because the County of Los
Angeles had COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates far greater than the State of Califor-
nia Department of Public Health recommended for schools to open for in-person instruction. As of the
time of submission of the final version of this article (January 2021), the school remains in exclusively
distance learning mode, and the school’s administration believes it is unlikely the school transitions back
to in-person instruction for the remainder of the academic year.
The present study was conducted during the month of December 2020, after students completed
twelve weeks of synchronous learning.
BRIEF REVIEW OF LITERATURE
McBrien et al (2009) identified six themes of college student opinions regarding synchronous learn-
ing – dialogue, structure, learner autonomy, technical difficulties, convenience, and pedagogy. They
“found that there is overlap between dialogue and pedagogy, structure and convenience, and learner
autonomy and technical difficulties (with most of the reduced autonomy comments related to software
252

and hardware issues).” This research found that in the synchronous environment, compared to in-person
instruction, students:
• felt more (and in some cases less) comfortable talking and presenting
• participated more (or less)
• expressed points of view more (or less) openly
• were often more confused and unable to clarify misconceptions because of the online format
• appreciated the break from in person instruction
• were able to take classes where travel to campus was prohibitive
• experienced signifcant frustration with technical issues
• were less apprehensive to participate because of perceived anonymity
• felt the format allowed for more time to collect one’s thoughts prior to speaking or writing
• had too many things happening at once
• missed the camaraderie of friends and colleagues
• missed nonverbal gestures
• who were shy felt much more confdent and comfortable in the online environment
In a 2020 article, Bozkurt and Sharma philosophize that educators must be “alchemists” that magically
transform education into “a learning ecosystem that works for everyone (vii)” and that the pandemic is
a unique opportunity to reimagine education as an opportunity for a new normal that “liberates minds
and hearts” and is recalibrated “to make it accessible, equitable, and inclusive, to free knowledge, de-
mocratize societies, eliminate inequality, inequity and injustice, and give agency and independency to
learners so that they can navigate, traverse and pollinate multiple paths, dimensions and layers of a true
learning ecology, where learners can find their true selves (vii).”
Similarly, Bond (2020) synthesized research from 89 studies in 70 different countries to conclude
that professional development for teacher is essential during emergency distance learning caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic, that instructional planning by teachers must include explicit efforts to decrease
feelings of student isolation, engage parents, and boost student morale, and that the experiences of vul-
nerable populations (like those in the present study) must be researched. Linda Darling-Hammond and
her colleague Maria Hyler (2020) focused on teacher professional development and teacher prepara-
tion needs during the pandemic and concluded that both preservice teacher preparation programs and
in-service teacher training programs must now include frequent opportunities for practicing teachers
to collaborate and learn from each other, share their expertise with student teachers, and collaborate
between the university and partner districts (462).
In a fascinating collective writing experience led by Peters and Rizvi (2020), authors from around the
globe express a wide variety of thoughts about the state and future of COVID-19 postsecondary education,
but the one overarching conclusion each of the contributors seems to arrive at is that education will never
be the same after this pandemic, and those educators who are willing and able to adapt to the abnormal
reality we now face will likely be those who survive and thrive in the post-pandemic university world.
A groundbreaking 2019 study of nearly 700 postsecondary students by Francescucci and Rohani
found show that a synchronous course delivered using virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor led (VIRI)
classroom technology has the same level of student performance outcomes as face-to-face learning.
Rapanta et al (2020) concluded that during ERT, instruction includes “the context, the tools and re-
sources used, the concrete tasks, and the relations between the three.” They argue that effective online
253

instruction encourages autonomy, reduces student anxiety during the pandemic, focuses on tasks and
activities more than on content and product, encourages collaboration amongst students, offers person-
alized feedback, emphasizes the caliber of the relationship between teacher and students, and reminds
teachers to focus on sensitivity to student needs.
Croxton (2014) and Richardson et al (2017 found various benefits to online learning including the
flexibility and convenience it provides students, its customizability to learners’ needs, while Watts (2016)
found that a lack of face-to-face (F2F) interactions between teachers and students remains a major con-
cern by both groups. Giesbers et al (2013) found that synchronous communication tools allow teachers
to put students into groups much like F2F classes (breakout rooms in Zoom, for instance), and allow for
immediate private feedback between student and instructor (chat boxes, for instance) that is not present
in F2F classes. Strang (2013) found similar benefits of F2F and VIRI instruction as regards placement
of students into group and group collaboration. One specific benefit was the availability of synchronous
platforms for student groups to meet outside of class in ways F2F classes do not permit. Fallon (2011)
found similar benefits to the immediate feedback available in synchronous online learning of teacher
education students. The importance of instructor preparation, clear goal setting, engaging instructional
strategies, monitoring of student cooperative groups, and real time feedback for learners were all found
by Haythornthwaite (2002) to be critical characteristics of effective asynchronous teaching.
Interestingly, Driscoll et al (2012) and Lombardi (2008) found that online learning may not always
effectively capture students’ authentic learning experiences in ways F2F learning does. Atchley et al
(2013) found no statistically significant difference in student grades between VIRI And F2F learning,
as did Francescucci and Foster (2013) and Driscoll et al (2012). Hansen (2008) concluded that online
learning was better in experiential learning courses wherein students are expected to apply their learn-
ing to novel, real-world contexts.
Jaggars et al (2013) found substantially higher failure and withdrawal rates among community college
students who took online courses compared to those who took F2F classes. Cavanaugh and Jacquemin
(2015) studied over 6000 college students, finding that students who had lower grade point averages in
F2F classes struggled more in online classes than F2F while students with higher GPAs did better in
online classes than F2F classes. Atchley and his colleagues (2013) found that online classes were far
more likely than F2F classes to yield grades of A, D, or F, while F2F classes were far more likely to
yield B or C grades.
The McBrien study in 2009 referenced at the beginning of this literature review formed the basis for
the methodology for the present study because the themes discovered in that research anecdotally ap-
peared to be aligned with this researcher’s experiences with students in various synchronous and hybrid
online learning classes at the university level.
METHODOLOGY
A coeducational charter school with approximately 750 students in grades 6-12 was selected because
they volunteered to participate in the study. The school has a population of slightly less than one-third
special education, one-third English learners, and one-third with neither designation. The school has
been in existence for 8 years but has never implemented any substantive form of distance learning. On
rare occasions, the school allows a student who is hospitalized or out of the country for whatever reason
254

to participate in asynchronous learning through the Google Classroom™ platform, but no synchronous
learning has ever been attempted at the school.
After approval from the charter school administration, parents of all students in each of grades six
through twelve who attend the grades 6-12 charter school within the boundaries of Los Angeles Uni-
fied School District were sent an email asking if they would be willing to have their child participate
in the present study. The email to parents included an explanation that only the first three respondents
from each grade who returned an electronically signed permission slip would be able to participate in
the study given the nature of the study and the need for a quick turnaround of the article to be written. It
turned out the email failed to mention that the researcher was looking for a proportionate representation
of English learners and Special Education students to get a wide representation of the student popula-
tion. As such, not all the first three respondents were classified as English learners or Special Education,
and as a result, in some grade levels, a later respondent was chosen for participation in the focus groups
because of fitting that designation.
Within two hours of sending out the email, there were sufficient responses to close the window of
availability, and a subsequent email was sent out thanking everyone for their interest and informing
them the window to participate had closed. Participants were promised and given a $25 local grocery
store chain gift card in appreciation of the student’s participation in all seven hours of the focus group
meetings after they responded to the initial invitation email.
Three students from each grade level were chosen (total n = 21) to participate in seven recorded
one-hour focus group meetings at which participants were asked questions about their VIRI experiences
during the first twelve weeks of the 2020-2021 academic year. The Morgan et al Focus Group techniques
(1998) were used. The first hourlong meeting asked each participant to state one thing they really liked
about the VIRI teaching and learning approach (henceforth labeled a ‘pro’) and one thing they disliked
(henceforth labeled a ‘con’. Participants were asked not to repeat something another person said and
asked not to respond to the comments of others, other than to use the zoom “thumbs up or thumbs down”
symbols to react to each participant’s comment to indicate agreement or disagreement with their pro or
can of synchronous online learning. Participants could “pass” if they could not think of anything to add.
After the first focus group session, the researcher synthesized all pros and cons onto a table (see Table
1) and shared those with the group at focus group session #2. During that session, participants were
asked to go around the virtual room and react to the pros (this session focused only on the pros side of
the table) and add any comments they had about their own ‘pro’ or to the ‘pro’ of another participant
as seen on the table. Session #3 repeated the process with the ‘con’ side of the table. Sessions 1-3 took
place in the first week of December 2020.
After synthesizing and preliminarily analyzing the data from the first three focus group meetings,
the researcher developed a list of nine questions to be brought back to the whole group for sessions four,
five, and six, using the qualitative research methods of Strauss (1987), Charmaz (2006) and Ritchie and
spencer (1994). Strict time limits were set to discuss each question for exactly 20 minutes to ensure timely
completion of the session (during the second and third weeks of December, 2020) within the promised
one-hour time frame. Those questions were as follows:
Session 4 Questions:
1. Many of you commented on how you liked the fact you could have your camera off during class
but still participate. Why did you like that? Did anyone find it hard to interact with the voice that
did not have a face attached to it? What made that difficult?
255

2. You all said you missed coming to school and being with your friends? Doesn’t zoom accomplish
the same thing? Why or why not?
3. Can you describe in detail some of the technical difficulties you had with distance learning?
4. What about distance learning group work in Zoom breakout rooms did you find easiest? Hardest?
5. Many of you had trouble with the Google™ doc online notebooks for math and science but like
the online notebooks for English and history. Can you explain what the difficulties were? What
about the online notebooks for math did you like?
6. Submitting all work through Google Classroom™ seemed popular to all of you. What did you like
about that system? Is there anything you did not like?
7. Can you tell me more detail about what you liked and did not like about the programs Nearpod™,
Newsela™, Flowcabulary™, STAR Renaissance™, Freckle™, and Gizmos™?
8. Many of you said you found it helpful to express yourself through chat or your camera and micro-
phone. Others of you said you did not feel comfortable participating in class discussions using the
zoom platform. Can you tell me more about why you felt that way?
9. Some of you felt like all of the technologies you used in the last three months were confusing. Can
you tell me more about what was confusing?
The seventh session during the third week of December focused on respondents’ answers to a single
prompt: Most of you said you thought it was not fair that Los Angeles Unified Schools students only had
to check in with teachers once a day for a few minutes while you had to participate in fully synchronous
instruction. But most of your comments seem to indicate you thought you were still learning a lot during
the time of distance learning. As difficult as the synchronous learning was compared to your friends in
other schools, do you feel like you learned more than they did? Why or why not?
The data from all seven focus group sessions was synthesized into themes, discourse, and illustrative
quotations using the techniques of Krippendorff (2012), and with a sensitivity to the validity concerns of
Angen (2000), the researcher drew conclusions of essential lessons the insights of focus group partici-
pants might provide for secondary (and potentially elementary and post-secondary) educators planning
and implementing synchronous learning (also referred to in this study as VIRI) experiences.
RESULTS
Table 1 lists the 21 respondents’ summarized responses to the request for pros and cons of the VIRI
teaching and learning approach.
256

Table 1. Summary of pros and cons of VIRI identified by study respondents
Pros Cons
Chances to redo assignments When teacher makes you turn on camera
Don’t have to get up so early Online notebooks in math
Don’t have to wear school uniforms Feels more stressful
Teachers seem more relaxed Nearpod™ tracks your participation
Access to recordings to review material When Chromebooks or hotspots don’t work
Chat to ask/answer questions anonymously Teachers not knowing how to use technology
Chat messages to others in some classes Classmates making rude comments in chat
Nearpod makes you stay awake Teachers inflexible with deadlines
Gizmos™ are fun way to do science labs Rude speech would not be said in regular class
Kahoot helps prepare for quizzes and tests Little brothers and sisters distracting
Online games more fun than regular classes Hard to get help when confused
Immediate results for quizzes/tests Teachers seem more stressed
Easier to turn in assignments without paper Too many videos
Online notebooks easier Death by PowerPoint
TAs taking you out for individual help Like being with friends in person
Shy students more comfortable talking Cannot do real physical education
Shy students more comfortable texting Cannot see people’s faces
Time to think before responding to teacher Too much technology at once
Flowcabulary™ fun and engaging All teachers using the same tech sites
Teachers seem more prepared (Nearpod™) No hands-on science labs
Pausing videos and responding No band practice
In session two, respondents gave clarity and added depth to the pros list in Table 1 above. Selected
student quotes are shown in Table 2.
In session three, respondents gave clarity and added depth to the cons list in Table 2 above. Selected
student quotes follow in Table 3.
In session 4, responses to these questions are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6.
The final prompt in the final session, “Most of you said you thought it was not fair that Los Angeles
Unified Schools students only had to check in with teachers once a day for a few minutes while you had
to participate in fully synchronous instruction. But most of your comments seem to indicate you thought
you were still learning a lot during the time of distance learning. As difficult as the synchronous learning
was compared to your friends in other schools, do you feel like you learned more than they did? Why
or why not?” resulted in the following five themes, as outlined in Table 13.
257

Table 2. Select “Pro” of VIRI Quotes by Study Respondents
• “I like that I can resubmit assignments when I don’t get the right answers. Teachers grade the work and then email it back and I can
redo problems I got wrong or answer questions I got wrong again.”
• “Teachers seem better prepared with the Nearpod™ lessons. They have everything cued up and ready to go before class starts,
which they don’t always do when we are in regular class.”
• “Being able to watch the recordings is very helpful because when I miss class, I don’t really miss. When I am confused, I can go
over parts I didn’t understand and watch them over and over like Khan Academy videos.”
• “It’s helpful to ask the teacher or TA questions in chat without other people seeing my questions. I don’t feel as nervous about asking
a stupid question.” I also like when some teachers let us text other students in chat because I can ask my friend a question without the
teacher knowing.”
• “Nearpod™ has lots of different games and stuff that help you pay attention better online that you would in a face-to-face class.
Plus, the teacher can tell whether you are participating and gives you participation points.”
• “The Gizmos™ labs are really cool. I can make mistakes without worrying about breaking lab equipment. I can experiment without
being nervous I’m going to do something stupid. I can redo parts of the lab and get a perfect score.”
• “We like Kahoot because it helps us know the right answers before the test. Some of my teachers actually use the exact same
questions on the real test and the Kahoot is like a practice test for me.”
• “It is helpful to get quizzes and tests graded immediately because teachers used to take forever to get grades stuff back to you. Now
you know right away how you did.”
• “I don’t have to print anything out or write anything by hand. My printing is terrible, and teachers are always telling me they cannot
read my writing. Turning it all in through Google Classroom™ is easier and teachers don’t lose papers then.”
• “The online notebooks in English and history are great. The table of contents makes it really easy to study and take quizzes.
Everything is in one place. I don’t have to worry about losing my notebook this way. I can get images off the internet and put them into
my vocabulary charts and do maps and annotate text and it’s just easier for me than the old notebooks we used to use.”
• “I’m really shy and don’t like to answer questions in class or ask questions either. Online I can ask and not have to speak out loud
cause I can write my questions in the chat box and send them privately to the teacher or TA.”
• “I like that we seem to have more time to think before we answer questions. Teachers are using the timers and giving us time to
come up with answers or write down our ideas before we have to contribute.”
• “The raps and hip hop in Flowcabulary are goofy but they help me remember definitions and key ideas I need for the quizzes and
tests.”
• “I like that teachers pause the video and ask us questions. It seems like lots of teachers, well some teachers really, used videos to
kill class time. But when they stop the video and ask questions, it makes me pay attention more and know what the teacher wants us to
memorize or know about the video.”
• “When we do physical activity breaks or socioemotional learning activities, that is a lot of fun, and helps us take our minds off of
the technology and the pandemic. I just wish all teachers would do them.”
Summary of Lessons for Consideration by Teachers and Administrators
These seven hours of focus group meetings proved extremely insightful and yielded several lessons the
researcher believes are appropriate for secondary school administrators and teachers to consider when
planning for synchronous instruction. Arguably, these are also applicable to both elementary and post-
secondary environments. The list in Table 14 synthesizes those lessons.
258

Table 3. Select “Con” of VIRI Quotes by Study Respondents
• “I don’t think it’s fair when some teachers make you turn on your camera. I think I have the right to not have my camera on if I want.
It’s an invasion of my privacy.”
• “I hate the online notebooks in math. The notebooks in other subjects are OK, but its hard to do math problems on the computer. It
is so much easier to do them on the whiteboard in class or on a sheet of notebook paper. I wish they would just let us take pictures of our
work and send it in. They gave us a tablet and stylus thing to write on the Chromebook screen but that’s stupid and does not really work
like they said it does.”
• “I feel like Big Brother is watching me on Nearpod™. It is freaky. The teacher can tell everything I say and do, and I hate that. Like
(name removed for anonymity) said, I think that’s an invasion of my privacy.”
• “It’s annoying with the Chromebook doesn’t work or the hotspot is slow or doesn’t work or I forget to charge the Chromebook, or
my little sister cracked the screen, and I can’t see the lesson.”
• “Some people are just rude and they like the fact they don’t have to have their cameras on, so they blurt out mean things to the
teacher or about the teacher or to one of my classmates or about one of them and it’s just so rude and condescending. I do not know why
the school doesn’t do something about these people. They ought to be suspended or expelled or something.”
• “Some teachers can’t control regular classes and the online classes are even harder for them to control. Some of the bad kids do
horrible things and no one stop them. They can be really mean and cyber bully you because they think no one can see them or will know
what they’re doing.”
• “It’s hard to pay attention and study and do work when your little brothers and sisters are annoying and in the way. I can’t
concentrate when that happens and then I get a lower grade and that’s not fair.”
• “In regular class I can raise my hand and get help, and I can still raise my hand here, but the teacher doesn’t always see it and answer
my questions. Then I’m afraid to unmute and ask my question because I feel like I’m interrupting the teacher. It’s hard not being in face-
to-face classes because online I don’t feel comfortable asking for help the same way I do when we are on campus.”
• “Nearpod™ sucks because all the teachers use it to show videos, and then they stop and ask us questions and that’s boring and
unnecessary.”
• “Many teachers used Power Point before, but it seems like almost everyone is using it now and it’s just so boring. They lecture and
lecture and lecture and I fall asleep and then they call on me and wake me up and I get in trouble. (Name of teacher omitted) called my
mom to tell her I fall asleep all the time and my mom got all mad at me, but it’s not fair cause my teacher’s just so boring online. At least
in regular class, we can see people’s faces live.”
• “Zoom just is not the same thing as being in class with my friends. They do breakout rooms and stuff, but it isn’t the same. I miss
being with my friends and seeing them face to face.”
• “I miss being able to see my girlfriend and hang out at lunch and walk her to class and give her a kiss before each class. Online
learning just sucks. I miss school. I never thought I would say that but it’s true.”
• “All these teachers use the same tech sites; it’s like the school only can afford a few things, and because they are so cheap, we suffer
through the same stuff every day.”
• “I really miss doing regular P.E. This online stuff just isn’t the same. We can’t exercise, we can’t run, we can’t play games and
sports. P.E. used to be my favorite class, but now it’s my least favorite. We watch videos and do stretching, but it’s all lame.”
• “I can’t wait to get to real band practice. We missed concerts and performances and stuff and it’s just not the same thing to play stuff
for the teacher or practice by yourself and never be able to hear the other instruments.”
• “Even though the school gave me art supplies, it is a lot harder to learn art by watching through a computer. It’s just not the same as
being in the room with the teacher showing you techniques.”
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The present research clearly begins to fill1 a huge void in peer-reviewed research exploring the impact of
fully synchronous learning programs on secondary school youth, but there remain a number of additional
considerations for future study that the present study identified (this list is not intended to be exhaustive):
259

Table 4. Select Quotes in Response to Follow Up Question 1
1. Many of you commented on how you liked the fact you could have your camera off during class but still participate. Why
did you like that? Did anyone find it hard to interact with the voice that did not have a face attached to it? What made that
difficult?
• “The teacher can still ask us questions to see if we are paying attention without seeing our faces. I don’t know why some teachers
make us keep the cameras on. It doesn’t make sense to me.”
• “I hate that some people have their cameras on, and some people don’t. I keep mine on and I like to see other people’s faces. I like
seeing my friends. I hate not being able to see people. It all seems so impersonal.”
• “I am really shy person. It hard to show face when (indistinguishable phrase). I want to be able to choose when I am having camera
on. It not fair (sic) for teacher to make me do that. I not feel (sic) comfortable.”
• “One of my teachers turned off his camera because he was mad all the students had their cameras off. That made it really hard to
pay attention because it was just his voice. Then he said he was trying to prove a point to us – that not having your camera on makes it
really hard on a teacher to talk to just blank screens. I guess I can see it from his point of view. He asked us to turn on our cameras and
more people did it after that.”
2. You all said you missed coming to school and being with your friends? Doesn’t zoom accomplish the same thing? Why or
why not?
• “So much of school for me is about the social aspect, and I hate this distance learning thing, because I don’t get to see my friends
face to face. Zoom is OK for some things, but education should be in a regular classroom where the teacher can see and interact with the
students and the students can see and interact with the teacher and the students can see and interact with each other. I really miss that. Our
philosophy professor told us the story of someone who sits in a cave all day and reads but never meets other people to talk about what he
read is not really learning anything. I feel that way. In a cave. I don’t feel like I am talking with other people about what I am learning.”
• “Zoom seems so impersonal. I need socialization like (name of student omitted) said. I am a social being. I miss the chance to see
people up close and guess whether they are happy or sad or what they are thinking or feeling. Zoom doesn’t let me do that. I miss being
able to ask a question when I have it. I’m not normally afraid to ask a question, but for some reason, I’m more afraid to ask through Zoom
because I think people with judge me, especially when it is being recorded.”
• “I like speak Spanish with my friends and can no do that on Zoom.”
• “A band just needs to meet in person. Period. Distance learning does not work for a band or orchestra. Our Mariachi program has
died as a result of this (expletive) pandemic.”
• “Some of the socioemotional learning activities helped me feel better connected to my friends.”
3. Can you describe in detail some of the technical difficulties you had with distance learning?
• “My device kept losing juice and would turn off because the battery died.”
• “My hotspot wouldn’t let me get onto the internet.”
• “My hotspot was very slow, and I couldn’t always get into the zoom meetings because it was so slow. Then if I did get in, sometimes
it would kick me out in the middle.”

• “My little sister cracked my screen and then we got COVID and we couldn’t go get a new one from the school, so I had to use the
broken one.”
• “The microphone on mines make it hard for people to hear me. And sometimes I can’t hear the teacher too good. (sic)”
• “At times, the teachers would put on a video but there would be no sound and it would waste a lot of class time.”
260

4. What about distance learning group work in Zoom breakout rooms did you find easiest? Hardest?
• “It’s just so much easier to do group work in person. Breakout rooms are OK, but you can’t always see what people are writing, you
can’t see their faces, you can’t easily share documents, you can’t comment on what people are saying and doing. It’s just a pain.”
• “When we are discussing something like a set of questions the teacher gives us, I think the zoom breakout rooms are great –
basically the same thing as a regular class. But when we have to accomplish some written work product, it’s basically impossible to do
that easily or well.”
• “Doing Gizmos™ with a group is OK, but it would be so much easier if we were in regular class.”
• “When class speak English only I no able understand.” [Note that from questions 5 and on, the interviewer translated everything into
Spanish. The EL student’s responses were then translated back into English, and those responses are so noted.]
• “If my groupmates don’t show their faces, I don’t want to work in groups online.”
• “Trying to solve a math problem together seems impossible on Zoom. It’s just easier for the teacher to make a video explaining it
like Khan Academy and we watch it. Trying to work with my group is horrible.”
• “Some people used breakout rooms for bad stuff like sharing pornography, telling inappropriate jokes, and goofing off.”
• “I felt like my group members often pressure me to turn my camera on in breakout rooms, and I do not like that.”
5. Many of you had trouble with the Google™ doc online notebooks for math and science but like the online notebooks for
English and history. Can you explain what the difficulties were? What about the online notebooks for math did you like?
• “English and history were OK because we were taking Cornell Notes using the template the teachers made. We could get images
from the internet for vocabulary or definitions and insert them into the notebooks. We can type answers to questions which is easier than
handwriting them. But math is a pain. We can’t use our hands to write out a solution and show our steps like the teachers want. They told
us to use the drawing tool and insert the drawings, but that’s stupid because it’s so much more difficult and time consuming than just
doing it on a sheet of notebook paper.”
• “I love the clickable tables of contents in all the notebooks because when I need to find something for a quiz or test of for studying,
it is so much easier than flipping through a composition book.” [translated from Spanish]
• “I like that I can’t lose my notebook and don’t have to bring a pen or pencil to class and I don’t have to remember to bring my
notebook to class because it’s already there in my Google™ drive.”
• “I understand they want us to prepare for college and I guess colleges are doing more and more on the computers, but I think it was
too much too fast to expect teachers to do that and also students.”
• The unique nature of physical education and efective strategies for how to teach PE in a distance
learning setting;
• The unique nature of music education with performance groups (choir, band, orchestra, instru-
ment instruction, etc) and efective strategies for how to teach such courses in a distance learning
setting;
• The unique nature of visual arts education with courses such as drawing, painting, ceramics, etc.,
and efective strategies for how to teach such courses in a distance learning setting;
• Techniques for integrating physical activity breaks during distance learning, their efcacy, and
ways to best employ them;
• Techniques for integration of socioemotional learning activities and lessons into distance learn-
ing, their efcacy, and ways to be accomplish their delivery;
261

• Legal and other implications of such policies as recording classes, requiring students to have
cameras on during synchronous instruction, allowing minor students to use breakout rooms
unsupervised;
• Best practices in training teachers and students in learning management systems, integration of
technology tools, and lesson design in synchronous settings.
6. Submitting all work through Google Classroom™ seemed popular to all of you. What did you like about that system? Is there
anything you did not like?
• “It helps me stay more organized because everything is in the same place. I don’t have as many papers to keep track of.”
• “I like that teachers can send us comments and we can fix things and resubmit them for full credit.”
• “It is helpful to have the calendar reminders about when things are due.”
• “I like that it has all my classes in the same place. When I was using a backpack, I was really bad at remembering things I would leave
at home and that doesn’t happen with GC.”
• “Some teachers are just not using it correctly. They aren’t organized and don’t put stuff on there they talk about in class. Then when I
am trying to work on stuff after class, I can’t find it and that’s frustrating.”
• “I like that docs and slides and sheets and YouTube™ and the Google™ search engine and all Google™ stuff is in one place and I don’t
have to go searching for it or click around a lot.”
• “I like that my teachers put everything there. It’s like the white board in class. I can see what is due and when and not have to try to
figure out where the assignment is or what the instructions are or where I need to turn it in. It’s organized and helps me be organized,
too.”
• “Some teachers don’t grade stuff quickly.” [translated from Spanish]
• “Some teachers grade stuff but don’t put it in PowerSchool (the school’s regular grading student information system so my mom and
dad can’t see it. And when I tell them I did it they don’t believe me because the teacher didn’t put the grade in PowerSchool. That’s just
not fair to us students.”
As schools plan how to react to the future of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 18 lessons identified in
Table 14 are worthy of serious consideration, and ideally would be discussed prior to implementation
of future secondary distance learning plans, especially those required in exigent circumstances.
CONCLUSION
The students who participated in this study were truly remarkable and are appreciated for their tremen-
dous contributions to this research, which would otherwise not have been possible. The teachers who
are employed by the school are clearly a highly dedicated group of professional educators who quickly
adapted in March 2020 to unfamiliar conditions that were far less than ideal. Despite these challenges,
this study shows that caring teachers and dedicated students can collaborate to overcome the challenges
of a global pandemic and mitigate learning loss which has been such a valid concern of policymakers,
educators, parents, and our global communities at large.
262

7. Can you tell me more detail about what you liked and did not like about the programs Nearpod™, Newsela™,
Flowcabulary, STAR Renaissance™, Freckle™, and Gizmos™?
• “I liked that Freckle™ gave me coins I could use for class rewards.”
• “The Gizmos™ labs were cool. They made Chemistry a lot more comprehendible.”
• “Newsela™ quizzes boring. Teacher (sic) make us do all the time. I like I can make it easy (sic) English (by adjusting the Lexile
Level – one of the nice tools within Newsela™). English is no (sic) my native language, so I liked that it let me do that.”
• “Gizmos™ were really helpful to make sense of stuff that was complicated in physics. I could conduct experiments online really
easily, and I liked that my teacher let us redo stuff as many times as we needed to understand it.” [translated from Spanish]
• “The biology Gizmos™ were great. The videos (teacher name omitted) made showing us how to do them really helped. The
Google™ doc lab sheets were really helpful because it made it really simple to take screenshots of my work and insert them and submit
them. It was so much easier that way than middle school labs where we had to write out all our data.”
• “Flowcabulary™ songs were OK. I felt a little stupid doing them. It seems kind of immature.”
• “Flowcabulary™ really helped me memorize the stuff my teacher was emphasizing for the tests.”
• “I like that Newsela™ allows me to adjust the Lexile Level. I’m going to a really rigorous college and I need to be reading at a 1300
(Lexile Level) so I can bump up articles to make them more challenging and practice reading college level stuff while I’m still a senior.”
• “I did really bad on my STAR tests. I really didn’t try my best. Now I get stuck doing s bunch of easy stuff because I was stupid and
did not try like I should’ve. My friends who tried hard have a lot less work to do, and I spend much extra time doing extra work.”
• “Freckle™ seems like a waste of time. It’s like the teachers are too lazy to teach us so they stick us on this program instead of doing
their jobs.”
• “I like that Nearpod™ lets the teacher know I am participating. I am a straight A student and in regular classes, my teachers always
know I am a good student. But in distance learning, they don’t know that, especially since I am new to this school and teachers. At least
Nearpod™ gives them a report showing that I am answering all the questions and getting the quiz questions right and participating in the
discussions.”
• “Nearpod™ videos are annoying because I like to watch a video all the way through and not be interrupted. It’s annoying to have
them stop and ask questions in the middle. Who does that? It makes no sense. I know some students don’t pay attention, so they are trying
to keep people from going to sleep, but I feel like I am being punished because some people don’t do what they are supposed to do. They
should let us watch a video straight through without all the interruptions. It’s worse than commercials on TV.”
8. Many of you said you found it helpful to express yourself through chat or your camera and microphone. Others of you said
you did not feel comfortable participating in class discussions using the zoom platform. Can you tell me more about why you felt
that way?
• “Like I said before, Zoom is just so impersonal. I like being with my friends face to face.
• “Because English is not my native language, I am self-conscious when I speak in front of the class. Zoom let me turn off my camera
and write in the chat box in Spanish so I felt much more comfortable.” [translated from Spanish]
• “As a shy person, I liked it because I could think about what I was going to say before I said it or wrote it in the Nearpod™ or chat
box.”
• “People watching me do exercises seems like people were stalking me. It was weird.”
• “We should have done more as a whole band. I saw on social media all these choirs doing virtual concerts, and I think (name of
teacher omitted) should have done that with us.”
• “I loved being able to express myself freely on Zoom. It felt liberating.”
• “I personally think if college is going to use this then I am going to wait until after the COVID thing because I do not like
communicating through camera and microphone instead of in person.”
• “I like to look people in the eye when I am talking to them and that was not possible on Zoom in most of my classes. When the
teacher required us to have our cameras on, I felt good about participating in class discussions, but with teachers who let everyone keep
their cameras off, I did not participate.”
263

9. Some of you felt like all of the technologies you used in the last three months were confusing. Can you tell me more about
what was confusing?
• “Teachers sometimes were trying too hard to use too many different things at the same time. Like some teachers would have
Nearpod™ with PowerPoint and videos from Youtube™ and Google™ sheets and Google™ docs and virtual field trips and a bunch of
other stuff all at the same time. It was confusing for me; actually, a lot of my friends also said they were confused. I wish teachers would
just focus on doing one thing and doing it well.” [translated from Spanish]
• “Having different logins was really confusing. A login for Gizmos™ and a login for Google Classroom™, and a login for
Newsela™ and a login for STAR and a login for Freckle™ and a login for Scantron. In my college classes, we have a single sign on. Why
can’t (name of school omitted) do that, too.”
• “Some teachers made things really clear. They posted everything to their Google™ classroom and I could go see everything in one
place. Other people would say stuff out loud but never write it down anywhere, and it was hard to keep track of what they were expecting
us to do, especially having to go to so many different websites and use so many different programs.”
Hodges et al (2020) tell us that emergency remote teaching (ERT) is different than online instruction
because of the exigent circumstances that define the emergency. They also tell us schools and universities
and their personnel must develop ERT skills and plans to maintain the continuity of instruction much in
the same way they develop traditional emergency response plans to maintain the continuity of school/
university operations. The present demand for ERT has provided an important opportunity for educators
to refocus their attention on the socioemotional needs of students as a precursor to academic engagement.
Hodges’ conclusion that asynchronous learning may well serve student needs more than synchronous
learning in some circumstances aligns with the findings of this study, as do the conclusions about the
need for instructors to be flexible with deadlines and expectations in ERT situations.
Table 13. Five Themes in Response to Question 10
A. Students thought it unfair that other students did not have to do synchronous learning, but agreed it was better than fully or
primarily asynchronous learning.
B. Students would overwhelmingly prefer a hybrid approach with synchronous and asynchronous. After a guided discussion to reach
consensus, the 21 participants agreed that a ratio of 75% synchronous to 25% asynchronous would be best. That would give people a
break and allow them less “forced live screen time” and give them the option of accomplishing some tasks late in the evening, in the
middle of the night, early in the morning, or on weekends.
C. Students all agreed they learned much more than their friends at other schools that did primarily asynchronous learning, even
though being online for live instruction for such long periods of time was physically, emotionally, and psychologically draining.
D. Students think that the skills they learned during the pandemic will generally be very useful in college, where hybrid instruction is
much more common.
E. Students appreciate the efforts teachers made to adapt to the pandemic teaching climate but feel as though the adaptations they had
to make to the pandemic learning climate are not appreciated by teachers. Students expressed having experienced various traumas during
the pandemic which they felt teachers did not all know about or empathize with.
264

Table 14. Synthesis of Lessons Learned
1. Entirely synchronous instruction is physically, emotionally, and psychologically draining; so, a mix (possibly 75:25 as suggested
by study respondents) with asynchronous instruction should be considered. As a result, flexibility by teachers with deadlines and
expectations is critical.
2. Having well planned lessons is essential in any teaching situation, but synchronous teaching requires an even greater emphasis than
face-to-face instruction on detailed plans (and backup plans should technology fail). The planning must include thoughtful consideration
of when and how much technology to incorporate into lessons.
3. Students and teachers both need professional development on how to use technology tools before they are expected to use them
adeptly.
4. Teachers need to show appreciation for the stresses and sacrifices students are making during the pandemic and have a sensitivity to
a variety of unknown factors that impact student self-efficacy and success. The content learned is secondary to the socioemotional needs
of the students.
5. Single Sign Ons (SSOs) when a teacher is expecting students to use multiple platforms as part of a class are helpful for students,
reduce their stress and the stress of teachers, and reduce frustration and wasted time.
6. When choosing technology tools to accompany the learning management system (LMS) and overall instructional plan, careful
consideration must be given to how easy the tool is for students and teacher to use, how much return on the investment of time will be
gained by both students and teacher, and how easily the tool can be integrated into the LMS.
7. The flexibility online tools give to allow students multiple opportunities to redo assignments and demonstrate mastery after
reteaching and relearning is a major benefit of such tools, and teacher should take advantage of those benefits and permit students to redo
assignments whenever possible to demonstrate mastery after having practiced skills after a previous failed attempt.
8. Recording lessons and making them available for students (and parents) after the fact has many advantages, assuming the school/
district permits such recording.
9. The chat feature in synchronous platforms is a valuable teaching and learning tool which needs to strategically be integrated into a
teacher’s lesson design.
10. Breakout rooms in synchronous platforms are also a valuable teaching and learning tool which need to strategically be integrated
into a teacher’s lesson design.
11. Using technology tools that give students and teachers immediate, easy-to-understand formative and summative assessment
feedback helps both students and teachers in a variety of ways.
12. Technology tools that track engagement and participation have tremendous power when used effectively and efficiently by
teachers.
13. Paperwork reduction for both students and teachers has significant benefits.
14. Thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons of asking students to turn on cameras is necessary.
15. Physical education is a unique challenge in distance learning and requires special considerations in planning and implementation.
16. Fine arts (like musical performance, art performance, drama or dance) are also a unique challenge in distance learning, and also
requires special considerations in planning and implementation.
17. Technology overload can be counteracted with socioemotional learning activities and physical activity breaks that allow
participants to “take a mental and physical break” and focus on overall wellness.
18. The fact nearly all colleges and universities now offer (and in some cases only offer) hybrid online learning programs means
secondary schools would be wise to prepare students for the demands of those programs – with technology skills as well as coping skills.
Perhaps most poignantly, Bozkurt and Sharma, in their 2020 article, “Emergency Remote Reaching
in a Time of Global Crisis due to Coronavirus Pandemic” ask us to consider, “in a time of crisis, when
people are under trauma, stress and psychological pressure, should we focus on teaching educational
content or should we focus on teaching how to share, collaborate and support?” and that, “when things
go back to normal, people will not remember the educational content delivered, but they will remember
how they felt, how we cared for them, and how we supported them.” The present study affirms that mes-
265

sage while providing several concrete ideas for how schools can plan for impactful ERT that achieves
both the desired continuity of learning and the necessary care and concern for each student.
REFERENCES
Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dia-
logue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378–395. doi:10.1177/104973230001000308 PMID:10947483
Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G., & Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion and student perfor-
mance through online and traditional courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 14(4), 104–116. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461
tion, 15(2), i–x. http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/512
Cavanaugh, J. K., & Jacquemin, S. J. (2015). A large sample comparison of grade based student learning
outcomes in online vs. face-to-face courses. Online Learning, 19(2), 1–8. doi:10.24059/olj.v19i2.454
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Sage Publications Inc.
Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 314–324.
Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver
in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face
introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312–331. doi:10.1177/0092055X12446624
Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to
the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technol-
ogy, 43(3), 187–209. doi:10.1080/15391523.2011.10782569
Francescucci, A., & Foster, M. (2013). The VIRI (virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor-led) classroom:
The impact of blended synchronous online courses on student performance, engagement, and satisfaction.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(3), 78–91. doi:10.47678/cjhe.v43i3.184676
Francescucci, A., & Rohani, L. (2019). Exclusively Synchronous Online (VIRI) Learning: The Impact
on Student Performance and Engagement Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 60–69.
doi:10.1177/0273475318818864
266

Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). A dynamic analysis of the interplay
between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50. doi:10.1111/jcal.12020
Hansen, D. E. (2008). Knowledge transfer in online learning environments. Journal of Marketing Edu-
cation, 30(2), 93–105. doi:10.1177/0273475308317702
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining
distributed learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual commu-
nities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 159–190). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511606373.011
teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 27(March). https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/
Jaggars, S. S., Edgecombe, N., & Stacey, G. W. (2013). What we know about online course outcomes:
Online higher education is expanding rapidly. Columbia University, Community College Research
Center. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542143.pdf
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage Publica-
tions Inc.
Lombardi, M., & Oblinger, D. (2008). Making the grade: The role of assessment in authentic learning.
EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2008/1/making-the-grade-the-role-
of-assessment-in-authentic-learning
McBrien, J., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom
to Facilitate Student Engagement in Online Learning. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 10(3). Advance online publication. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). The focus group kit (Vol. 1–6). Sage Publications Inc.
Peters, M., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Zipin, L., Brennan, M.,
Robertson, S., Quay, J., Malbon, J., Taglietti, D., Barnett, R., Chengbing, W., McLaren, P., Apple, R.,
Papastephanou, M., Burbules, N., ... Misiaszek, L. (2020). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities
for universities post-Covid-19. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–44. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655
Rapanta, C., Botturi, C., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching dur-

Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ sat-
isfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71,
402–417. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
267

Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman &
R. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing Qualitative Data (pp. 173–194). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203413081_
chapter_9
Strang, K. (2013). Cooperative learning in graduate student projects: Comparing synchronous versus
asynchronous collaboration. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 24, 447–464.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511557842
Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the
literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23–32.
Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT): As opposed to traditional online learning, ERT is a shift to
online learning caused by exigent circumstances that demand a shift from in-person classes to remote
teaching without notice to teacher or learners.
English Learners: Students whose native language is not English and who have not yet become
fully English proficient.
Face-to-Face (F2F) Instruction: Instruction in a physical classroom as opposed to through video
and audio conferencing platforms.
Fully Synchronous Learning: An experience in which students and instructor participate simultane-
ously in coursework using videoconferencing and audioconferencing technologies for the full class period,
rather than a portion of the course being experienced by teacher and students asynchronously (students
work at their own pace) or in a hybrid format (a combination of synchronous and asynchronous learning).
Learner Engagement: The extent to which a student interacts with the instructor, peers, and the
content in an educational course.
Learning Management System (LMS): An electronic platform used by instructors and students
through which curricular content is made available to learners, students can be assessed and view as-
sessment results, access to synchronous technologies is linked, and students can interact with peers
and the instructor (examples include Google Classroom™, Blackboard™, Canvas™, Moodle™ and
Schoology™, among many others).
Special Education: Provision of services to students with identified disabilities to provide them
access to the same high-quality education their non-disabled peers receive.
Videoconferencing Platform: The electronic tool by which students and instructor access live video
and audio feeds to communicate in real time (examples include Zoom™, Google Meets ™, Blackboard
Collaborate™, among many others).

Virtual Interactive Real-Time Instructor-Led (VIRI) Technology: Synonymous with fully syn-
chronous learning.
268
269
Chapter 14
Good Vibes Only:
Learning English at a Distance
Within Pandemic Pedagogy
Nil Goksel
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3447-2722
ABSTRACT
We live in a period when schools are involuntarily closed; human life gradually slowed down and came
to a halt due to a pandemic, but distance education is already underway. While some higher education
institutions have been struggling to meet distance education, the ones that have currently provided dis-
tance education in many parts of the world continued to maintain their existing educational systems in
the time of the pandemic. In this connection, the central objective of this paper is to explore how online
solutions and attempts have been defned under the term of “emergency remote education” since the frst
outbreak of the pandemic and how pandemic pedagogy during COVID-19 has contributed to emergency
remote education and online education both in the world and specifcally in Turkey. As there has been a
gradual shift in higher education lately, this chapter is a response to educational crisis specifcally for
English teaching and learning at a distance from a positive perspective.
INTRODUCTION
We are going through a period when all life comes to a standstill. In this pandemic period where human
life slowed down in many areas including education, the humankind maybe has remembered once again
how important distance education applications are. During this period, people closely witnessed how
difficultly the process of distance education has been held in higher education institutions both in the
world and also in Turkey. However, many institutions seem to have survived the first emergency phase
without any problems. While overcoming problems, educational practices have been provided via formal
e-seminar courses conducted at a distance as well as revision lessons conducted in informal social net-
work milieus. Parallel to the courses being instructed in these multiple ways, masses who have to obey
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch014

Good Vibes Only
compulsory homestay caused by pandemic have had to endure some hardships of distance education
but amazingly had the greatest opportunity to become self-sufficient and autonomous learners related
to current practices of higher education. In this connection, the focal point of this chapter is to explore
the online solutions and attempts defined under the term of “emergency remote education” promoted by
the higher education institutions and shedding light on educational crisis emerging English teaching and
learning at a distance. In addition, by sharing current experiences in higher education, suggestions for
future research directions and implications for emerging pedagogies are intended to be discussed in detail.
EDUCATION IN THE TIME OF COVID-19
In an unclear time-frame, the world dealing with the Covid-19 epidemic is experiencing difficulties in
all areas such as health, economy and education. In this epidemic that turned all humanity into a single
asset, many educational institutions across the world have been struggling and trying to find options
to deal with this uncertain period of education (Dhawan, 2020). Turkey, like in many countries across
the world went into a lockdown in late March, and started experiencing of learning that is transitioned
to an online delivery mode. As in other countries of the world, this sudden transition and the difficulty
of adapting to it have become a common problem. In this regard, stronger sense of shared empathy and
unity could be a response to the world’s fragile situation (Allen et al., 2020).
The unexpected COVID-19 outbreak was first recognized in late December, 2019, and later was declared
as a pandemic by World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020 (Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020).
When recent history of Covid-19 is analyzed, it is observed that education has been hit particularly hard
by the pandemic with 1.725 billion university-level learners and more than 200 countries and territories
around the world (Dietrich et al., 2020). In this connection, distance education has opened a new era of
transition from theory to practice within a pandemic pedagogy. Thus, in the midst of this stormy period,
the perspective on education has been changed within a new paradigm (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020) that
also created a “new normal” for distance education. Understanding its importance in previous years but
not being fully integrated into the higher education system, distance education has undoubtedly become
the lifeblood of higher education with Covid-19.
Educational institutions, which had no idea how to act with the first shock of Covid-19 and were
reluctant to change but later made a rapid transition to distance education as time passed. Although this
quick transition caused confusions at the very beginning of Covid-19, online educational attempts have
been made to designate urgent measures needed to save students and faculty members. After the forma-
tion of the moderate milieus, the catastrophe has turned into an advantage and that was the lucrative side
of eLearning and teaching (Dhawan, 2020) and eventually replaced by a new concept called Emergency
Remote Education (ERE).
PANDEMIC PEDAGOGY
Emergency Remote Education (ERE) Overview
Covid-19 may seem to represent a difficult educational period for both students and their families; how-
ever, the current situation provides an opportunity for higher education institutions to further develop
270

Good Vibes Only
their experiences, perceptions and applications for eLearning (Müller et al., 2021). In this connection,
higher education institutions that developed resources and provided infrastructure for eLearning before
the pandemic had no difficulties in maintaining education on online platforms (Tesar, 2020); but the
ones that just met with distance education applications had lots of difficulties in the implementation
phase and did not know how to take the first step. This is when emergency action is taken because there
was no time to do detailed planning.
In this nondescript period, defining this new era was only possible with ERE that was found highly
vital in fulfilling the educational needs of the students (Toquero, 2020). The term ERE was described
by some researchers as “prototypes for education systems to emulate far beyond the pandemic” (Wil-
liamson, et.al, 2020; p. 109). To the writers, the quick switch to online education has been chaotic in
practice; however, with detailed current and future studies, the long-term consequences can be determined
and the term “emergency” can be elaborated in a broader sense and will not be merely restricted to the
Covid-19 pandemic.
While elaborating the currently carried out education in the world, definitions such as distance edu-
cation, eLearning, online education, and homeschooling are also used by different countries (Bozkurt
et al., 2020). There are also other terms used to describe online learning like computerized electronic
learning and internet learning but whatever its name, online learning defines the courses presented
through the internet (Simamora et.al, 2020). However, these terms can cause confusions as well. With
online learning (also called eLearning), students can join their digital lessons in a classroom with an
instructor but in distance education students are all alone in their learning adventure. To some research-
ers in the field, all terms used in literature are different derivatives of distance education and currently
carried outdistance education activities express a necessity. In this regard, this new educational period
in which education is involuntarily interrupted should better be described as Emergency Remote Educa-
tion (ERE) (Bozkurt et al., 2020).
These systems do not include much planning as a set of applications developed urgently within the
scope of a necessity of existing facilities (Müller et.al, 2021). Considered in this context, the main dif-
ference between distance education and emergency remote education is that first one is an option but
the other one is a must (Bozkurt et al., 2020). In this obligatory process, some faculty members tried
to understand the modules on institutional Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in a very short time
and found themselves inadequate especially in technology with techno-stress, uncertainty and anxiety
(Chan, et.al, 2020).
When evaluated in ERE context, this unexpected process has forced both students and teachers and
made them feel inadequate that has triggered misunderstandings towards online education. Although
research suggests otherwise, the general belief is that online learning is of lower quality than face-to-
face learning (Hodges et.al, 2020). Therefore, online movements, which are being carried out by many
institutions in a hurried way in the time of Covid-19, may cause misperceptions. That’s why, it is very
important to correctly define the ERE practices during pandemic to decrease the current negative opin-
ions about distance education (Bozkurt et al., 2020).
Teaching and Learning Within ERE
In the time of Covid-19, the teaching and learning activities have been developed through online tools
such as Zoom or Google Classroom or specific internet platforms like Moodle (Sá & Serpa, 2020). By
showing a fast reflex, many higher education institutions have made a great sacrifice by trying to stay
271

Good Vibes Only
in touch with students without contacting them in person. In pursuit of effective education responses,
many universities have promoted a variety of formal and informal learning activities. In formal educa-
tion settings, including e-seminar courses, and informal education settings integrating social network
milieus such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Instagram or YouTube, students have had an opportunity
to enhance their personal profiling, socializing, content creation, and relationship building (Cavus et
al., 2021). As a result of these attempts, it is noted by some researchers that the online learning switch
occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic suggests a much more positive attitude (Crick et al., 2020) and
it is indeed beneficial (Ahmad at al., 2020).
ERE can be regarded as a branch of distance education, as in the case of online learning, eLearning,
m-learning or homeschooling (Bozkurt et al., 2020). Therefore, this new education paradigm should
be re-evaluated according to the principles of distance education and should not be set aside. However,
difficulties should also be taken into account when talking about distance education. Because while the
digital transformation process was smooth for some institutions, some others had to face with migra-
tion process due to the pandemic (Hodges et al., 2020; Manfuso, 2020). Moreover, as not all regions in
several countries around the world have adequate enough access to the internet to apply online learn-
ing, students coming from lower-middle income families have had difficulties in accessing eLearning
(Febrianto, Mas’udah & Megasari, 2020). In this regard, teaching and learning in ERE has become quite
difficult and challenging at times.
When talking about difficulties, some more key challenges including social, emotional, and cognitive
engagement of students (Müller et.al, 2021) can be counted. In this list, technical challenges regarding
slow or unreliable internet, cost of connection, technophobia, insufficient 21st-century technological
skills, and lack of devices (Lynch, 2020) may also be added as they prevent students from being a part of
a regular course or using necessary Web 2.0 tools. Besides such technical difficulties, there was no time
to improve the content due to the pandemic and higher education institutions worldwide were aware of
embedding comprehensive curriculum to provide quality education (Palvia et al., 2018).
DIGITAL LANGUAGE LEARNING
Digital Language Learning With Applications and Tools
The lockdown has introduced mankind a fundamentally different vision of schooling and proved the ef-
fective role of socialization in digital language learning (Yandell, 2020). In this constrained new period
of digitalization, the chance to create an opportunity to develop a high-quality experience that exceed
alternative modalities may also be a challenge (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). In this regard, it may be
necessary to develop initiatives to ensure continuity of digital language learning and empower learners
with multi-faceted tools work within pandemic pedagogy.
In literature, various studies conducted on the efficiency of digital English learning show that most of
the students have made benefit of online learning applications in this emergency situation (Famularsih,
2020). Some LMS applications namely Google Classroom, Moodle, Quipper, Edmodo and WhatsApp
were used by English teachers in asynchronous eLearning, hence has an importance to carry out eLearn-
ing in convenient way (Cakrawati, 2017). When evaluated in the context of asynchronous use of these
Web 2.0 tools, it can be indicated that digital language learning is beneficial in the Covid-19 process as
asynchronous learning gives an opportunity to both students and instructors when they prefer to interact
272

Good Vibes Only
offline (Daniel, 2020). According to the data obtained in various studies, listening, reading, and vocabulary
have been the skills which are much affected throughout pandemic (Mu’ayyadah & Sahiruddin, 2020).
To the perceptions, of Indian students, those three skills were mostly benefited through ZOOM meet-
ings and Learning Management Systems (LMSs). Some other recent studies also connote that students’
perceptions of using Google classroom-based learning materials for learning English are positive and
the platform has improved the reading and writing performance of Syrian students (Albashtawi & Al
Bataineh, 2020). Students showed positive attitudes toward using Google Classroom in terms of teaching
the English Business Writing class is also observed (Apriyanti et.al, 2019).
Before the outbreak of Covid-19, many higher education institutions across the globe, have decided
to move courses online platforms and took a step towards digitization. In some previous studies, four
themes were presented for effective online course design and facilitation including (1) to be supportive
in student success; (2) to provide clarity and clarity in the content structure; (3) build a supportive learn-
ing community; (4) being more prepared and more agile as an educator (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2018).
However, instructors could not feel comfortable and fully prepared to interact with their students online
(Starkey, 2020). In this connection, Zoom can be an effective learning tool that allows students to partici-
pate in their online live courses through non-verbal icons, to interact with other pupils within ‘breakout
rooms’, to be engaged via surveys and to allow both teachers and students to share their browser screens
synchronously (Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2020). By using all these features of the above-mentioned Web
2.0 tools, instructors overcome the problem of low engagement and low motivation of students who are
restricted to study only at home (Fansury et.al, 2020). In this regard, it can be said that creating interest-
ing course content presented with the right tool may be crucial in increasing motivation.
Digital (Language) Learning Within Pandemic Pedagogy in Turkey
With the obvious existence of the Covid-19 process, countries tried to make many innovations in order
to keep their education systems alive. In this connection, the quality of learning in the effectiveness of
these innovations and the continuation of uninterrupted education largely depends on digital access level
and quality (Gilani, 2020). In Turkey, due to the pandemic, continuous education including face to face
activities at all educational levels were postponed and online exams to measure and evaluate student
achievement had been activated (Ertug, 2020). In higher education context, the courses are decided to
be given via open and distance learning system as of 23 March 2020 with the decision of the Turkish
Higher Education Council (YOK, 2020).
The digitization of the learning materials and use of technology in the learning process was imple-
mented long before the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. However, in the ERE period, it was necessary
but hard to supply a sustainable digital portal and qualified educators who could use it (Ozer, 2020)
with digitized materials. With the decision of closing the schools in Turkey, Ministry of Education
structured a new digital portal for education called Educational Informatics Network (EBA in Turkish)
and collaborated with Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT in Turkish) to maintain distance
education to Turkish students. In Educational Informatics Network, there are TV lessons recorded by
674 teachers from 93 different fields particularly for primary school and middle school (Akbulut et.al,
2020). These TV programs are broadcasted between 09.00 and 14.00 and replays between 14.30 and
20.00. According to data provided lately, the platform is listed as the 2,734th website worldwide, 63th
website in Turkey and 44th education website which has been used in the world (Han et.al., 2020). By
building this website, prepared contents have reached most of the students in a country like Turkey which
273

Good Vibes Only
has huge population. Reaching a lot of students in different locations where there is a shortage of internet
and Web 2.0 tools can be considered as a positive development. Another positive development can be
related to the provision of student motivation because online motivation is one of the most important
aspects of immersive courses, where students must be able to attend regularly. To the researchers, during
Covid-19 period, many students do not seem to be motivated and feel bored with low comprehension
(Fansury et.al., 2020). This may be because they are stranded at home and are constantly exposed to
digital announcements. The students who have difficulty understanding the content presented, after a
while may disconnect from the course and may refuse to learn English at a distance.
Although the immersive platforms, which were inaugurated as urgent solutions for the continua-
tion of distance education have caused several difficulties for both students and instructors to reach.
For example, in one of the studies, the problems experienced during Covid-19 pandemic were listed as
internet connection problems (Ekmekci, 2017), online feedback deficiency, lack of student motivation
and interaction (Sintema; 2020; Nart & Altunışık, 2013; Korkmaz & Toraman, 2020). Because of the
challenges underlined in various studies conducted in literature, e-Learning crack-up seem to have a
noticeable effect on the student’s fear of academic loss with reasons such as inadequate access to tech-
nology, fear of failure and anxiety, mental stress, ineffective e-Learning systems, and psychological
frustration of completing online courses successfully (Hasan & Bao, 2020). To some other research-
ers, the application of the online learning systems in the centre of pandemic brought various reactions
towards online learning. For example, teachers should be trained with adequate information and skills
to optimize their online learning activities as some of them urgently need to enhance their professional
knowledge in digital language learning (Akhter, 2020). Based upon the findings of these studies, it can
be underlined that many educational institutions prioritize English as a second instructional language
around the world; however, many also fail to conduct instruction because of the societal, economic, and
educational restrictions caused by the pandemic. In other words, with the emergence of a sudden and
completely unprepared education environment due to the Covid-19 outbreak, some attention has been
drawn to the obstacles that exist. That is why more research studies on how ELT has been influenced
by the pandemic is required.
When considered in a digital language learning in Turkey, it can be observed that teaching process
was a challenge for foreign language instructors as they encountered similar problems such as low mo-
tivation and reluctance caused by students (Tumen-Akyıldız, 2020). Existing studies conducted on flow
experiences of Turkish EFL students in online language classes has displayed that students had problems
such as not having a computer, not having internet access and internet subscription (Han et al., 2020). To
the same researchers, the answers of the students to the open ended questions also included motivation
distraction, concentration problems, weak internet connection and equality of opportunity in education.
Similarly, some other study results also reveal that the majority of the students in Turkey were not keen
on online learning and desire to be back to traditional classrooms when the pandemic threat is over;
however, a noticeable number of them also find online learning advantageous, practical and helpful within
the context of digital language learning (Evisen et.al., 2020). When deducing from these results, it can
be observed that digital language learning has benefits as well as difficulties from the perspectives of
Turkish students. In this connection instructors’ solutions to technical problems may be limited, but in
preventing motivation loss, it seems critical to take some precautions and to digitize learning materials.
Digital (language) learning in Pandemic Pedagogy has hosted a different experience for Anadolu
University in Turkey. Since the teaching process was integrated rather than skill-based teaching at the
School of Foreign Languages (SoFL), it was found to be appropriate to conduct language education
274

Good Vibes Only
online. In order to facilitate interaction and communication among EFL learners, important elements
regarding methods of lecturing, course syllabus and assessment & evaluation were determined as follows:
Methods of Lecturing, Duration and Materials
1. Textbook: The course book with Classware for instructors and online support materials were used
for all levels (A, B, C and D).
2. Exercise Book: The support material prepared by SoFL were be used in synchronous and asyn-
chronous courses.
3. YouTube Videos: 280 training videos had already been prepared by SoFL instructors and up-
loaded to school’s YouTube channel; the links of the recorded videos were shared on the Learning
Management System Canvas-Mergen to be used in asynchronous teaching.
After the determination of all course materials, the course processing was formed as follows:
1. Canvas-Mergen: All of the synchronous courses, asynchronous teaching materials and part of the
measurement and evaluation process was carried out on Canvas-Mergen.
2. Synchronous lessons: The number of lessons per week was decided to be at least 8 live lesson
hours for each level.
3. Asynchronous lessons: YouTube videos prepared by SoFL and auxiliary materials prepared before
were used in line with the curriculum prepared separately for 4 levels, and also student-instructor
interaction was provided in the form of the discussion forums and question-answer discussion.
Course Syllabus
The field-specific online course syllabus in 4 different levels were prepared.
1. Unit quizzes: At the end of each unit, quizzes measuring 5 vocabulary, 10 grammar and reading
comprehension skills were prepared. In this way, students had the opportunity to see their level of
knowledge at the end of each unit. These quizzes increased the interaction with both students and
instructors as quiz answers were discussed in synchronous lessons.
2. Lecture units: Various activities and videos for reading, writing and speaking activities were speci-
fied. Web 2.0 tools and educational social networks were also included in the learning process that
aimed to enhance online interaction.
Assessment and Evaluation

In order to ensure the participation of students in live lessons and to increase interaction, the Evaluation
Process during the Term was carried out as follows:
1. Live Class Participation: Regarding the participation of students in live lessons, the Live Class
Participation Score of the students who met the minimum participation requirement determined
based on the total number of live class hours per semester was included in the final exam evalua-
tion as a percentage.
275

Good Vibes Only
2. Quizzes: A quiz was given at the end of each unit (18-20 pieces according to the level)
3. Exercises: Activities and exercises for reading, writing and speaking skills were carried out with
8-10 tasks per semester for all levels.
4. Synchronous evaluation of verbal performance:
a. Midterm-1: Exam format was determined according to online exam.
b. Midterm-2: The quizzes, tasks and oral performances mentioned above during the term
constitute Midterm-2 grade.
5. Final: Exam format was determined in accordance with online exams. The Live Class Participation
Score of the students who exceed the lower limit for participation in the live class was included in
the final grade as a percentage.
Despite the problems with demotivation during online classes and technical infrastructure like com-
puter and internet connection problems, the presented teaching system of SoFL aimed to integrate EFL
students more into live lessons and to increase interaction between student-student and student instructor.
Digital (Language) Learning at Anadolu University
Compared to primary education, higher education practices related to digital language learning have
been continued at a distance. Live lectures, e-seminar courses, and revision lectures conducted on social
network platforms, which were included in this process, relieved the students from the feeling of loneli-
ness and enabled them to interact with other pupils and instructors. Besides the current drawbacks, the
ERE period has turned into a positive experience for many students in higher education.
Among other higher education institutions in Turkey, Anadolu University with 40 year of educational
experience in distance education has continued to conduct its educational practices through Canvas
(Mergen) (https://mergen.anadolu.edu.tr/) platform that allows its students to follow the syllabi and
revise the incoherent parts of their online courses, interact with their tutors via live courses, experience
flipped learning, get a flexible time schedule of revising asynchronous materials, and download neces-
sary material on a communal interface.
At the beginning of the Covid-19 process, all instructors were subjected to weekly online trainings
and were informed about the necessary principles and issues to be considered in distance education.
Figure 1 shows instructor support module including general overview of the system, announcements,
modules, forums, live sessions, assignments, and lastly measurement and evaluation. By following the
support module and participating in the webinars held at intervals, the instructors were informed and
warned about the rules that they should pay attention to in the e-learning process.
At the beginning of the courses to be conducted at a distance due to Covid-19, the first goal was to
integrate existing course syllabus into an online system. To make it happen, a group of academicians
working in the field of distance education came together and prepared a final report after having a series
of meetings held separately with all Language Levels (A, B, C, D) and Curriculum Responsibles.
The School of Foreign Languages (SoFL), which consists of 192 lecturers, 148 of whom teach in
English started working on online transition of the course syllabi in mid-June, 2020 for its 3000 students
in all over Turkey. Following that hard work, live lessons were planned as 45 minutes at certain days
at all levels. In addition, 2 lecturers were assigned to each online class and course hours were equally
distributed among the instructors. In the planned emergency system, students were required to use
asynchronous course materials before live lessons. This learning responsibility belonged to students,
276

Good Vibes Only
and created awareness for them to ask questions about the relevant asynchronous materials during live
sessions of the course. Figure 2 infers the visual of a sample course page with asynchronous materials:
Figure 1. Instructor support module
Figure 3 displays the number of videos prepared for each language or level. As it is seen, 65 videos
for German, 44 for French, 26 for Russian and 322 English videos for the levels of Starter, Elementary,
Pre-Intermediate,nIntermadiate, Upper-Intermediate were all recorded by the SoFL instuctors. Guiding
videos (Described as ‘Kılavuz Video’ in Turkish) recorded by the Administration of SoFL for the in-
tructors can also be viewed. These informative videos, which are told in an explanatory language, have
been of great importance for the course lecturers in conducting their online courses and archiving them
afterwards in an internet-based storage platform namely Microsoft OneDrive. Thus, students who could
not attend the live classes for any reason had the opportunity to watch these recordings when necessary.
Additional materials prepared for all language levels (A (highest), B, C, D (lowest)) are also as follows:
• Number of quizzes for assessment and evaluation: D -19/ C -18/ B -12 /A- 10;
• Number of tasks: D-10/ C-10 / B-10/ A-10 and
• Number of formative online quizzes prepared by 88 instructors of SoFL: D-10/ C-12/ B-12/ A-10.
In addition to the materials, Asynchronous Discussion Board on Canvas-Mergen, which enable prep
class students who have never met with other pupils due to Covid-19 before, has been activated. Thus,
instructor-student, student-student and student-content interaction were provided in virtual learning
environments, which are the foundations of distance education (Moore, 1993). As seen in that serious
workload above, it may be observed that most higher education institutions including Anadolu University
in Turkey have taken big steps towards emergency education and completed the first semester of 2020-
2021 academic year successfully.
277

Good Vibes Only
Figure 2. Sample course page
Figure 3. The number of videos prepared

278

Good Vibes Only
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
The main objective of this paper was to explore how online solutions and attempts had been defined under
the term of “emergency remote education” since the first outbreak of the pandemic and how pandemic
pedagogy during Covid-19 contributed to emergency remote teaching that triggered online education
both in the world and specifically in Turkey.
With the lockdown, a new vision of distance education was met. In this new vision, both negative
and positive effects of online learning will display to field experts, academicians, researchers, students,
instructors and decision makers how digital language learning should be. Based upon the sources ex-
amined in different parts of this chapter, it can be concluded that the new normal occurred with the
Covid-19 process has forced primary, secondary and higher education institutions both in the world and
in Turkey. Furthermore, technological inadequacy, uncertainty and anxiety experienced in this chaos
environment disturbed students, parents and instructors at the beginning of ERE. However, over time,
negative learning experiences have been replaced by positive ones.
Current studies in literature, still examine the efficiency of digital language teaching and learning
in terms of the benefits of online learning applications emerged in emergency period. As connoted in
various studies, many world institutions seem to have survived the first emergency phase of Covid-19 by
overcoming problems via educational practices, formal e-seminar courses, revision lessons in informal
social network milieus and integration of LMS applications namely Google Classroom, Moodle, Quip-
per, Edmodo and WhatsApp in asynchronous eLearning experiences.
Like most citizens of other countries who see the future of education in a blur picture, Turkish
students have also witnessed the painful periods of Covid-19 and had to be restricted to learn or teach
at homes. But, it may be observed that the fears felt at the very beginning of the pandemic seem to be
replaced by confidence now. As a result, the first step of every unknown stage is difficult, but in a logical
programing created with the basic principles of the distance education, neither students nor instructors
have difficulties.
From a positive perspective of a pandemic pedagogy, having enough empathy towards students and
understanding them during this difficult period may help instructors to cope up with problems. The point
to keep in mind is “What we teach in these times can have secondary importance. We have to keep in
mind that students will remember not the educational content delivered, but how they felt during these
hard times. With an empathetic approach, the story will not center on how to successfully deliver edu-
cational content, but it will be on how learners narrate these times” (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020, p. iv).
On the axis of these thoughts, what happened in the world after Covid-19 is the newly created period
that has a new normal in it. And, contrary to popular belief, educational institutions acquired more in-
formation and had positive experiences in this process. As another positive effect of Covid-19 process,
higher education institutions tend to follow the latest developments in advanced and applied technologies
in developing distance education as well.
The essential point that should be considered for the future studies is that resources such as existing
videos, exercises, online tests, interactive/pdf books, open course materials can be shared with other
world institutions. In this way, on-campus students can be given the opportunity to be a part of cross-
border digital innovation. If this new educational process experienced is not limited to the pandemic, it
may contribute to the continuation of revolutionary online learning in both regional and global contexts.
279

Good Vibes Only
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like send my special thanks to the Administration of Anadolu University, School of Foreign
Languages for their invaluable contribution on the data they provided for my research.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, L., Sosa, M., & Musfy, K. (2020). Interior design teaching methodology during the global
covid-19 pandemic. Interiority, 3(2), 163–184. doi:10.7454/in.v3i2.100
Akbulut, M., Sahin, U., & Esen, A. C. (2020). More than a virus: How covid19 infected education in
turkey? Journal of Social Science Education, 19, 30–42.
Akhter, T. (2020). Problems and challenges faced by efl students of saudi arabia during covid-19 pan-
demic. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12(5), 1–7. doi:10.21659/rupkatha.
v12n5.rioc1s23n5
Albashtawi, A., & Al Bataineh, K. (2020). The effectiveness of google classroom among efl students in
jordan: An innovative teaching and learning online platform. International Journal of Emerging Tech-
nologies in Learning, 15(11), 78–88. doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i11.12865
Allen, J., Rowan, L., & Singh, P. (2020). Teaching and teacher education in the time of covid-19. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 233–236. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2020.1752051
Apriyanti, D., Syarif, H., Ramadhan, S., Zaim, M., & Agustina, A. (2019, March). Technology-based
Google classroom in English business writing class. In Seventh International Conference on Languages
and Arts (ICLA 2018) (pp. 689-694). Atlantis Press. 10.2991/icla-18.2019.113
Bozkurt, A., Sh Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., ... Paskevicius,
M. (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. doi:10.5281/
zenodo.3878572
CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi. https://www.asianjde.org/
ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/447
Cakrawati, L. M. (2017). students’ perceptions on the use of online learning platforms in efl classroom.
English Language Teaching and Technology Journal (ELT-Tech Journal), 1(1), 22–30. doi:10.17509/
elt%20tech.v1i1.9428
Cavus, N., Sani, A. S., Haruna, Y., & Lawan, A. A. (2021). efficacy of social networking sites for sustainable
education in the era of covid-19: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(2), 808. doi:10.3390u13020808
Chan, L., Girish, D., Hird-Younger, M., Hunter, M., & Way, K. (2020). Equity and Online Learning
Survey Results. Research Memo 1, Discovering University Worlds. University of Toronto.
280

Good Vibes Only
Crick, T., Knight, C., Watermeyer, R., & Goodall, J. (2020, September). The impact of Covid-19 and
“Emergency Remote Teaching” on the UK computer science education community. In United Kingdom
& Ireland Computing Education Research conference (pp. 31-37). doi:10.1145/3416465.3416472
Cucinotta, D., & Vanelli, M. (2020). WHO declares Covid-19 a pandemic. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei
Parmensis, 91(1), 157–160. PMID:32191675
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the Covid-19 pandemic. Prospects, 0123456789(1-2), 91–96. Ad-
vance online publication. doi:10.100711125-020-09464-3 PMID:32313309
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of Covid-19 crisis. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. doi:10.1177/0047239520934018
Dietrich, A., Keuster, K., Müller, G. J., & Schoenle, R. (2020). News and uncertainty about covid-19:
Survey evidence and short-run economic impact. FRB of Cleveland Working Paper No. 20-12. http://
dx.doi.org/ doi:10.2139srn.3573123
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2018). Online educators’ recommendations for teaching online:
Crowdsourcing in action. Open Praxis, 10(1), 79–89. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.721
Ekmekci, E. (2017). The flipped writing classroom in Turkish EFL context: A comparative study on a
new model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 151–167. doi:10.17718/tojde.306566
Ertug, C. (2020). Coronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemisi ve pedagojik yansımaları: Türkiye’de açık ve uzaktan
eğitim uygulamaları. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 11–53.
Evisen, N., Akyilmaz, O., & Torun, Y. (2020). A case study of university EFL preparatory class stu-
dents’ attitudes towards online learning during Covid-19 in Turkey. Gaziantep University Journal of
Educational Sciences, 4(1), 73–93.
Famularsih, S. (2020). Students’ experiences in using online learning applications due to Covid-19 in
english classroom. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 112–121. doi:10.46627ilet.v1i2.40
Fansury, A. H., Januarty, R., & Ali Wira Rahman, S. (2020). Digital content for millennial generations:
Teaching the English foreign language learner on Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong
University, 55(3), 40. doi:10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.3.40
Febrianto, P. T., Mas’ udah, S., & Megasari, L. A. (2020). Implementation of online learning during
the Covid-19 pandemic on Madura island, Indonesia. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research, 19(8), 233–254.
Gilani, I. (2020). Coronavirus pandemic reshaping global education system? https://www.aa.com.tr/en/
education/coronavirus-pandemic-reshaping-global-educationsystem/1771350
Han, T., Oksuz, A., Sarman, G., & Nacar, A. M. (2020). Flow experiences of tertiary level Turkish EFL
students in online language classes during Covid-19 outbreak. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 1059–1078.
Hasan, N., & 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, 105355. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105355 PMID:32834276
281

Good Vibes Only
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/
the-difference-between-emergency-remoteteaching-and-online-learning
Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Facilitating synchronous online language learning through
Zoom. RELC Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0033688220937235
Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, Ç. (2020). Are we ready for the post-covid-19 educational practice? An
investigation into what educators think as to online learning. International Journal of Technology in
Education and Science, 4(4), 293–309. doi:10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.110
Lynch, M. (2020). E-Learning during a global pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1),
189–195. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3881785
Manfuso, L. G. (2020, April 15). How the remote learning pivot could shape Higher Ed IT. EdTech
Magazine. https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2020/04/how-remote-learning-pivot-could-shape-
higher-ed-it
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of
distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
Mu’ayyadah, K., & Sahiruddin, S. (2020). Blended online learning culture in an Indonesian tertiary
education during Covid-19 pandemic. Studi Budaya Nusantara, 4(2), 133–143.
Müller, A. M., Goh, C., Lim, L. Z., & Gao, X. (2021). Covid-19 emergency elearning and beyond:
Experiences and perspectives of university educators. Education Sciences, 11(1), 19. doi:10.3390/
educsci11010019
Nart, S., & Altunışık, R. (2013). Improving distance education system: Problems and solutions from the
perspective of lecturers. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 10(10), 23.
Ozer, M. (2020). Educational policy actions by the Ministry of National Education in the times of Co-
vid-19 pandemic in Turkey. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 28(3), 1124–1129.
Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online Educa-
tion: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology
Management, 21(4), 233–241. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
Sá, M. J., & Serpa, S. (2020). The global crisis brought about by SARS-CoV-2 and its impacts on education:
An overview of the Portuguese panorama. Sci. Insights Educ. Front., 5(2), 525–530. doi:10.15354ief.20.
ar039
Simamora, R. M., de Fretes, D., Purba, E. D., & Pasaribu, D. (2020). Practices, challenges, and pros-
pects of online learning during Covid-19 pandemic in higher education: Lecturer perspectives. Studies
in Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 185–208. doi:10.46627ilet.v1i3.45
Sintema, E. J. (2020). Effect of Covid-19 on the performance of grade 12 students: Implications for
stem education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7), 1–6.
doi:10.29333/ejmste/7893
282

Good Vibes Only
Tesar, M. (2020). Towards a post-covid-19 ‘new normality?’: Physical and social distancing, the move to
online and higher education. Policy Futures in Education, 18(5), 556–559. doi:10.1177/1478210320935671
Toquero, C. M. (2020). Emergency remote education experiment amid Covid-19 pandemic. IJERI:
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, (15), 162–172. doi:10.46661/ijeri.5113
Tumen Akyıldız, S. (2020). Pandemi döneminde yapılan uzaktan eğitim çalışmalarıyla ilgili İngilizce
öğretmenlerinin görüşleri (bir odak grup tartışması). RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi,
(21), 679–696. doi:10.29000/rumelide.835811
Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital
ogy, 45(2), 107–114. doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
Yandell, J. (2020). Learning under lockdown: English teaching in the time of Covid-19. Changing Eng-
lish, 27(3), 262–269. doi:10.1080/1358684X.2020.1779029
YOK. (2020). “Yok dersleri platformu” öğrencilerin erişimine açıldı. https://www.yok.gov.tr/
Canvas (Mergen): Learning Management System of Anadolu University which contains assign-
ments, materials and necessary links related to the distance education courses.
Covid-19: The disease caused by a new strain of coronavirus that has spread worldwide, and also
called as pandemic by World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020.
Digital Language Learning: Teaching and learning a foreign language in digitalized milieus.
Emergency Remote Education (ERE): Emergent educational attempt that is given to students dur-
ing time of Covid-19. This education practice is an obligation rather than an option.
Microsoft OneDrive: Internet-based storage platform.
Online Learning: Online learning defines the courses presented through the internet. It also called
as Computerized Electronic Learning or Internet Learning.
Pandemic Pedagogy: The pedagogy that cover themes related to online education conducted under
pandemic conditions.
283
284
Chapter 15
University Instructors’
Views on Distance Medical
Education Activities
Alper Altunçekiç
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3649-0991
Gazi University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
The fact that most of the classes are based on cases and learners are normally in the feld rather than
in classrooms in medical education stands out as the biggest problem faced in conducting medical
education through distance education. The study collected data by asking open-ended questions, which
were formed by taking domain experts’ opinions, to 27 instructors working in various universities in
Turkey. The collected data were subjected to qualitative data analysis in an attempt to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of distance medical education activities, the positive and negative efects of
distance education on learners, and the difculties faced by instructors. The analysis results show that
the instructors experience difculties in terms of practical training, communication, feedback, and
classroom management in distance medical education. On the other hand, the instructors highlight that
such features of distance education as accessibility and individual learning have a positive contribution
to medical education.
INTRODUCTION
Face-to-face educational activities were suspended, and distance education model was adopted in many
countries including Turkey due to the COVID-19 epidemic starting in the late 2019 and turning into a
global pandemic in a short time. As an approach used in situations such as natural disasters or global
crises (Swartz, Gachago and Belford 2018), distance education has become almost the only alternative
in this pandemic period. In this period, Turkey, like most countries around the world, has sustained the
educational process through distance education by using digital technologies to provide effective edu-
cation (Bakioğlu and Çevik, 2020). Dating back to about three centuries ago (Bozkurt, 2017), distance
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch015

University Instructors’ Views on Distance Medical Education Activities
education has gained importance as an alternative solution for eliminating the learning loss of students
and institutions during the pandemic period, which has led to the reduction of educational opportuni-
ties (Toquero, 2020; Westine et al., 2019). Distance education is a form of education in which learner
and teacher are physically far from each other (Adıyaman, 2002; Odabaş, 2003; Horzum, 2003; Uşun,
2006). In other words, it refers to conducting educational activities without physical interaction through
tools such as television, computer, tablet, and mobile phone (Moore and Kearsley, 2005; Clark, 2020).
According to Alkan (1987), on the other hand, distance education is a teaching method in which com-
munication and interaction between the planners and implementers of educational activities and students
is provided from a specific center through specially prepared teaching units and various environments
in cases where in-class activities cannot be carried out due to the limitations of traditional teaching and
learning methods.
As can be understood from the definitions above, distance education is primarily a possibility of-
fered by technology that emerged as a learning model, that exceeds the possibilities of existing learning
processes and models, and that carries the learning process beyond time and space (Demir, 2014). The
COVID-19 pandemic has led to the more effective use of e-learning technologies, social media, mobile
technologies, online resources, and digital devices in the field of education (Mulenga and Marban, 2020).
These technologies, which are used increasingly and intensively, should provide learners with features
such as equal opportunities, flexible learning, and individual learning. This is because distance education
has a different learning environment design compared to traditional education (Karakuş et al., 2020) and
is a practice emphasizing that the individual, distinctive characteristics of learners should be taken into
account (cited in Ekici, 2003). However, the transition from face-to-face education to distance education
without preparation as a result of the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic caused some problems
in the adaptation process and turned out to be a transfer of the face-to-face educational environment to
digital environment without creating adequate e-learning contents. Many instructors have had to adapt
their personal curriculum to distance education (Galles et al., 2020). Bozkurt et al. (2020) state that
teachers and institutions going through an unprecedented situation try to ensure that learners continue
to learn at home through measures such as publishing printed materials, providing access to educational
applications and websites. However, distance education involves offering numerous learning activities
to learners and instructors in a planned, designed, comprehensive, and systematic way (Altıparmak,
2011; Bozkurt, 2020). Bozkurt and Sharma (2020) define distance education as an optional, planned
activity based on theoretical and practical knowledge while they refer to emergency remote teaching as
compulsory online learning conducted in times of crisis by use of all available resources. Many learn-
ers and instructors have experienced problems of adaptation, technological facility, access to interactive
content, technical infrastructure, etc. in the COVID-19 pandemic distance education process, which
started without adequate planning and e-learning content, since they had never used distance education
tools before (Toquero, 2020; Keskin and Özer, 2020; Durak, 2020). This is because the preparations and
changes that are normally supposed to take months or years have been tried to be put into effect within
a few days due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Daniel, 2020).

Distance education has become more difficult, especially for applied sciences and courses conducted
in the laboratory environment. This process has also affected medical education, which involves exten-
sive use of laboratory and clinical practices beyond mere transfer of conceptual knowledge and aims to
provide students with certain skills as well as theoretical knowledge (Batı and Seyrek, 2020). To Daniel
(2020), technical and vocational education programs have special needs; the practical training they re-
quire can be conducted through distance learning, but special arrangements are needed for this. Medical
285

educators, carrying out most of their educational activities in hospitals and laboratories, have undoubt-
edly been the most affected group of instructors in this process. In this regard, the present study was
carried out to determine, within the context of medical education where distance education has replaced
practical trainings, instructors’ views on distance education, their distance education experiences, and
the difficulties they face in the distance education process. This study is particularly significant because
the literature includes scarcely any studies on distance education in medical education and the views of
medical educators on this matter, especially within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study
seeks an answer to the research problems on the following:
• positive and negative efects of distance medical education on medical education and on students
of medicine,
• the difculties encountered by instructors in distance classroom management,
• instructors’ expectations from the distance education process.
METHOD
This is a qualitative research carried out to examine instructors’ views of distance medical education
activities. Mayring (1994) reports that qualitative research tries to gain in-depth information about
social phenomena by entering the natural world of people. Qualitative data analysis is a process where
the researcher organizes the data, divides them into units of analysis, synthesizes them, reveals pattern,
discovers significant variables, and decides what information to include in the report (Bogdan and
Biklen, 1992). Qualitative data analysis is a classification and interpretation process aimed at generating
meaning about the data studied and developing explanations about what is represented in the data set
(Çelik, Baykal and Memur, 2020).
The study used case study design, which is a qualitative research design. Case study is a research
method that allows the researcher to examine in depth a phenomenon or event that s/he cannot control
based on how and why questions (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2011; Yin, 2009;). Göncü, Çetin and Top (2018)
define it as a research method that allows making in-depth examination of cases which occur in a spe-
cific period of time, constitute a whole with its own context, and are difficult to be confined to strict
boundaries through data collection tools involving multiple sources. The case study provides a deeper
understanding of the studied subject in its context (cited in Karataş, 2015).
Study Group
The study group consists of 33 instructors working in various universities in Turkey in the fall semester
of the 2020-2021 academic year. The instructors working in different universities and actively engaged
in distance medical education by teaching in the study period were tried to be contacted via digital chan-
nels such as WhatsApp and e-mail. The data of six instructors who did not answer most of the questions
or left them blank were not included in the analyses. That is, the views of 27 instructors were analyzed.
The distribution of the instructors by university is shown in table 1.
286

Table 1. Distribution of the instructors by university
University/Faculty N %
Aksaray University School of Medicine 1 3.7
Başkent University Faculty of Medicine 2 7.4
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine 1 3.7
Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Medicine 1 3.7
Ege University Faculty of Medicine 1 3.7
Gazi University Faculty of Medicine 4 14.8
Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine 2 7.4
Istanbul Medeniyet University Faculty of Medicine 1 3.7
Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Medicine 3 11.1
Ordu University Faculty of Medicine 7 25.9
Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine 1 3.7
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Faculty of Medicine 1 3.7
University of Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine 1 3.7
Trakya University Faculty of Medicine 1 3.7
Total 27 100
As shown in table 1, the faculty instructors from 14 different universities are predominantly members
of Ordu University (25.9%), Gazi University (14.8%), and Ondokuz Mayıs University (11.1%).
The distribution of the instructors by gender is shown in table 2.
Table 2. Distribution of the instructors by gender
Gender N %
Male 10 37.04
Female 17 62.96
Total 27 100
Table 3. Distribution of the instructors by academic title

Academic Title N %
Prof. Dr. 5 18.52
Assoc. Prof. Dr. 6 22.22
Asst. Prof. Dr. 13 48.15
Specialist Dr. 3 11.11
Total 27 100
287

Table 4. Distribution of the instructors by status of attending a training of trainers program on distance
education
I Attended a Training of Trainers Program N %

Yes 8 29.63
No 19 70.37
Total 27 100
As shown in Table 2, 37.04% of the instructors are male, and 62.96% are female. The distribution of
the instructors by academic title is shown in table 3
As shown in table 3, five instructors hold the title of Prof. Dr. (18.52%), six of Assoc. Prof. Dr.
(22.22%), 13 of Asst. Prof. Dr. (48.15%), and three of Specialist Dr. (11.11%).
Data Collection Tool
The study used open-ended questions for data collection. The data collection tool was created by the
researcher. The 14 questions in the data collection tool were reduced to seven questions in line with the
opinions of three different domain experts. The final version of the data collection tool was created on the
Internet, and the access address was communicated to the participants, who were then asked to answer
the questions over the Internet. The following questions were addressed to the participants:
1. What are the contributions of distance education to medical education?

2. What do you think are the positive effects of distance medical education on students?
3. What do you think are the negative effects of distance medical education on students?
4. What do you think you have difficulties in while giving distance medical education?
5. What methods and tools do you use to motivate students while giving distance medical education?
6. What do you think is needed for distant medical education to be more quality and efficient? What
are your suggestions on this matter?
7. Have you attended the training of trainers on distance education?
Data Analysis
The obtained qualitative data were subjected to content analysis. The participants’ responses to the open-
ended questions were analyzed and coded. Coding is referred to as the critical link in the interpretation
of data (Charmaz, 2001). In a qualitative research, a code often refers to a summarizing, striking, reflec-
tive, and/or associative word or short phrase used to describe language-based or visual data (Akcan and
Şad, 2019). They can be in the form of sentence fragments, a sentence, sentences, a paragraph block, or
blocks of paragraphs (Sağlam and Kanadlı, 2020).
288

FINDINGS
The participants were first asked whether they had attended any training of trainers program on distance
education before. The findings obtained in this context are shown in table 4.
As shown in table 4, the majority of the instructors have not attended any training of trainers pro-
gram. Only 29.63% of the instructors have attended a training of trainers program before. 70.37% of
the instructors have played an active role in the distance education process but have not attended any
training of trainers program.
The qualitative data collected for determining the instructors’ views on distance medical education
activities are analyzed on the basis of themes, codes related to themes, and sample instructor views below.
First, the instructors’ views on the theme of contribution of distance education to medical education are
given in figure 1:
Figure 1. Instructor views on the theme of contribution of distance education to medical education
Figure 1 shows that the sub-themes obtained from the instructors’ views on the contribution of dis-
tance education to medical education are “accessibility”, “theoretical course”, and “no contribution”.
The vast majority of the instructors (f=14) believe that distance education does not contribute to medical
education at all. Some of the instructors (f=6) stated the accessibility-related contribution of distance
education. Only four instructors mentioned the theoretical course sub-theme. The data in figure 1 in-
dicate that the instructors believe it is not appropriate to conduct medical education, which is normally
carried out in clinical and laboratory settings, in distance education environments. Sample statements
on the sub-themes are as follows;
• Accessibility:
◦◦ “Spaceless, optimal education.”.
◦◦ “Having always accessible written and visual course content.”.
• Theoretical Course:
◦◦ “It can only be used for theoretical knowledge under pandemic conditions.”.
289

◦◦ “It is a good option for this period and for theoretical courses.”.
• No Contribution:
◦◦ “It does not contribute. It is just a minimalized education.”.
◦◦ “None. It just prevents the absolute cessation of education.”.
The analysis results concerning the instructors’ views on the possible positive effects of distance
medical education on students are presented in figure 2.
Figure 2. Instructor views on the theme of positive effects of distance medical education on students
Figure 2 contains the sub-themes of the instructors’ responses to the question, “What are the positive
effects of distance medical education on students?” Ten instructors’ responses to that question fell under
the accessibility sub-theme. The views of five instructors fell under the sub-themes of individual education
and preventing transmission. Seven instructors, on the other hand, stated that distance medical educa-
tion does not have a positive effect on students. Sample statements on these sub-themes are as follows;
• Accessibility:
◦◦ “Availability of access through any environment brings practicality in terms of time and
place.”.
◦◦ “Possibility of participation in education from any location and environment.”.
• Individual Education:
◦◦ “A more individual education.”.
◦◦ “They can study on subjects they think they have defciency in the way they want.”.
• Preventing Transmission:
◦◦ “The positive side is reduced risk of catching the disease.”.
◦◦ “Prevention of the COVID transmission.”.
• No Efect:
◦◦ “I think distance education is not suitable for continuous training.”.
◦◦ “I do not think it has a positive efect.”.
290

The analysis results concerning the instructors’ views on the possible negative effects of distance
medical education on students are presented in figure 3.
Figure 3. Instructor views on the theme of negative effects of distance medical education on students
Figure 3 presents the analysis results regarding the instructors’ views on the negative effects of
distance medical education on students. The negative effects on students fall under four sub-themes.
Under this theme, the most dominant sub-theme is interaction (f=16). The practical training sub-theme
was contained in 11 views. According to eight instructors, distance medical education has negatively
affected students’ motivation. The patient communication sub-theme was contained in only two instruc-
tors’ views. Sample views on the sub-themes are as follows;
• Practical Training:
◦◦ “Lack of possibility of observing cases, discussing, and making visits.”.
◦◦ “Applying it alone is absolutely wrong. It should be supported by face-to-face practical in-
ternship, and theoretical knowledge should be reinforced.”.
• Motivation:
◦◦ “Lack of concentration among students.”.
◦◦ “Difculty in getting involved in subjects.”.
• Patient Communication:
◦◦ “Students cannot see patients.”.
◦◦ “Loss of communication with patients.”.
• Interaction:
◦◦ “Not being able to meet face to face; not being able to fully understand who understands and
who actively participates.”.
◦◦ “I think the lack of interaction is a serious problem for many subjects.”.
The sub-themes obtained from the analysis of the instructors’ views on the difficulties they have in
distance medical education are shown in figure 4.
291

Figure 4. Instructor views on the theme of difficulties in distance medical education
The instructors stated that they cannot receive feedback (f=9) and they cannot communicate ad-
equately with students (f=9) in distance education. They also stated that they have difficulties in terms
of practical training (f=8) as faculties of medicine use applied sciences most extensively. Another point
of difficulty is contained in the sub-theme of classroom management (f=5). Sample statements on the
sub-themes are as follows;
• Feedback:
◦◦ “Not being able to get students’ reactions, that is, their feedback.”.
◦◦ “I cannot be sure whether the student understands or whether s/he is listening or not.”.
Figure 5. Instructor views on the theme of methods and tools used for motivating students in distance
medical education
292

Figure 6. Instructor views on the theme of requirements for better quality distance medical education
• Communication:
◦◦ “You cannot make eye contact with the students, you cannot recognize them.”.
◦◦ “Failure to establish bilateral communication with students.”.
• Practical Training:
◦◦ “It prevents learning the requirements of being a physician such as practicing and making
patient evaluation.”.
◦◦ “Usually we have difculties in practical and laboratory/applied courses.”.
• Classroom Management:
◦◦ “It usually feels like I teach by myself.”.
◦◦ “Usually we have difculties in practical and laboratory/applied courses.”.
The sub-themes obtained from the analysis of the instructors’ responses regarding the methods and
tools used for motivating students in distance medical education are shown in figure 5.
Figure 5 includes the analysis results regarding the instructors’ views on the theme of methods and
tools used for motivating students in distance medical education. This theme was found to have five
sub-themes. The question & answer (f=11) method was stated to be preferred most for motivating
students, which is followed by the use of visual materials (f=9). The instructors occasionally chat with
students (f=5) and make mention of their own experiences and cases (f=3) to motivate students. Five
instructors stated that they do not use any tools or methods to motivate students. Sample statements for
the sub-themes are as follows;
• Visual Material:
◦◦ “Colorful visual presentations… Diferentiation in tone and intonation.”.
◦◦ “Making students watch a video, making the presentation as lively as possible.”.
• No Use:
◦◦ “I have no method.”.
◦◦ “I do not have any method.”.
• Cases:
293

◦◦ “I try to color it with case examples.”.

◦◦ “I talk about the current medical and hospital environments apart from the lessons.”.
• Chat:
◦◦ “I try to ensure all students’ involvement by giving them the foor, making them turn on their
camera and microphone whenever possible.”.
◦◦ “When I feel that they are bored, I try to create a chat environment by giving fun examples
from my own studenthood from time to time.”.
• Question & Answer:
◦◦ “Applying pre-tests and post-tests and asking questions occasionally.”.
◦◦ “Asking them questions and giving them the foor.”.
The instructors stated that education should be more Interactive (f=8) for a better quality distance
medical education. The instructors’ emphasis on technical infrastructure (f=4) is also remarkable. On
the other hand, eight instructors, also corresponding to a high frequency, think that distance education
is not suitable for medical education. In addition, there were instructors defending that the quality of
distance medical education cannot be increased and that it should be done face to face (f=5). Sample
views on the sub-themes are as follows;
• Interactive Education:
◦◦ “Shooting the whole body as if lecturing on the podium could be an option.”.
◦◦ “There is a need for systems allowing interactive lessons where more active participation
can occur and where we can see and hear children.”.
• Technical Infrastructure:
◦◦ “Technical support is important. Student motivation is important.”.
◦◦ “A faster and more efcient Internet infrastructure is required.”.
• Not Suitable:
◦◦ “I think it is not possible for (distance) medical education to be of good quality and positive
regardless of what is done.”.
◦◦ “Medical education is not a program suitable for distance education.”.
• Face to Face Education:
◦◦ “Education should be face to face for students passing to the clinic.”.
◦◦ “It should be supported by face-to-face practices.”.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study investigated the views of instructors working in faculties (schools) of medicine in Turkey on
distance medical education they have been carrying out through the COVID-19 pandemic. The results
obtained by analyzing the findings are discussed in this section.
The findings obtained through the question posed to reveal the instructors’ views on contribution of
distance education to medical education show that the majority of the instructors believe that distance
education does not contribute to medical education. This can be explained by the fact that students do
not have the opportunity to practice as long as medical education, which mainly follows an applied
program, is continued with distance education. Daniel (2020) argues that the online provision of these
294

kinds of trainings that involve application and skill can be rendered more effective by making special
arrangements. Keskin and Kaya (2020), surveying undergraduate and graduate students, found that web-
based distance education is not as effective as face-to-face education, according to most of the students
(84.4%). Akgün (2020), in his study addressing student views on accounting education offered through
emergency remote teaching, concluded that the students believe that such remote teaching does not
contribute to their future. The results obtained in the said two studies seem to be consistent with those
of our current study.
The participating instructors were also asked to express their views on the positive and negative
effects of distance medical education on students. Majority of the participants expressed accessibility
as a positive effect and communication problems as a negative effect of distance medical education.
Altunçekiç (2020) defines accessibility in online learning environments as learners’ ability to access
information quickly without difficulty. The instructors’ views of accessibility in distance medical
education feature the learners’ possibility of accessing information through any environment and the
practicality of the process in terms of time and place. Hussein, Daoud, Alrabaiah and Badawi (2020),
conducting a case study on 45 students receiving English 1 and English 2 classes in Al Ain University,
concluded that students can easily access distance education from anywhere, thereby saving time and
cost, in the COVID-19 pandemic period. The association of communication with a negative effect can
be explained by the inadequacy of student-instructor interaction and the use of camera and microphone
features only by instructors in the currently used distance education systems. According to Khlaif et al.
(2020), teachers caught unprepared for the process due to the sudden change in teaching method with
the COVID-19 pandemic state that they do not have a good command of technology use and therefore
cannot communicate effectively with students; they only communicate for the current curriculum to be
completed. Similarly, Shin and Kasey (2020), conducting a study in a public university in the U.S. state
of New Jersey, report that students see non-communication as a negative effect of emergency remote
teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Another sub-problem addressed in the study covers the difficulties the instructors have in distance
medical education. The instructors reported difficulties regarding feedback, communication with stu-
dents, practical training, and classroom management. In her study conducted in a public university in
Indonesia, Rahiem (2020) determined that the students complain that they have been left alone during
the emergency remote learning process, cannot work in groups, and remain only in a listener and note-
taker position. In the present study, the instructors emphasized that they cannot get enough feedback from
their students and cannot maintain effective communication during live classes. This can be explained
by the fact that students attend the session only as a listener on the system, and they cannot express their
opinions or speak unless they are authorized to do so by the instructor. It is known that the aim of such
restriction is to prevent system slowdowns caused by the existing Internet infrastructures and to enable
the instructor to provide a fluent lesson.
The present study also explored the instructors’ views on raising student motivation during distance
live lessons. Negativity in student motivation is among the instructors’ concerns. It is reported that
learners have difficulties in keeping their motivation and focus during emergency remote teaching initi-
ated due to COVID-19 (Shin and Kasey, 2020). The instructors participating in the present study were
determined to make most use of questions & answers and visual materials to motivate students. They
stated that they try to make the visual materials (slides) they prepare more interesting and that they share
the video content they can find on the subjects covered. It is understood from the instructors’ statements
295

that they use the question & answer method most to ensure student involvement in lessons and to make
students follow the lessons they attend.
Finally, the study questioned the instructors’ views on what is needed to make distance medical edu-
cation better quality. The instructors’ responses to the open-ended question posed on this matter reveal
that they have common views on the need for more interactivity and stronger technical infrastructure
in distance education. Another view delivered for more effective and better quality distance medical
education suggests that distance education must definitely be accompanied by face-to-face education.
Many previous studies emphasize that distance education should be supported by face-to-face education,
especially in applied fields. In a study by Durak, Çankaya, and İzmirli (2020), instructors stated that
distance education should be used to support face-to-face education.
As a result, the present study revealed that distance medical education activities, starting and still
ongoing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, have both pedagogical and social advantages and disadvantages
for instructors and students. In this context, we expect the results of this study to be guiding for distance
medical education to be conducted more effectively and productively as well as for further research.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Distance education refers to a learning environment that should be put into practice in a planned, de-
signed, comprehensive, and systematic way that is rich in e-learning content. However, in this state
of emergency, an attempt has been made to offer distance education by using the existing face-to-face
teaching materials, without adequate planning and especially without preparing the required content. In
other words, classrooms have been moved to video conferences. Forehand’s (2010) view is significant
at this point as she suggests that web-based distance education may contribute to the knowledge and
comprehension stages of Bloom’s taxonomy, but will not suffice for the application, synthesis, analysis,
and evaluation stages. On the other hand, Sintema (2020) reports that education will not achieve its goal
if e-learning opportunities and contents are weak. The results obtained in the present study reveal that
interactive e-learning contents should not be ignored for distance medical education to be effective.
Considering the results of the present study in which the importance of sample cases or patient interac-
tion is emphasized, students receiving distance medical education may be offered trainings similar to
those offered in clinical environments through interactive contents such as simulations. In a similar vein,
mobile applications with features such as virtual patients and virtual laboratories may be developed for
activities that students normally carry out in clinical and laboratory settings so that students can perform
the procedures they need to perform physically in the hospital environment and gain experience for their
professional life after graduation.
Another remarkable finding of the present study is the instructors’ belief that medical education
should be conducted through practices in the form of a master-apprentice relationship. The fact that
distance education breaks this relationship and that there is not enough communication with students is
among the instructors’ concerns. To maintain this relationship in distance medical education, not only
the instructor but all participants may use system features such as cameras and microphones during the
live classes, or systems where students can follow the patient visits and case examinations conducted
by doctors may be set up. Such systems and applications may be effective in raising student motivation,
too. Feeling themselves in a hospital environment, though a virtual one, may contribute to their willing-
ness and interest in classes.
296

Strengthening the infrastructure facilities, which are of primary importance in all distance education
systems, is important so as not to disrupt distance education. It is also clearly important to fulfill the
technical support needs of the instructors who have not had distance education experience before. The fact
that the majority of the participants (70.37%) have not attended any training of trainers program before
also causes difficulties in distance education. Thus, institutions should plan programs for training trainers
on distance education at certain intervals. While planning programs for training trainers, the results of
the present study and of similar studies should be taken into account, the content of such training should
be determined in line with the instructors’ needs, and the most frequently experienced difficulties should
be considered. Trainings to be given on subjects such as classroom management, interaction, material
development, and process design will contribute to instructors’ distance education practices.
LIMITATIONS
The present study tried to reach medical educators spending intense labor and time during the COVID-19
pandemic. The number of the instructors reached during this busy period may be seen as a limitation of
this study. We hope that studies to be carried out with more participants on this subject will contribute
to the literature.
REFERENCES
Adıyaman, Z. (2002). Uzaktan Eğitim Yoluyla Yabancı Dil Öğretimi [Foreign Language Teaching
Through Distance Education]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 92–97.
Akcan Tüfekci, A., & Şad, S. N. (2019). Nitel Araştırmalar için Kodlama El Kitabı [The Coding Manual
for Qualitative Researchers]. Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
Akgün, A. İ. (2020). COVID-19 Sürecinde Acil Durum Uzaktan Eğitimi Yoluyla Verilen Muhasebe
Eğitimine Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri. [Student views on accounting education delivered through emer-
gency distance education during the COVID-19 process]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları
Dergisi, 6(4), 208–236.
Alkan, C. (1987). Açıköğretim [Open Learning]. Ankara: Ankara University Faculty of Educational
Sciences Publications. No:157.
Altıparmak, M., Kurt, İ. D., & Kapıdere, M. (2011). E-öğrenme ve uzaktan eğitimde açık kaynak kodlu
öğrenme yönetim sistemleri [E-Learning And Open Source Code Management Systems In Education].
XIII. Academic Informatics Conference Proceedings Book, 319-327.
Altunçekiç, A. (2020). Çevimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Erişilebilirlik ve Mobil Teknolojiler [Accessibil-

ity and Mobile Technologies in Online Learning Environments]. In Theory and Research in Educational
Sciences II. Ankara: Gece Publishing.
Bakioğlu, B., & Çevik, M. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemisi Sürecinde Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin
Uzaktan Eğitime İlişkin Görüşleri [Science Teachers’ Views on Distance Education in the COVID-19
Pandemic Process]. Turkish Studies, 15(4), 109–129.
297

Batı, H. A., & Sayek, İ. (2020). Tıp Eğitimi ve Covid-19 Salgını. Türk Tabipler Birliği Covid-19 Panede-
misi Altıncı Ay Değerlendirme Raporu [COVID-19 Pandemic 6th Month Assessment Report]. Retrieved
from https://www.ttb.org.tr/yayin_goster.php?Guid=42ee49a2-fb2d-11ea-abf2-539a0e741e38
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: Introduction and Methods.
Allyn and Bacon.
Bozkurt, A. (2017). Türkiye’de Uzaktan Eğitimin Dünü, Bugünü ve Yarını [The Past, Present and Future
of the Distance Education in Turkey]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 85–124.
Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) Pandemi Süreci Ve Pandemi Sonrası Dünyada Eğitime
Yönelik Değerlendirmeler: Yeni Normal Ve Yeni Eğitim Paradigmasi [Coronavirus (Covid-19) pan-
demic process and educational evaluations in the post-pandemic world: New normal and new education
paradigm]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 112–142.
uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–126.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observa-
Education, 15(2), i–x.
Çeli̇k, H., Baykal, N., & Memur, H. (2020). Nitel Veri Analizi ve Temel İlkeleri [Qualitative Data
Analysis and Fundamental Principles]. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(1), 379–406.
Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. Handbook of interview
research: Context and method. Sage.
Clark, J. T. (2020). Distance education. Clinical Engineering Handbook (ss. 410-415) (E. Iadanza, Ed.).
Academic Press.
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1-2), 91–96. doi:10.100711125-
020-09464-3 PMID:32313309
Demir, E. (2014). Uzaktan Eğitime Genel Bir Bakış [Overview Of Distance Education]. Dumlupinar
University Journal of Social Science, 39, 203–212.
Durak, G., Çankaya, S., & İzmirli, S. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemi Döneminde Türkiye’deki Üniversitel-
erin Uzaktan Eğitim Sistemlerinin İncelenmesi [Examining the Turkish Universities’ Distance Educa-
tion Systems During the COVID-19 Pandemic]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education., 14(1), 787–810.
Ekici, G. (2003). Uzaktan Eğitim Ortamlarının Seçiminde Öğrencilerin Öğrenme Stillerinin Önemi
[The Importance of Students’ Learning styles for Selecting Distance educational Mediums]. Hacettepe
University Journal of Education, 24, 48–55.
Elham Hussein, E., Daoud, S., Alrabaiah, H., & Badawi, R. (2020). Exploring undergraduate students’
attitudes towards emergency online learning during COVID-19: A case from the UAE. Children and
Youth Services Review, 119.
298

Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technol-
ogy, 41(4).
Gelles, L. A., Susan, M. L., Gordon, D. H., Diana, A. C., & Joel, A. M. (2020). Compassionate Flexibility
and Self-Discipline: Student Adaptation to Emergency Remote Teaching in an Integrated Engineering
Energy Course during Covid-19. Education Sciences, 10(11), 1–23. doi:10.3390/educsci10110304
Göncü, A., Çeti̇n, İ., & Top, E. (2018). Öğretmen Adaylarının Kodlama Eğitimine Yönelik Görüşleri:Bir
Durum Çalışması [Pre-Service Teachers’ Views Related to Computing Education: A Case Study]. Mehmet
Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (48), 85–110.
Horzum, B. (2003). Öğretim Elemanlarının İnternet Destekli Eğitime Yönelik Düşünceleri (Sakarya
Üniversitesi Örneği) [Instructors’ opinions on internet-based education (Sakarya University example)]
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Sakarya University Institute of Social Sciences.
Karakuş, N., Ucuzsatar, N., Karacaoğlu, M., Esendemi̇r, N., & Bayraktar, D. (2020). Türkçe öğretmeni
adaylarının uzaktan eğitime yönelik görüşleri [Turkish teacher candidates’ views on distance education].
RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, (19), 220–241.
Karataş, Z. (2015). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative research Methods in The
Social Sciences]. Manevi Temelli Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 62–80.
Keskin, M., & Özer Kaya, D. (2020). COVID-19 Sürecinde Öğrencilerin Web Tabanlı Uzaktan Eğitime
Yönelik Geri Bildirimlerinin Değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Students’ Feedbacks on Web-Based Dis-
tance Education in the COVID-19 Process]. İzmir Katip Çelebi University Faculty of Health Sciences
Journal, 5(2), 59-67.
Khlaif, N. Z., Salha, S., Affouneh, S., Rashed, H., & ElKimishy, A. L. (2020). The Covid-19 Epidemic:
Teachers’ Responses to School Closure in Developing Countries. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
1–15. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2020.1851752
Mayring, P. (1994). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software
solution. Retrieved from https://www.psychopen.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/books/mayring/ssoar-2014-
mayring-Qualitative_content_analysis_theoretical_foundation.pdf
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A System View. Wadsworth.
Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Is COVID-19 the gateway for digital learning in mathematics
education? Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep269. doi:10.30935/cedtech/7949
Odabaş, H. (2003). Internet Tabanlı Uzaktan Eğitim ve Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümleri [Internet
Based Distance Education and Departments of Information And Records Management]. Turkish Li-
brarianship., 17(1), 22–36.

Rahiem, M. D. H. (2020). The Emergency Remote Learning Experience of University Students in
Indonesia amidst the COVID-19 Crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research., 19(6), 1–26.
Sağlam, Y., & Ve Kanadlı, S. (2020). Nitel Veri Analizinde Kodlama (3. Bs.) [Coding in Qualitative
Data Analysis]. Pegem Publishing.
299

Shin, M., & Kasey, H. (2020). Needs a Little TLC: Examining College Students’ Emergency Remote
Teaching and Learning Experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1–14.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2020.1847261
Sintema, E. J. (2020). Effect of COVID-19 on the performance of grade 12 students: Implications for
STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7), 1–6.
doi:10.29333/ejmste/7893
Swartz, B. C., Gachago, D., & Belford, C. (2018). To care or not to care ‒ Reflections on the ethics
of blended learning in times of disruption: The ethics of care & academic development. South African
Journal of Higher Education, 32(6), 49–64. doi:10.20853/32-6-2659
Toquero, C. M. (2020). Emergency Remote Education Experiment amid COVID-19 Pandemic. IJERI:
International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, (15), 162–172. doi:10.46661/ijeri.5113
Uşun, S. (2006). Uzaktan Eğitim [Distance Education]. Nobel Publishing.
Westine, C., Oyarzun, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Casto, A., Okraski, C., Park, G., Person, J., & Steele,
L. (2019). Familiarity, Current Use, and Interest in Universal Design for Learning Among Online Uni-
versity Instructors. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(5), 15–41.
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4258
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8th ed.). Seçkin Pub-
lishing.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study methods: design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Pbc.
Accessibility: Knowing that the desired goal is reached without any obstacle.
Classroom Management: It is the teacher’s authority in the classroom. Its dominance over students
in every aspect.
COVID-19: An epidemic that we cannot figure out how it affects whom and how.
Individual Training: It is the ability of an individual to learn as they wish with their own means.
Interaction: Mutual exchange of data.
Motivation: It is the knowing that during an action that focuses the individual’s full attention.
Online Learning: Access to education without any planning or rules.
300
301
Chapter 16
Implementation Example for
the Structured Mathematics
Teaching in Learning
Environments During
the Pandemic Period
Eminer Nur Ünveren Bilgiç
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9684-4192
Sakarya University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to provide exemplary work for academicians and feld experts working in the
feld during the COVID-19 outbreak to efectively use technology in mathematics teaching environments
in the distance education process and integrate it into teaching environments. Both the course content
presented to prospective teachers and also the learning materials created by the prospective-teachers
in line with the learning acquisitions of the course have become a part of the teaching process, and the
teaching process has been structured by integrating both the course content and the prepared learning
materials into the teaching process under the TPACK theory frame.
INTRODUCTION
The Covid-19 global outbreak has affected many industries all over the world, especially education. The
pandemic process caught the education community unprepared and, unfortunately, globally created a
state of severe crisis (Education International, 2020). Despite the warnings about the issue (White, et al,
2010), due to some continuing deficiencies in education (Briggs, 2018; GCPEA, 2018), the pandemic
process has been the first global crisis occurring in the digital world (Bozkurt, Sharma, 2020). Some
socio-cultural, economic, political consequences will arise after this crisis. The unforeseen effects of
the rapid closing of schools around the world have affected many students. Globally more than 1.5 bil-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch016

lion students of all ages have been reported to be affected by the closure of educational institutions due
to COVID 19 (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2020a;
United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund [UNICEF], 2020). The number of influenced
students equals approximately 90% of enrolled students in the world (UNESCO, 2020a; 2020b).
Many educational institutions have switched to “emergency remote teaching” practice to minimize
the impact of the pandemic on students (Bozkurt and Sharma 2020). Emergency remote teaching is
defined as a sudden transformation of teaching distribution into an online delivery mode as a result of
a big disaster, unlike online courses initially planned and designed to be delivered virtually (Hodges, et
al, 2020). ERT involves the use of existing distance teaching tools to deliver curriculum or educational
materials that would usually be delivered physically, as hybrid or blended courses. Once the disaster or
catastrophe conditions no longer exist, the instructional presentation will revert to its original format.
Given this situation, it is not difficult to interpret the relationship between ERT and online learning
concepts. Although the idea of transference of conventional teaching to an online environment provides
flexibility to the learning-teaching process for students and educators, this transformation took place very
quickly due to the pandemic. Although many educational institutions argue that the pandemic process
offers a revolutionary opportunity for transition to remote education applications (Common Wealth of
Learning [COL], 2020; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2020), the
online education platforms of many higher education institutions can support a very small pool of faculty
members (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust and Bond, 2020). Moreover, in this process, it is observed that
there are deficiencies in faculty members both to use technology effectively and to integrate technology
into the existing curriculum (Bao, 2020, Mohmmed, et al, 2020).
The Aim and Significance of the Study
Emergency remote teaching environments (ERTE) are the right solution to the crisis in the pandemic
process. However, as a result of the rapid development of the process in question, it differs from any
online learning environment due to inadequate planning and preparation (Hodges et al., 2020). Besides,
the idea that using technology in education can overcome the problems experienced does not only arise
in such ERTE situations (Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009; Rushby, 2013; Teräs, et al, 2020).
Educational technologies consist not only of concrete technologies (e.g., computers, smartphones,
learning management systems) but also of abstract technologies (e.g., educational theories, approaches,
strategies) (Bozkurt, 2020). Therefore, one of the points that should be taken into account in the new
“normal period” is the utilization of the abstract technologies reflecting the invisible part of educational
technologies, as well as concrete technology-oriented solutions (Bozkurt, 2020).
Learning environments planned for realization through remote teaching have a unique process of plan-
ning, implementation, evaluation (Teräs, Kartoğlu, 2017; Williamson, Potter, Eynon, 2019). Due to the
pandemic, the transformation of face-to-face teaching environments to remote education brought along
also a very troublesome process. Because moving physical lessons to an online environment requires a
systematic and planned understanding (Ali, 2020). It should not be forgotten in this case that the remote
education process can be enriched not only with synchronous contents but also with asynchronous con-
tents. As Bozkurt (2020) states, if we consider face-to-face lessons and remote education lessons as an
equation, both sides of the equation are equal, but the variables composing the equation are different on
both sides. For example, a two-hour face-to-face lesson can be equivalent to 20 minutes of synchronous
lessons and alternative asynchronous activities that support this process. Another matter to be considered
302

in this process is elasticity in the content presentation and the provision of different access options. In
other words, the learner should be able to access the face-to-face course response from different con-
tents and different access points. Besides, one of the most discussed topics in learning environments
during the pandemic process is undoubtedly measurement-assessment methods (Bozkurt, 2020). By the
constructivist approach, in today’s world where meaningful learning is considered as a basis, measure-
ment and assessment are considered as a part of the teaching process (Gelbal and Kelecioğlu 2007).
It contains very different measurement and assessment methods from traditional evaluation because it
aims to measure the individual while learning, to teach an individual while measuring, and to eliminate
learning deficiencies. With the implementation of educational programs based on a constructivist ap-
proach, process-oriented assessment and evaluation methods come to the fore rather than conventional
assessment and evaluation methods (Yayla, 2011). In process-oriented evaluation, it is aimed to give
feedback to the teacher and student in line with the individual differences of the learners and to enable
the students to see the progress stages in the process. From this point of view, students are expected to
understand, construct, analyze, interpret information by synthesizing. Process-oriented measuring and
assessment methods, which encourage learners to evaluate their development, to notice new learning,
and to think reflectively and independently about knowledge (Windschitl, 2002), are described as more
realistic, judgmental, and innovative than traditional assessment methods (Wiggins, 1998).
In line with the developments in the 21st century, the skills expected from individuals now differ. 21st-
century skills include fundamental areas such as problem-solving, critical thinking and decision-making,
communication and collaboration, information literacy, technology literacy, flexibility-adaptability, global
competencies, financial literacy (Şahin, et al, 2014). Another community, the International Society for
Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]), has listed the
skills which students should have in the 21st century, on the headlines of Empowered Learner, Digital
Citizen, Knowledge Constructor, Innovative Designer, Computational Thinker, Creative Communica-
tor and Global Collaborator (ISTE 2016). Considering all of these classifications together, the learners
of this century should have the following skills: (1) learning and innovation, (2) digital literacy, (3) life
and career (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
Considering the pandemic process, both educators and students experienced some problems depend-
ing on their positions from time to time, and they faced significant problems in the education process
due to these problems (Zhang, et al, 2020; Wedenoja 2020; Schroeder and Kelley 2010). As for the
problems faced by educators, the importance of associating the technology, pedagogy, field knowledge
model (TPACK) (Koehler, & Mishra, 2009) with the curricula of education faculties as well as preparing
educators according to the requirements of digital transformation has emerged (Bozkurt, 2020).
Technology is not a magic wand, and the transformation process must be conducted with logical ap-
plications instead of [relatively] supposed practices. It should not be overlooked that digital transforma-
tion will start with mental transform, it will continue by gaining particular skills and competencies, and
that technology investment will reach a goal in this way (Bozkurt, 2020), and that following appropriate
pedagogical approaches and integrating proper technology will enable us to achieve the educational
content. Therefore, considering the possible future large-scale education interruptions of education
environments; it is estimated that creating an exemplary teaching environment at the higher education
level based on the TPACK theoretical framework in the distance education environment and sharing
student views in this context will contribute significantly to educators.
While designing a learning environment, teachers can face two significant limitations. These are
the limitations arising from the mental capacity of the students and the physical environment (Driver,
303

1988). When considering both the definition of the learning environment and the instructional design,
it is seen that the physical environment significantly affects the structure of these designs. Based on this
point, considering the potential interruptions in education, especially the effects of the Covid 19 global
epidemic, it can be said that effectively integrating the technology into teaching environments will
make education environments efficient and productive, when education should continue with remote
education. This situation becomes even more significant for mathematics learning environments where
the establishment of the conceptual structure is of great importance. In the process of constructing the
conceptual-structure, logical-mathematical knowledge can be structured with abstractions based on
thinking, not based on observation or experimentation, like physical information (Piaget, 1971). From
this point of view, the purpose of the study is to provide exemplary work for academicians and field
experts working in the field during the Covid 19 outbreak to effectively use technology in mathematics
teaching environments in the distance education process and integrate it into teaching environments. For
this purpose, the research problems of the study can be listed as follows:
1. How should a learning environment that will be designed in the field of mathematics teaching in
the remote education process be structured?
2. How should communication be carried out in a learning environment that will be designed in the
field of mathematics teaching in the remote education process?
3. How should measurement and assessment be carried out in a learning environment that will be
designed in the field of mathematics teaching in the distance education process?
BACKGROUND
In today’s world, when faced with real-life problems, what is expected of students is to be able to col-
lect the necessary data to solve them in a mathematical sense, to establish models, to solve problems,
moreover, to predict possible problematic situations. In this case, what is expected from students during
mathematics education, is to structure the process. The teacher should only be an individual who guides
the teaching. On the other hand, in this approach that puts the student at the center, the student will end
his mathematical studies, which he started with a problematic situation as a result of his activities and
efforts, with a mathematical solution that he reaches and associates. In this process, the appropriate and
effective use of information and communication technologies is significant, and it is one of the compo-
nents that complete the program and ensure its successful implementation. Therefore, the teacher should
come to the class by planning well-structured activities (Fisher, & Frey, 2013; Rasmitadila, et al., 2020)
For teachers to benefit from instructional technologies in instructional designs efficiently, it is necessary
to integrate these technologies. Prominent technology integration models in the literature are, Technology
Integration Planning Model (Robyler, 2006, p.45), Systematic ICT Integration Model (Wang & Woo,
2007), Apple Future Classes Model (Dwyer, et al., 1990), Social Model (Wang, 2008), Enhanced Pierson
Model (Woodbridge, 2004), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model (Mishra & Koehler,
2006) (Yurdakul, 2013, p.9). Technology integration into education is a very significant issue. However,
one of the most considerable obstacles in this regard is the lack of knowledge, skills, or competencies
of teachers regarding the use of technology (Brinkerhoff, 2006, p.17; Hew & Brush, 2007; Shuldman,
2004; Earle 2002). However, this situation is not only due to this reason but also emerges from the lack
of technology-supported pedagogical knowledge and skills of teachers (Hew & Brush, 2007).
304

The great importance of teaching technologies and material design in mathematics teaching is closely
related to the education that on-duty teachers had received, and prospective teachers will receive, in
this context. Teacher training programs play a significant role in creating the necessary knowledge for
teacher candidates to integrate technology into their teaching skills (Hofer & Grandgennett, 2012). Be-
sides, considering the possible disruptions in education today and in the future, the matter of how the
instructional designs for the mathematics lesson would accordingly be constructed must be discussed
as a serious topic.
In line with the importance attached, the remote education learning environment process, which
was carried out within the scope of the “Material Design” course in the Fall Semester of the 2020-2021
Academic Year, was shared with the reader. The main reason for choosing this course is that it is a col-
laborative, interactive, process, product-oriented structure since material design is a particular field that
requires application and experience.
MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER1
Implementation Process
Theoretical Topics Covered During the Course
Emergency remote learning environments (ERTE) are stunning solutions to the crisis in the pandemic
process. However, due to the rapid development of the process in question, it differs due to inadequate
planning and preparation from any online learning environment (Hodges et al., 2020). For this reason,
considering the possible large-scale interruptions that may occur in education environments in the future,
it is significant to share an exemplary teaching environment from a pedagogical perspective and students’
views concerning the process. Besides, it is predicted that sharing the content based on the TPACK
theoretical framework, in which technology is integrated into the learning environment by blending with
pedagogical knowledge, will make a substantial contribution to the educators working in the field. From
this perspective, both the course content presented to prospective-teachers and also the learning materi-
als created by the prospective-teachers in line with the learning outcomes of the course have become a
part of the teaching process, and the teaching process has been structured by integrating both the course
content and the prepared learning materials into the teaching process under the TPACK theory frame.
To provide students with a deep understanding of the subject matter, the course process started with
the presentation of theoretical information and discussions on the introduced information. In the first
four weeks of the five sessions in which students and lecturers were present, the following topics were in
negotiation: What are the concepts of material, manipulative, concrete material, virtual material, concrete
manipulative, virtual manipulative, manipulative materials?, What are the importance, advantages, and
disadvantages of manipulative materials in mathematics education?, What are the points to be consid-
ered in manipulative material design, development, evaluation processes in mathematics education?,
How can manipulative materials be integrated into the learning environment in mathematics education?
(With examples related to the situation), and also, in the final week, students were awaited to share their
groups with possible learning outcomes they could obtain.
When the theoretical process was over, a webinar event on the following headlines was organized with
the participation of expert academicians and the director of the course as the moderator to give teacher
305

candidates a different perspective and to make them gain views on innovative applications for current
practices in the field: Material design in mathematics teaching for the visually impaired; Material design
in mathematics teaching for individuals with learning disabilities; The use and evaluation of different
technologies and materials in mathematics teaching designs; Integration of computer-aided applications
into mathematics teaching. The event was also shared as a live broadcast on Youtube. (available at https://
www.youtube.com/channel/UCMS6mZmyDqGhbbac5o-aN8A?view_as=subscriber.).
The learning outcomes that the lecturer conducting the course wishes to bring to the teacher candi-
dates in the teaching process are as follows:
1. The teacher candidates explain the material, manipulative, concrete manipulative, virtual manipula-
tive, manipulative material concepts.
2. Teacher candidates explain the importance of the material in mathematics education.
3. Teacher candidates explain the advantages of manipulative material in mathematics education.
4. Teacher candidates explain the disadvantages of manipulative materials in mathematics education.
5. Teacher candidates explain the process of manipulative material design in mathematics education.
6. Teacher candidates explain the process of manipulative material development in mathematics
education.
7. Teacher candidates explain the manipulative material evaluation process in mathematics education.
8. Teacher candidates explain the integration of manipulative material into the instructional design
in mathematics education.
9. Teacher candidates determine their learning outcomes regarding the material they will develop.
10. Teacher candidates manifest the mathematical construction of the learning outcomes they have
determined.
11. Teacher candidates manifest the available pedagogical practices for their learning outcomes.
12. Teacher candidates manifest the available technological supports for their learning outcomes.
13. Teacher candidates manifest their instructional designs for their learning outcomes.
14. Teacher candidates integrate the technology they have developed for their learning outcomes into
their instructional designs.
15. The teacher candidates execute the instructional designs they have developed with the students.
Determination of Learning Outcomes
Within the scope of the course applying a performance-oriented assessment and aiming to improve
the experiences of teacher candidates for the integration of the manipulative material developed on an
educational learning outcomes into the instructional design; the teacher candidates attending the course
were informed by the lecturer to form a group beginning from the first week, and determine an learning
outcomes from the field of mathematics education. After the theoretical process, a total of five groups
remained. These groups specified the learning outcomes they thought they could work on in the fifth
week. Later, in the group meetings held with the instructor of the course, these learning outcomes de-
creased to one. The obtained learning outcomes are as follows:
• Working Group 1: Creates the image of polygons resulting from translation and refections.
• Working Group 2: Understands that simplifcation and expansion will not change the value of
the fraction and that there are fractions that are equivalent to a fraction.
306

• Working Group 3: Compares and sorts fractions and shows them on the numerical axis.
• Working Group 4: Calculates the area of the circle and circle segment.
• Working Group 5: Adds up and subtracts integers, solves related problems.
The answers of teacher candidates to the question about what they had given importance in the
process of determining their learning outcomes subjected to content analysis. A total of three themes
were determined after analyzing the obtained data:. (1) The learning outcomes is in real life, (2) The
possibility of having misconceptions/confusion of students, (3) Curiosity. The table for content analysis
is given below. (Participant codified as P)
In the process of determining the learning outcomes, P1 stating that she/he made a decision by
considering the difficulty of seeing learning outcomes in real life for the students, emphasized the
concretization concept of the manipulative materials with the following sentence: “We can see integers
by counting them in life. But it is impossible to encounter rational numbers anywhere. Therefore, we
want them (students) to meet rational numbers thanks to the manipulative material we will develop ... “.
Drawing attention to the misconception experienced by the students, P22 explained that manipulative
materials could undertake a task to help to distinguish misconception, and said that, “We determined the
learning outcomes considering the incorrect use of rational number and fraction concepts interchange-
ably. These concepts have two different titles, and because of this reason, the difference should be re-
vealed.” Also, it is seen that P2 expressed how the feeling of curiosity guides the groups in the process
of determining the learning outcomes by saying that “We wondered how we could use the operations
performed with integers in teaching by blending mathematics content knowledge, technology knowledge,
pedagogy knowledge. We wanted to see how we can interpret these three areas, although it is a very
fundamental learning outcomes”.
Scaffolding Provided to Groups
To set an example for the scaffolding process provided to teacher candidates, the process carried out
with the fifth group has been shared with the reader.
Content
After determining their learning outcomes, the teacher candidates held in-group discussions over Zoom
application in three sessions with an average of three hours per week, and a one-hour session with the
lecturer of the course, to analyze the learning outcomes in detail in a mathematical manner. In these ses-
sions, teacher candidates discussed the subject headings as the historical development of the concept as
to the learning outcomes, the description of its mathematical structure, and methods of the pedagogical
approach. From this perspective, the fifth working group concluded that the learning outcomes over a
function which they had determined based on the process of building numbers, should be defined as
“It is the set of all (p,q)∈N×N elements in the form of for all (m,n)∈N×N;C(m,n),(p,q)~(m,n). They
also made discussions considering the literature, on why people needed integers in history and how
they discovered integers. After determining how this learning outcomes was tilled and its deficiencies,
based on the content knowledge obtained from the current curriculum, they stated that the manipulative
material to use should have been associated with real-life regarding how the addition and subtraction
processes are defined.
307

Pedagogical Knowledge
The teacher candidates, explaining the content knowledge for mathematics field knowledge, held three
three-hour Zoom sessions weekly, in which they negotiated the current practices of the Ministry of
National Education and other international educational institutions relating learning outcomes, and also
a one-hour session with the course lecturer for consultation. In terms of their learning outcomes, the
teacher candidates were able to express their aims and goals for the students at the end of this process.
Technology Knowledge
The teacher candidates came to the lecturer with a suggestion of a manipulative material at the end of
three Zoom sessions, where they discussed the applications and content knowledge they examined. By
evaluating the manipulative material, it was concluded that there could be problems in explaining the
explanation of the result of the (+1) + (- 1) operation. From this point on, the lecturer of the course
declared they could benefit from gravity and the concept of direction. At the next session held with the
course lecturer, the idea of recognizing 0 (Zero) as a level was accepted. After the teacher candidates
decided to support the instructional design with a B-plan considering any learning difficulties, they
developed a Geogebra application for learning outcomes and finalized the design.
Instructional Design (Group 1)
Course: Mathematics
Class: 7th Grade
Class Size: 30
Class Structure: Heterogeneous
Number of People in The Group: 3
Event Time: 30×2
Learning Field: Numbers
Sub Learning Field: Integers
Learning Outcomes: · Performs addition and subtraction of integers and solves related problems.
Purpose: When this lesson is accomplished, the student will be able to concretize the addition and
subtraction operations taking into account the negative and positive signs of integers
Aim: The students are aimed to understand the importance of the signs in operations performed on
integers and be able to do operations by using the plus and minus signs.
Skills: Problem-solving, association, mathematical modeling
Teaching and Learning Methods and Techniques: Discovery method, question-answer-discussion
Readiness Information: Negative number, positive number, addition operation, subtraction op-
eration, recognition of elevator
Tools and Equipment: Activity sheet, Geogebra

Source: 7th Grade Textbook
Preliminary information:
Let’ speak about Marmaray and Eurasia Tunnel
• How would you mathematically express the deepest points of the Marmaray and Eurasia Tunnel?
308

• How would you do a mathematical operation to fnd the distance between the deepest points of
these two projects?
ACTIVITY 1
Let’s make a box
Information to the Teacher: The manipulative material can be prepared by obtaining the following
materials: Five pieces of lath sixteen pieces of amigurumi knitted balls two small thin sticks two
wooden discs transparent table cloth
Cost:50TurkishLiras
Preparation Process: Design and idea process one week, construction phase three days
The Construction Phase: First, we knitted around the pompoms with a rope and turned them into a
ball. Then we made the model of the material from cardboard, suitable for the size of the balls.
After that, we went to the carpenter and had our material manufactured in the size of the model.
We added a transparent plastic front to the material we made. Then we placed the numbers inside
the material and finally colored our disc.
Information on the use of manipulative material:
1. One of the discs is at the zero level, the other is freely at the bottom.
2. In the addition operation, an amount of disks equal to the first number totaled is fixed.
3. If the second number totaled is positive, add green balls in equal number, from the hole above zero.
4. In the addition operation, if the second number totaled is a negative number below zero, add pink
balls in equal number, through the hole under the fixed disk.
5. Since there will be a gap between the two discs due to gravity, the bottom disc should be moved
up and fixed so that there is no gap, and the balls properly can be lined up.
6. The level of the balls on the moved side (lower level) shows the result.
! Let’s not forget that we throw the green balls through the holes above zero and the pink balls through
the holes below zero.
Information on the use of manipulative material:
1. One of the discs is fixed at the zero level, and the other remains freely at the bottom.
2. In the subtraction process, if the minuend number is positive, green balls in the equal number are
added from the holes above zero, and if it is negative, pink balls are added in the equal number
from the hole below zero.
! There must be as many balls as the value of the number in the system. (If the number is positive,
there should be a green ball, if it is negative, there should be a pink ball.)
309

3. In the system, if there are not as many balls as the outcome number, the number of balls that are
missing are added to the relevant part, from the missing colored balls (above zero if the number is
positive, below zero if the number is negative).
4. Because of Example 1, the same amount of balls is added on the other side in order not to spoil
the process conversation.
! Green balls are added through holes above zero, pink balls through holes below zero.
5. Since there are as many balls in the system as the outcome, the desired number of balls are removed
from the system.
6. If there are any green balls left in the system at the end, the top level of the balls shows the result.
If there are pink balls left in the system, the lower disc is moved up and fixed so that there is no
gap between the two discs. The bottom level of the pink balls shows the result.
Figure 1. Visual of material

Step 1: Let’s add up (-1) and (+1): (-1) + (+ 1) =?
At our first totaled number, namely at (-1), our disk is fixed.

Then add 1 green ball through the hole above zero, since our second totaled number is (+1).
In the end, since the ball’s level points to 0 (zero), the result of the operation will be 0 (zero).
! It is seen that the total of (-1) and (+1) is 0 (zero), and they neutralize each other.
310

Step 2: Let’s subtract (-4) from (-3): (-3) - (- 4) =?
First, add three pink balls representing (-3) from the hole below zero
Since there are not enough pink balls in the system to subtract (-4) from (-3), one pink ball is added
to complete it to (-4).
In order not to spoil the process conservation, to neutralize the number of pink balls, one green ball
is added from the hole above the zero.
Now we have four pink balls representing (-4) in the system, therefore we can do subtraction operations.
Eventually, the four pink balls are removed from the system, leaving only one green ball on top, and
thus the result will be (+1).
ACTIVITY 2
The purpose of this activity is to enable you to have a meaningful learning experience by facilitating
you to structure addition and subtraction in integers.
Step 1: Let’s imagine we get on an elevator. To reach from the ground floor to the second floor, how
many floors and in which direction do we have to move?
Step 2: After arriving on the second floor, if we want to go down to the ground floor, how many floors
and in which direction do we have to move?
Step 3: After reaching the ground floor, to get to the second floor under the ground floor, how many
floors and in which direction we need to go?
Step 4: Taking into account the directions we traveled, can you calculate the movements we have done
so far? Finally, what floor are we on?
Step 5: In which direction should we move if we want to move one more floor from where we are to
the direction of the ground floor?
Step 6: Can you calculate the movements we have done so far, taking into account the directions we
traveled? Finally, what floor are we on?
A note for teachers: The students are enabled to establish a relationship between the elevator and the
Marmaray. Considering the GeoGebra construction steps, the rest of the event is carried out.
Step7: Open the Geogebra Program.
Step 8: Let’s define a slider in the range of -10 and +10, and the amount of increment is 1.
Step 9: Let’s define the point (0, a) on the Home tab. (Let the name of our point be A. This point will
show our direction in the elevator)
Step 10: Let’s set the point (0,0) as point B. (This point will represent the ground floor for us)
Step 11: Click the “Vector” tab from the 3rd icon.
Step 12: First select point B and then point A. (With the operation we do here, we determine the direc-
tion of our movement in the elevator.)
Step 13: Move the slide. Have you had a point that caught your attention?
Step 14: Now, try the questions asked at the beginning of the activity by applying. Please add your
comments and evaluations below.
311

Figure 2. Visual of Geogebra
A not for teachers: You can also carry out the application on the Geogebra file, which you will prepare
yourself with the following construction protocol. (However, the concept of direction and the head-foot
relationship of the picture can cause a negative effect on learning while establishing)
Feedback
The assessments of the teacher candidates were carried out as process and product-oriented. During
the course, the teacher candidates recorded the online meetings performed with their group mates and
shared them with the lecturer (from time to time, the instructor provided synchronous participation and
also gave the asynchronous note, video, document support). The lecturer of the course gave feedback by
taking notes for each record. For example, regarding the shared teaching design, a solution was tried to
be produced by using the brainstorming method for a total of one hour in two sessions with the partici-
pation of the lecturer on how to show the process of subtracting negative signed integers from negative
signed integers. The group members taking note of the suggestions produced, at the end of the meeting,
finalized the manipulative material with the help of the last meetings they held among themselves.
Learners in remote teaching processes are physically, educationally and psychologically distant from
other learners and learning resources in the context of time and space (Anderson, 2003; Moore, 1993;
Moore & Kearsley, 2012; UNESCO, 2002). Based on this point, teacher candidates were ensured to be
assessed in the middle of the process with the form given in the Annex 1 to determine their psychologi-
cal status for the course conducted in the online remote teaching environment. Thanks to these actions,
the process evaluation has been completed.
The data obtained from teacher candidates were evaluated one by one and subjected to content analy-
sis. The theme, sub-theme, codes acquired are shared in the table below.
312

P9, expressing the support provided by the lecturer during the teaching process, the weekly meetings
held in the group, the participation of the lecturer in these sessions, and the lecturer’s constant acces-
sibility in various ways; she/he stated that the teacher candidates did not feel of being lonely, rather
they felt of being a member of a team and having the excitement of the producing with the following
sentences: “We obtained the necessary attention and support from the faculty member in every difficulty
which we encountered. Being in constant communication with our groupmates made me feel like I was a
member of the team. It was as if we were never far away. I have never despaired in the process because
the faculty member provided all kinds of support in structuring the concept, pedagogical applications,
and integrating the technology that we will produce.”
P8, expressing that the fact the course had been structured provided an experience for teacher candi-
dates regarding technology integration, also revealed the contribution of the lesson process in terms of
lifelong learning in following the sentences: “The support facilitated the process. The process has steered
us very well. We were able to learn how to construct manipulative material by the course process. We
also had the opportunity to practice. The group work kept us together. We were always socially active.
This situation helped us keep our motivation high. In fact, the course naturally supports lifelong learning
because it is interesting, intriguing, and prompting people to think and research. It raises awareness for
the future. It makes it possible for us to closely follow contemporary applications in the field.”
For the evaluation of the results, firstly, primary school students were allowed to participate in the
virtual exhibition organized by the teacher candidates at the end of the term, and so the teacher candidates
were provided with the experience of “teaching environment in distance education” in environments
where remote teaching material/manipulative were integrated, and then the lecturer and group members
of this experimental lesson shared their feedback on each other’s assessment through the help of the
rubric given in the Annex 1. Furthermore, the lecturer conducting the course evaluated the manipulative
material presented by each group with the rubric given in the Annex 1.
Finally, the opinions of the teacher candidates about the process were collected in writing through a
structured interview form. Based on the data obtained during the process, significant points were shared
with the reader in the form of direct quotation in the conclusion part.
CONCLUSION
The operations performed at each step are as follows:

Establishing the theoretical framework: The teaching process started with detailed information
sharing on how the process will take place (knowledge sources, process management, communication
channels (WhatsApp, zoom, mail, phone, Google Classroom), information sharing, evaluation). P17,
expressing that this situation had a great impact on her/his future work map, also said that, “we knew
very well at the beginning of the process, what, where, when, how, how much and from which sources
we would learn. This situation prompted me to prepare for and do researches before coming to class.
For example, we tried to establish our study groups at the end of the first week of the class, and we even
started to think to determine our achievement.” This situation confirms that moving physical lessons to
online environment requires a systematic and planned understanding (Ali, 2020).
In the process in which the relevant theoretical framework was discussed by being expanded, the
knowledge was structured by negotiating it with examples rather than just a straight expression. In the
process of structuring the theoretical knowledge, the knowledge of the teacher candidates was deepened
313

by giving examples of the problems that can be experienced in basic concepts from time to time. Be-
sides, asynchronous sharing (resource sharing for the course and recording and repeating the lessons)
supported the process. Also, a webinar was organized with the participation of the academicians who
are experts in the field to give a different perspective to the relevant field. P12, sharing his views on this
topic, said that, “We learned by discussing what manipulative materials were, where, when, and how
they should or should not be in mathematics education. We always made a decision by summarizing the
situations we discussed during the lesson at the end of that lesson. The lecturer of the course helped us
access resources that he thought might be helpful for us. The real great effect was the webinar. It was
just like medicine. Honestly, I did not know what to do when I actually encountered a visually impaired
individual in the classroom. The situation seriously created an idea for an approach to taking precau-
tions regarding learning difficulties. I wish a webinar had been organized in this area as well”.
Determining the learning outcomes: The learning outcomes determination phase was completed in a
total of six weeks. In this process, the prospective teachers discussed the achievements they determined
at the Zoom meetings held with the lecturer of the course and during the synchronous lesson and made
the final decision with the group members.
The construction process of the concept: For effective technology integration in realizing full learning,
only one knowledge of field, technology and pedagogy is not enough. In addition, information on their
interrelationships is also required (Koehler, Mishra & Yahya, 2007). At this stage, where the teacher
candidates questioned the mathematical content knowledge of the learning outcomes they determined,
the lecturer provided with theoric mathematical resource support and guided them by explaining the
points that they could not understand. According to Novak and Gowin (1984); learning, ie the process
of creating knowledge, is carried out individually. Regarding this process, P17 expressed his awareness
about questioning the nature of the concept in the process of manipulative material design with her/his
statement that “I think, the most difficult stage was to determine the learning outcomes because we were
going to build the whole structure on this. Therefore, we wanted to start from a point where we could
trust ourselves mathematically. Despite this, we had many deficiencies. For example, it was exhausting
to accept the idea that the fractions were concrete bodies and that the manipulative materials we would
produce should not contradict this idea. But the lecturer of the course supported us in every aspect and
helped us understand the fraction body as a concept and relate it to the learning outcomes in the cur-
rent curriculum. So, I think we were able to overcome problems such as mislearning, misconception, or
digressing from meaningful learning.”
Pedagogical support: Significant studies on prospective mathematics teachers for many years show
that many candidates enter their first lessons with a lack of confidence in their mathematical abilities
and a weak attitude towards mathematics (McDonough, Clarke, & Clarke, 2002). From this point after
constructing the content knowledge, at this stage, where current practices were researched by the teacher
candidates, the lecturer enriched their knowledge resources with international practice examples. Also,
he provided guidance by evaluating the pedagogical approach suggestions presented by the teacher
candidates. Regarding the mentioned situation, P11 stated that “The first approach we want to follow
for calculating the area of the circle segment was the constructivist approach. This understanding was
dominant in the course. However, we had no experience of how to structure the process. The current
practices in our country and the external resources provided by the lecturer helped us to reveal our
interpretation in a pedagogical sense by looking from different perspectives ”.
Technology integration: The process, which started with the suggestions of manipulative materials
developed by the teacher candidates, continued with weekly meetings for four weeks, and the necessary
314

feedback was provided instantly by the lecturer. The integration of the technology on which the content
knowledge and the appropriate pedagogical approach will be built was completed by the group members,
in line with the recommendations of the lecturer. “It was not enough to create the manipulative material
and dynamic software application we developed for learning outcomes. These had to be integrated into
the lesson with a setup that students would understand. In this process, we received support from the
course instructor for taking steps and giving supportive warnings to the teachers in necessary points.
Thanks to the support we received, we were able to feel sufficient and willing to interact with the students
in the exhibition we held. In short, it turned out that developing a manipulative material required good
utilization of mathematics field knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technologies for that learning
outcomes. It was a too difficult but enjoyable process. In my opinion, the fact that this lesson, which we
followed with remote teaching, was also taught within the framework of TPACK helped us to understand
and produce faster the design, development, and integration of a manipulative material for mathematics
education.” The convergence of pedagogical and technological perspectives supports the effectiveness of
the links between content-compatible technology and pedagogical principles in the planning of learning
environments. Teachers should be able to establish a healthy relationship between technology, pedagogy,
and content to be sufficiently ready for teaching mathematics. Mathematics teachers should ponder on
teaching with technology, but also on how to teach mathematical concepts to students who can experi-
ment with their ideas, concepts, hypotheses, and generalizations (Richardson, 2009).
In line with the process carried out with the teacher candidates, this process, which is presented
by following the TPACK theoretical framework, can also be suggested to be conducted in the light of
other theoretical frameworks. Besides, sharing the remote teaching process, which is carried out with
a product-oriented approach in the light of different theoretical frameworks, will be beneficial for aca-
demics working in the field, especially in theoric lessons (Analysis, Algebra, Geometry, etc.) in higher
education institutions. In addition, it is thought that these sharings to be made in higher education will
also have an impact on teachers.
REFERENCES
Ali, W. (2020). Online and Remote Learning in Higher Education Institutes: A Necessity in light of
COVID-19 Pandemic. Higher Education, 10(3), 16–25.
Aliyyah, R. R., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin, A., Syaodih, E., Nurtanto, M., & Tambunan, A. R. S.
(2020). The Perceptions of Primary School Teachers of Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Period: A Case Study in Indonesia. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(2), 90–109. doi:10.29333/
ejecs/388
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research
questions. In Handbook of distance education. Erlbaum.

Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and Online Teaching in Higher Education: A Case Study of Peking University.
Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115. doi:10.1002/hbe2.191 PMID:32510042
Baran, E., Chuang, H. H., & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and development
tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(4), 370–377.
315

Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J. (1993). Understanding other minds: perspectives
from autism. Oxford University.
Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik
Dergisi, 6(3), 112–142.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to Coro-
naVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Dİstance Education, 15(1), i–vi.
Briggs, B. (2018). Education under attack and battered by natural disasters in 2018. Theirworld. https://
theirworld.org/news/education-under-attack-in-2018-conflicts-natural-disasters
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology
skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 39(1), 22–43. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782471
Common Wealth of Learning (COL). (2020). Guidelines on Distance Education during COVID-19.
Burnaby: COL. Collaboration. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/education-responses-
tocovid-19-embracing-digital-learning-and-online-collaboration-d75eb0e8/
Driver, R. (1988). Constructivist approach to Curriculum development. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Develop-
ments and Dilemmas in Science Education. Falmer Press.
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J., & Apple Computer Inc. (1990). Teacher beliefs and practices:
Patterns of change. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Advanced Technology Group. ACOT Report.
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and
challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1), 5–13.
Education International. 2020. Guiding Principles on the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://www.ei-ie.org/
en/detail/16701/guiding-principles-on-the-covid-19-pandemic
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual
release of responsibility. ASCD.
GCPEA. (2018). Education under attack 2018. Protectingeducation. http://www.protectingeducation.
org/sites/default/files/documents/eua_2018_full.pdf
Gelbal, S., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Teachers’ profıcıency perceptıons of about the measurement and
evaluatıon technıques and the problems they confront. Hacettepe University Journal of Education,
33(33), 135–145.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowl-
edge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development,
55(3), 223–252. doi:10.100711423-006-9022-5
remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-
difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
316

Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of
preservice teachers in a secondary MA Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
45(1), 83–106. doi:10.1080/15391523.2012.10782598
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE Standarts for Students. Retrieved
from https://www.iste.org/standards/ standards/standards-for-students
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a de-
sign seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012
McDonough, A., Clarke, B., & Clarke, D. M. (2002). Understanding, assessing and developing children’s
mathematical thinking: The power of a one-to-one interview for preservice teachers in providing insights
into appropriate pedagogical practices. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(2), 211–226.
doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00061-7
Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future
of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48–53. doi:10.100711528-009-0325-3
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moore, M. G. (1993). Is teaching like flying? A total systems view of distance education. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08923649309526806?journalCode=hajd20
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Wadsworth
Cengage Learning.
Novak, J., & Gowin, B. (1984). Learning How To Learn. Cambridge Universty Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9781139173469
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Education Responses to
Covid-19: Embracing Digital Learning and Online Collaboration. http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/
policy-responses/education-responses-to-covid-19-embracing-digital-learning-and-online-collaboration-
d75eb0e8/
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
Richardson, S. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ development, exploration, and advancement of techno-

logical pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching and learning of algebra. Contemporary Issues in
Technology & Teacher Education, 9(2), 117–130.
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (Vol. 2).
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
317

Rushby, N. (2013). The future of learning technology: Some tentative predictions. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 16(2), 52–58.
Şahin, S. M., Köğce, D., Özpınar, İ., & Yenmez, A. A. (2014). Instructors’ Views on Standards for
the 21th Century Learners and Lifelong Learning. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Education
Faculty, 22, 185–213.
Schroeder, V. M., & Kelley, M. L. (2010). Family environment and parent-child relationships as re-
lated to executive functioning in children. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1), 1285–1298.
doi:10.1080/03004430902981512
Shuldman, M. (2004). Superintendent conceptions of institutional conditions that impact teacher tech-
nology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 319–343. doi:10.1080/15
391523.2004.10782418
Teräs, H., & Kartoğlu, Ü. (2017). A grounded theory of professional learning in an authentic online
professional development program. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
18(7). Advance online publication. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2923
Teräs, M., Suoranta, J., Teräs, H., & Curcher, M. (2020). Post-Covid-19 education and education technology
‘solutionism’: A seller’s market. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 863–878. doi:10.100742438-
020-00164-x
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. Jossey-Bass.
UNESCO. (2002). Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher education: A Planning
Guide. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2020b). COVID-19 Educational disruption and response. http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/
covid-19-educational-disruption-and-response-13363
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2020a). COVID-19
education response. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition
United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). (2020). UNICEF and Microsoft
launch global learning platform to help address COVID-19 education crisis. https://www.unicef.org/
press-releases/unicef-and-microsoft-launch-global-learning-platform-help-address-covid-19-education
Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. In-
novations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 411–419. doi:10.1080/14703290802377307
Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 148–156.

Wedenoja, L. (2020). What to expect when you weren’t expecting online classes. Rockefeller Institute
of Government. https://rockinst.org/blog/what-to-expect-when-you-werent-expecting-online-classes/
White, C. P., Ramirez, R., Smith, J. G., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face
course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34–40. doi:10.100711528-
010-0418-z
318

Wiggins, G. (1998). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan,
70(9), 703–713.
Williamson, B., Potter, J., & Eynon, R. (2019). New research problems and agendas in learning, media
and technology: the editors’ wishlist. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2019.1
614953
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis
of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 72(2), 131–175. doi:10.3102/00346543072002131
Woodbridge, J. (2004). Technology integration as a transforming teachings strategy. Retrieved April 20,
2006, from http://www.techlearning.com/ Story /showArticle.Jhtml?articleID=17701367
Yayla, G. (2011, April). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin tecrübeleriyle alternatif ölçme ve değerlendirme
yaklaşımlarına yönelik öz yeterlilikleri arasındaki ilişki. In 2nd International Conference on new trends
in education and their implications (pp. 27-29). Academic Press.
Yıldız, İ. & Uyanık, N. (2004). On measurement and evaluatıon ın mathematıcs teachıng. Kastamonu
Education Journal, 12(1), 97–104.
Yurdakul Kabakçı, I. (2013). Teknopedegojik eğitime dayalı öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarımı
[Instructional technologies and material design based on technopedegogical education]. Anı Yayıncılık.
Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Yang, L., & Wang, C. (2020). Suspending classes without stopping learning:
China’s education emergency management policy in the COVID-19 Outbreak. Retrieved from https://
www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/13/3/55
Assessment and Evaluation (Formative Evaluation): It is the process in which variables such as
reinforcement, hint, feedback, correction, student participation, methods and strategies used, tools and
materials are taken into account.
Geogebra: It is an open source dynamic mathematics software, which was prepared by Markus
Hohenwarter in 2001 as a master’s thesis at the University of Salzburg, and later developed by an in-
ternational group that carries geometry, algebra and analysis to a single interface that can be used at all
levels from primary education to higher education.
Instructional Design: It is the work of developing functional learning systems with a systematic
approach to meet the educational needs of a specific target audience.
Learning Outcomes: They are statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand and be
able to demonstrate at the end of a learning experience.
Manipulatives: They are visual, physical, and digital materials that can be touched, moved around.
Real Manipulatives: They are three-dimensional, physical concrete materials.
Rubric: It is a scoring chart that lists the criteria to be used in evaluating a study.
319

Virtual Manipulatives: Internet sites that offer Java-supported manipulable applications over the
Internet or computer programs that can be downloaded to the computer through these sites (such as
NCTM Illuminations, SAMAP, EBA, Geogebra).
320
APPENDIX 1
Table 1. Content analysis for determining teacher candidates’ learning outcomes
Theme Sub Theme Code Teacher Candidate

- It can be shown concretely -Integers P5, P6, P7, P8
-Polygons P14, P15, P16, P17
The learning outcomes is in real life - It is difficult to show
concretely P1, P2, P3, P4,P21, P22,
-Rational Numbers
P23, P24, P25
-Relationship between
The possibility of having
-Concept structuring Fraction and Rational P21, P22, P23, P24, P25
misconceptions/confusion of students
Numbers
-Producing manipulative
P15, P21, P23
-Preparation for the materials
profession -Integrating manipulative
P1, P3, P12, P15, P22, P23
material
Curiosity -To make mathematics P1, P14, P15, P16, P17,
visible P21, P23, P24
-Mathematics, pedagogy,
technology knowledge P1, P2, P5, P7, P12, P14,
-Learning by structuring P15, P19, P20, P22, P23,
P25
APPENDIX 2
Table 2. Construction protocol
Reason to Construct
Construction Step Process Geogebra Command
(Pedagogical-Content Support)
By selecting the slider tab, the Range Defining the slider to a point and observing the
Adding the “a”
1 (-10, 10), the Increment Amount:1 are properties of the operations based on the vector
slider
entered. and the elevator picture connected to this point.
Defining the Write the command (0, a) on the Home

2 Point “a” on which the slider is defined.
point A tab.
Defining the
3 Select the point (0, 0) The starting point of the vector to be defined
point B
Defining the “u” Select the starting point as B and the Defining the addition operation in integers based
4
vector endpoint as A. on the concept of direction in the elevator
Select an image under the slider tab and

Adding an elevator
5 transfer the corresponding file from the Helping to concretize by adding visuals
picture
desktop.
Ensuring that the shape integrity of the picture is

Defining the
6 Type (0.2+a) on Home tab. undistorted as the slider moves by connecting the
point C
upper left corner of the visual to a fixed point
Ensuring that the shape integrity of the picture is

Defining the
7 Type (2, a) on Home tab undistorted as the slider moves by connecting the
point E
lower right corner of the visual to a fixed point
Right-click on the picture. After the

Identifying the
properties are selected, click the place tab Fixing the corners of the elevator picture and
8 corners of the
in the box opening on the right. Corner ensuring the integrity of the visual.
picture
points are defined here.
321
Table 3. Content analysis for teacher candidates’ psychological status
Theme Sub-Theme Code Teacher Candidates

P1, P2, P4, P6, P8, P9, P12, P13,
• Support related to Course
P14, P15, P26
Support
Facilitator P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P12, P15, P16,
• Psychological support
P24
Comprehension • Communication gaps P6, P9
Meetings • A feeling of being together P2, P3, P4, P7, P9, P15, P16,P20
• Accessibility to Group Member P1, P15, P17, P26
Accessibility
• Accessibility to Lecturer P1,…,P26
• Participation of the Lecturer in
P1,…, P13, P15,…, P23, P26
the meetings
Psychological distance Motivation
• Continuous Group Interaction P1, …, P26
• Instant feedbacks P1, P13, P26
• Being in a Synchronous
The naturalness of the P1, P26
interaction
Lesson
• Sincerity P1, P7, P9, P17, P26
Fundamental • Knowledge sources P1, P5, P7, P8, P15
knowledge for future
use • Basic questioning ability P1, P7,P9, P15
Lifelong Learning • Questioning of mathematical

P7, P8, P15, P16, P21, P24
concepts
Awareness of the field
• The significance of the
P1, P5, P6, P7, P13, P20, P25
manipulative materials
• Manipulative material in
P2, P10, P12, P21
Awareness of constructing knowledge
technology integration • Selecting the appropriate
P1, P9, P11, P21
technology
Constructing the process
The feature of
• Knowledge of what to do P3, P5, P16, P21
facilitating the process
• Low anxiety P6, P17, P20
Being hopeful
• The idea of producing P1, P4, P14, P21
322
Table 4. Psychlogical status rubric
I felt lonely during the course process.

The course process was a facilitating structure.
The course process was in an unnatural and artificial structure.
The course process was in an incentive character for lifelong learning.
I was not able to establish the necessary social communication during the course.
I got the necessary support whenever I needed it during the course.
Extrinsic motivation was low during the course process.
The course process was a well-structured project.
I felt isolated during the course.
I felt like a member of a team during the course.
I had a lot of problems regarding non-communication during the course.
I got sufficient support as an individual during the course.
The course process was of poor quality.
Learning independently from time and space during the course process, positively affected my individual
learning.
I do not think everyone was treated equally during the course.
My intrinsic motivation was high during the course process.
My communication with the lecturer was not at the level that I wanted due to remote teaching.
Table 5. Individual & In-Group & Inter-group Assessment
Matter 1 2 3 4 5
I/ he/she made a sufficient contribution to the process of determining the learning outcomes.
I/ he/she made a sufficient contribution to the process of mathematical construction of the
learning outcomes (content knowledge).
I/ he/she made a sufficient contribution to the process of supporting the learning outcomes in
pedagogical terms.
I/ he/she made a sufficient contribution to the process of developing manipulative material
(technology knowledge) for learning outcomes.
I/ he/she showed sufficient attention to the students in the virtual exhibition.
In the virtual exhibition, I/ he/she answered the questions about the manipulative material with a
guiding approach.
323
Table 6. Effective Material Evaluation Graded Scoring Key
Dimensions Learner Characteristics Yes Partially No

1.The material application is suitable for the age characteristics of
the group.
Dimension 1: Attitudes and 2. The material has been prepared by considering possible
Perceptions inclusion and learning difficulties.
3. The scope of the material suits the needs of the students.
4. The learning speed of the material is suitable for learners.
5. The material appeals to the senses.
Dimension 2: 6. The material is suitable for a wide variety of learning/teaching

Getting and Integration of the styles.
Information 7. The material encourages student participation.
8. The material encourages active learning.
9. The material encourages the development of communication
skills.
Dimension 3: Expanding and 10. The material encourages group interaction.

Organizing Knowledge 11. The material allows/encourages students to work
independently.
12. The use of the material expands students’ knowledge.
13. The material positively meets the learning expectations of the
Dimension 4: Meaningful Use of students.
Information 14. The material is a guide for meaningful interpretation of the
acquired information.
15. The material encourages students to think creatively.
Dimension 5: Creative Habits of the
Mind 16. The material encourages the student to think critically.
- Critical Thinking 17. The material encourages the student to think critically.
- Creative Thinking
- Self-Regulated Thinking 18.The material is suitable for students to give each other an idea
of their learning.
Dimensions Purpose and Goals Yes Partially No

19. The content is up to date.
20. The Content is complete
21. The Content is correct
Dimension 1: Content
22. The content in the material meets the learning outcomes.

23. The Content is integrated into real-life experiences in the material.
24. The content is presented in the material with an interdisciplinary approach.
25. The objectives in the material are listed correctly.
Dimension 2: Purpose
26. The purposes contained in the material meet all aspects of the content.
27. The target(s) are clearly stated in the material.
Dimension 3: Goal
28. The material is suitable for a specific learning objective (s).
324
Dimensions Design Yes Partially No

29. The material can be widely used.
30. The material can be used repeatedly.
Dimension 1:
Accessibility / 31. The material can be easily used by the student/teacher.
Usability
32. The material is easily updated.
33. The materials work properly with no charge for the components.
34. Required hardware/software is complete in the material.
35. The material has an easy-to-use hardware/software
36. There is an instruction manual for the use of the material.
Dimension 2: 37.The rules of the user manual are clear and understandable.
Technical Support
38. Alternative methods of using the material have been proposed.
39. Solutions were developed for the problems that may occur in the use of the
material.
40. Appropriate support materials are provided/recommended.
41. The pedagogical approach involved in the use of the material is innovative.
42. The material is well organized and structured.
43. The story/effects (transitions) are appropriately used in the material to
highlight the relevant goals and objectives.
44.The teaching activities in the material are appropriate.
Dimension 3: 45. Curriculum topics covered in the material are integrated in a structured way.
Pedagogical Approach
46. Technical terms of the material are explained.
47. The time allocated for the use of the material is sufficient.
48. The use of the material is free of bias.
49. There are distractors in the use of the material.
50. The material encourages further learning.
51. The material is portable.
Dimension 4:
52. Material conservation has been provided.
Physical Appearance
53. The material is ergonomic.
Dimension 5: 54. The material has already been tested.

Pilot Study 55. Expert opinion on the material was obtained.
325
Dimensions Material Evaluation System Yes Partially No

56. There is an evaluation system regarding the prior-use of material.
57. There is an evaluation system regarding the post-use of material.
Dimension 1:
58. There is a feedback mechanism of the nature of the material during the use of the
Pre-Post
material.
Evaluations
59. The material allows students to evaluate themselves.
60. The material allows students to evaluate each other.
61. The material contains a performance to observe student participation in real life.
62. Items for observing the behavior change of the student are specified.
63. The criteria are suitable for learning purposes.
Dimension 2:
Criteria 64. The criteria are suitable for student abilities.
65. At least one of the statements with evaluation results is verifiable (Attitude,
Cognitive Processes, Creativity, Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, Verbal
Knowledge).
Dimension 3: 66. The material helps to keep a record of the student’s progress.
Process 67. The material provides a highly predictive guide for student improvement.
326
Section 2
Trauma-Informed, Care, and
Pandemic Pedagogy
328
Chapter 17
Intolerance of Uncertainty
Experienced by Faculty
of Education Students in
the COVID-19 Pandemic
and Their Strategies to
Cope With Uncertainty:
Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın
Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
COVID-19, which emerged and turned into a global pandemic within a short time, has caused great
concern in terms of health, and it has also brought some problems to the education sector. Due to some
uncertain situations in this process and worries about the pandemic, students have been faced with un-
familiar situations. This study aims to determine the intolerance of uncertainty that university students
in Turkey have experienced in the process of this pandemic and the strategies they have used to cope
with this situation. In this context, 179 university students participated in the study. The Intolerance of
Uncertainty Scale and an interview form were used. ANOVA was used with the independent samples t-test
and content analysis was used in the analysis of data. The data obtained showed that third-year students
in the psychological counseling and guidance program had high levels of intolerance of uncertainty and
had difculties in developing strategies to deal with uncertainty.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch017

Intolerance of Uncertainty Experienced by Faculty of Education Students in the COVID-19 Pandemic
INTRODUCTION
A new type of coronavirus (2019-nCov/COVID-19) that emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019
and then spread across the world within a short time has created great concerns for health and has made
the implementation of some changes necessary. The first public statement regarding the detection of the
first case in Turkey was made on 11 March 2020 (Ministry of Health, 2020), and, two days later, it was
announced that certain measures were being taken across the country against the spread of the virus.
It was explained in this announcement that public employees would not be able to go abroad, sporting
events had been postponed, and those coming from abroad would be kept under quarantine; it was also
explained that face-to-face education was stopped for two weeks in primary, middle, and high schools
and for three weeks in universities (Presidency of the Republic of Turkey, 2020). However, because the
pandemic continued to spread rapidly and restrictions were imposed on people of certain ages in this
process, the Council of Higher Education (CoHE, 2020a) issued a new statement announcing that the
spring term education process would be continued only in the form of distance education, open edu-
cation, and digital education. However, this explanation did not provide clear information about how
applied courses would be conducted or how and in what way students would participate in the distance
learning process. In the process, it was stated that university students were given the right to freeze or
postpone enrollment due to problems in the infrastructure or students’ lack of access to courses and
technological shortcomings (CoHE, 2020b). Although there was no clear explanation about the faculties
that would offer applied courses or how the courses in the relevant departments of those faculties would
be conducted, it was announced that the deficiencies of the students in the practicum in courses carried
out in coordination with the Ministry of Education in education faculties would be compensated for via
lessons, assignments, and preparation of files (CoHE, 2020c).
Agendas change rapidly with regard to education and there are uncertainties associated with it, which
negatively impacts individuals with low tolerance to uncertainty. Situations of uncertainty prevent indi-
viduals from acting and cause stress and anxiety; unexpected events are felt by individuals as negative
situations, and uncertainty becomes quite unbearable for some individuals (Buhr & Dugas, 2002). In
addition, prolonged uncertainty causes anxiety and fear in individuals and prevents the individual from
being able to think positively (Satici et al., 2020). The COVID-19 outbreak not only physically affects
human health; it has also been stated that it can lead to an increase in the stress of individuals and an
increase in psychological problems such as depression, fear, or anxiety (Pakpour & Griffiths, 2020).
Therefore, it is thought that research to be carried out on the determination and prevention of such pos-
sible situations that the outbreak may cause is important. In this context, it has been deemed necessary
to understand the state of intolerance of uncertainty and to determine the levels of individuals’ intoler-
ance of uncertainty.
Intolerance of Uncertainty
Excessive and uncontrollable uneasiness are important for the identification of generalized anxiety
disorder; in the researches on generalized anxiety disorder, pathological anxiety was focused on. Patho-
logical anxiety, moreover, was related with intolerance of uncertainty, beliefs about worry, poor problem
orientation and cognitive avoidance (Dugas et al., 1998). Intolerance of uncertainty is expressed in the
ways in which individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to the uncertainty in their lives (Dugas et al.,
2004). Carleton (2016) explained intolerance of uncertainty as a situation that occurs in the absence of
329

information that is important for the individual and continues with the perception of uncertainty, result-
ing in the inadequate ability of the individual to withstand situations. This can be observed externally
when the individual makes cognitive, behavioral, or emotional responses (Dugas et al., 2004). Accord-
ing to Buhr and Dugas (2002), there are four sub-dimensions of intolerance of uncertainty. These are as
follows: (1) uncertainty is stressful and worrying, (2) it makes one to feel insufficient in terms of taking
action and adapting behaviour, (3) uncertain situations are negative and they should be avoided from, (4)
uncertainty is unfair. Together with the increase of intolerance of uncertainty level, it seems inevitable
that the individual experiences difficulties in their life, moreover, this status negatively affects their well-
being level. In other words, intolerance of uncertainty has an active role in development of generalized
anxiety like pathological anxiety. Individuals cannot make any predictions about their futures and they
interpret this uncertainty as a threatening and negative situation due to their inability to tolerate it (Buhr
& Dugas, 2002). An individual’s interpretation of uncertainty as a threatening and negative situation leads
to generalized anxiety disorder in these individuals in subsequent periods (Carleton, 2016; Cowie et al.,
2018; Dugas et al., 2012). Zlomke and Jeter (2014) stated that anxiety is related to individual differences,
but they also stated that stressful life events may trigger intolerance of uncertainty. Although different
types of uncertainties occur in daily life, research shows that these conditions are quite unbearable for
individuals with a high intolerance of uncertainty (Yang et al., 2015). However, Chen, Yao, and Qian
(2018) emphasized that situational uncertainty is associated with intolerance of uncertainty, because it
is believed that should a problem arise, individuals with high intolerance of uncertainty are not able to
activate effective strategies to solve the problem and, moreover, they begin to perceive problems that
do not actually exist (Whiting et al., 2014). Therefore, increasing levels of intolerance of uncertainty
can cause many psychological problems. There are many studies in which intolerance of uncertainty is
evaluated together with anxiety (Dugas et al., 2004), social anxiety (Whiting et al., 2014), depression
(Jensen et al., 2016; Saulnier et al., 2019), personality (Yang et al., 2015), and stress (Zlomke & Jeter,
2015). From this point forth, it is thought that individuals intolerant of uncertainty experience negative
moods much more; they are more inclined to psychological symptoms like anxiety and depression which
arise unease in the individual.
AIM OF THE STUDY
Taha et al. (2014) reported that in the case of general health threats, the relevant organizations should
provide pertinent and practical information to reduce Kluge, European Director of World Health Or-
ganization, expressed that during COVID-19 pandemic psychological strength is the key for psychical
and mental health (Kluge, 2020a). However, psychological strength is affected by the uncertainty. Also,
the current pandemic process as it is in both the world as a whole and in Turkey, it is indicated that un-
certainty will continue for the time being. This situation has, in turn, brought about uncertainties in the
educational process. However, the effects of uncertainty on students, the extent to which they are affected
by it, the strategies they use to distance themselves from their anxiety caused by uncertainty need to be
exposed. The picture that will emerge here is thought to be important in terms of providing ideas about
what students need and what forms of support and necessary arrangements should be offered to them.
Additionally, Kluge indicated that in such a pandemic environment how we manage the stressful situa-
tion emerging very fast in our lives and communities and how we react to it are quite important (Kluge,
2020b). In line with all these information, it can be argued that intolerance of uncertainty has an effect
330

on psychological symptoms. Thus, according to Bozkurt et al. (2020), interruptions occurring in educa-
tion cause trauma and psychological pressure on students, moreover, it results in anxiety. On the other
hand, this effect may display difference between individuals. When it comes to uncertainty, everyone’s
psychological symptoms are expected to be increased. In order to be able to better understand this rela-
tion and to examine the effect of other variables to this process; in the current study, university students’
intolerance of uncertainty statuses were tried to be handled. In this context, in the current study, it was
aimed to determine the intolerance levels of students in an education faculty and the strategies they use
to deal with this situation. The following sub-problems were investigated in this study:
1. What are the levels of intolerance of uncertainty among students in a faculty of education during
the process of the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. What are the levels of intolerance of these students according to variables of age, gender, program,
and year of education?
3. What are the strategies that these students use to deal with uncertainty?
METHOD
This study is modeled as mixed-method research in which university students try to determine their
intolerance of uncertainty in the COVID-19 outbreak process and the strategies they use to deal with
this uncertainty. In mixed-method research, the research problem identified presents more evidence than
quantitative and qualitative approaches alone, diversifies data collection tools, and is defined as “more
than one way of seeing” (Creswell & Clark, 2017). In this process, an explanatory sequential design,
which is one of the mixed-method research models, was preferred. In this design, first, the quantitative
data are collected and analyzed, followed by the collection and analysis of the qualitative data. Thus,
in this study, the intolerance of uncertainty of the university students during the pandemic process was
evaluated and the relevant data were analyzed, and then the phase of collecting qualitative data was begun
in order to facilitate the in-depth analysis of the data in line with the findings obtained.
This study was conducted in the spring semester of the 2019-2020 academic year among students of
a faculty of education in Turkey. The sample of the study consists of students attending the faculty of
education of a major university in the Central Anatolia region of Turkey. The participating students are
enrolled in Turkish Language Teaching (TT), Computer and Instructional Technology Teaching (CITT),
Elementary Mathematics Education (EMU), and Psychological Counseling and Guidance (PCG) pro-
grams. The convenience sampling method was used in the selection of the students. This method allows
researchers to choose situations that are easy to access as well as adding speed and practicality to the
study (Frey, 2018). This technique was preferred because it was thought that it would not be possible to
use any other sampling method due to the difficulties experienced during the pandemic period.
A total of 179 students participated in the study, of whom 136 were women and 43 were men. The
participants of the study consisted of students studying in the relevant departments of the specified faculty
of education and who agreed to voluntarily participate in the study. The vast majority of the students (n
= 114) were in the age range of 19-21. In the relevant analyses, the age variable was rearranged as 19-21
and ≥22 years in order to prevent the small number of participants aged ≥24 from creating confusion
among the statistical analyses. Furthermore, the vast majority of the students participating in the study
were in their second year of the educational program (n = 81), and students who studied in the PCG and
331

TT programs most often preferred to participate. In the qualitative dimension of the study, 10 students
were interviewed from the group, whereby a significant difference was detected as a result of quantita-
tive analyses. The PCG program students, where the difference was significant, were all women and the
age range of the sample group was 19-21.
Data Collection Tools
In this study, a personal information form, the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, and an interview form
were used to collect data from the students.
This was developed by the researchers to collect the demographic data of the participants. The par-
ticipants were asked about their gender, age, the program they attended, and their year of enrollment at
the university.
The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12), developed by Carleton et al. (2007) and adapted to
Turkish by Sarıçam et al. (2014), was used in this study. The IUS-12 consists of 12 items and 2 factors.
These factors are named prospective anxiety and inhibitory anxiety. Items of the prospective anxiety
factor are items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and items of the inhibitory anxiety factor are items 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12. There is no reverse-coded item in the scale, which is a 5-point Likert scale (1 - Not at all like/
characteristic of me, 2 - Very little like/characteristic of me, 3 - Somewhat like/characteristic of me, 4 -
To a great extent like/characteristic of me, 5 - Completely like/characteristic of me). The total score that
can be obtained from the scale varies between 12 and 60. High scores indicate high intolerance. Since
the total score was calculated for the scale, in this study, too, analyses were made based on the scores
obtained from the overall scale. In order to determine the suitability of the scale for factor analysis, the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient was calculated and Bartlett’s sphericity test was performed for
this study. For the suitability of the data for factor analysis, the KMO coefficient should be higher than
0.60 and the Bartlett test should be significant at the significance level of p < 0.01 (Dziuban & Shirkey,
1974). As a result of the analysis, the KMO sample suitability coefficient was found to be 0.88, and the
Bartlett test chi-square (χ2) value was found to be 1008.975 (p < 0.001, sd = 66). Although absolute
sample size is mentioned in the related literature for factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), Kline
(1979) proposed the ratio of 2/1 for the individual/variable ratio, provided that the sample size is at least
100, whereas Bryant and Yarnold (1995) stated that a 10/1 ratio is sufficient. The sample size of this study
was also thought to be sufficient for exploratory factor analysis, considering the number of items and
the degree of unidimensionality representing the change in item factor loads. In this study, exploratory
factor analysis was performed to reveal the factor structure of the scale among the sample consisting of
university students. As a result, it was observed that the factor loads of the items ranged between 0.59
and 0.79, and a two-factor structure that explained 58.11% of the total variance was obtained. For the
internal consistency value of the scale, the Cronbach alpha value was calculated and found as 0.88. As
a result of the confirmatory factor analysis of the scale, the fit indexes of the model were found as χ2/sd
= 2.52, RMSEA = 0.08, and SRMR = 0.03, respectively.

In this study, an interview form was used to determine the students’ levels of coping with uncertainty.
A reliable interview form that could be used in the study was prepared by scanning the relevant literature.
First, a careful literature review was performed, and question selection was done accordingly. Opinions
were received from a PhD specialist who carried out qualitative studies on the draft form with questions.
Then, in order to check the clarity of the questions, a pilot application was conducted with two students
who were not included in the participant group and some changes were made in the wording of the
332

questions. After the form was finalized, the main application was started. Accordingly, the questions of
the interview form included the following:
1. What is the uncertainty that has troubled you the most during this process (COVID-19 pandemic)?
What are you doing to cope with this uncertainty?
2. Do you think there are any uncertainties regarding education in the pandemic? How do you cope
with them, if there are any?
3. Did this process affect your academic performance? Could you please describe how and in what
direction it affected you?
4. In this process, do you think that rapid and increasing changes together with increasing expecta-
tions created pressure and stress for you? How do you deal with these situations?
5. What are your expectations from faculty members and the university administration during this
process of uncertainty?
Data Collection and Analysis
Before the data were collected, usage permission was obtained from the author of the scale and an appli-
cation was submitted to the relevant ethics committee. Accordingly, an ethics committee approval docu-
ment was issued as a result of board meeting no. 12 (application no. 2020-SBB-0060, dated 16.04.2020).
Following this permission, the interview form with the relevant scale was transformed into an online
questionnaire via Google Forms. The relevant questionnaires were sent to students’ e-mail addresses
and necessary explanations were made; it was stated that the data would be collected on a voluntary
basis and the consent of the participants was obtained. The data were then collected over the course of
a week via an online survey.
Before the data obtained during the data collection stage were processed, extreme values were de-
termined and removed from the analysis. It was determined that the obtained values showed a normal
distribution (p > 0.05) and it was decided to perform parametric tests. Whether the obtained data showed
normal distribution was examined with skewness and kurtosis values. According to Hair et al. (2013),
a skewness coefficient within the limits of -1 and +1 can be interpreted to mean that the scores do not
show major deviation from normal distribution. Accordingly, when the kurtosis and skewness values
of the scores were examined (skewness: 0.008 and kurtosis: -0.581), it was found that the data showed
a normal distribution. The items on the scale were interpreted on the basis of the ranges of 4.20–5.00
representing “entirely characteristic of me”, 3.40–4.19 “very characteristic of me”, 2.60–3.39 “somewhat
characteristic of me”, 1.80–2.59 “very little characteristic of me”, and 1.00–1.79 “not at all character-
istic of me” (Clason & Dormody, 1994). The independent sample t-test was used to determine whether
the students’ levels of intolerance of uncertainty differed significantly in terms of gender and age. On
the other hand, one-way ANOVA was used to determine whether the students’ levels of intolerance of
uncertainty showed significant differences in terms of the department in which they were studying and
their year of study within the program. The data were analyzed with the SPSS 21.0 package program.
The data obtained from the interview form were evaluated using content analysis in line with qualita-
tive research techniques. The main purpose in content analysis is to organize and interpret similar data
in a way that can be understood by the reader by grouping them within certain concepts (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). In the content analysis of the participants’ views, themes were formed by grouping data
according to the similarity of the answers given, and then related views were combined within the same
333

themes. The themes obtained in this way were reviewed after a week and the theme-code match was
checked. In order to ensure the reliability of the analysis, expert opinion was consulted and the percent-
age of agreement (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was calculated with feedback from a PhD specialist who
was also doing qualitative studies. The value obtained from the calculation (98%) was considered to be
reliable (Tavşancıl & Aslan, 2011) and sample expressions for each theme that emerged were presented
with direct quotations revealing the participants’ views.
FINDINGS
In this study, first, the descriptive statistical values related to the scale used were examined (Table 2).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics
Number of
Scale N Min Score Max Score Mean Mean/k Sd
Items (k)
IUS-12 179 12 17.04 60 39.84 3.32 0.825
According to Table 2, the lowest score obtained from the scale was 17.04 while the highest score
was 60. The average score obtained from the scale was 39.84, and in terms of the item dimension, this
value corresponds to “a little characteristic of me”. This indicates that the students’ levels of intolerance
of uncertainty are average.
The independent sample t-test was used to examine whether or not there were significant differences
among university students according to the variables of gender and age in terms of levels of intolerance
of uncertainty. The results are summarized in Table 3.
Table 2. University students’ intolerance of uncertainty according to gender and age
Scale Gender N S t Sd p
Female 136 40.2 0.850
IUS-12 0.985 177 0.234
Male 43 38.52 0.737
Age
19-21 145 40.08 0.793
IUS-12 0.770 177 0.126
≥22 34 38.64 0.954
Table 3 shows the scores that the students received from the IUS-12 scale according to the variables
of gender and age. It is observed that in terms of intolerance of uncertainty, women scored higher (X
= 40.2); similarly, the age group of 19-21 received higher scores in this respect (X = 40.68). However,
there was no significant difference in terms of statistical evaluations of both variables (p > 0.05). The
levels of intolerance of these faculty of education students were also tested with ANOVA according to
334

the variables of the program being attended and the year of education, and these results are summarized
in Table 4.
Table 3. ANOVA Results for IUS
Sum of
Source of Variance df Mean F p Sig.
Squares
Between Groups 4.047 3 1.349
Within Groups 117.163 175 0.670 2.015 0.014 PCG-TT
Total 121.210 178
Year of Education
Between Groups 4.051 3 1.350
Within Groups 117.159 175 0.669 2.017 0.013 3-2
Total 121.210 178
As a result of ANOVA analysis on whether the mean scores of the faculty of education students dif-
fered according to their programs, it was found that the average of students’ intolerance of uncertainty
differed significantly according to program [�(3;175) ═ 2.015, p < 0.05]. Scheffe test was carried out to
determine the source of mean scores differences between programs. According to the results obtained, it
was found that the students studying in the PCG program were significantly higher than average in level
of intolerance to uncertainty (X = 42.24), while TT students had average level intolerance to uncertainty
(X = 39.48). As a result of the ANOVA analysis to determine whether there was a difference between the
students’ uncertainty intolerance scores according to their level of education, it was seen that the mean
of intolerance of uncertainty did differ significantly according to educational level [�(3;175) = 2.017; p <
0.05]. Scheffe’s test was carried out to determine the source of mean scores different between educational
level. It was found that the average of the third-year undergraduate students’ intolerance of uncertainty (X
= 41.04) was significantly higher than the second-year students’ intolerance of uncertainty (X = 40.92).
This study also utilized qualitative data in determining the strategies these students used to cope with
uncertainty and the points where they needed support.
Strategies Students Use to Cope With Uncertainty
Based on the data obtained from the quantitative part of the study, interviews were conducted with stu-
dents. During the interviews, they were first asked to explain the source of the uncertainty they experi-
enced and what they did to cope with this uncertainty process, and, finally what they expected from the
instructors and university administration in coping with uncertainty. At this stage the following questions
were asked: “What is the uncertainty that has troubled you the most during this process (COVID-19
pandemic)? What are you doing to cope with this uncertainty? Do you think there are any uncertainties
regarding education in the pandemic? How do you cope with them, if there are any? Did this process
affect your academic performance? Could you please describe how and in what direction it affected you?
In this process, do you think that the rapid and increasing changes together with increasing expectations
created pressure and stress for you? How do you deal with these situations? What are your expectations
335

from faculty members and the university administration during this process of uncertainty?” Themes
were then created based on the answers given. The themes obtained from the interviews are as follows:
1. Source of Uncertainty: Based on the statements given by students in the interviews, the sources
of uncertainty experienced by the students were gathered within themes of “pandemic” and “edu-
cational process”.
Pandemic
Within this theme, the students stated that they could not predict what they would go through during the
pandemic and that this situation disturbed them. The students stated that they did not know how to act
due to the existence of the pandemic and the problems that it caused. This situation has become a source
of uncertainty for them. Sample statements obtained from students are as follows:
“Will the virus end or not? Did anything happen to my belongings at the dorm? What bothers me most is
the uncertainty of not knowing when this pandemic will end and when we will return to our normal lives”.
“Uncertainty: When the isolation days will end”.
“It bothers me not knowing when the outbreak will end”.
“When it will end”.
“What will become of us is the biggest uncertainty”.
Education Process
It was seen that “education process” emerged as another source of the uncertainty experienced by the
students. They stated that they do not know how long the pandemic will last, so they are not sure how
the education process will operate. This shows that the pandemic prevents students from planning their
education. Sample statements about this process are as follows:
“It is tiring for me not to know when it [education] will end. I can’t do anything because this topic is
always being talked about around me”.
“How much longer will schools provide distance education? I expect the necessary authorities to make
a statement”.
“When will the university be opened, and will there be undergraduate student transfers next year? When
can I attend the driving license course I applied to, since I do not want to be in the same university next
year?”
“The thought of whether or not the school will open really tires me”.
336

“It bothers me that I don’t know when our schools will open”.
“Will schools be opened? Or will we attend in summer? Will we not go to school until September?”
2. Strategies for Coping with Uncertainty: During the interviews, the students were asked what they
did about the uncertainty that they said they felt, and how they coped with it. The data obtained
showed that the students are trying to adapt to the process, but they dawdle about or feel helpless
in the face of uncertainty and hence are unable to use any strategies.
Efforts to Adapt to the Process
It was observed that students often try to accept the process and adapt to this situation in order to deal
with the pandemic process that they name as the source of their uncertainty and their inability to plan
their educational lives. This adaptation also shows students’ efforts to accept uncertainty. Sample state-
ments obtained from the students are as follows:
“I am trying to adapt to the process to cope with it”.
“I try to adapt to distance education to cope with it”.
“I am annoyed about not knowing when the pandemic will end, but I am trying to motivate myself by
thinking that the sun will rise after every night, thinking that these days will certainly come to an end
sooner or later”.
“It is the uncertainty of not knowing when this pandemic will end and when we will return to our nor-
mal lives that most annoys me. I think I console myself with such ideas to cope with this uncertainty. I
talk to people who make me feel good; I say, well it will end, God willing! I try to cope like this in my
humble way”.
“I think I will handle everything with good luck. I try not to think badly of it; we will get used to this”.
“We cannot predict … which is stressful. I cannot cope; I prefer to accept it as it is and read a lot of
books for my mental health”.
“I don’t think about it as a way of coping”.

“I feel distressed, thinking that I will not be able to finish my assignments on time, but I try to keep myself
calm, I read books, listen to music and dance; I try not to keep negative energy in me”.
337

Lack of a Coping Strategy
Some of the students stated that the process took its toll on them spiritually and that they could not find
the power to cope with this situation, so they had no coping strategies. Relevant statements along these
lines are as follows:
“I cannot cope with uncertainty because I have no strength to cope psychologically. That’s why I’m
crying”.
“I have no power to cope”.
“We are away from stress only when we sleep. The rest of the hours I live a stressful and boring life”.
“I am extremely stressed and troubled, and there are problems in my body caused by this”.
“I cannot cope”.
“I cry”.
“The weight of the assignments given in this process with the assumption that we have more time as we
are at home creates stress. I can’t deal with this situation”.
“There is nothing I can do; I’m desperately waiting”.
3. Expectations of Support for Coping with Uncertainty: During the interviews with the students,
they were asked about their expectations from their instructors and the university administration in
light of the uncertainty that they said they felt. The students referred to assignments and Internet
problems within this theme. Accordingly, the students wanted to have their homework reduced and
want to be offered Internet opportunities in terms of material resources.
Reduction of Assignments
Students talked about the difficulties they faced during the pandemic regarding the amount, quality, and
timing of the assignments given to them, and in this regard they reported their demands in terms of the
uncertainty of the process. The students mentioned that they had difficulties in doing homework; they
were caught unprepared because they did not do homework of this nature before and this situation forced
them to do new forms of work. Sample expressions related to this theme are as follows:
“They should keep the assignments simple. After all, everyone’s possibilities are not the same”.
“The virus is suffering enough for all of us. My request from you is not to increase this with excessive
homework. I don’t want to look at the computer screen anymore”.
338

“They should know that not everyone lives on equal terms, and give homework and evaluate accord-
ingly, taking this into consideration, evaluating on the basis of how well the student has done within the
bounds of possibility”.
“They think of everyone on equal terms. But no one is on equal terms. Even when they are giving home-
work, they do it in a way we have never seen before. We get answers about how we should do something
such as follow it on this or that website, etc. In this process, I would like our teachers to give us simple
homework”.
“I expect them to evaluate the assignments in our favor without pushing the students too hard”.
“Easier assignments can be given. Most of the assignments really take a lot of time. We want to get good
grades, but there are a lot of courses and a lot of homework along with them ... The deadline is also
approaching. Obviously, we do not know how much time to allocate for which task”.
“You can help a little more with homework, you can extend deadlines for homework”.
“I want them to minimize their expectations and be understanding because we are in a difficult process”.
Internet Support
In the relevant process, students also asked the university administration to assist them in combating
uncertainty. Regarding overcoming the stress created by uncertainty, the need for Internet in terms of
attending classes and preparing homework was mentioned. Students repeatedly stressed that they wanted
to be supported in terms of access to the Internet. Since relevant statements were repeated continuously
by all students, only two sample statements are given below:
“Fast and free Internet”.
“The university administration can provide Internet support for distance education and assignments
because not everyone has Internet access”.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
In this study, it was aimed to reveal the levels of intolerance of uncertainty of students in a faculty of
education during the process of the COVID-19 pandemic and the coping strategies they used in this
period of uncertainty. For this purpose, first, a survey study was conducted with the students and the
results indicated that their levels of intolerance of uncertainty were at an average level.
339

The Levels of Intolerance of Uncertainty Among Students in a Faculty

of Education During the Process of the Covid-19 Pandemic
When the results were examined in terms of the program the students attended and their year at the
university, it was seen that levels of intolerance of uncertainty were higher among students enrolled in
the PCG program than those of students in the other programs. The fact that there was an increase in the
levels of intolerance of uncertainty of students in the PCG department was not an expected result. These
students have different course contents than the students in the other programs that formed the sample
of this study, and it was expected that their awareness levels regarding the negative effects of traumatic
life events on mental health would be increased thanks to the courses they take within the scope of their
undergraduate education (Aydın & Egemberdiyeva, 2018). However, according to Chen et al. (2018),
if a clear threat is felt, the levels of intolerance of uncertainty in individuals increase. Therefore, there
may be other reasons why their intolerance of uncertainty was higher than that of the students in other
programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the other programs, students in this program
have more applied courses according to the semester they are studying in (CoHE, 2018). The fact that
clear explanations were not made by the relevant authorities about how these courses would be con-
ducted, like the teaching practices, may have put these students in a state of uncertainty in this process.
Furthermore, they may also have felt more uncertainty due to their high levels of awareness. Cowie et
al. (2018) and Dugas et al. (2012) reported that intolerance of uncertainty was associated with anxiety
and worry, and Dugas et al. (2004) concluded that anxiety was more effective on intolerance of uncer-
tainty than depression. Therefore, anxiety about what will happen to students in the future may have
had an impact on their intolerance of uncertainty. Accordingly, efforts were made to reveal the source
of intolerance of uncertainty in these students through interview questions.
The Strategies that Students Use to Deal with Uncertainty
According to the results of the interviews with the students, the sources of the uncertainty experienced by
them were the COVID-19 pandemic and the educational process. The students experienced uncertainty
about when the pandemic would end, when they would return to school, and whether there would be
compensatory education in summer. It was seen in a study conducted by Yang et al. (2020) with uni-
versity students that negative psychological symptoms were common among the participants. However,
Yang et al. also determined that the participants demonstrated positive behavioral responses to crisis
management. In our sample, however, the students did not make very positive statements about crisis
management, as can be seen in the example of “I expect the necessary authorities to make a statement”.
On the other hand, widespread media reporting during crisis periods is quite effective (Taha et al., 2014).
The fact that students cannot get clear and precise information from official institutions in this process
and constantly turn to social media reports may cause them to receive conflicting information and feel
confusion. Announcements need to be made clearly and precisely to prevent information pollution.
When the strategies that the students used to cope with the uncertainty they experienced during the
pandemic were examined, it was seen that they either tried to adapt to the process or gave emotional
reactions instead of developing a strategy. It is also known that individuals having high intolerance of
uncertainty display inclination to procrastination as a strategy to cope with uncertain situations (Four-
tounas & Thomas, 2016). Emotional reactions by the students are further related with procrastination
behaviors. Feeling of guilt emerging in the individuals displaying procrastination behaviour causes a
340

depressive mood (Chu & Choi, 2005). Therefore, it is though that individuals will display such symptoms
as anxiety and depression as a result of procrastination. Yet, it cannot be argued that each individual
intolerant of uncertainty experiences procrastination inclination and, in accordance with this, depres-
sion symptoms. Folkman et al. (1986) stated that if individuals encounter any stressors, they first make
an initial assessment and then determine whether they possess the resources to cope with the stressor
and adopt a strategy according to the situation that arose. In this sample, too, the students who had the
resources to resist the uncertainty chose to adapt to the process, while the students who did not have
specific resources gave emotional reactions. It can be said for these students with high intolerance of
uncertainty that there is a drift toward negative emotional processes, as in the case of general anxiety
disorder (Dugas et al., 2012). In this process, it is possible to say that student resources are mostly re-
lated to having Internet, high motivation (“I am trying to motivate myself by thinking … that these days
will certainly come to an end sooner or later”), and individual differences (“I try to keep myself calm,
I read books, listen to music and dance; I try not to keep negative energy in me”). Indeed, Zlomke and
Jeter (2014) reported that intolerance of uncertainty is affected by individual differences. The fact that
the students are in anticipation of Internet support in order to cope with uncertainty means that they lack
this resource. The interruption of education and training and the shift to distance education have put
many students in an unfamiliar situation and have also revealed some problems in accessing resources
(Moorhouse, 2020). The fact that both the instructors and the students were unfamiliar with this pro-
cess and the distance education practices themselves posed uncertainties for the students. Likewise, the
fact that the current university administration wanted to assess students through assignments instead
of an exam and the instructors’ failure to explain how they would evaluate assignments increased the
expectation of support on the part of the students who could not attend the courses synchronously or
asynchronously. These gained results indicate that the students are loaded with anxiety as a consequence
of the uncertainty they experience during pandemic process.
General Conclusion and Suggestions
In this study, it was observed that a certain group of students in this faculty of education had high lev-
els of intolerance of uncertainty during the process of the COVID-19 pandemic and had difficulties in
dealing with uncertainty. These problems are directly related to the existence of the pandemic, as well
as the uncertainty caused by the conditions that have developed with the pandemic. Along with the lack
of knowledge about what the process will bring, the difficulties students experience in reaching some
resources and their inexperience in overcoming these difficulties lead them to turn towards negative
emotional strategies. Therefore, in this period we may continue seeing more serious developments and
changes in emotional and psychological dimensions. In fact, it may become necessary to implement
psycho-educational programs to improve the intolerance of uncertainty. All this may require serious
investments, both in terms of human health and economic resources. Good crisis management is needed
to prevent such negative developments. Frequent needs analyses and case studies with students as well
as timely reports will prevent information pollution, especially via social media, and will increase the
trust of young people in official authorities. At this point, it is necessary that effects of the virus are well
analyzed in short-middle and long term and future pedagogical plans are done. To this end, pandemic
should not also be observed in terms of health but, also should be observed in sociological, psychologi-
cal, financial and educational scopes. Bozkurt et al. (2020) draw attention to “theme of a pedagogy
of care” in pandemic period and emphasized the necessity of psychological care and support which is
341

required in education for learning. Also, the establishment of a committee of experts in the health sector
in Turkey has been quite successful, and it is recommended that a similar board be established in the
field of educational sciences. Thus, the recommendations of this board could be taken into consideration
in the decisions to be made in the field of education. With regard to public and community health; both
public and the students receiving education should be informed further and uncertainty statuses should
be cleared away. Only by this way, a stronger pedagogical perception can be created.
Limitations
Despite the reached results and suggestions, there are some limitations in this study. Firstly, data collected
within scope of the study were received from a small sampling which does not display clinical symptom.
Therefore, student behaviors taking place in the sampling may not be regarded as valid for all students.
However, gained results are quite valuable in terms of revealing the results of COVID pandemic and the
effects of these results with regard to education. This emerging result demonstrates that in pedagogical
terms some responsibilities, particularly in higher education, are needed to be urgently fulfilled.
ETHICAL STATEMENT
In this article, journal writing rules, publishing principles, research and publishing ethics rules, and journal
ethics rules are followed. Responsibility belongs to the author(s) for any violations related to the article.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
profit sectors.
REFERENCES
Aydın, M., & Egemberdiyeva, A. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinin psikolojik sağlamlık düzeylerinin
incelenmesi [An investigation of university students’ resilience levels]. Turkey Journal of Education,
3(1), 37–53.
A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Navigating in a time of
Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirma-
tory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate
statistics (pp. 99–136). American Psychological Association.
342

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2002). The intolerance of uncertainty scale: Psychometric properties of the
English version. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(8), 931–945. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00092-
4 PMID:12186356
Carleton, R. N. (2016). Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models involving
uncertainty. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 39, 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.02.007 PMID:26945765
Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version
of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21(1), 105–117. doi:10.1016/j.
janxdis.2006.03.014 PMID:16647833
Chen, S., Yao, N., & Qian, M. (2018). The influence of uncertainty and intolerance of uncertainty
on anxiety. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 61, 60–65. doi:10.1016/j.
jbtep.2018.06.005 PMID:29909250
Chu, A. H., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” procrastination
behavior on attitudes and performances. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(3), 245–264. doi:10.3200/
SOCP.145.3.245-264 PMID:15959999
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35. doi:10.5032/jae.1994.04031
CoHE. (2020a). Press briefing. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/YKS%20
Ertelenmesi%20Bas%C4%B1n%20A%C3%A7%C4%B1klamas%C4%B1.aspx
CoHE. (2020b). Press briefing. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/erteleme-
ve-kayit-dondurma-hakki.aspx
CoHE. (2020c). Press briefing. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/yok-ten-
sinavlara-iliskin-karar.aspx
Cowie, J., Clementi, M. A., & Alfano, C. A. (2018). Examination of the intolerance of uncertainty con-
struct in youth with generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
47(6), 1014–1022. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1212358 PMID:27654145
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
Dugas, M. J., Buhr, K., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). The role of intolerance of uncertainty in etiology and
maintenance. In R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk & D. S. Mennin (Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Ad-
vances in research and practice (pp. 143–163). The Guilford Press.
Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A
preliminary test of a conceptual model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(2), 215–226. doi:10.1016/
S0005-7967(97)00070-3 PMID:9613027
Dugas, M. J., Laugesen, N., & Bukowski, W. M. (2012). Intolerance of uncertainty, fear of anxiety, and
adolescent worry. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(6), 863–870. doi:10.100710802-012-
9611-1 PMID:22302481
343

Dugas, M. J., Schwartz, A., & Francis, K. (2004). Brief report: Intolerance of uncertainty, worry, and
depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28(6), 835–842. doi:10.100710608-004-0669-0
Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis?
Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358–361. doi:10.1037/h0036316
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a
stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992 PMID:3712234
Fourtounas, A., & Thomas, S. J. (2016). Cognitive factors predicting checking, procrastination and other
maladaptive behaviours: Prospective versus inhibitory intolerance of uncertainty. Journal of Obsessive-
Compulsive and Related Disorders, 9(9), 30–35. doi:10.1016/j.jocrd.2016.02.003
Frey, B. B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation.
Sage. doi:10.4135/9781506326139
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2013). Multivariate data
analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
Jensen, D., Cohen, J. N., Mennin, D. S., Fresco, D. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2016). Clarifying the unique
associations among intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy,
45(6), 431–444. doi:10.1080/16506073.2016.1197308 PMID:27314213
Kline, P. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. Acaderric Press.
Kluge, H. H. P. (2020a). Statement - physical and mental health key to resilience during COVID-19
pandemic. http://www.euro.who.int/en/mediacentre/sections/statements/2020/statement-physical-and-
mental-health-key-to-resilienceduring-covid-19-pandemic
Kluge, H. H. P. (2020b). Mental health and psychological resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic.
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid19/news/news/2020/3/
mental-health-and-psychological-resilience-during-the-covid-19- pandemic
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage
(Atlanta, Ga.).
Ministry of Health. (2020). Press briefing. Retrieved from https://tr.euronews.com/2020/03/10/sagl-k-
bakan-koca-koronavirus-covid-19-salg-n-ile-ilgili-ac-klama-yap-yor
Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course “forced” online
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609–611. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/02607476.2020.1755205
Pakpour, A. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). The fear of COVID-19 and its role in preventive behaviors.
Journal of Concurrent Disorders, 2(1), 58–63.
Presidency of the Republic of Turkey. (2020). Press briefing. Retrieved from. https://www.bbc.com/
turkce/live/haberler-turkiye-51849600
344

Sarıçam, H., Erguvan, F. M., Akın, A., & Akça, M. Ş. (2014). The Turkish short version of the intoler-
ance of uncertainty (IUS-12) scale: The study of validity and reliability. Route Educational and Social
Science Journal, 1(3), 148–157.
Satici, B., Gocet-Tekin, E., Deniz, M. E., & Satici, S. A. (2020). Adaptation of the fear of COVID-19 scale:
Its association with psychological distress and life satisfaction in Turkey. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711469-020-00294-0 PMID:32395095
Saulnier, K. G., Allan, N. P., Raines, A. M., & Schmidt, N. B. (2019). Depression and intolerance of
uncertainty: Relations between uncertainty subfactors and depression dimensions. Psychiatry, 82(1),
72–79. doi:10.1080/00332747.2018.1560583 PMID:30730786
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and tech-
niques. Sage.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn and Bacon.
Taha, S., Matheson, K., Cronin, T., & Anisman, H. (2014). Intolerance of uncertainty, appraisals, cop-
ing, and anxiety: The case of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19(3),
592–605. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12058 PMID:23834735
Tavşancıl, E., & Aslan, E. (2001). Sözel, yazılı ve diğer materyaller için içerik analizi ve uygulama
örnekleri [Content analysis and application examples for verbal, written and other materials]. Epsilon
Publishing.
Whiting, S. E., Jenkins, W. S., May, A. C., Rudy, B. M., Davis, T. E. III, & Reuther, E. T. (2014). The
role of intolerance of uncertainty in social anxiety subtypes. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(3),
260–272. doi:10.1002/jclp.22024 PMID:23843207
Yang, Z., Wang, R., Chen, H., & Ding, J. (2015). Personality and worry: The role of intolerance of un-
certainty. Social Behavior and Personality, 43(10), 1607–1616. doi:10.2224bp.2015.43.10.1607
Zlomke, K. R., & Jeter, K. M. (2014). Stress and worry: Examining intolerance of uncertainty’s moderating
effect. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 27(2), 202–215. doi:10.1080/10615806.2013.835400 PMID:24033115
ADDITIONAL READING
Bakioğlu, F., Korkmaz, O., & Ercan, H. (2020). Fear of COVID-19 and Positivity: Mediating role of
intolerance of uncertainty, depression, anxiety, and stress. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711469-020-00331-y PMID:32837421
345

Anxiety: As the sensation about future events whose outcome is uncertain but believed to have
negative consequences.
COVID-19: It is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus.
Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A constant, extreme, and unsuitable state of anxiety.
Intolerance of Uncertainty: It is the difficulty a person has/her to bear in a situation because she/
he lacks important knowledge, keyword, or sufficient knowledge.
Mix-Method: An emergent methodology of research that advances the systematic integration, or
“mixing,” of quantitative and qualitative data within a single investigation or sustained program of inquiry.
Pandemic Pedagogy: Teaching learning with new approaches in the context of the COVID pandemic.
Psychological Problem: The thoughts of the individual are shaped by the perception and affect
they have and are transformed into behavior. Problems that occur in communication or effect are called
psychological problems.
346
347
Chapter 18
Pedagogy of the Pandemic:
Reflections of Mother-
Scholar-Practitioners
Audrey Faye Falk

Merrimack College, USA
Kate Orbon
Merrimack College, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter explores emergency remote teaching and learning experiences at the K-12 educational levels
and in higher education within the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Since March 2020, schools at
all levels across the US and globally have ofered fully remote or hybrid learning opportunities in order
to respond to public health needs. The pandemic created a major disruption in education, as in virtually
every aspect of human activity. The authors apply a feminist lens to refect on their lived experiences
with emergency remote teaching and learning.
INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a disruption to education and all facets of human activity. As schooling
shifted to online contexts, educators, students, and families have become the agents and recipients of
change (Bubb & Jones, 2020). This sudden and revolutionary change in schooling provokes a myriad of
questions. What does effective remote teaching and learning look like? How can educators and school
districts ensure equity, access, and inclusion in online, remote learning contexts? How can we build
community among students and caregivers? How do we make remote learning meaningful, relevant,
interactive, and engaging? How do we ensure student safety and well-being and how do we create op-
portunities for social-emotional learning?
The broader context of the pandemic cannot be overlooked. People have lost jobs, becoming un-
employed or underemployed (Mishra, Gupta, & Shree, 2020). Essential workers have had to report to
work in person, putting themselves and their household members at risk of contracting the Coronavirus.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch018

Pedagogy of the Pandemic
Many have contracted the virus, some with long-lasting symptoms, and the death count mounts daily.
Those considered vulnerable and at high risk are advised to take the greatest precautionary measures
(Aquiliera & Nightengale-Lee, 2020). Many live alone and are facing high levels of social isolation.
Families with increased time together and with little opportunity for separation face an increased risk
of domestic violence. Anxiety, stress, and depression are omnipresent.
To add to the economic uncertainty and emotional unrest, there is heightened attention in the US to
the realities of racism, police brutality, and broken systems that cause unnecessary violence, death, and
psychological pain. The death of George Floyd early on in the quarantine period brought global attention
to the widespread violence and oppression in the US.
The pandemic has demonstrated in concrete ways the interconnectedness of our global society, the
life-saving value of science and technology, the need for forward-thinking legislators and policy-makers,
and our deep need as human beings for connection and purpose. It is through education that we grow
scientists and legislators, community members, and global citizens. What have we learned about the
possibilities, opportunities, and challenges of remote teaching and learning and how can this learning
serve us as a society, even in post-pandemic times?
Through the use of collaborative autoethnography, the authors explore central themes that emerge
from their lived experiences with emergency remote teaching (ERT). A background section provides
an overview of several central foundational concepts. The next section, entitled, “Online Teaching and
Learning Reflections,” begins with a summary of the approach used in this chapter and continues with
narrative descriptions of the authors’ experiences with ERT as mother-scholar-practitioners. The “In-
sights and Reflections” section highlights major themes that emerge from our critical analysis of our
lived experience and the conclusion offers several final summative points.
BACKGROUND
This background section provides an overview of several key concepts pertinent to this chapter, including:
online and remote teaching and learning, social emotional learning, diversity and access, and community
and family engagement in a virtual context. We have primarily drawn from US-based sources, given our
positionality as mother-scholar-practitioners based in the United States, and we have incorporated some
international research to supplement the US-based literature.
Online and Remote Teaching and Learning
Online and distance education are robust and enduring fields, particularly in higher education, with
strong outcomes and known best practices. However, online learning has suffered from a poor reputation
among campus-based faculty who have questioned the rigor of online education practices (Cameron-
Standerford et al., 2020).

Online courses may be synchronous, asynchronous, or blended. Synchronous class sessions are of-
fered through online platforms, such as Zoom, GoogleMeet, or Microsoft Teams, where the instructor
and students meet together, virtually. Asynchronous classes allow students to complete assignments at
their own pace and on their own time utilizing platforms, such as Blackboard, Schoology, and Google
Classroom. Blended courses include both synchronous and asynchronous class time.
348

Key variables at play are flexibility and interaction (Gillis & Krull, 2020). Synchronous class sessions
allow for real-time interaction and exchange among students and the instructor whereas asynchronous
courses provide a higher level of flexibility, particularly in regard to time. Another alternative is offering
voluntary synchronous sessions for students where attendance is not required or factored into students’
grades (Vollbrecht et al., 2020).
The term “emergency remote teaching” was coined early on in the COVID-19 initiated remote
educational period as educators sought to understand and address the immediate challenges they faced.
The term serves to distinguish pandemic-initiated migrations to online platforms from planned, well-
established online learning.
In fall 2020, schools and school districts took various approaches to offer safe learning environments
in the continuously evolving public health context. Schools and colleges used summer 2020 to plan for
possible scenarios, ultimately selecting a small number of options to offer students and families. It seems
reasonable to continue to categorize all remote teaching that is happening as a direct consequence of
COVID-19 in the fall of 2020 and the spring of 2021 as ERT. However, with each new term or semester,
there is a shift from unplanned ERT to increasingly planned ERT.
Gillis and Krull (2020) identified best practices of online teaching that can be utilized by ERT edu-
cators. These include: making concerted efforts to know one’s students, identifying the course learning
objectives; utilizing teaching tools that are aligned with course objectives; organizing the course in a
consistent and standardized manner, including clear expectations for student work; and providing ongo-
ing communication and feedback.
Predating the Coronavirus, McCombs and Vakili (2005) advocated for learner-centered principles
and approaches in the virtual education setting. McCombs (2000) recommended building authentic
connection and interpersonal relationships; fostering inquiry and collaboration; differentiating learning
to accommodate diverse learners; allowing for learning choice and control; and utilizing educational
technology to enhance learning.
Social-Emotional Learning
Social-emotional learning is particularly important in the context of ERT. Social-emotional learning

curricula, used within the context of distance education, help to build community and increase student
engagement and accountability for learning and to decrease feelings of isolation (Katzman & Stanton,
2020).
Core social-emotional learning competencies include self-awareness, self-management, social aware-
ness, relational skills, and responsible decision making (CASEL, 2020). When educators attend to social
learning competencies, they help foster a safe, caring climate in which students feel cared for, engaged,
and empowered.
Responsive Classroom (2020) is an example of an evidence-based approach to teaching that focuses
on engaging academics, positive community development, effective management, and developmental

awareness. These practices promote the social-emotional competencies of cooperation, assertiveness,
responsibility, empathy, and self-control and the academic competencies of academic mindset, persever-
ance, learning strategies, and academic success behaviors (Responsive Classroom, 2020).
McCombs (2004) found that emotion is the driving force behind attention, learning, memory, and
other mental activities. Similarly, there is an embedded relationship between cognition and social inter-
action (McCombs, 2004). Learning is inherently social and cognition is enhanced through interaction.
349

In a supportive learning environment, students learn both with and from others (McCombs & Vakili,
2005). In the virtual learning environment, this is described as network learning (Green et al., 2020),
where technology is used for social collaboration and interactive learning.
The social dimension of learning is often limited or nonexistent in a virtual setting, especially for
younger students at the elementary level, but research demonstrates the importance of integrating more
social interactions. Similarly, the social emotional aspect of online education is especially significant
for at-risk students and students from disadvantaged backgrounds because evidence shows the strong
association between social-emotional competence and future academic outcomes at all levels of educa-
tion (Panayiotou et al., 2019).
Diversity and Access
While inequity issues are identified in the US-based literature on education in the context of COVID-19,
these concerns tend to arise peripherally in scholarly literature that is primarily focused on practical
strategies for ERT. Aguliera and Nightengale-Lee (2020), however, address the importance of center-
ing the voices and concerns of marginalized populations. The Coronavirus has had a disproportionate
negative impact on historically marginalized communities and we must be mindful of the inequities in
education that may be exacerbated by ERT, such as reliable Internet access and access to computers and
other devices utilized in online learning (Morgan, 2000). Digital divides also exist in skill (Schwartzman,
2020) and comfort levels with technology. Students with disabilities may also require accommodations
that are tailored to the remote context (Morgan, 2000).
The international literature provides further insights in regard to diversity and equity issues in ERT.
Adding to the challenges identified in the literature noted above, Bonal and Gonzalez (2020) identified
critical variations in the size of families’ residences, including both interior and exterior space, and the
educational attainment levels of parents, in their survey of over 35,000 families in Catalonia, Spain.
They also noted the variations in parents’ work status, particularly in regard to job loss as a consequence
of COVID-19.
Czerniewicz et al. (2020), writing about public universities in South Africa, observe that there are
three types of inequalities: vital inequalities, or differential life expectancies and survival rates; resource
inequalities, such as the digital divide; and existential inequalities, which describe the lived experience
of microaggressions, disrespect, discrimination, and systemic oppression.
The principles of universal design are often cited as an approach to address students’ diverse learning
styles. Frumos (2000) describes the potential for the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to
be used in inclusive educational programming in the context of ERT. However, Rice et al. (2000) argue
that individualization and the principles of UDL do not go far enough as they do not directly address the
underlying systemic inequities. Culturally responsive pedagogy enhances learning, specifically online
learning, by using cultural perspectives to impart knowledge (Kazman & College, 2020).
Community and Family Engagement in a Virtual Context
Community engagement is an interdisciplinary field of study and practice focused on partnering with
community members to identify and address community needs. Community engagement is both asset-
based and justice-oriented with a strong emphasis on the empowerment of a community through authentic
participation.
350

Arnstein’s (1969) conceptual framework for citizen participation is a useful tool for gauging com-
munity engagement. Her model identifies eight levels of participation which are encapsulated in three
broad categories: nonparticipation, tokenism, and citizen power. The highest rungs of citizen participa-
tion call for the equal partnership of the community and the partnering agency with the ultimate goal of
community control of local programs and resources (Arnstein, 1969).
Community engagement is linked with the concepts of social capital and social infrastructure. Putnam
(1995) described social capital as connections and networks among community members and the social
norms of reciprocity and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit. Klinenberg (2018)
highlights the importance of physical infrastructure to create space for public participation.
From a public health perspective, community engagement is critical to societal wellness, particularly
in the context of a pandemic (Marston et al., 2020). Marston et al. (2020) emphasize the importance
of listening to and responding to the experiences and suggestions of diverse communities. They note
that community members are knowledgeable about local rumors, questions, concerns, and resources.
Furthermore, community members are more likely to comply with safety measures if they have been
included in the development of protocols. However, effective community engagement practice requires
sensitivity, care, and culturally responsive practices (Marston et al., 2020).
Despite its importance, the term community engagement is noticeably absent from the growing
literature on ERT. Similarly, there is limited focus on family and parent involvement in the US-based
COVID-19 ERT literature. One article (McMillan, 2020) focused on communications with parents of
college students. Another study (Kaiper-Marquez et al., 2020) examined a family literacy program’s
COVID-19 online pivot but did so from the perspective of instructors rather than parents.
Despite the limited COVID-19 literature on family and parent engagement, more generally, relationship-
building and partnering with families to support students’ educational success are known best practices
(McIntyre & Garbacz, 2014). Parental involvement in schools builds social capital (Coleman, 1988)
which is beneficial at the individual and the school community levels (Portes, 2000; Park et al., 2017).
Thus, we know parental engagement matters, but we need to re-envision family engagement within the
ERT environment.
Some non-US based researchers have explored family perspectives of COVID-19 style education.
Bhamani et al. (2020) of Pakistan studied the experiences of Pakinstani parents during the COVID home-
based learning experience. Parents identified social concerns they had for their children in the context
of ERT. They noted the challenges of supporting their children’s learning, and noted that a higher level
of parental support was needed to supplement ERT than regular in-person classes. Parents discussed
the challenges of balancing their own work responsibilities with new home and family responsibilities.
They also shared information about creative ways they were able to engage their children in home learn-
ing activities, such as games, puzzles, cooking, reading, and online socialization with extended family.
Bubb and Jones (2020) examined the perspectives of students, families, and teachers from a school
district in Norway. Creative approaches to ERT included nature and outdoors-based activities. Students
felt that teacher feedback increased and that they could concentrate more on schoolwork at home. Students
experienced a sense of autonomy in their learning, while parents felt connected with their children’s
learning and teachers.
351

ONLINE TEACHING AND LEARNING REFLECTIONS
Grounded in the literature on online and remote teaching and learning, social emotional learning, diversity
and access, and community and family engagement in a virtual context, in this section, we share and
reflect on our lived experiences with ERT. We begin with an explanation of our approach to this inquiry.
Approach
Drawing upon Naples (2003), we use a feminist lens to explore our interest in ERT. Feminist theories
intentionally challenge systemic oppression and draw upon personal narrative and lived experience. Femi-
nist approaches also emphasize intersectionality. We view our intersecting roles as adding authenticity to
the literature and as an opportunity to approach our reflection informed by our embodied wisdom. Our
approach is that of reflective practice that is grounded in a consideration of our positionality.
This chapter is autoethnographic and reflective in nature. We have created narrative accounts of our
experiences with ERT and we have utilized collaborative autoethnography (Gates, Beazley, & Davis,
2020; Roy & Vekusa, 2000) to share and learn from our experiences. Our approach is similar with that
of Gates, Beazley, and David (2020) who examined feelings of loss and well-being in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Roy and Vekusa (2000) speak about the merits of collaborative autoethnography
as an alternative research approach in the context of the pandemic and they identify self-reflection and
collaboration as the central components of this approach. We have used a combination of reflective
writing, critical analysis, and dialogue to identify themes and insights from our lived experiences as
mother-scholar-practitioners. We write this chapter from our home offices even as we are juggling our
family, professional, and academic responsibilities.
We felt compelled to include the full K-12, college, and graduate school experience within this chapter.
We recognize that developmental changes throughout childhood and adulthood impact decisions about
teaching content and delivery. However, in order to bring our whole selves to this work, and our full
experience with ERT, we believed that tackling the full range of formal educational experiences was
most appropriate for this chapter.
Positionality
This chapter is written by a faculty member and a graduate student within the Winston School of Edu-
cation and Social Policy at Merrimack College, a private, Augustinian, liberal arts college in suburban
Massachusetts. The first author, Audrey Falk, is a member of the faculty and the parent of three school-
aged children. She is a White, cisgendered, Jewish woman. The second author, Kate Orbon, is a White,
cisgendered, Christian woman, a graduate student, and the parent of three children. We acknowledge
the power differential between us as teacher and student, and we acknowledge our experiences reflect
our individual positionality in the world. Positionality is a central component of qualitative and feminist
research.
Importance
In our review of the literature, we identified many articles that discussed COVID-19 from the perspec-
tive of faculty-scholars and some that sought to understand the perspectives of parents and families. In
352

the COVID-19 literature, we did not encounter manuscripts that drew attention to individuals’ multiple
identities, roles, and lenses as parents, teachers, school administrators, program coordinators, and stu-
dents. This chapter begins to address this gap in the literature.
Reflections
This section provides narrative descriptions of the authors’ experiences with ERT from multiple per-
spectives, including public school from the parent lens, Early College from the fellow lens, and graduate
education from the perspective of instructor, program director, and student.
Public Schools from the Parent Lens
Audrey: I am the parent of three school-aged children, all in public schools in a suburban community
north of Boston. In the spring of 2020, my children were in the second, fourth, and sixth grades and now
they are in the third, fifth, and seventh grades.
When the quarantine began in spring 2020, the schools immediately shifted to emergency remote
learning. Teaching and learning were entirely asynchronous with a small number of check-in phone calls
from teachers and an occasional, virtual class social led by parent volunteers. Children were expected
to spend their morning hours on schoolwork. There were no tests, no grades, no assessments, and no
student feedback.
Throughout the summer, there was communication from the school district regarding ongoing plan-
ning for the 2020-2021 school year. Communication included information about the district’s adoption
of Schoology as a new online learning management system, surveys regarding preferences for various
school modalities, and information about the updated academic calendar. On August 11th, the super-
intendent emailed families to inform us of the decision to offer a hybrid model as the primary teaching
and learning approach with a fully remote model available as an alternative.
My husband and I selected the “Remote Academy” for our three children. The remote experience
this year has been dramatically different from the experience last spring. The emphasis has been on
synchronous online learning experiences.
Our third and fifth graders are spending the majority of the day with their primary school teachers
through Google Meet. They also have time with their specialists such as art and music teachers through
Google Meet. Our children are required to navigate from one Google Meet to another in order to move
through their school day. The middle school students are also moving from class to class, again through
Google Meet, all throughout the school day. At all levels, there has been little “homework,” although
students have generally been expected to complete any unfinished school work on their own time.
Our elementary school children have been provided with hard copy resources and have been required
to use these resources. For example, students are provided with synchronous and asynchronous online
math instruction and are then asked to complete pages in their math workbooks in hard copy. These
pages are then occasionally returned to the school for review by primary school teachers. The teachers
focus on teaching and learning activities for the majority of the school day and leave pockets of time
at the end of the school day for more fun and social, community-building activities. This has provided
students with the opportunity to get to know one another and to feel connected with one another and with
their primary teacher. Additionally, the elementary school has had occasional, brief, in-person, socially
353

distanced activities available for the fully remote students. Although our family has not taken advantage of
these opportunities, it is apparent that other families have been deeply appreciative of this programming.
The challenges of constantly moving from class to class and of building class communities is ever-
present in middle school and is exacerbated by the remote learning context. We have had concerns that
synchronous class time is too often used for superfluous games and activities that are low in or devoid
of meaningful content. Tracking attendance eats away at precious class time. Content-rich synchronous
time is limited and then middle-school students are provided time to work independently on school as-
signments. The approach has not worked well for my seventh grader, and other parents of students in
the fully remote program have also expressed concerns. As an individual family and with other remote
families, we are trying to communicate concerns and work collaboratively with the schools to strengthen
the student experience.
The district, in planning for the 2020-2021 school year, seemed to devote significant resources to
Schoology as a new platform for online learning. This included the purchase of Schoology and devoting
two weeks of professional development time at the beginning of the academic year to training all teachers.
Over time, this may prove to be valuable for the district. For 2020-2021, however, introducing a major
new technology seemed to be a flawed approach. The district already had well-functioning technologies
for online learning. The introduction of Schoology added a stressor to teachers, parents, and students,
who already had adequate technological resources at their disposal.
I have observed that the middle school has been relatively strict about deliverables. Students are as-
signed zeros for “unsubmitted” assignments, meaning assignments that are not “submitted” through the
online platforms. Although make-up work is accepted through the end of each grading period, remain-
ing zeros factor into students’ final term grades. In contrast, Merrimack College has offered a variety
of grading accommodations in light of the pandemic (late withdrawal opportunities, pass/fail options,
and receiving a grade of “no credit” rather than “fail,”) and it makes me wonder how the public schools
could be more accommodating in regard to grades in the context of the pandemic.
The level of parental support that my children have needed throughout the academic year has been
significant. This includes navigating from class to class, gaining access to online platforms, finding ma-
terials requested by teachers, understanding instructions, learning the content, and uploading completed
assignments. Parents have also been expected to visit the schools to pick up materials and to drop off
work for teacher review. Juggling these new academic support responsibilities alongside work and other
household responsibilities is demanding and challenging.
During out of school hours, we are all generally home, as we have been practicing strict social distanc-
ing. When the weather is nice, we have had outdoor social visits. The children participate in scheduled
and impromptu video calls, phone calls, and remote games with friends and family members. They have
also participated in some whole class, social activities outside of the school day. My children play games,
listen to music, and watch movies, everything from “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” to “Macbeth.”
We utilize the public library system more than ever before, taking advantage of remote ordering of
books and contactless outdoor pick-up. The children read, dress up, do art projects, and practice their
instruments. Weather permitting, they take walks with us, jump rope, or shoot hoops outside. They sew,
play Minecraft, and construct Lego projects. They attend virtual religious instruction and services. They
do basic household chores, and they bake and prepare simple meals. They miss traveling, they miss in-
person school, particularly the more natural relationships with teachers and classmates, and they miss
their old lives, but they enjoy family time and home-based activities.
354

Kate: I am a mother of three boys who are ten, eight, and five years old. I have been staying home
as the primary caregiver of my children since my oldest was born in 2010. Before this, I received my
Master’s in Special Education, gaining a decade of experience in the elementary and middle years as a
general education classroom teacher, a special education teacher, and an inclusion classroom teacher.
I homeschooled my children for a year when they were in first grade, pre-Kindergarten, and preschool
because my older two sons needed special support that they were not yet receiving at their schools. In
the frustration of not getting what they needed to succeed, each boy began to hate school and they were
slowly losing their love of learning in general. In an attempt to preserve their passion, curiosity, and desire
to learn, we all took a sabbatical year from typical classroom education and we did school our own way.
In March 2020, when the world was introduced to ERT, my boys and I fell right back into our home-
schooling routine from our previous experience. The boys planned projects based on their individual
interests gathering appropriate arts and crafts supplies and researching their topics of interest using a
variety of multimedia. We played, created, and read, and even memorized poems. We scheduled math,
reading, and writing workshop times for specific skill practice, and we dedicated the remaining hours
to the intrinsic desire to learn.
In April 2020, when the school district’s expectations for learning became more structured and rigid,
my children began to struggle. They felt as though one activity did not connect to the next, and often
complained about the list of things they had to do each day. It also felt very disjointed to me, but I trusted
that the teachers were doing their best to meet everyone’s requests and needs. I was conflicted because I
felt pressure to push my children to complete the assignments, but I knew that most of these assignments
were not inspiring my children’s love of learning. I did not feel empowered as an experienced educator,
but instead felt disenfranchised in my new role as taskmaster.
In September, 2020 we entered the next stage of ERT. With much deliberation and some hesitation,
my husband and I decided to send our children to the district’s Hybrid model for the 2020-2021 school
year. Our 4th grader receives support services for his dyslexic processing style. Our second grader had
been exhibiting similar challenges throughout Kindergarten and first grade. We knew he would need
to be assessed for these concerns, and we were unsure how the Special Education process would look
in the fully remote model. We also wanted to have as many eyes on him as possible to help design the
supports that he needed. For our Kindergartener, this would be his first year at the “big school” with his
brothers, and we wanted to give him some sense of normalcy.
I have a direct comparison of what the hybrid home days look like for a student with educational
supports and for a student in the general population. My fourth grader engages regularly with a small
group of peers on remote days in his support classes: 9:00am for reading support, 10:30am for math
support, and 1:00pm for writing support. His special education teacher presents a mini lesson, helps the
students understand and get started on the daily assignments, and stays on to assist with and check work.
I often hear bursts of laughter during the day, and I rarely have to remind him to join his meetings. He
completes his work mostly independently, and I have seen his confidence grow as a learner even in this
challenging context.
My second grader receives reading support from the reading specialist at 9:15am and then has a
check-in with his classroom teacher at 9:45am. He loves his reading support because it provides him
with specialized, individualized instruction with a small group of students that he meets with regularly.
He enjoys the classroom teacher check-in meetings when he participates in an activity, but he feels
extremely anxious when the meeting is simply a round robin of what each student has completed that
morning. His anxiety flares as he feels that he has not “done” anything, and he feels embarrassed because
355

he does not know what to share. As much as I remind him that he has been completing his reading, in
his mind this doesn’t count. He has a second check-in at 1:45pm, which usually takes much prodding
and encouragement from his father and myself to convince him to join.
Throughout the day, I juggle working one-on-one with my Kindergartener and my second grader,
who was diagnosed with a dyslexic processing style in December, 2020. Both boys need an immense
amount of support to get started, to keep moving forward, and to feel successful about learning. My fourth
grader needs less attention from me, but that is only because he is receiving specialized support to feel
successful with his learning tasks. His strong, learning community in his support classes has increased
his confidence. I am hopeful that my second grader will feel this same support, connection, and success
when he begins his support classes with his special education teacher this semester.
I can see the immense effort and care that the faculty are pouring into this unprecedented experience.
They, too, are frustrated by the drastic changes to the normal learning environment that they once pro-
vided for their students. I sense from the many conversations that I have had with my children’s teachers
that there has been a slow drain of joy from their profession replaced by the exhaustion of technological
minusca. I worry for my brethren of caregivers burning their candles until there is no light for guidance.
On the opposing side of the balance are students confused and disappointed by the drudgery of tasks.
I hear my own children voice their frustrations: “Not another worksheet;” “I can’t just go from one meet-
ing to the next;” “Why do I have to do this assignment?” I know that this is not their experiences on days
at school, as they bounce out of bed ready to start their day and they come home from school telling of
science experiments, art projects, and socially distanced recess fun. When I find it challenging to find
the “why” behind the assignment, we find a way to do it our way, to infuse joy into the learning, and to
spark the passion and curiosity that should be the “why” to learning. My hope is that schools can bring
joy back to learning for students and teachers for the next ERT incident utilizing evidence-based best
practices to encourage meaningful and intentional learning.
Early College from the Fellow Lens
Kate: My favorite part of teaching has always been connection. Every year, I looked forward to forging
strong relationships with my students and their families. I enjoyed fostering a safe, caring and respectful
environment where my learners could grow and thrive.
I joined the Early College team for my graduate school fellowship as the Early College program
coordinator excited, yet somewhat apprehensive. Providing academic student support was my most im-
portant responsibility. How could I do this job the right way in a virtual setting? Face-to-face, one can
see body language and facial expressions, hear tone and inflection, and observe behavioral changes, such
as mania or isolation. How could I compensate for the loss of these critical indicators of my students’
social, emotional, and academic well-being?
The Merrimack Early College Program is a partnership between Merrimack College and Abbott
Lawrence Academy. Lawrence High School students apply for acceptance to Abbott Lawrence Acad-
emy, an honors program within Lawrence High School, a public school in a city with a large immigrant
population and high levels of poverty. Abbott Lawrence Academy students are offered the opportunity
to take college level courses at Merrimack College during their junior and senior years. Early College
students have the opportunity to earn up to 16 transferable credits with the final 4 credits in senior spring
term earned while integrated into courses with other Merrimack undergraduates.
356

The fall semester 2020 was filled with creatively finding ways to connect with my students, observing
what was working, acknowledging what was not, and swiftly adapting new strategies to increase student
engagement. The Early College team designed an interactive attendance tracker through Google Sheets,
which gives professors a way to document academic behaviors, such as attending classes, arriving on
time, actively participating, and turning in assignments. This also gives our Early College team instant
data on how each student is doing and which students need extra support.
Office hours provide students with one-on-one support. Professors offer their own office hours through
Zoom, and our professors make themselves available by appointment for any student need. I also hold
office hours weekdays at the end of the Early College students’ day. This time has been fruitfully spent
teaching students how to navigate Blackboard, reviewing comments from professors to resubmit assign-
ments, and even building resumes for work opportunities.
I use the Remind app to easily interact with my students. With this app, I can message students to
invite them to office hours or to encourage them to reach out to instructors. I utilized individual messag-
ing to send my students mid-term progress reports and received instantaneous replies from students who
were grateful to know how they were doing and how they could improve. Many of those connections
prompted students to come to my office hours.
Even with these successes, I feel that I need to do more for the spring semester. My Early College
students, like many high school and college students, are feeling isolated and disengaged. Many of the
typical times for informally socializing, such as between classes, lunch, study periods, and impromptu
hallway interactions, are erased from the fully remote schedule. The lack of natural socializing and the
feeling of isolation weigh heavily on my students’ emotional health.
My students’ overall wellbeing is also impacted by the many responsibilities that they hold. Many of
my students are caring for and teaching younger siblings, working to support the family income, taking
advanced placement courses, and applying to colleges for the fall. My students are generally motivated and
high achieving, and they hold themselves to a standard of excellence. The lines between their family life,
personal life, and academic life have been blurred to the point of negatively affecting their self-concept.
Many have verbalized that they feel like they are failing. In reality, they are not failing; they are simply
living through an extraordinarily challenging time at a pivotal developmental stage.
Graduate Education from the Perspective of Instructor,

Program Director, and Student
Audrey: I am the director of the Master’s Program in Community Engagement at Merrimack College.
While Merrimack College has been operational on-ground throughout the pandemic with just short
closures when needed, the Master’s Program in Community Engagement has operated primarily online.
All courses flipped to online at the beginning of the pandemic in the spring semester of 2019 and since
that time, courses have been offered online.
The Community Engagement Program had made a planned and intentional decision to begin to offer
online courses a couple of years prior to the pandemic and had been taking steps toward gaining ap-
proval to offer the full degree program online. The ultimate goal is to have both modalities available to
students with some allowance for flexibility and fluidity between the two options. However, with both
the pandemic and the need for enrollment growth, temporarily offering only online courses seemed to
be a smart course of action for this graduate program.
357

The Community Engagement Program includes one full-time faculty member (the first author) and a
team of adjunct instructors. At around the same time that the team made the decision to launch an online
program, we also began meeting as a team, monthly, to start preparing for this transition.
We held some planning meetings with staff from the college’s Center for Excellence in Teaching
and Learning. During the 2019-2020 academic year, we completed an academic program evaluation
for the Community Engagement Program which included a review of our online program plan. Thus,
although the flip to online teaching was still a significant and profound shift for students and instructors
in the Community Engagement Program in spring of 2020, our teaching team was relatively prepared
for this radical change.
Once we decided that all courses for the academic year, beginning with summer 2020, would be
offered online, we made a series of decisions about what that would look like. We decided to adopt a
standardized template for all course syllabi for the Community Engagement Program. This syllabus in-
cludes standardized language about policies such as absences and technology and it also has an overall
standard format so that the same kinds of information can be found in the same general order on all
Community Engagement syllabi.
At the same time, we made decisions about the general structure of online courses in the program.
Since the college uses Blackboard as its teaching and learning platform, we decided that all Community
Engagement online courses would be required to utilize Blackboard. We also agreed that all Community
Engagement courses would utilize Zoom for synchronous class sessions. We made these decisions because
they are tools that were available to us through our institution and we felt that it was important that as a
program we took a unified approach to our courses. We felt that this would make for a streamlined and
accessible program for our students.
Along these lines, we provided guidance to all instructors in the program regarding standardized
format for the content of Blackboard courses. Communication with specific instructions regarding the
overall structure and content for each Community Engagement course was provided to instructors in the
spring, in preparation for summer courses.
During the period of planning for having an online degree program, a great focus of the discussion
among instructors in the program was how we would maintain high levels of interaction and high levels
of support for students. Having a synchronous component to our courses was important to us and we
are continuing to fine tune the balance between asynchronous and synchronous time. A high level of
synchronous time has allowed us to continue to offer courses with real-time communication and strong
connections between instructors and students and among students. We seek to maintain a high level of
community-building, camaraderie, and support without sacrifice to the quality of our program or the
rigor of the program.
Students and instructors have been directly and indirectly impacted by COVID-19. The college has
provided temporary policies to support students, such as taking courses for pass/fail credit rather than
for a grade and delaying the deadline for withdrawal from a course, and instructors, such as loosening
requirements around COVID-19 period course evaluations as evidence for promotion and tenure.
The Community Engagement Program includes a competitive fellowship program through which
students have the opportunity to gain real-world experience in community sites, providing service 25
hours per week over the course of the year. As each site made their own institutional decisions regarding
how to maintain safety in the context of COVID-19, we offered a flexible model to sites. Thus, most
fellowships during 2020-2021 have been completely virtual, several had included a small number of
in-person hours, and one fellowship has been fully in-person.
358

This flexible model has allowed fellowship sites to make informed decisions based upon their own
work spaces, resources, and work plans, while also prioritizing the safety of students. Heightened con-
cerns of students, largely regarding the vulnerability of family members, led to changing a couple student
placements to ones which would allow for a fully remote fellowship experience.
Kate: I learned about the Master’s program in Community Engagement at Merrimack College in
2018, and I intentionally waited to apply for the fellowship program for the 2020-2021 academic year.
My youngest would be in Kindergarten, and would be joining our neighborhood elementary school
with his two older brothers. I daydreamed about walking the beautiful campus to classes, studying in
the library, and gathering with my cohort for coffee and collaboration. I had to drastically temper my
expectations when I was finally accepted in the spring of 2020. My ideas about connection needed to
adapt in all ways, academically, professionally, and collegiately.
My courses moved from a typical on-campus model to completely remote. Considering this drastic
change, the Community Engagement program and its faculty transitioned smoothly with a unified ap-
proach to course design and expectations. This consistency in course design allowed for quick acquisition
of navigating the various online platforms and resources.
Classroom discussions were the most altered aspect of my coursework. Even with great efforts from
faculty and students, discussions both virtually during synchronous meetings and asynchronously in
discussion board threads were stunted. Many natural aspects of interaction, such as nonverbal cues,
eye contact, and cues of active listening, are lost through the Zoom experience. Discussion boards are
intended to supplement synchronous class discussion during asynchronous course time, however, these
interactions often feel forced and inauthentic.
From a professional perspective, I worried about finding my place within my fellowship. I requested
to meet with my supervisor on a daily basis for the first few weeks which transitioned into a dedicated
meeting once a week. This helped to ensure that I learned as much as possible about the organization’s
culture and the role of my fellowship in this virtual environment.
Communicating primarily through email, phone, and virtual meetings has similar drawbacks to
interacting, just as in the virtual classroom. There is also an element of fatigue from the constant and
ongoing communications. Normal, authentic moments of connecting and networking now have to be
intentionally scheduled into the day to facilitate the valuable aspects of the educational, professional,
and collegial experience.
INSIGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COVID-19 reminds us that organizations need to prioritize organizational learning, agility, and ethical
and responsible leadership (Worley & Jules, 2020). In writing about change in higher education, Kezar
(2014) observes that values and interests are inherent in organizational change processes. She underscores
the importance of considering the ethical implications of institutional change processes and outcomes.
Change can be experienced as loss (Proehl, 2001) but it can be reframed as opportunity. The Corona-
virus has created the conditions for the possibility of radical transformation of education with the aims
of equity and justice (Czerniewicz et al., 2020). Rice et al. (2020) suggest that online education has the
potential to facilitate access, relevance, and support for students with appreciation for their complex and
intersecting identities.
359

While there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution to ERT, we recommend a content-rich curriculum

and a supportive infrastructure. The strongest systems for ERT may be ones that allow for a high level
of fluidity, flexibility, and creativity at the family-student-teacher levels. This section describes key
themes and insights that emerge from our shared reflection. These themes include centering students
and families; leadership; skilled and supported teachers; team approach; assets approach, and balance.
Centering Students and Families
The term that was coined for the educational practices during the COVID-19, emergency remote teaching,
provides clues to some of the problems in our collective approach. Perhaps “emergency remote learning”
would have better illustrated a prioritization of the needs of learners. If we start with the reality and cen-
trality of the needs and resources of remote learners, we are better positioned to support their learning.
At the K-12 levels, partnership with parents and caregivers is imperative. Parents need to have a full
understanding of the teaching and learning platforms, schedule, deliverables, and expectations. Further-
more, parents are essential team members in the education of their children. Communication needs to be
proactive, ongoing, and two-ways. Bonal and Gonzalez (2020), writing about the COVID-19 educational
experience in Spain, observe that the importance of parent engagement is increased in ERT, given the
critical roles that parents play in facilitating student learning in the home context. Although communica-
tion with the parents of college students is qualitatively different from communication with parents of
K-12 students, it is also important, especially in the context of ERT. Parents are a key constituent group
and their concerns and interests matter.
Karakaya (2020) advocates for human-centered instructional design, whereby supportive contexts for
teaching and learning are sustained. This includes providing opportunities for students to feel welcomed
into the online classroom through activities such as introductory videos. It also includes components
such as flexible deadlines and tailored accommodations. Furthermore, instructors can serve as coaches to
help students understand how to effectively learn online. Education needs to build students’ confidence
and sense of self-efficacy and to provide reassurance to students that they have the internal and external
tools and resources to navigate through challenges.
The pandemic requires a whole-child approach to education. The arts can capture young people’s
emotions. This includes music, dance, drawing, sculpting, and poetry, for example. Physical activity is
critically important, as is spending time outdoors. Yoga, meditation, and other mindfulness activities are
important for students and teachers alike. Reading for pleasure is needed and content-focused elective
reading allows students to connect on a personal level with course material. Reading to children is a
way for families to spend time together engaged in learning activities. Older children can help younger
children in the family with their schoolwork. Schools can more fully capitalize on the home experience
through a whole-family approach with parents as partners. A holistic approach can be rich in content
and potentially more efficacious than more traditional school models.
Leadership
Leaders who are willing to listen to students, parents, and teachers, and to respond to their needs in real
time are imperative. Kouzes and Posner (2017) write about listening deeply so that the needs and inter-
ests of constituents are integrated into the work of the organization. Dickman and Stanford-Blair (2009)
refer to this as “mindful leadership.” The Community Engagement Program is using strategies such as
360

surveys and a community Town Hall. The Merrimack Early College Program holds faculty check-in
meetings each semester to discuss how to best serve this student population.
Skilled and Supported Teachers
Trust and Whalen (2020) found that educators did not feel prepared for the abrupt modality change to ERT
in March 2020. While the literature is now overflowing with tips and tricks for effective online learning,
most educators are lacking the broader based understanding of online education in order to make smart
choices about how and when to appropriately utilize these tools and strategies (Rapanta et al., 2020).
Teachers who are highly skilled professionals and capable of wise and informed decision-making
are essential. Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) observe that schools and school systems require strong
“professional capital,” teachers who are talented, skilled, and well-prepared for the challenging work of
educating students and this could not be more true than it is in the situation of ERT. Incorporating training
opportunities for ERT into new teacher programs and professional development prepares educators for
this unique educational situation. Having the right people with the right training is a critical foundation
for success (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Collins, 2001).
Promotion and Tenure
In the interest of protecting tenure-track faculty in these unprecedented circumstances, institutions may
make decisions to not count course evaluations from the pandemic period in the evidence for rank and
tenure. While it seems inappropriate to consider evidence from the pandemic period in a punitive way,
an alternative perspective is that faculty are making exceptional efforts to dramatically change their
teaching practices in order to be responsive to public health needs. The extraordinary work of faculty
and instructors during this challenging time must be recognized, valued, and appreciated.
Team Approach
Robinson (2011) discusses the importance of valuing different types of knowledge and intelligences.
Collins’ (2001) creative discipline matrix suggests that great organizations are not particularly hier-
archical or bureaucratic. Rather, great organizations have cultures that emphasize both discipline and
entrepreneurship. Similarly, Helgesen (1995) offers the metaphor of the web to describe ever-evolving,
non-hierarchical team approaches to organizational success. Empowering teams of teachers to work closely
together with families can allow for tailored teaching and learning opportunities for children and families.
Assets Approach
Communities have unique sets of resources to draw upon in times of crisis, most notably their human
capital. Communities in the US and the world have activated a wide range of resources for ERT, only a
few of which have been highlighted in this chapter. The use of television as an alternative and supple-
ment to other educational resources during COVID-19 has been a creative solution to the technological
access challenges in some communities domestically and abroad.
361

The School and Community Library
The library is a critical component of social infrastructure (Klinenberg, 2018) and a center for academic
knowledge at all scholastic levels. Libraries provide both hard copy texts as well as virtual access to
reading materials. They may also provide access to additional online learning resources. Schools at all
levels have libraries. These libraries should be a core instrument in ERT, and academic institutions and
school districts should work in close collaboration with local public libraries as well.
Experiential Learning
Breaking out of the confines of the school building provides an opportunity for embracing experiential
learning approaches. Experiential learning involves making meaning of real-world interactions and
activities (Beard & Wilson, 2013). It is a whole-person approach with sensory and affective elements.
We are wondering how ERT might more fully take advantage of the resources and flexibility of the
home environment. Kim (2020) describes using remote learning to provide early childhood education
students with practicum experiences whereby all the college students could observe and learn from one
another’s practice.
Current events are educational opportunities that can be embraced by educators and are relevant to
learners. Students at all levels can be challenged to learn from their lived experiences and also to find
ways to creatively support their communities.
Global Connections
Recognizing the challenges such as inconsistent access to technology and Wi-fi and different time zones,
we wonder about how ERT might more fully capitalize on the opportunity to connect with teachers and
students across boundaries of school districts, states, and countries. In a global pandemic with ERT hap-
pening globally, there is the opportunity to connect students and classes with one another for real-time
and asynchronous engagement. The pandemic provides a concrete example of the interconnectedness
of humanity.
Balanced Approach
Technology has tremendous power for advancing knowledge, but it needs to be appropriately used and
balanced with other educational approaches and modalities. Sitting at a computer all day is not produc-
tive for anyone. Technology ought to be used as a medium for students to learn with technology, and
not as a substitute for teaching.
This chapter builds upon our lived experience as mother-scholar-practitioners, holding and embracing
our multiple positionalities. We recognize the inherent value and limitations of our lens. Future ERT
research ought to be directed toward centering the voices and lived experiences of emergency remote
learners and their families, including fathers and historically marginalized groups. Future research can
362

explore creative new conceptualizations of the potentialities of remote learning to build upon multiple
intelligences. We envision qualitative and quantitative research exploring the opportunities and pos-
sibilities for using remote learning to expand access and opportunity for students and to help students
find meaning and joy in their learning.
We recommend research focused on the following questions. How can remote learning be tailored to
the unique needs and learning styles of students, including students with disabilities, gifted and talented
students, and all students? How can we give voice to the successes of teachers, parents, and students to
prepare for future educational practices? How can new and emerging forms of research be used to explore
and understand how online education might expand educational equity and justice? How might online
education build students’ conceptions of themselves as global citizens who are independent thinkers,
creative problem solvers, and emotionally resilient?
CONCLUSION
Robinson’s (2011) text on creativity begins with three central themes: that we are living in revolutionary
times; that identifying and maximizing our strengths and abilities is fundamental to our survival and
wellness; and that we need to radically rethink our organizations, especially our educational institutions.
It is futile to attempt to recreate a traditional school approach in an emergency remote environment.
Schwartman (2020) asserts that traditional face-to-face learning cannot and should not be the yardstick
by which we measure the efficacy of ERT or online teaching more generally. A more useful approach is
to creatively re-envision schooling within the context of the home environment. Ultimately, there may be
gains from this ERT experience that make a lasting difference in how we approach in-person teaching.
Indeed, the distinctions between these approaches may become less pronounced.
Neoliberal conceptions of resilience direct the locus of responsibility away from institutions and
governmental agencies (Schwartman, 2020). Nevertheless, it is unfair and unrealistic to expect educa-
tors to be able to do this kind of redesign effectively without providing significant training, professional
development, and support. It is critical that academic institutions provide the requisite professional
development (Rapanta et al., 2020).
Institutions need to provide supportive infrastructures for ERT. This includes the building of non-
hierarchical, high performing teams that can work at a grass-roots level to support students and families.
Creating structures for interprofessional work (Hammick et al., 2009) among teachers and specialists
will allow school-based professionals to effectively support students and families.
As challenging as this period is, ultimately, educational institutions exist to respond to the real-time
needs of society. Schools provide education, information, and dissemination to address social challenges.
Through the rigors of evidence-based practice, organizational learning, and action research, educational
institutions must utilize resources and partnerships to build deep learning experiences, engagement,
access, and relevance.
363

REFERENCES
Aguliera, E., & Nightingale-Lee, B. (2020). Emergency remote teaching across urban and rural contexts:
Perspectives on educational equity. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 471–478. doi:10.1108/
ILS-04-2020-0100
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association,
35(4), 216–224.
Beard, C., & Wilson, J.P. (n.d.). Experiential learning: A handbook for education, training and coach-
ing. Kogan Page.
Bhamani, S., Makhdoom, A. Z., Bharuchi, V., Ali, N., Kaleem, S., & Ahmed, D. (2020). Home learning
in times of COVID: Experiences of parents. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 7(1),
9–26. doi:10.22555/joeed.v7i1.3260
Bonal, X., & Gonzalez, S. (2020). The impact of lockdown on the learning gap: Family and school divi-
sions in times of crisis. International Review of Education, 66(5-6), 635–655. Advance online publication.
doi:10.100711159-020-09860-z PMID:32952208
Bubb, S., & Jones, M. (2020, November). Learning from the COVID-19 home-schooling ex-
perience: Listening to pupils, parents/carers and teachers. Improving Schools, 23(3), 209–222.
doi:10.1177/1365480220958797
Cameron-Standerford, A., Menard, K., Edge, C., Bergh, B., Shatter, A., Smith, K., & VandenAvond,
L. (2020). The phenomenon of moving to online/distance delivery as a result of COVID-19: Exploring
initial perceptions of higher education faculty at a rural midwestern university. Frontiers in Education,
5, 583881. Advance online publication. doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.583881
CASEL. (2020). Core SEL competencies. CASEL: Educating Hearts, Inspiring Minds. https://casel.org/
core-competencies/
Classroom, R. (2020). Principles and practices. Responsive Classroom. https://www.responsiveclass-
room.org/about/principles-practices/
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94, 95–120. doi:10.1086/228943
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. Harper Business.
Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., de Villiers, M.,
Felix, A., Gachago, D., Gokhale, C., Ivala, E., Kramm, N., Madiba, M., Mistri, G., Mgqwashu, E., Pal-
litt, N., Prinsloo, P., Solomon, K., Strydom, S., & Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: Inequity and
Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 946–967.
doi:10.100742438-020-00187-4
Frumos, L. (2020). Inclusive education in remote instruction with universal design for learning. Revista
Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 12(2), 138-142. doi:10.18662/rrem/12.2Sup1/299
364

Gates, T. G., Beazley, H., & Davis, C. (2020). Coping with grief, loss, and well-being during a pandemic:
A collaborative autoethnography of international educators during COVID-19. International Social
Work, 63(6), 782–785. doi:10.1177/0020872820949622
Gillis, A., & Krull, L. M. (2020). COVID-19 remote learning transition in Spring 2020: Class struc-
ture, student perceptions, and inequality in college courses. Teaching Sociology, 48(4), 283–299.
doi:10.1177/0092055X20954263
students cope with emergency remote education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 906–922.
doi:10.100742438-020-00185-6
Hammock, M., Freeth, D., Copperman, J., & Goodsman, D. (2009). Being interprofessional. Polity Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school.
Teachers College Press.
Helgelsen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion: Architecture for building great organizations. Beard Books.
Kaiper-Marquez, A., Wolfe, E., Clymer, C., Lee, J., McLean, E. G., Prins, E., & Stickel, T. (2020). On
the fly: Adapting quickly to emergency remote instruction in a family literacy programme. International
Review of Education, 66(5-6), 691–713. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711159-020-09861-y
PMID:33071304
Karakaya, K. (2020). Design considerations in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pan-
demic: A human-centered approach. Educational Technology Research and Development. Advance
online publication. doi:10.100711423-020-09884-0 PMID:33250609
Katzman, N. F., & Stanton, M. P. (2020). The integration of social emotional learning and cultural educa-
tion into online distance learning curricula: Now imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic. Creative
Education, 11(09), 1561–1571. doi:10.4236/ce.2020.119114
Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. Routledge.
Kim, J. (2020). Learning and teaching online during Covid-19: Experiences of student teachers in
an early childhood education platform. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(2), 145–158.
doi:10.100713158-020-00272-6 PMID:32836369
Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, po-
larization, and the decline of civic life. Broadway Books.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things
happen in organizations (6th ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Marston, C., Renedo, A., & Miles, S. (2020). Community participation is crucial in a pandemic. Lancet,
395(10238), 1676–1678. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31054-0 PMID:32380042
365

McCombs, B. L. (2000, September 11-12). Assessing the role of educational technology in the teach-
ing and learning process: A learner-centered perspective [White paper]. The Secretary’s Conference
on Educational Technology, 2000: Measuring Impacts and Shaping the Future, Alexandria, Virginia,
United States. https://www.ed.gov/Technology/techconf/2000/mccombs_paper.html
McCombs, B. L. (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for balancing
academic achievement and social emotional learning outcomes. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C.
Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does
the research say (pp. 23–39). Teachers College Press.
McCombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College
Record, 107(8), 1582–1600. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00534.x
McIntyre, L. L., & Garbacz, S. A. (2014). Best practices in system-level organization and support for
effective family-school partnerships. In P. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices of school psy-
chology: System level services (pp. 455–465). National Association of School Psychology.
McMillan, S.J. (n.d.). COVID-19 and strategic communication with parents and guardians of college
students. Cogent Social Sciences, 6. doi:10.1080/23311886.2020.1843836
Morgan, H. (2020). Best practices for implementing remote learning during a pandemic. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 93(3), 135–141. doi:10.1080/00098655
.2020.1751480
Naples, N. A. (2003). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis, and activist research.
Routledge.
Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N., & Wigelsworth, M. (2019). An empirical basis for linking social and
emotional learning to academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 193–204.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.009
Park, S., Stone, S. I., & Holloway, S. D. (2017). School-based parental involvement as a predictor of
achievement and school learning environment: An elementary school-level analysis. Children and Youth
Services Review, 82, 195–206. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.012
Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1–12.
doi:10.1023/A:1007537902813
Proehl, R. A. (2001). Organizational change in the human services. Sage Sourcebooks for the Human
Services.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1),
65–78. doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guardia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching dur-
366

Rice, M. F., Lowenthal, P. R., & Woodley, X. (2020). Distance education across critical theoretical
landscapes: Touchstones for quality research and teaching. Distance Education, 41(3), 319–325. doi:1
0.1080/01587919.2020.1790091
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Roy, R., & Vekusa, S. (2020). Collaborative autoethnography: “Self-reflection” as a timely alternative
research approach during the global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 20(4), 383–392. doi:10.1108/
QRJ-06-2020-0054
Schwartzman, R. (2020). Performing pandemic pedagogy. Communication Education, 69(4), 502–517.
doi:10.1080/03634523.2020.1804602
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(2), 189–199.
Vollbrecht, P. J., Porter-Stransky, K. A., & Lackey-Cornelison, W. L. (2020). Lessons learned while cre-
ating an effective emergency remote learning environment for students during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Advances in Physiology Education, 44(4), 722–725. doi:10.1152/advan.00140.2020 PMID:33141599
Worley, C. G., & Jules, C. (2020). COVID-19’s uncomfortable revelations about agile and sustain-
able organizations in a VUCA world. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 279–283.
doi:10.1177/0021886320936263
Assets: Strengths and resources.

Culturally Responsive: Incorporating the assets of all participants.
Family Engagement: Partnerships with families that involve respectful communication and oppor-
tunities for meaningful participation in decision-making.
Learner-Centered: A perspective that focuses on individual learners and best available knowledge
about learning.
Mother-Scholar-Practitioner: Term is used to highlight the positionality of the authors and the
integration of theory, research, and practice through a feminist lens.
Reflective Practice: Exploring, analyzing, and interpreting lived experiences as a source of insight,
understanding, and change.
Social-Emotional Learning: The process of acquiring skills to manage emotions and maintain
positive relationships.
367
368
Chapter 19
Psycho-Social Well-Being
of Young Learners During
Emergency Remote Teaching:
General Scope and Suggestions
for Improvement
Ayse Taskiran
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1913-7296
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic, which started through the end of 2019 and which seems to continue for an
unknown period of time, has had unprecedented efects that are not limited to health conditions only,
but also include fnancial, sociological, and psychological consequences. This global pandemic forced
schools and universities to close their doors, causing a large-scale educational disruption for a large
number of learners worldwide. Despite the measures taken to compensate for education at all levels,
there still is another concern for K-12 level learners’ psycho-social well-being. This chapter elaborates
some points that should be considered in case of emergency remote teaching applications in terms of
enhancing psycho-social well-being of young learners.
INTRODUCTION
Many countries around the world have been struggling against COVID-19 pandemic, which started through
the end of 2019 and which seems to continue for an unknown period of time. The effects of the pandemic
are not limited to health conditions only, but also include financial, sociological and psychological con-
sequences. As the virus was found to be spreading between people through close contact with an infected
person, social distancing policy, announced by World Health Organization (WHO), has been adopted as
a measure to slow down the spread of the pandemic. This unprecedented pandemic led to unprecedented
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch019

Psycho-Social Well-Being of Young Learners During Emergency Remote Teaching
restraints. Countries around the world have had to take large-scale measures against the outbreak. The
measures included quarantines, strict isolation, banning large events and mass gatherings, travel restric-
tions, curfews, closing of borders, closing of entertainment centers, closure of businesses, limitations in
public transport and of course execution of nationwide school closures worldwide (Aquino, 2020). This
global pandemic forced schools and universities to close their doors, causing a large-scale educational
disruption for unprecedented number of learners worldwide, and consequently making 2020 a year like
no other. In such extraordinary conditions, worldwide emergency remote teaching practices have been
initiated to ensure the continuity of formal education and to compensate for its interruption at all levels.
Around the world schools and teachers at all levels had to make a shift to online lessons or TV broadcasts
to continue formal education. Although these measures might help young learners’ education at K-12
level continue uninterrupted, there still are other concerns. There are questions about the effectiveness
of the remote learning applications as it is put forward that most K–12 students and their teachers had
little experience with online instruction and many students miss out access to technology (Kuhfeld et
al., 2020). Another concern is about the working parents who strain themselves trying to educate and
provide care for their children during the extended school closure (Harris, 2020), as uncertainties about
when everything will be back to ‘normal’ leads to anxiety (Daniel, 2020). The ambiguous future is likely
to result in low motivation towards remote learning applications. Consequently, parents of those students
with low motivation feel anxious about their children’s academic progress and achievement at home. Not
only worries about the uncertainty of future but also homeschooling of low-motivated children make
parents feel even more nervous (Daniel, 2020). Most importantly, psychosocial well-being of children
is worthy of attention during home confinement and long lasting school closures. Findings of a recent
study indicate that due to school closure students are challenged by the social isolation from their friends,
lack of contact with their classmates, teachers, and overall their school environment. What makes it
even worse is that this social isolation affects their moods, emotions, and feelings (Pozas et al., 2021),
which was emphasized by previous research regarding the potential negative impact of social distancing
on primary school students’ psychosocial well-being (Flack et al. 2020). Children and adolescents may
exhibit milder clinical signs of COVID-19 compared to adults; however, the burden of this pandemic is
not limited to physical health issues. Instead, and more importantly, the short and long-term psychoogical
effects of the pandemic on this age group may be overlooked and not addressed. Therefore, screening
children and adolescents and providing appropriate management strategies addressing their psychosocial
well-being will help rebuild emotional intelligence (Cardenas et al., 2020).
The worldwide school closures have been assumed to create a rapid transition from traditional to
online distance education. Countries around the world have come up with wide range of solutions to
continue the disrupted education process such as online libraries, TV broadcasts, guidelines, resources,
video lectures, online channels (Basilaia & Kvavadze, 2020, p.3). Although these attempts are assumed
to be distance education practices, actually they are not even close. Bozkurt and Sharma (2020) make a
clear discrimination between concepts of ‘online distance education’ and ‘emergency remote teaching’.
According to the authors, online distance education involves elaborative planning of the learning process
that provides learners with choices, agency, responsibility, and flexibility. It includes detailed planning
on course design that aims to create the optimum learning ecology. Distance education approaches the
concept of ‘distance’ from different perspectives that are defined through transactional distance, while
remote distance teaching takes the concept of ‘distance’ solely as a spatial matter. The one that is being
applied around the world during the pandemic should be called ‘emergency remote teaching’ as it is
rather a rapid temporary solution. Considering these definitions, it is likely that the emergency remote
369

teaching applied during the pandemic seems to be based on the assumption that information and com-
munication technologies would compensate for the schools to some extent by providing a temporary
solution. However, when the current educational applications are considered, this approach might not
be competent enough to compensate for schools.
The digital divide is a crucial issue particularly in low-income countries as it causes inequalities for
educational opportunities during the pandemic (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). As online learning is depen-
dent on information and communication technologies (ICTs) and stable internet connection, those who
do not have the necessary technology or infrastructure have had to be excluded from the online learning.
According to the latest analysis from UNICEF (2020a), 2.2 billion, in other words two-thirds of children
and young people in the world did not have internet access at home in 2020. This statistic reveals the
gravity of the situation. Another report including a compiled data from surveys on national education
responses to COVID-19 from 149 countries between July and October 2020 reveals that school children
in low- and lower-middle income countries were less likely to have access to remote learning or to be
monitored on a day-to-day basis by teachers (UNESCO, UNICEF & the World Bank, 2020a, 2020b).
Emergency remote teaching brings its own challenges as the teachers of young learners at K-12 level
are mostly inexperienced in online teaching, technological feasibility check has been skipped on both
the teacher and the learner side, the techno-pedagogical competencies have been overlooked, and the
psychosocial conditions of students and teachers have been mistakenly assumed to be all fine. Students
and teachers who have low digital competence are likely to lag behind in online learning (Adedoyin &
Soykan, 2020). Bond (2020) highlights this issue in her living rapid systematic review that analyzes
K-12 research on teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Synthesizing 89 studies, Bond
points out that among the recommendations for schools, by far the most frequently mentioned one is
the need to provide increased professional development for staff. Studies recommend providing further
funding for professional development and also equipment for K-12 level schools. Online education is
not a new phenomenon for higher education, whereas it has been a novel attempt for K-12 level in many
countries (Black et al., 2020). Before Covid-19 pandemic emerged, online learning environments for
K–12 schools provided just an option for students to continue their learning at home (Christensen et
al., 2011). However, neither the teachers nor the young learners used to have hundred percent online
education experience before the pandemic. The internet and the tablets would be used mostly for fun
activities and games after school. Teachers used to prepare most of the class activities based on board,
real objects, or paper in the classrooms. The participants of the classroom activities used to be actively
engaging in the class tasks side by side with their peers. However, emergency remote teaching has made
a drastic change on the agents of teaching and learning process especially for primary and secondary
school levels. Noviceship has become the common ground. Hodges et al. (2020) underline the signifi-
cance of teacher preparation in terms of pedagogy of teaching online. As a result of the physical distance
experienced when switching from face-to-face education to emergency remote teaching, some negative
consequences such as a decrease in the sense of belonging to the learning environment or an increase in
the feeling of exclusion may arise. Morgan and Tam (1999) emphasize this feeling of isolation as one of
the issues students complain about the most in online learning environments. Research highlights that
the main reason for such situations is that the designers of online learning environments are focusing
on technical infrastructure, while pushing the social infrastructure to the second plan (Kreijns et al.,
2007). Emergency remote teaching applications constitute similar weaknesses as they are not based on
elaborate planning on course design. As a result of such an approach, which was swift, and which was
perceived by the educators as a quick transitioning moment that required transfer of course contents to
370

incorporate tools in an online environment (Green et al., 2020), technological competency and availability,
readiness, and more importantly psychosocial condition of the students have been overlooked. Flack et
al. (2020) point out social isolation and decrease of well-being as the possible impacts of homeschool-
ing on students especially those who are in primary school level since they need one-on-one attention
more.This chapter elaborates some points that should be considered and some suggestions that could be
followed in case of emergency remote teaching applications in terms of enhancing psychosocial condi-
tions of young learners.
PSYCHOSOCIAL CONDITION OF YOUNG LEARNERS
The worldwide pandemic has caused loss of lives, shuttering of businesses, collapse of economies, re-
striction of freedoms (Ren, 2020), and eventually missing the taste of life. The regulations applied within
the scope of measures to stop the spread of the outbreak in many countries include travel restrictions,
social distancing measures, the curfew of at risk individuals, general public lockdowns that have lasted
sometimes weeks, or during the weekends and holidays, and of course school closures (Harris, 2020).
Even though the governments have taken measures in a way to support school life academically at all
levels, psychosocial well-being of young learners has been missed out. According to Statista’s (2020)
latest report, of 7.8 billion world population, children who are younger than 15 years of age account for
26%. Although recent scientific research suggests that children and young people are more resistant to
COVID-19 or can overcome the disease with milder symptoms, it should be known that they are not
indifferent to the anxiety and stress caused by the pandemic (Imran et al., 2020). Academic support
comprises just one component of healthy school life. In addition to the formal education they receive
at school, the needs of students to continue their social and psychological development by socializing
and interacting with their peers should not be overlooked. Limited or no social contact with peers, no
leisure time activities outside home, spending all time with family members are some of the unprec-
edented challenges that young learners have faced. Most of the parents have become home-office workers
and home schooling supporters at the same time (Brem, et al., 2020). The households have witnessed
conflicts due to factors such as anxiety caused by the deadly virus, tension brought about by financial
difficulties, boredom due to almost no social life, and long lasting family time. Social cognitive theory
(SCT) emphasizes environment and social life as significant factors shaping the behavior and the person
(Bandura, 1989). These young learners need to maintain their social and psychological development by
socializing and interacting with their peers. Therefore, television broadcasts and online courses offered
within the scope of emergency remote teaching should be examined in terms of providing effective inter-
active environment that will allow young learners to socialize and interact with their peers. Due to lock
downs and school closures children miss out on essential academic and social–emotional learning, they
cannot maintain formative relationships with peers and adults, and they miss the opportunities for play
(Levinson et al., 2020). It is noteworthy that in the current situation psychological counselling services,
which are one of the main dimensions of education, were taken a back seat and considered to be inferior
compared to the academic courses. In extraordinary situations such as a pandemic that can deeply affect
the society psychologically, the issue of what can be done to correct this deficiency becomes important.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory highlights the significance of the immediate envrionments of
children such as family and school for their psychosocial development. Considering that child psycho-
logical health is developed within the social context in which the child lives, the importance of epidemic
371

diseases once again emerges for these young learners, who could be considered as the most fragile part
of the society. Lieberman et al. (2011) highlight the significance of social changes and their effects on
children as they are in a more rapid development period than others. Covid-19 is neither the first nor will
it be the last epidemic in world history. For this reason, the question of what measures should be taken
about the psychosocial needs and well-being of children and adolescents in a pandemic case should be
considered seriously by covering all possible outbreaks and / or other disaster situations, inclosing not
only the current epidemic but also other probabilities in a more general and wider timeframe. That is
why, a large body of research deals with the physiological, social and psychological negative effects of
epidemic diseases on societies in general, not just within the scope of the current epidemic.
Pandemic disasters can create a situation that families and children find traumatic. Sprang and Sil-
man (2013) compared post-traumatic stress symptoms in quarantined and non-quarantined conditions
for children. The findings revealed that post-traumatic symptoms were four times higher in quarantined
children than in non-quarantined children. Children who are isolated or quarantined during pandemic
diseases are more likely to develop feelings such as acute stress disorder, adjustment disorder, anxiety,
and grief. The authors’ study also revealed that among the quarantined or isolated children 30% of them
met clinical criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (Sprang & Silman, 2013). Long-term isolation
and staying away from school context can have a negative impact on children and adolescents, given the
importance of peer contact for well-being (Giford-Smith & Brownell, 2013). Staying home in unnatural
conditions such as quarantine or isolation may harm children’s physical and mental health (Brazendale
et al., 2017). Because pandemic disasters are unique and require long term recovery, specific response
strategies to ensure the behavioral health needs of children and their families should be developed. It
should be known that there are radical changes in the daily routines and social lives of not only adults
but also children in times of disaster (Danese et al, 2019). When psychological impacts of outbreaks are
considered, children and adolescents deserve special care more than others to be able to preserve and
promote their mental health as they are at the critical stage of development (de Miranda et al., 2020).
Children appear to be less physically active, sleep more irregularly, and are cardiovascularly weak as a
result of their long-term school leaving and staying at home due to the pandemic (Brooks et al., 2020).
According to the findings of a large-scale review research that aimed to investigate the effects of HIV
virus (AIDS), one of the worldwide infectious diseases, the economic welfare and academic success
levels as well as the social and psychological status of the children who lost their parents due to AIDS
were found to be much worse than those of other children (Earls et al., 2008). In their study Brooks et al.
(2020) reviewed three electronic databases and examined and the psychological problems experienced
by individuals who were quarantined due to SARS, MERS, H1N1 and Ebola outbreaks. According to
their review, negative psychological effects such as post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and
anger were common problems among the individuals. Those individuals who were quarantined dur-
ing the outbreaks were reported to experience stress due to long quarantine period, fear of infection,
disappointment, boredom, insufficient information, financial loss. Similarly, another systematic review
research performed by Chew et al. (2020) revealed the presence of anxiety SARS, H1N1 and Ebola-
related studies. During the pandemics, home quarantines are applied as safety regulations, yet “not all
homes are safe places, and some children might be more exposed to varied types of abuses... the lack of
super-vision over internet access increases vulnerability to online offenders, attempted fraud, and access
to sexually inappropriate content” (de Miranda et al., 2020, p. 2).
As the largest-scale pandemic of recent years, Covid-19’s severe physical, social and psychological
effects have become inevitable. The pandemic has drastically changed the daily life in countries around
372

the world and it continues to do so. In March, The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO, 2020) announced that nationwide shutdowns impacted 290.5 million children and
youth who would normally attend pre-primary to upper-secondary classes. In December 2020 UNESCO
(2020) highlighted that more than 1.6 billion learners in over 190 countries -which makes “90% of the
world’s student population- were forced out of school at the peak of the crises, which created the most
severe disruption of the pandemic to global education systems in history (UNICEF, 2020b). To slow
down the spread of the outbreak, as in many other countries, the Chinese government decided to shut
down schools and implement distance education across the country, by means of which more than 220
million children and adolescents remained closed in their homes. 180 million of them were primary and
secondary school students (CCTV News, 2020). China National Health Commission issued instructions
and listed specific intervention strategies to ensure timely referral to psychiatrists in case of children who
are kept confined at home felt psychological discomfort such as anxiety, stress, sleep difficulties and
anorexia (National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, 2020). Similarly, a nationwide
emergency was declared by the government of Japan requesting citizens to stay home and maintain social
distancing, which resulted in closure of playgrounds and limited peer contacts for children and adoles-
cents. According to Isumi et al. (2020) these measures have brought anxiety and distress to the children
and their families. The authors point out that the qualitative data from Childline, a free and anonymous
telephone counseling service for children in Japan, showed increased anxiety and distress in children
and adolescents. The authors reported that 60% of the children who called Childline Support expressed
negative emotions, including anxiety, anger or irritability, and sadness. Another study that took place in
Brazil aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anxiety among Brazilian children and the factors associated
with it during social distancing applications due to COVID-19. The findings revealed that children who
were maintaining social distance with both their parents had lower scores of anxiety than those who were
isolated with a person other than their parents. The authors pointed out the importance of family rela-
tions and having access to peers to maintain social and cognitive development of children. According to
the authors, the effect of changes in the daily lives of children should not be overlooked as other family
members’ health and emotional states negative influences from the environment could greatly impact
their mental health (Garcia de Avila, et al., 2020). Zhou et al. (2020) aimed to evaluate the prevalence
rate and socio-demographic correlates of depressive and anxiety symptoms among Chinese adolescents
during the outbreak of COVID-19. Among 8079 adolescents, the prevalence of depressive symptoms
was found to be 43.7%, and anxiety symptoms was found to be 37.4%. Also, 53.9% of the adolescents
expressed little interest or pleasure in doing things. The findings of their study showed that there was
a high prevalence of psychological health problems among Chinese adolescents. The authors highlight
that although online portals and web-based applications have been developed to provide lectures or other
teaching activities, uncertainty and potential adversities to academic development will have adverse ef-
fects on students’ psychological health (Zhou et al., 2020). Similarly, another study intended to examine
the emotional well-being of Italian and Spanish children aged between 3 and 18. The children were in
quarantine as a measure to curb the spread of COVID-19.The findings revealed that 85.7% of the par-
ents reported changes in their children’s emotional state and behaviors during the quarantine. 76.6% of
the parents expressed difficulty in concentrating as the most frequent symptom during the quarantine.
Among other symptoms reported by the parents were boredom, irritability, restlessness, nervousness,
feelings of loneliness, being more uneasy and more worried (Orgilés et al., 2020). In their study, Pozas
et al. (2021) intended to explore difficulties, constraints, chances and opportunities of homeschooling
for primary school students and their parents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico and Germany.
373

Findings revealed that in both countries while parents faced challenges to organise homeschooling and
motivate their children, students are challenged notably by the loss of social contact.
During pandemic periods in general physiological and psychological problems that arise directly or
indirectly because of the confinement of children and adolescents at home become more serious due
to decrease in the time spent outside, withdraw from activities and inability to interact with their peers
(Wang et al., 2020). According to Brooks et al. (2020), long-term stress, fear of infection, frustration,
boredom, inadequate information, lack of face-to-face contact with classmates and teachers, and lack of
personal space at home and family losses are among the causes of negative psychological impact of the
outbreak on neglected children and adolescents. The authors conclude that these effects on children can
be permanent, which makes the case even worse (Brooks et al., 2020). According to the report by Kel-
land (2020), child psychotherapists point out that during the COVID-19 period, words such as pandemic,
isolation, curfew have now become common words that children use while playing games in playgrounds.
Although the Covid-19 is considered to show relatively mild physical symptoms in children, doctors and
psychologists warn that anxiety-inducing spread of the pandemic may be far more traumatic (Kelland,
2020). COVID-19 has cascade of negative impacts; to slow down the spread, kindergartens and schools
have been closed, curfews have been applied, out-of-home leisure time activities disappeared, parents
have taken the full responsibility of the schools while working from home at the same time. All these
negative impacts result in too much pressure on children, adolescents and their families, and this may
bring about distress, mental health problems and violence (Fegert et al., 2020).
Not only the quarantine and isolation, but also casting away from peers due to strict social distanc-
ing measures, uncertainties regarding school closure periods, exams, and performance evaluations,
family-induced stress are likely to affect children and adolescent’s psychosocial well-being negatively.
According to Erik Erikson (1963), a psychologist working in the fields of developmental psychology
and psychoanalysis and founder of psychosocial development theory, a person goes through eight dif-
ferent stages from birth to death. Childhood and adolescence periods are very important in psychosocial
development stages. The fourth one of those stages is defined as school age stage (7-11 years) and it
is associated with psychosocial development referred to industry vs. inferiority. At this stage, the peer
group of the child comes to the fore. Communication of the child with peers becomes more important
and becomes the main source of the child’s self-esteem. During this period the children feel the need to
gain recognition by demonstrating certain competencies valued by society and begin to develop a sense
of pride in their achievements. Therefore, relations at school and neighborhood gain significance. If the
children are not able to join these relations, if their initiatives are not encouraged, if they are restricted
by parents or teacher, or any other factor, then the child begins to feel inferior, doubting his own abilities
and therefore may not reach his or her potential. When the pandemic is considered, the children are likely
neither able to receive input from their parents for this purpose nor can they interact with their peers who
are kept at home due to quarantine, lockdowns and isolations. Apart from educational purposes, schools
are the considered as hubs of social activity and human interaction. Due to school closures, thousands
of children and adolescents miss out on social contact that is essential to learning and psychosocial de-
velopment (UNESCOa). Similarly, Bandura’s SCT assumes that three forces influence human choice:
behavioral, personal and environmental factors. According to Bandura (2005), environments can be
imposed, selected, or created and people do not have control in imposed environments such as a natural
disaster, weather, and of course pandemic. While people have little control over the imposed physical
and socio-structural environment, there is room for action in how to interpret and react to it. The environ-
ment is just a potential with its aspects for reward and punishment and these aspects do not appear until
374

the environment is selectively activated with appropriate course of action (Bandura, 1999). Finding the
right course of action for the children’s psychosocial well-being within the imposed environments like
curfews and social distancing is significant. The fact that the psychosocial development of children is
shaped by the quality of their personal, social and emotional development at an early age makes it more
remarkable to monitor the isolation of children due to the pandemic.
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PANDEMICS-INDUCED NEGATIVE

PSYCHOSOCIAL CONDITIONS OF YOUNG LEARNERS
In accordance with previously mentioned literature, it can be concluded that pandemics directly or
indirectly affect children and adolescents’ psychosocial well-being negatively. Isolation and restric-
tive measures imposed on children can be poorly understood, confusing and even frightening to them
(Vessey & Betz, 2020).There are some steps that can be taken to change things for better at different
levels: parental, academic, and national level.
Parental Level
Family life and relationships can be adversely affected by the pandemic as parents have had to cope with
the process of adapting to the remote work lifestyle and home schooling at the same time. Similarly,
children have been through some hardships. In order to help reduce the negative impacts of pandemic
on children, family support platforms for pandemic periods can be established online as a contributor to
the well-being of not only children but also parents. These platforms can educate parents through social
media. The main objective of these platforms should be making parents become aware of the anxiety
levels of children during the pandemic period. Parents should realize that children can be affected by the
dramatic changes in their environment (Cardenas, 2020). Parents should be educated about how to avoid
reflecting stress and anxiety to their children in any possible way. These platforms can educate parents
about the vulnerability of their children to online offenders, attempted fraud or access to sexually inap-
propriate content due to the increased screen time in quarantine period and the lack of supervision over
internet (de Miranda et al., 2020). They should be made aware of what kind of language they can use to
create a positive atmosphere at home. These online family support platforms can include parent-child
activity sessions, video podcasts demonstrating the ways to cope with stress, creative and fun activity
ideas to do at home, and suggestions for safe online platforms where children can socialize with their
peers. This is significant because psychosocial well-being of children is directly related to their access to
peers, which helps them maintain their social and cognitive development. However, Fegert et al. (2020)
point out that children and adolescents stay in touch with peers during the crisis through online platforms,
and this “might ease social encounters but might result in unrealistic high demands on partners, tension
between the virtual and the real self and increased distance from ‘real’ life” (p. 8). In this case family
support platforms can offer trainings and content that will support children to reach the awareness of
distinguishing between real and virtual without losing their real self. The family support platforms can
also broadcast informative videos, podcasts, interactive activities that parents can do with their children
in order to reduce their stress and anxiety level. Also, as a solution for the less physical activity due to
lockdowns, parents can be guided to engage in games that contribute to more physical activity with their
children. In addition, suggestions that can contribute to psychosocial development of children according
375

to their age groups can be offered by the experts in their field. Again, parent-child therapy sessions can
be arranged with a specialist and these sessions might help reduce the negative impact of the pandemic.
Academic Level
Emergency remote teaching has been initiated as a temporary solution for crisis circumstances like the
pandemic of COVID-19. However, it should be noted that these circumstances might reoccur at any time
in the future. There might be some measures that can be taken regarding such cases in schools. First of
all, permanent emergency remote teaching offices could be established in schools. These offices might
provide in-service trainings for the teachers, which might include guidance on e-learning material and
multimedia creation, online course design, development of techno-pedagogical content knowledge, pro-
fessional development, course content development, online performance evaluation, online collaboration
opportunities with teacher communities, online classroom management, and learning management system
training. Also, permanent online technical support units that can provide support for both families and
teachers could be established in schools. More importantly, the student profiles should be monitored
more closely in terms of digital competence and socio-economic conditions. Primary and secondary
school teachers need techno-pedagogical content knowledge and online course design more than ever
during the emergency remote teaching periods. As a result of the physical distance experienced when
switching from face-to-face education to online distance education applications due to pandemics or
natural disasters, negative effects such as a decrease in the sense of belonging to the learning environ-
ment or an increase in the feeling of exclusion may occur.
National Level
It has been strongly suggested to conduct cross-country research on the difficulties caused by the pan-
demic (OECD 2020) and on how to respond and adapt to digital teaching. However, there is still not
enough research having an international scope to explore variations within and across countries (Huber &
Helm 2020). More than ever, research is necessary to better understand the current phenomena, support
policy development and implementation of inclusive instructional practices (Huber & Helm 2020). The
answers for questions on how children and adolescents have been affected by continuing their education
from home, drastic changes in the daily life, family relations in prolonged closures, socio-economic dif-
ficulties, distancing from their peers and social life might be revealed through nationwide studies. These
studies might be conducted to understand the realities of young learners affected by current educational
inequalities and how these students are affected by the sudden transition to immediate distance teach-
ing. According to UNESCO (2020), even temporary, school closures have made it difficult to measure
losses including inconvenience to families and reduced economic productivity, as parents have difficulty
balancing childcare and work obligations. At national level, inequalities caused by the pandemic should
be evaluated in a wide range. Among these inequalities are limited access to professional psychological
support and medical resources, and digital divides that restrict the access of schools and communities to
distance education. Undoubtedly, children are those who might suffer the most from these inequalities.
At national level, Zhou et al. (2020) suggest that health authorities can consider providing online or
smartphone-based psychological interventions. Students who stay at home most of the time during the
epidemic can benefit from online psychological support through online platforms. Unfortunately, in the
acute phase of the pandemic, only emergencies have been addressed in some countries, mostly excluding
376

child protection services and psychological support services for children and families. Providing adequate
services to families in coping with post-pandemic issues is crucial to reduce long-term consequences
for mental health (Fegert et al., 2020). Psychological counseling and guidance services, which became
unsustainable with the closure of schools, can be integrated into emergency remote teaching activities
across the country. Also, some initiatives such as European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychia-
try presents a platform to share guidelines, recommendations and information in various languages to
help exchange knowledge on dealing with mental health in children and adolescents during the time
of pandemic. Similar initiatives can be taken nationwide to share information and experiences among
counseling and guidance centers in schools. Moreover, even though there was the limited acceptance
of remote psychotherapy (Berger, 2017), Covid-19 pandemic has changed the attitudes toward online
psychotherapy in a positive way. Findings of a recent study revealed that once the initial stress subsides
and psychotherapists gain more experience they will feel more comfortable with using online psycho-
therapy via videoconferencing (Békés & Aafjes-van Doorn, 2020).
DISCUSSION
Due to the measures to slow down the outbreak, schools at all levels were closed and educational institu-
tions witnessed a rapid shift to online teaching, which entirely depends on information and communica-
tion technologies. It is known that higher education has been familiar with the digital transformation
and online teaching for some years (Kopp et al., 2019); however, before the pandemic online learning
was a novel phenomenon, and asynchronous learning almost did not exist at K-12 level. Both sides of
the teaching-learning process, the agents, were novice in terms of fully remote teaching and learning.
When wide range of methods, practices and tools associated with online teaching are considered, it is
clearly seen that applications of online teaching and learning vary greatly within and across K-12 and
higher educational settings (Dixson, 2010). Would it be possible just to transfer what was being done in
higher education context to the primary, secondary level classes? The recipe is not that simple.
Emergency remote teaching applications should be revisited in terms of the target learners’ age-specific
needs and characteristics. Online distance education is generally identified with adult learners whose
learning needs and profiles substantially differ from young learner in many ways. Therefore, emergency
remote teaching should be designed according to target learners’ needs and characteristics. It is important
to note that these remote teaching applications should not comprise solely contents of formal lessons,
but also provide young learners with psychological counseling and guidance activities during pandem-
ics. It has been highlighted that the pandemic might cause anxiety, distress, and potentially depression
among children because of fears related to COVID-19, family economic hardship, limited access to basic
services (i.e., schools and medical services), and limited social contacts and social activities (Fegert et
al., 2020). Especially during lockdowns children need more opportunities to interact with their peers
for their psychosocial development. The instructional designs of online lessons should include more
communicative and interactive aspects than regular lessons. More interesting, authentic and interactive
course materials that can motivate learners to collaborate, communicate and have fun with each other
should be integrated into online lessons. It is known that there is a strong positive relationship between
level of interaction and meaningful learning experience (Cowan et al., 2009). According to Redmond
learners tend to become unattached and feel astranged from the learning environment can become dis-
377

satisfied with online courses” (Redmond, 2010, p. 37). The course designers, teachers, and the learners
should be integrated into the process during planning.
Another point that needs attention is the digital skills that children and teachers possess. Having
sufficient digital skills is not a one-way skill. Therefore, it is seen that there is more than one term
regarding this concept. Ferrari (2012) defines digital competence as the set of skills, knowledge and
attitudes needed when using ICT and digital devices to fulfill responsibilities such as problem solving,
knowledge management, effectiveness, efficiency and ethical collaboration. According to Calvani et al.
(2008), digital literacy or competence comprises not only elements of ability or instrumental knowledge,
but also a complex integration of cognitive processes, methodological and ethical awareness. Engen et
al. (2014) argue that the increased use of digital technology in schools has led to over-generalizations
about the digital competence of students and teachers, which does not reflect the truth. Those generaliza-
tions create misconceptions about the competency of young learners, assuming them as more competent
than they actually are. The authors conclude that technology has limited value unless it is supplemented
with effective pedagogical visions and learning aims (Engen et al., 2014), and they suggest issues such
as collaboration, problem solving, innovation and participation should be addressed while considering
technology use in education.
Also, one of the common negative impacts of pandemics is known to be the loss of motivation to-
wards school subjects. Studies conducted during pandemic have also revealed that young learners show
concentration problems (Orgilés et al., 2020). It has been suggested that the main reasons for such situ-
ations are the designers of the online learning environment, focusing more on technical infrastructure
than the social infrastructure (Kreijns et al., 2007). In other words, it seems that while the main focus is
expected to be online pedagogy, there is an attempt to transform the curriculum into an online environment
(Mohmmed, et al., 2020). Bozkurt and Sharma (2020) make a vivid description of the current context by
stating that “Learners are simply being bombarded with lectures like a locust wave while sitting in front
of a webcam” (p. iii). According to Phirangee (2016), the way to get rid of negative situations such as
loss of motivation, decrease in sense of belonging and eventually leaving the learning environment may
be to increase the sense of community. The sense of community, which can be defined as the individual
feeling as if he / she is there, plays an important role in the perception of the social environment in online
learning environments. Rovai (2002) mentions that sense of community has two sub-factors: learning
and commitment. While the learning sub-factor is related to the use of interaction within the group and
the spread of satisfied learning goals, the sub-factor refers to the integrity, vitality of the online group,
solidarity and trust among group members (Rovai, 2002). Considering these, “in a well-structured area
of social interaction, there are effective working relationships, a strong sense of community, trust, re-
spect and commitment, and a high satisfaction” (Bardakçı, 2010, p. 23). Young learners tend to be not
familiar with formal distance learning applications including synchronous lessons on screens. Therefore,
they might probably experience transactional distance, a theory defined by Moore as “a psychological
and communications space to be crossed, a space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of
instructor and those of the learner” (Moore, 1993, p. 23), which could make them lose their motivation
towards the learning process. These possible negative experiences should be reduced through interac-
tive activities such as asking questions to their peers, collaborating with them to complete a project
and exchanging information for completing certain tasks can make them more active and interested.
Moreover, alternative measures should be considered for those learners living in geographic areas with
low quality internet connections. A moderate balance should be established between asynchronous and
synchronous lessons, taking into account the availability of the technological infrastructure. It is the
378

responsibility of teachers to create an online classroom environment that can meet the need of primary
school students to feel themselves as part of a society during quarantine periods, nurture their sense of
trust, show solidarity by interacting with their peers, in short, raising the sense of community for them.
Teachers should become aware of the fact that one-way communication in online learning environment
causes lack of concentration and interest for young learners. Instead of teacher-centered remote teach-
ing, teachers should learn how to make use of different types of interaction during both synchronous
and asynchronous lessons. Learner-learner interaction and learner content interaction play a significant
role on learner engagement and motivation.
School closures and the transition to emergency distance learning raise concerns about pre-scheduled
assessments, particularly high-risk exams that determine admission or progression to new educational
levels and institutions. Strategies for conducting and administering exams remotely raise serious concerns
about justice, especially during the pandemic period when access to learning becomes volatile. Failures
in assessments cause stress for students and their families and can trigger a loss of desire to participate
in the learning process (UNESCO). During covid-19 emergency, when the effects of various problems
such as health concerns, economic and social difficulties experienced by families, sudden transition to
distance learning, educational inequities and ambiguities have all caused stress and anxiety on children.
As if this much anxiety and stress were not enough, children also experience assessment and evaluation
concerns. Technical or pedagogical problems experienced in learning processes, concerns such as how
the exams will be conducted may prevent students from demonstrating their real performance, and might
result in unfair assessment. There is an urgent need to apply assessment on the needs, and problems of
young learners rather than on course achievements. Young learners should be included in decision mak-
ing process during remote teaching with their expectations, learning styles, learning needs, capabilities
or inadequacies caused by either their digital competencies or technological infrastructures they own.
During emergency remote teaching, the diversity of young learners’ conditions should be addressed.
One-size-fits-all approach to assessment would create unfair results. Considering not all children might
have access to stable internet connection, asynchronous evaluations should be preferred. Synchronous
online exams could create extra anxiety for children even if they have the necessary infrastructure and
technological devices because children are familiar with the specific technology for leisure time activities,
not for exams. Also, certain factors such as familiarity with the learning management system interface
and certain assessment applications, keyboard skills, or bandwidth capacity might provide advantage
to some students over others. In order to prevent an unfair assessment and evaluation, it would be ap-
propriate to prefer asynchronous, personalized, process-oriented evaluations during emergency remote
teaching processes.
Digital divide that warrants attention is another crucial issue concerning all countries especially dur-
ing emergency remote teaching applications. Inequality in the socio-economic status of students cause
some of them to lag behind their peers. Especially children with low socio-economic status, have not had
much chance to continue their education as most of the information technologies have been elusive for
them. It has been witnessed that some of those learners relied on the computer and free internet in their
schools (Demirbilek, 2014). When the schools were closed, those learners have lost that opportunity. The
pandemic has rapidly amplified the inequities in terms of learning experience between such learners and
their peers who have technological opportunities. Cases as this require different modes of delivery or
novel and contextually more feasible solutions in emergency remote teaching processes, such as mobile
learning applications, radio, blended learning (Hodges et al., 2020), TV broadcasts, and even mailing
printed publications. According to UNESCO’s report, temporary school closures have brought numer-
379

ous problems including reduction in instructional time, lower educational performance and academic
achievement, educational inequities: families with hiher financial status tend to have better education
with more resources to fill learning gaps and they are more likely to provide enrichment activities for
their children at home”(UNESCO, 2020).
CONCLUSION
Pandemics or natural disasters should be considered in more general time frames rather than specific oc-
casions. Since these unpleasant events could happen again at any time or place, serious planning should
be made in order to maintain education without disruption. In these plans, the steps to be followed about
what can be done at national, institutional and family levels should be clarified. In emergency distance
teaching applications, it is essential to make an instructional design considering the learner character-
istics specific to the target audience. It should be considered seriously that especially young learners
at K-12 level are more likely to feel pandemic-induced stress and anxiety compared to those who are
in higher education. They are more vulnerable to the serious changes in social life. More importantly,
the negative effects can be permanent in young learners’ lives. Therefore, emergency remote teaching
activities should not only cover academic subjects but also content that will contribute to the psychoso-
cial well-being and development of young learners. While planning remote teaching for young learners
during such extreme conditions, not only needs and competencies specific to their age groups, but also
the psychological effects of the home confinement process on them should be taken into consideration.
Guidance and counseling should be provided in this direction. Most importantly, all these should be done
by putting all stakeholders, namely parents, schools and national policies into effect together.
REFERENCES
Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and
opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1–13. doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
Aquino, E. M., Silveira, I. H., Pescarini, J. M., Aquino, R., & Souza-Filho, J. A. D. (2020). Social distanc-
ing measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic: Potential impacts and challenges in Brazil. Ciencia &
Saude Coletiva, 25, 2423–2446. doi:10.1590/1413-81232020256.1.10502020 PMID:32520287
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist, 44(9),
1175–1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 PMID:2782727
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 2(1), 21–41. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00024

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great
minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
Bardakçı, S. (2010). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamında algılanan sosyalleşme ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik
çalışması. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences, 43(1), 17-40.
380

Basilaia, G., & Kvavadze, D. (2020). Transition to online education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Georgia. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), 1–9. doi:10.29333/pr/7937
Békés, V., & Aafjes-van Doorn, K. (2020). Psychotherapists’ attitudes toward online therapy during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(2), 238–247. doi:10.1037/int0000214
Berger, T. (2017). The therapeutic alliance in internet interventions: A narrative review and suggestions
for future research. Psychotherapy Research, 27(5), 511–524. doi:10.1080/10503307.2015.1119908
PMID:26732852
Black, E., Ferdig, R., & Thompson, L. (2020). K-12 Virtual Schooling, COVID-19, and Student Success.
JAMA Pediatrics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3800 PMID:32780093
Coronavirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi.
Brazendale, K., Beets, M. W., Weaver, R. G., Pate, R. R., Turner-McGrievy, G. M., Kaczynski, A. T.,
Chandler, J. L., Bohnert, A., & von Hippel, P. T. (2017). Understanding differences between summer vs.
school obesogenic behaviors of children: The structured days hypothesis. The International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(1), 100. doi:10.118612966-017-0555-2 PMID:28747186
Brem, A., Viardot, E., & Nylund, P. A. (2020). Implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak for
innovation: Which technologies will improve our lives? Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
163, 120451. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120451 PMID:33191956
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J.
(2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence.
Lancet, 395(10227), 912–920. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8 PMID:32112714
Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and instruments for assessing digital
competence at school. Journal of E-learning and Knowledge Society, 4(3), 183–193.
Cardenas, M. C., Bustos, S. S., & Chakraborty, R. (2020). A ‘parallel pandemic’: The psychosocial bur-
den of COVID‐19 in children and adolescents. Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway), 109(11), 2187–2188.
doi:10.1111/apa.15536 PMID:32799388
CCTV News. (2020, February 17). Ministry of Education: national elementary and middle school net-
work cloud platform opens for free use today. Access address: http://www.chinanews.com/ sh / 2020 /
02-17 / 9094648.shtml)
Chew, Q. H., Wei, K. C., Vasoo, S., Chua, H. C., & Sim, K. (2020). Narrative synthesis of psychological
and coping responses towards emerging infectious disease outbreaks in the general population: Practi-
cal considerations for the COVID-19 pandemic. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 61(7),
350–356. PMID:32241071
Christensen, C., Johnson, C., & Horn, M. (2011). Disrupting class, expanded edition: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill.
381

Cowan, W., Herring, S. D., Rich, L. L., & Wilkes, W. (2009). Collaborate, Engage, and Interact in Online
Learning, Successes with Wikis and Synchronous Virtual Classrooms at Athens State University. The
14th Annual Instructional Technology Conference. http://www.athens.edu
Danese, A., Smith, P., Chitsabesan, P., & Dubicka, B. (2020). Child and adolescent mental health amidst
emergencies and disasters. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 216(3), 159–162. doi:10.1192/bjp.2019.244
PMID:31718718
Daniel, J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91–96. doi:10.100711125-
020-09464-3 PMID:32313309
de Miranda, D. M., da Silva Athanasio, B., de Sena Oliveira, A. C., & Silva, A. C. S. (2020). How is
COVID-19 pandemic impacting mental health of children and adolescents? International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, 101845. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101845 PMID:32929399
Demirbilek, M. (2014). The ‘digital natives’ debate: An investigation of the digital propensities of uni-
versity students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 115–123.
doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students
Find Engaging? The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.
Earls, F., Raviola, G. J., & Carlson, M. (2008). Promoting child and adolescent mental health in the context
of the HIV/AIDS pandemic with a focus on sub‐Saharan Africa. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 49(3), 295–312. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01864.x PMID:18221344
Engen, B. K., Giæver, T., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Hatlevik, O., Mifsud, L., & Tomte, K. (2014, March).
Digital Natives: Digitally Competent? In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education In-
ternational Conference (pp. 2110-2116). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE).
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Youth, change, and challenge. Basic Books.
ESCAP. (2020). European Society Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Guidelines and recommendations in
multiple languages. https://www.escap.eu/resources/coronavirus/covid-19-resources-in-various-languages
Fegert, J. M., Vitiello, B., Plener, P. L., & Clemens, V. (2020). Challenges and burden of the Coronavirus
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: A narrative review to highlight
clinical and research needs in the acute phase and the long return to normality. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry and Mental Health, 14(1), 1–11. doi:10.118613034-020-00329-3 PMID:32419840
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, European Commission. http://www.ifap.ru/ library/book522.pdf

Flack, C. B., Walker, L., Bickerstaff, A., Earle, H., & Margetts, C. (2020). Educator perspectives on the
impact of COVID-19 on teaching and learning in Australia and New Zealand. Pivot Professional Learning.
382

Garcia de Avila, M. A., Hamamoto Filho, P. T., Jacob, F. L. D. S., Alcantara, L. R. S., Berghammer, M.,
Jenholt Nolbris, M., Olaya-Contreras, P., & Nilsson, S. (2020). Children’s anxiety and factors related
to the COVID-19 pandemic: An exploratory study using the children’s anxiety questionnaire and the
numerical rating scale. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16),
5757. doi:10.3390/ijerph17165757 PMID:32784898
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance,
friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235–284. doi:10.1016/S0022-
4405(03)00048-7
students cope with emergency remote education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 906–922.
doi:10.100742438-020-00185-6
remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 27.
Huber, S. G., & Helm, C. (2020). COVID-19 and schooling: Evaluation, assessment and accountability
in times of crises—reacting quickly to explore key issues for policy, practice and research with the school
barometer. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(2), 237–270. doi:10.100711092-
020-09322-y PMID:32837626
Imran, N., Aamer, I., Sharif, M. I., Bodla, Z. H., & Naveed, S. (2020). Psychological burden of quaran-
tine in children and adolescents: A rapid systematic review and proposed solutions. Pakistan Journal of
Medical Sciences, 36(5), 1106–1116. doi:10.12669/pjms.36.5.3088 PMID:32704298
Isumi, A., Doi, S., Yamaoka, Y., Takahashi, K., & Fujiwara, T. (2020). Do suicide rates in children and
adolescents change during school closure in Japan? The acute effect of the first wave of COVID-19
pandemic on child and adolescent mental health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 110(2), 104680. doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2020.104680 PMID:32847679
Kelland, K. (2020). The new coronavirus: key terms explained. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
health-coronavirus-terms-explainer-idUSKBN21I1PQ
Kopp, M., Gröblinger, O., & Adams, S. (2019, March 11–13). Five common assumptions that prevent
digital transformation at higher education institutions. In INTED2019 Proceedings (pp. 1448–1457).
10.21125/inted.2019.0445
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Van Buuren, H. (2007). Measuring perceived sociability
of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176–192.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.004
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the potential
impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 549–565.
doi:10.3102/0013189X20965918
Levinson, M., Cevik, M., & Lipsitch, M. (2020). Reopening Primary Schools during the Pandemic. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 383(10), 981–985. doi:10.1056/NEJMms2024920 PMID:32726550
383

Lieberman, A. F., Chu, A., Van Horn, P., & Harris, W. W. (2011). Trauma in early childhood: Empirical
evidence and clinical implications. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 397–410. doi:10.1017/
S0954579411000137 PMID:23786685
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical Principles of Distance Education,
1, 22-38.
Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unravelling the complexities of distance education student attrition.
Distance Education, 20(1), 96–108. doi:10.1080/0158791990200108
National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. (2020). Notice on strengthening psycho-
logical assistance and social work services in response to the new crown pneumonia epidemic. http://
www.nhc.gov.cn/jkj/ s3577/202003/a9b0bcb3bb7445298c480c5003c51d6d.shtml
OECD. (2020). Education Responses to COVID-19: Embracing Digital Learning and Online Collabora-
tion. https://read.oecdilibrary.org/view/?ref=120_1205448ksud7oaj2&title=Education_responses_to_Co-
vid-19_Embracing_digital_learning_and_online_collaboration
Orgilés, M., Morales, A., Delvecchio, E., Mazzeschi, C., & Espada, J. P. (2020). Immediate psychological
effects of the COVID-19 quarantine in youth from Italy and Spain. Frontiers in psychology. Retrieved
January 27, 2021, from https://psyarxiv.com/5bpfz/
Phirangee, K. (2016). Exploring the Role of Community in Online Learning [Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation]. University of Toronto/ Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Canada.
Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2021). ‘Homeschooling in times of corona’: Exploring Mexi-
can and German primary school students’ and parents’ chances and challenges during homeschooling.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(1), 35–50. Advance online publication. doi:10.108
0/08856257.2021.1874152
Redmond, T. (2010). The Teacher’s Role in Enforcing Hand Washing Techniques Among School-Aged
Children in the Midst of the H1N1 Pandemic. Perspectives In Learning, 11(1), 10.
Ren, X. (2020). Pandemic and lockdown: A territorial approach to COVID-19 in China, Italy and the
United States. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 61(4-5), 423–434. doi:10.1080/15387216.2020.1
762103
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1), 1–16. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79

Sprang, G., & Silman, M. (2013). Posttraumatic stress disorder in parents and youth after health-related
disasters. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 7(1), 105–110. doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.22
PMID:24618142
STATISTA. (2020). Proportion of selected age groups of world population in 2020, by region. https://
www.statista.com/statistics/265759/world-population-by-age-and-region/
384

UNESCO. (2020). Why the world must urgently strengthen learning and protect finance for education.
https://en.unesco.org/news/why-world-must-urgently-strengthen-learning-and-protect-finance-education
UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank. (2020a). What have we learnt? Overview of findings from a
survey of ministries of education on national responses to COVID-19. https://data.unicef.org/resources/
national-education-responses-to-covid19/
UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank. (2020b). Survey on National Education Responses to COVID-19
School Closures, round 2. http://tcg.uis.unesco.org/survey-education-covid-school-closures/
UNICEF. (2020a). How many children and young people have internet access at home? https://data.
unicef.org/
UNICEF. (2020b). COVID-19 and its implications for protecting children online https://unicef.at/
fileadmin/media/News/Pressemeldungen/2020/COVID19_and_its_implications_for_protecting_chil-
dren_online_Technical_note.pdf
Vessey, J. A., & Betz, C. L. (2020). Everything old is new again: COVID-19 and public health. Journal
of Pediatric Nursing, 52, A7–A8. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2020.03.014 PMID:32273143
Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home confine-
ment on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet, 395(10228), 945–947. doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(20)30547-X PMID:32145186
Zhou, S. J., Zhang, L. G., Wang, L. L., Guo, Z. C., Wang, J. Q., Chen, J. C., Liu, M., Chen, X., & Chen,
J. X. (2020). Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of psychological health problems in Chinese
adolescents during the outbreak of COVID-19. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(6), 749–758.
doi:10.100700787-020-01541-4 PMID:32363492
KEY-TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Counseling and Guidance Activities: These refer to activities that aim to support students’ social-
emotional learning focusing on emotions, goal setting, self-esteem, motivation, self-efficacy, anxiety,
learning skills and strategies, awareness interests and skills, anger management.
Psychosocial Well-Being: The term refers to a person’s physical, economic, social, mental, emotional,
cultural and spiritual well-being.
Transactional Distance: Different from physical or temporal distance, transactional distance refers
to the psychological or communicative space between learner and the teacher in a structured and planned
learning environment.
385
386
Chapter 20
Empowering Teachers Who
Work in Inclusive Practices:
E-Coaching
Cigdem Uysal
Sunagul Sani-Bozkurt
Gulden Bozkus-Genc
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9444-7393
Hasan Gurgur
ABSTRACT
Taking into account the efects of integration practices and the coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic, e-
coaching, which handles distance education practices and coaching approach together, came to the fore.
With the global epidemic of COVID-19, new ones have been added to the professional competencies of
teachers working in integration practices. In this respect, this chapter discusses the professional compe-
tencies of teachers working in integration practices and the competencies that they should have in order
to use technology and emergency distance education applications. In addition, new approaches have
been brought to the agenda with the efect of the epidemic in order to improve the emerging competen-
cies of teachers and to strengthen teachers. Thus, in the new world, e-coaching, which handles distance
education practices and coaching approach together, has become important. As a result, it is aimed to
address the e-coaching approach, which ofers a hybrid perspective to empower teachers working in
integration environments in the context of their emerging new competencies.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch020

Empowering Teachers Who Work in Inclusive Practices
INTRODUCTION: INCLUSIVE PRACTICES
Describe the general perspective of the chapter. End by specifically stating the objectives of the chapter.
Inclusive practices are a topic on the international agenda. With the stress laid upon the concept educa-
tion for all in inclusive practices, full participation and equality of opportunity are aimed by including
individuals who have special needs or have different religions, languages, races, genders, socio-economic
levels, lives, backgrounds, beliefs, etc. and different needs in education (UNESCO, 2005). In our schools
and classes, which are the reflection of our society, there are individual differences among students in
the above-mentioned terms. As a result of investigating how quality education can be given to involve
all students by paying attention to student diversity in classes, the inclusive pedagogy approach has
emerged (Wilde & Avramidis, 2011).
Inclusive pedagogy aims to reach what is appropriate for all children instead of creating learning
opportunities and using teaching and learning strategies suitable for most of the children or the average
to include children in the general educational life (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Florian & Rouse,
2009). Moreover, it focuses on the belief that all children develop and learn and can do what they cannot
with the adaptations in teaching and learning processes. It is expressed as refusing to separate children
as per their learning abilities and the type of their disabilities and requiring using various strategies and
formative evaluation techniques to support all children’s learning (Florian & Beaton, 2018). Inclusive
pedagogy is defined as an approach in which teachers and students work together to create a supportive
environment emphasizing social justice and equality of opportunity (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012).
In brief, inclusive pedagogy can be said to focus on what will be taught and how it will be taught rather
than reviewing children who have difficulty in learning over in competencies and concentrating on what
will be learned. Finally, it is emphasized that such an approach should be supported by an approach that
is adapted to classes and includes providing rich learning opportunities.
Teachers need to adopt a student-centered pedagogical approach that attaches importance to individual
differences among students and students’ characteristics, learning styles, and abilities (Florian, 2010;
Kershner, 2009). Additionally, it should be questioned what knowledge and skills are required for teach-
ers to work with diverse students in inclusive classes (Abu El-Haj & Rubin, 2009; Florian & Linklater,
2010). Diversity and individual differences of students in the classes of teachers who work in inclusive
practices have brought about new professional competencies and pedagogical approaches for teachers.
Competencies of Teachers Who Work in Inclusive Practices in the 21st Century
Teachers are the main elements of the educational process. The effect of this process is observed with the
preparation, knowledge, skills, and performance of teachers. It is stated that the professional competencies
of teachers depend on three areas, namely, knowledge, skill, and attitude (Nessipbayeva, 2012). Particular
importance is attached to some of the competencies of teachers so that students can receive education in
compliance with 21st-century skills. Therefore, it is stressed that teacher competencies should include
21st-century skills (Brun & Hinostroza 2014). The 21st-century teachers should be leaders, participa-
tors, educators, collaborators and guides and addressed as good leaders, good observers, and effective
guides who can organize teaching and learning processes rather than people who only present contents
to students and evaluate them (Brun & Hinostroza 2014; Kim et al., 2013; Sulaiman & Ismail, 2020).
Teaching skills also include the use of technology, pedagogical skills, communication and cooperation
skills (Crompton, 2017).
387

The professional competencies of teachers are related to their possession and practice of the knowl-
edge and skills that they support with their professional values (Florian & Linklater, 2010). Attitude,
knowledge, and skill are the three elements exhibited by teachers in practice in classes and constitute
the framework of teachers’ competencies (Department of Education and Training, 2014; Forlin, 2001;
Rouse, 2008). In another classification, teacher competency is described as knowledge, skills, self-
concept and values, personal characteristics and motives (Sulaiman & Ismail, 2020; Tucker & Cofsky,
1994). UNESCO (2018) addresses the development of teachers under three successive headings in the
UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teacher by emphasizing teacher competency in the context
of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) competency. These headings consist of
knowledge acquisition, knowledge deepening, and knowledge creation. Teacher competencies and roles
can be observed in a wide range in Table 1.
Table 1. The UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers
Knowledge
Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge Deepening
Creation
Understanding ICT in
Policy understanding Policy application Policy innovation
Education
Curriculum and Assessment Basic knowledge Knowledge application Knowledge society skills
Pedagogy ICT enhanced teaching Complex problem solving Self-management
Application of Digital Skills Application Infusion Transformation
Organization and
Standard classroom Collaborative groups Learning organizations
Administration
Teacher Professional
Digital literacy Networking Teacher as a model innovator
Learning
Source: UNESCO, 2018
These competencies and roles expected to be possessed by teachers are also included in inclusive
pedagogy. However, some additional competencies come to the fore in inclusive pedagogy. It is asserted
that the idea that a problem may lie in teaching rather than learning if a student is experiencing learning
problems may come into play with the adoption of inclusive pedagogy (Florian, 2015; Florian & Black-
Hawkins, 2011). Accordingly, the selections made by teachers affect the learning process. It is expressed
that a constant and innovative viewpoint is required to accompany the basic competencies of teachers
for their professional development. It is suggested that teachers can reinforce their professional positions
when they adopt and apply their competencies, which emerge in line with inclusive pedagogy. At this
point, the first question that comes to mind can be, “What are the teacher competencies emphasized
in inclusive pedagogy?” This question can be answered by examining the conducted studies in related
literature (Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education,
2010; Florian & Beaton, 2018; Lee & Recciha, 2016; Van Laarhoven et al., 2007). Accordingly, some
answers can be listed as follows:
• Accepting each student as a diferent individual and a part of a whole by revealing the student’s
strengths,
388

• Believing that all students can learn and succeed, determining targets suitable for all children and
supporting children to reach those targets,
• Receiving children’s opinions while taking in-class decisions and creating a positive classroom
climate,
• Encouraging students to respect individual diferences,
• Providing interaction-based and sensitive learning environments where students can explore
learning together,
• Planning and reviewing learning and teaching activities together with students, sharing and deter-
mining the course purposes and outputs with students,
• Using diferent teaching approaches, methods and techniques such as collaborative learning, small
and large group teaching, universal learning design, and diferentiated instruction,
• Making adaptations in teaching and course materials,
• Preparing, implementing, evaluating and reviewing the Individualized Education Program (IEP),
which is a roadmap for observing the development of students with special needs, together with
the team,
• Collaborating with the family, school management, other teachers, specialists, and students,
• Using course equipment and materials addressing diferent senses and learning styles,
• Using technology,
• Knowing the individual and developmental characteristics of students,
• Recognizing and using assistive technologies that can support students with special needs in the
class,
• Making formative evaluations, providing students with opportunities for self-evaluation and re-
fection via self-evaluation.
As can be seen, as a result of the developing and changing world, quality educational quests, use of
new technologies, new teacher competencies, new pedagogical approaches, new learning and teaching
methods are also arising in the field of education (UNESCO, 2018). During the investigation of teacher
competencies regarding inclusive pedagogy, our world was shaken by another phenomenon, and the
COVID-19 pandemic emerged. With this pandemic, a need has appeared for emergency remote education
practices (Alvarez, 2020; Bond, 2020; Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a, 2020b; Toquero, 2020), and another
dimension has been added to new professional competencies and pedagogical approaches.
A New Dimension in the Competencies of Teachers Who Work in

Inclusive Practices: The Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic
The suspension of face-to-face education in schools worldwide due to the prevalence of the COVID-19
pandemic has substantially influenced many students and teachers in a lot of countries. It has transferred
face-to-face education and teaching processes to distance education. It has redefined the boundaries of
teaching experiences of teachers and learning experiences of students, concepts of classroom and school,
learning environments, teacher and family roles and brought about a new dimension (United Nations,
2020).
This sudden and unexpected transition is said to have revealed situations such as the insufficiency of
the infrastructure of online learning environments, the inexperience of teachers, incompetencies in the
technological content knowledge, deficiency in online learning sources and brought forth the transforma-
389

tion of the home environment into a learning environment and a change in the family role in the student’s
learning (Hollweck, & Doucet, 2020; Supriyanto et al., 2020). Therefore, teacher competencies, which
have already been questioned in education and teaching process and inclusive practices, have started
to be questioned again with the pandemic. Teacher competencies, such as the use of technology, col-
laboration, diversification and differentiation of learning environments, course equipment, and learning
methods, which used to be emphasized in learning and teaching processes and inclusive practices, are
no longer additional competencies; they have become requirements with the pandemic. According to
the literature, the following emergencies are mentioned when the knowledge and skills that need to be
possessed by teachers in line with their competencies during the pandemic are considered (Abrams, &
Von Frank, 2013; Aliyyah et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2020; Sahlberg, 2020):
• Having knowledge of the environments where teaching will be carried out and being able to inte-
grate teaching into these environments,
• Thinking more critically on the curriculum, adopting an individualized approach that is oriented
by the student and which the student will be competent in,
• Seeking creative and new ways of presenting the teaching content and making it attractive,
• Enabling students to refect and evaluate themselves,
• Possessing and using information and communication technologies skills and digital competencies,
• Using appropriate teaching materials, tools, and technologies,
• Being able to integrate classroom management skills into online environments,
• Guiding and collaborating with families, besides students, intensively with the change in the edu-
cator role of families,
• Collaborating with students in sharing the teaching and guiding students in structuring their own
teaching,
• Having the crisis management skills,
Teachers’ need for a serious support regarding how they will possess this knowledge and skills and
how they will carry out an educational process, which has been already difficult for them during the
normal educational processes and involves the whole class, with distance education. Since the feeling
of competency and peace of the teacher and student is closely connected with the teaching and learn-
ing process, it is important to provide support for the welfare of both students and teachers and to pay
attention to their individual needs (Allen et al., 2020; Shirley et al., 2020). In conclusion, teachers need
to be empowered to support their personal and professional development based on student and teacher
competencies and enhance their professional qualifications. As a dimension of emergency distance edu-
cation, emergency teacher empowering environments and programs should be taken into consideration.
EMPOWERING TEACHERS IN THE POST COVID WORLD
In this part of the book section, it is emphasized that teachers have become the most important factor for
quality with the popularization of inclusive practices. The most significant dimension brought about by
these practices consists of the new roles and responsibilities of teachers. These roles and responsibilities
have brought about the requirement for teachers to have competencies in different fields. On the other
hand, Covid-19 pandemic that appeared in December 2019 has spread to the whole world, face-to-face
390

education has been interrupted, and the education and teaching process and inclusive practices have
gained a different and new dimension. At this point, the new competencies of teachers and thus the
concept of teacher empowerment come to the forefront.
In the literature, empowering is defined as supporting and encouraging employees to increase their
skills at work and ensuring the development of their self-confidence by giving them freedom in their
work (Balyer et al., 2017; Kıral, 2019; Lee & Koh, 2001). Conger and Kanungo (1988) define empow-
ering as giving energy and strength to employees. In this sense, the concept of teacher empowerment is
explained as the activities performed for teachers to make teachers willing to work in school and non-
school environments and to help them achieve the goals of the education and training process (Barko,
2004; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Kıral, 2019). Empowering teachers, including teachers in the decisions
made on educational processes, and creating the “awareness of we” in the educational dimension are
important (Devos et al., 2014). Moreover, it is also added that a team can be comprised of teachers, the
team spirit can be formed, and collaboration can be enhanced through empowering (Moye et al., 2005;
Moran, 2015). Furthermore, it is explained that teachers will develop their competencies and explore their
potentials and boundaries by questioning themselves positively via the empowering of teachers (Bogler,
& Nir, 2012; Kimwarey et al., 2014). Thus, it is stressed that they will be encouraged for professional
and personal development, such as in-service training, when required with interaction and communica-
tion set in every dimension of the education and teaching process. In other words, teachers’ desires and
motivations for professional development will increase with the positive atmosphere that may emerge
among teachers (Devos et al., 2014; Kıral, 2019; Kimwarey, Chirure, & Omondi, 2014).
In the context of teacher empowerment, professional development is described as a process that sup-
ports the development of teachers’ knowledge, skills, values and attitudes in line with the innovations in
the field of education to provide effective learning and teaching environments (Orland-Barak, 2010). In
recent years, it has been aimed to ensure lifelong learning for teachers regardless of their potentials, ages,
and experiences so that they can adapt to rapidly and continuously developing academic and technological
innovations (Hunzicker, 2011; Mc Kee, & Eraut, 2012). To achieve this goal, professional development
approaches focused on individual needs, in which teachers determine their own developmental needs
in line with the view of empowering and are supported one-to-one by an experienced person, are sug-
gested instead of the short-term seminars held with large groups (Jovanova-Mitkovska, 2010; Kuijpers
et al., 2010).
Due to teachers’ need for professional development, investigations continue in the literature regarding
how this development can be ensured in the most effective way (Obara, 2010; Orland-Barak, 2010). In
this respect, there have been research outcomes in recent years, indicating the criticisms on the short-term
professional development activities such as seminars and certificate programs held with large groups as
they have negative aspects, particularly like offering a limited interaction opportunity (Orland-Barak,
2010). Accordingly, depending on the adequacy of the studies, collaboration-based, continuous and
systematic, individual-focused professional development approaches are mentioned in the literature
(Glickman et al., 2011; Hunzicker, 2011).

As a professional development approach, coaching is defined as the transfer of knowledge and skills
from an experienced teacher to a less experienced teacher (Hunzicker, 2011; Onchwari, & Keengwe,
2008). In the literature, it is stated that the coaching approach is effective in teachers’ sharing their
experiences related to teaching skills with each other, planning together and sharing their perspectives
on teaching with each other (Lowenhaupt et al., 2013). In their research examining the findings of five
studies that focused on the coaching approach, Veenman and Denessen (2001) aimed to determine the
391

contributions of the coaching approach to the professional development of teachers who were included
in the process. The researchers revealed that the professional development process based on the coach-
ing approach made contributions to the empowerment of teachers in the professional sense. Besides,
the process based on the coaching approach was found to develop teachers’ reflection (self-evaluation)
and analytical thinking skills and to be effective in improving their education and teaching planning and
execution processes further (Veenman & Denessen, 2001).
As can be seen, it is mentioned in the related literature that empowering teachers, thus their professional
development is important, especially for enhancing the quality of the education and teaching processes,
and many models and approaches for professional development are discussed. Among these models, the
coaching approach is the most used model. However, at this point, it should be remembered that these
definitions and explanations related to the concept of teacher empowerment mostly belong to the periods
when education used to be given physically in school environments and face-to-face. Nowadays, when
education and teaching processes have been transferred to online environments, it is known that teacher
empowerment based on professional development has also been transferred to online environments. These
activities can be stated as online seminars, webinars, conferences, certificate programs, and courses via
different social media or applications. Accordingly, discussions are still held intensively regarding how
teacher empowerment, thus, professional development activities, and e-coaching in this context, will be
carried out during and after the pandemic period, which has been on the agenda for a year now.
ELECTRONIC COACHING (E-COACHING)
The extensive use of the internet due to the current chaos in the world, together with COVID-19, has
deeply influenced our society and changed inclusive educational environments. To overcome this chaos,
there has been a need for developing new practices. It is assumed that innovative approaches such as
e-coaching can be helpful for the adaptation of people to the constant change in the world, which is
becoming more and more complicated due to COVID-19 (Ribbers & Waringa, 2015). In this process,
which has been transferred to online environments, we come across the coaching approach briefly as
e-coaching more frequently.
E-coaching is also known as online coaching, remote coaching, web coaching, digital coaching,
distance coaching, and virtual coaching. E-coaching is defined as participation held in both analog and
digital ways with a time- and space-independent learning and thinking process (Ribbers & Waringa,
2015). E-coaching is separated into different types on the basis of the communication channel used. These
types consist of chat coaching (via a chat program), video coaching (via a video link), using a webcam,
SMS coaching (via text messages), telephone coaching (by phone), e-mail coaching (via e-mail), and
Skype coaching (the combination of Voice over the Internet and webcam) (Ribbers & Waringa, 2015).
E-Coaching in the Inclusive Environments
As a result of the interruption of children’s education and parents’ taking their children’s educational
responsibilities with distance education besides their existing responsibilities at home and the increase
in the expectations from parents with respect to their educator roles under changing conditions in the
pandemic process, they are feeling unconfident, lonely, and abandoned. Moreover, it is expected from
children and families who receive a specialist’s support from relevant institutions in many subjects (e.g..,
392

social-communication, self-care, professional, psychological, etc.) to have higher levels of stress and
experience social support insufficiency (Altable et al., 2020; Bakér-Ericzen et al., 2005; Stankovic et al.,
2020). In line with this, the insufficiency of the support provided to families, their feeling of despair, and
various difficulties become more prominent during the pandemic and emergency (Huremović, 2019).
Therefore, it is stated that providing safety and peace for families by cooperating with families, therapists,
and teachers and creating new and functional approaches quickly so that they can adapt to the “new
normal” fast as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are significant (Tarbox et al., 2020). Considering
that the institutional interventions have completely changed in environments such as schools, hospitals,
and workplaces due to the COVID-19 pandemic, e-coaching has presented a new perspective on avail-
able services in the education and teaching environments. Therefore, electronic coaching or briefly e-
coaching, which is a flexible and accessible form of coaching, is a new type of coaching that is adapted
to new professional environments perfectly and is gaining popularity rapidly (Ribers & Waringa, 2015).
Teachers should continuously adapt to innovations and change to fulfil the changing needs of students
during their adaptation to the new world, where so much information is produced nowadays (Keefe,
2020; Keefe & Steiner, 2018). The shareholders who will mostly help students in the classes of teach-
ers in inclusive education environments and their families in matters they feel a need for are teachers.
To be able to help their students and families, teachers must learn throughout their professional lives,
develop and proceed. To this end, teachers need to collaborate with each other to use information and
communication technologies, which are among the most important skills required by the digital age,
efficiently and productively. In this context, it is extremely important for teachers experienced in digital
competency skills to convey their knowledge and skills to new beginners or less experienced teachers.
According to Zepeda (2017), peer coaching enables teachers to support each other, learn things from
each other, and have realistic discussions about the learning process of both themselves and their stu-
dents. An experimental study that examined a coaching model called MyTeachingPartner and involved
78 teachers (Sawchuk, 2011) showed that the students of a teacher who shared the video records of his/
her courses with the teaching coach and received specific feedback achieved more acquisitions than the
students of the teacher who did not participate in the coaching practice. According to DeMonte (2013),
the coaching approach is more effective when it is implemented in the long term, teachers collaborate,
and the lesson held by the teacher is observed by the coach, and the observation results are analyzed
and discussed. These aspects require the specialization of the coach, and a coaching process without
adequate specialization will not be effective. Therefore, for effective coaching, it is necessary to possess
the knowledge and skills required for coaching within the professional development activities based on
teacher empowerment. Since approaches such as peer and colleague coaching within the professional
development activities have now extended beyond the use of online technology by today’s society, it
is significant to evolve towards e-coaching to adapt to the new world. This is because e-coaching has
some advantages, which are different from coaching. These advantages include the support of a coach
for more than one person and practical limitations related to location, timing, and costs (Anthony et al.,
2013; İlğan, 2020). E-coaching sessions can also be recorded and archived to be watched later (Rossett
& Marino, 2005).
Although e-coaching is rather used in working environments, its use has been gradually expanded to
provide continuous, employed professional development for newly beginning teachers in recent years
(Rock et al., 2009; Vavasseur & MacGregor, 2008). E-coaching has been associated with the developed
content knowledge of teachers, changes in the teaching practice, and increasing student participation
(Rock et al., 2009). Thus, this changing situation requires teachers to be prepared for thinking proac-
393

tively, planning and determining strategies due to the continuing shut-downs during the pandemic and
uncertainties in the future.
In the context of inclusive education, it is essential for teachers to improve their e-coaching skills to
include all disadvantageous students in the process. Teachers who support differences between learners
in inclusive education can enrich teaching by using e-coaching as an innovative movement. Besides, as
a way of reaching all students, especially the ones with disadvantages, teachers should pay attention to
the needs of all students in their plans about e-coaching and use the current technology effectively in
these plans. Accordingly, some suggestions can be made for more effective use of the e-coaching ap-
proach by teachers. Teachers can:
• attend pre-service and in-service training on the improvement and use of e-coaching skills,
• adapt the colleague coaching, peer coaching and school-based coaching approaches to e-coaching
within the professional development activities,
• use the peer e-coaching approaches with individual or small group arrangements to create an
inclusive classroom,
• make emergency action plans including school-based e-coaching approaches for extraordinary
cases,
• form a repository of supportive contents and materials belonging to each school in a sufcient
quality and amount so that everyone can access them in online environments,
• develop practices and supports based on dual interaction in online environments,
• plan remote family counseling and applied family training.
CONCLUSION
Diversity and individual differences of students in the classes of teachers who work in inclusive practices
have brought about new professional competencies and pedagogical approaches for teachers. Inclusive
pedagogy is an approach in which teachers and students work together to create a supportive environment
emphasizing social justice and equality of opportunity. As a result of the developing and changing world,
quality educational quests, the use of new technologies, new teacher competencies, new pedagogical
approaches, new learning and teaching methods have emerged in the field of education. The suspension
of face-to-face education due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has influenced the whole world, has
brought a new and different dimension to the education and teaching process. At this point, the new
competencies of teachers and thus the concept of teacher empowerment have come to the forefront.
It is mentioned that teachers will develop their competencies and explore their potentials and bound-
aries by questioning themselves positively via teacher empowerment (Devos et al., 2014; Moran, 2015).
Nowadays, in a world where so much information is produced, teachers need to learn throughout their
professional lives, develop and proceed, just like other professionals. In recent years, it has been aimed
to ensure lifelong learning for teachers regardless of their potentials, ages, and experiences so that they
can adapt to rapidly and continuously developing academic and technological innovations and unex-
pected situations. Due to teachers’ need for their professional development, investigations continue in
the literature regarding how this development can be ensured in the most effective way. Among the
professional development models, coaching is a commonly used approach. Today, when education and
teaching processes have been transferred to online environments, it is known that teacher empowerment
394

based on professional development has also been transferred to online environments. In this process,
which has been transferred to online environments, we come across the coaching approach briefly as
e-coaching more frequently. Considering that the institutional interventions have completely changed in
environments such as schools, hospitals, and workplaces due to the COVID-19 pandemic, e-coaching
presents a new perspective on available services in inclusive education and teaching environments. At
this point, e-coaching, which can be performed in both analog and digital ways with a time- and space-
independent learning and thinking process, can be considered an alternative approach for educators to
cope with the ongoing uncertainties with respect to long-term school shut-downs now and in the future.
When it comes to inclusive education, the peer or colleague e-coaching approach should be addressed
as a newly emerging topic. Education is one of the leading fields which should not be interrupted in
extraordinary cases such as a pandemic. From this aspect, it can be predicted that e-coaching, which
cannot be shaken even by the pandemic, and its global use in education in the future will increasingly
gain momentum.
REFERENCES
Abrams, J., & Von Frank, V. (2013). The multigenerational workplace: Communicate, collaborate, and
create community. SAGE Publications.
Abu El-Haj, T. R., & Rubin, B. C. (2009). Realizing the equity-minded aspirations of detracking and
inclusion: Toward a capacity-oriented framework for teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(3),
435–463. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2009.00451.x
Aliyyah, R. R., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin, A., Syaodih, E., Nurtanto, M., & Tambunan, A. R. S. (2020).
The perceptions of primary school teachers of online learning during the covid-19 pandemic period: A
case study in Indonesia. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(2), 90–109. doi:10.29333/ejecs/388
Allen, R., Jerrim, J., & Simms, S. (2020). How did the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic affect
teacher wellbeing? Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO). https://repec-
cepeo.ucl.ac.uk/cepeow/cepeowp20-15.pdf
Altable, M., de la Serna, J. M., & Gavira, S. M. (2020). Child and adult autism spectrum disorder in
COVID-19 Pandemic. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/ doi:10.31234/osf.io/kt3a4
Alvarez, A. J. (2020). The phenomenon of learning at a distance through emergency remote teaching
amidst the pandemic crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 127–143. http://asianjde.org/
ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/453
Anthony, A., Gimbert, B., & Fultz, D. (2013). The effect of e-coaching attendance on alternatively cer-
tified teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 277–299.
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/41519/
Baker-Ericzén, M. J., Brookman-Frazee, L., & Stahmer, A. (2005). Stress levels and adaptability in
parents of toddlers with and without autism spectrum disorders. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 30(4), 194–204. doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.4.194
395

Balyer, A., Özcan, K., & Yıldız, A. (2017). Teacher empowerment: School administrators’ roles. Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research, 17(70), 1–18. doi:10.14689/ejer.2017.70.1
Black-Hawkins, K., & Florian, L. (2012). Classroom teachers’ craft knowledge of their inclusive practice.
Teachers and Teaching, 18(5), 567–584. doi:10.1080/13540602.2012.709732
Bond, M. (2020). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living rapid
systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191–247. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4425683
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020a). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observa-
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020b). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to
Brun, M., & Hinostroza, J. E. (2014). Learning to become a teacher in the 21st century: ICT integration
in Initial Teacher Education in Chile. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 222–238.
Crompton, H. (2017). ISTE Standards for educators: A guide for teachers and other professionals. In-
ternational Society for Technology in Education.
DeMonte, J. (2013). High quality professional development for teachers: Supporting teacher training
and to improve student learning. Centers for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/
wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/DeMonteLearning4Teachers-1.pdf
Donnelly, V., & Watkins, A. (2011). Teacher education for inclusion in Europe. Prospects, 41(3), 341.
doi:10.100711125-011-9199-1
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2010). Teacher education for inclu-
sion: International literature review. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education:
Education and Culture DG Lifelong Learning Programme.
Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms: Key lessons for the professional
development of teacher educators from Scotland’s inclusive practice project. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 63(4), 275–285. doi:10.1177/0022487112447112
Florian, L. (2015). Conceptualising inclusive pedagogy: The inclusive pedagogical approach in action.
In J. Deppeler, T. Loreman, R. Smith, & L. Florian (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy across the curriculum
(pp. 11–24). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Florian, L., & Beaton, M. (2018). Inclusive pedagogy in action: Getting it right for every child. Interna-
tional Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(8), 870–884. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1412513

Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy
to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 369–386. doi:10.108
0/0305764X.2010.526588
Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education for
inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 594–601. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.003
396

Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational Re-
search, 43(3), 235–245. doi:10.1080/00131880110081017
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2011). Supervision and instructional leadership:
A developmental approach (9th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Hollweck, T., & Doucet, A. (2020). Pracademics in the pandemic: Pedagogies and professionalism. Journal
of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 295–305. https://www.emerald.com/insight/2056-9548.
htm
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional Devel-
opment in Education, 37(2), 177–179. doi:10.1080/19415257.2010.523955
Huremović, D. (2019). Introduction. D. Huremović (Ed.), Psychiatry of pandemics: A mental health
response to infection outbreak. Springer. https://doi.org/ doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15346-5
İlğan, A. (2020). Öğretmenler için etkili mesleki gelişim yaklaşımları ile bir model önerisi ve uygulama
yönergesi [Effective professional development approaches for teachers, a model suggestion and practice
guidelines]. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 11(21), 172–197.
Keefe, E. S. (2020). Learning to practice digitally: Advancing preservice teachers’ preparation via virtual
teaching and coaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 223–232.
Keefe, E. S., & Steiner, A. (2018). Remixing the Curriculum: The teacher’s guide to technology in the
classroom. Rowman & Littlefield.
Kershner, R. (2009). Learning in inclusive classrooms. In P. Hick, R. Keshner, & P. T. Farrel (Eds.),
Psychology for inclusive education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 52–65). Routledge.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology
integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Kıral, B. (2019). Eğitim yönetiminde öğretmen güçlendirme [Teacher empowerment in the educa-
tion method]. In N. Cemaloğlu & M. Özdemir (Eds.), Eğitim yönetimi [Education management] (pp.
627–737). Pegem.
Kuijpers, J. M., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Wubbels, T. (2010). An integrated professional development model
for effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1687–1694. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.021
Lee, Y. J., & Recchia, S. L. (2016). Zooming in and out: Exploring teacher competencies in inclusive
early childhood classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/0
2568543.2015.1105330
Lowenhaupt, R., McKinney, S., & Reeves, T. (2013). Coaching in context: The role of relationships in
the work of three literacy coaches. Professional Development in Education, 5, 740–757. doi:10.1080/1
9415257.2013.847475
Nessipbayeva, O. (2012). The competencies of the modern teacher. Bulgarian Comparative Education
Society, 148-154. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567059.pdf
397

Obara, S. (2010). Mathematics coaching: A new kind of professional development. Teacher Develop-
ment: An International Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development, 14(2), 241-251. http://dx.doi.
org/. doi:10.1080/13664530.2010.494504
Orland-Barak, L. (2010). Learning to mentor as praxis: Foundations for a curriculum in teacher educa-
tion. Springer.
Peters, M. A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Hwang, Y., Zipin,
L., Brennan, M., Robertson, S., Quay, J., Malbon, J., Taglietti, D., Barnett, R., Chengbing, W., McLaren,
P., Apple, R., Papastephanou, M., ... Burbules, N. (2020). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities
for universities post-Covid-19: An EPAT collective project. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–44.
doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655
Ribbers, A., & Waringa, A. (2015). E-Coaching: Theory and practice for a new online approach to
coaching. Routledge.
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Gable, R. A., & Zigmond, N. P. (2009). Virtual coaching for novice teachers:
Technology enables university professors to observe and literally whisper in the ear of a teacher during
instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 36–41. doi:10.1177/003172170909100209
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Howard, P. W., Ploessl, D. M., Maughn, S., Gable, R. A., & Zigmond, N. P.
(2009). See me, hear me, coach me. Journal of Staff Development, 30(3), 24–31.
Rossett, A., & Marino, G. (2005). If coaching is good, then e-coaching is. TD, 59(11), 46-49.
Rouse, M. (2008). Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education. Education
in the North, 16(1), 6–13.
Sawchuk, S. (2011). Teacher-coaching boosts secondary scores, study finds. Teacher Beat blog. http://
blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/08/teachercoaching_boosts_scores.html
Stankovic, M., Jelena, S., Stankovic, M., Shih, A., Stojanovic, A., & Stankovic, S. (2020). The Serbian
experience of challenges of parenting children with autism spectrum disorders during the COVID-19
pandemic and the state of emergency with the police lockdown. http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.2139srn.3582788
Sulaiman, J., & Ismail, S. N. (2020). Teacher competence and 21st century skills in transformation
schools 2025 (TS25). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3536–3544. doi:10.13189/
ujer.2020.080829
Supriyanto, A., Hartini, S., Irdasari, W. N., Miftahul, A., Oktapiana, S., & Mumpuni, S. D. (2020).
Teacher professional quality: Counselling services with technology in Pandemic Covid-19. Counsellia:
Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling, 10(2), 176-189. http://dx.doi.org/. doi:10.25273/counsellia.v10i2.7768
Tarbox, C., Silverman, E. A., Chastain, A. N., Little, A., Bermudez, T. L., & Tarbox, J. (2020). Taking
ACTion: 18 Simple Strategies for Supporting Children with Autism During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
https://doi.org/ doi:10.100740617-020-00448-5
Toquero, C. M. (2020). Emergency Remote Teaching amid COVID-19: The Turning Point. Asian Journal
of Distance Education, 15(1), 185–188. http://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/450
398

Tucker, S. A., & Cofsky, K. M. (1994). Competency-based pay on a banding platform: A compensation
combination for driving performance and managing change. The Journal of Total Rewards, 3(1), 30.
UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring Access to education for all. UNESCO. https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000140224
UNESCO. (2018). The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework For Teachers. UNESCO & Microsoft.
https://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/pluginfile.php/306820/mod_resource/content/2/UNESCO%20
ICT%20Competency%20Framework%20V3.pdf
United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. https://www.un.org/
development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_educa-
tion_august_2020.pdf
Van Laarhoven, T. R., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2007). A model for preparing
special and general education preservice teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Teacher Education,
58(5), 440–455. doi:10.1177/0022487107306803
Vavasseur, C. B., & MacGregor, K. S. (2008). Extending content-focused professional development
through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 517–536.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2008.10782519
Veenman, S., & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training studies. Educa-
tional Research and Evaluation, 7(4), 385–417. doi:10.1076/edre.7.4.385.8936
Wilde, A., & Avramidis, E. (2011). Mixed feelings: towards a continuum of inclusive pedagogies. Edu-
cation 3–13, 39(1), 83-101. http://dx.doi.org/. doi:10.1080/03004270903207115
Zepeda, S. J. (2017). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group.
Coaching: The service provided to help people/teachers achieve more effective results by targeting
a certain purpose, aiming to improve their leadership, management qualities and skills, professional
knowledge and skills, etc.
E-Coaching: The service held in both analog and digital ways with a time- and space-independent
learning and thinking process to improve various knowledge and skills by targeting a certain purpose.
Inclusive Education: The education that includes everyone, with non-disabled and disabled people
and all individuals with different needs learning together in educational environments.
Inclusive Pedagogy: A student-centered approach to teaching that focus on create an including and
engaging learning environment to all the students with different needs, backgrounds, learning styles,
and abilities in the classroom.
Learners With Special Needs: Learners who differ significantly from the level expected from their
peers in terms of individual characteristics and educational competencies for various reasons.
399

Teacher Competency: The knowledge, skills and attitudes required by teachers to fulfill the teaching
profession effectively and efficiently.
Teacher Empowerment: The practices that make teachers feel motivated, increase their confidence
in their knowledge and expertise, and enable them to do what they find appropriate and meaningful for
a certain purpose.
400
401
Chapter 21
Play Specialist-Based
Intervention in the
COVID-19 Era:
Crisis and Opportunities of Change
– An Experience From Italy
Giulia Perasso
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3265-3869
Porto dei Piccoli, Italy
Giulia Boldrini
Alice Maggiore
Chiara Allegri
Gloria Camurati
ABSTRACT
The present chapter provides insights about the play specialist-based intervention for children with a
wide range of pathologies. Telematic adaptations of pedagogical interventions are needed in order to
overcome the obstacles given by pandemic emergency and social isolation. The chapter ofers a literature
review around the role of the play specialist, providing defnitions, historical evolution, and outcomes
on children’s wellbeing. Plus, results from a research around parental wellbeing after the telematic play
specialist-based adaptation are displayed and discussed. Finally, qualitative outcomes from parent and
educator interviews over the telematic intervention are presented.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch021

Play Specialist-Based Intervention in the COVID-19 Era
INTRODUCTION
The Negative Impact of Covid-19 Restrictions on Italian Families: Could the

Implementation of Online Play Specialist Strategies Make a Difference?
On the first day of March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the status of pandemic. Since
then, Covid-19’s outbreak has reshaped the routines of families and children all over the world. In Italy,
restrictions began on February 23, 2020, to prevent the virus from spreading into other regions from
the area of Codogno (Lombardy, northern Italy) where the first case italian case of Coronavirus was
detected. Although the lockdown of Codogno, the virus rapidly spread across Italy until the Govern-
ment declared the status of national lockdown on March 11, 2020. The strategies to face pandemics have
brought restrictions on mobility, socialization, and behavior among adults, adolescents, and children (see
Italian Government, 2020). More specifically, cinemas, theaters, cultural centers, sport-centers, shops
not selling staple goods, and schools were closed.
Moreover, authorities are still imposing social distancing and home working to stop the contagion
(Lazzerini & Putoto, 2020) since Italy is severely suffering from the Covid-19 pandemic. As literature
stressed out, Italian families were affected by children’s irritability, regressive behaviors, and problems
in managing pre-existing behavioral, psychological, and physical difficulties (Pisano et al., 2020). Plus,
homeworking negatively impacted parenting as working mothers and fathers, daily struggling to fulfill
their professional responsibilities, reported problems to manage their sons at home (Colizzi et al., 2020;
de Girolamo et al., 2020).
By closing or reducing the time-schedule, Italian schools have redesigned the learning process and
children and adolescents’ social experience. School closure represents a disruption in youngsters’ learning
trajectories, while remote education challenges both students and teachers (Daniel, 2020). However, the
lack of data about the long-term effects of remote education makes it premature to determine whether it is
positively or negatively impacting students’ learning processes (Zimmerman, 2020). The literature high-
lights that this change may be harmful to children and adolescents with clinical conditions (e.g., autism,
special educational needs) and mental health issues since it disrupts the structured routine guaranteed
by school for learning and socialization (Bozkurt et al., 2020; Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a; Lee, 2020).
Lacking a school routine is also associated with a higher risk of weight gain in children and adolescents
(Rundle et al., 2020). Plus, the online environment is becoming the primary source of socialization
for most children and adolescents - often navigating without adults’ supervision - with a higher risk of
developing problematic internet use patterns (De Miranda et al., 2020; Dong et al., 2020). As stressed
out by Bozkurt and Sharma (2020b), the concept of ‘normality’ has been reshaped in individuals’ daily
life: smart-working and remote education are now part of the human’s routine, that can be defined as
‘the new normal’ and will have a long-term impact on the new generations.
Overall, according to previous studies over the impact of the SARS epidemic (2002-2004) and con-
temporary research over Covid-19 pandemic, depression, stress, irritability, anxiety, PTSD symptoms are
direct consequences of quarantine isolation across different age-ranges (Courtney et al., 2020; Hawryluck
et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2012).
Risks for the quality of the relationship between parents and children are also worth noticing. Eco-
nomic insecurity, lack of leisure time, low perceived social support are all consequences of Covid-19
restrictions and risk factors for parental burnout syndrome (Lindström et al. 2011; Sorkkila & Aunola,
2020). Parental burnout consists of emotional and physical fatigue related to the parent’s role, which
402

leads to considering interacting with the child as no more enjoyable, less engaging, and perceive a mas-
sive emotional distancing, psychosomatic complaints, and depressive symptoms (Roskam et al., 2017).
Parental burnout is also a predictor of children’s neglect and maltreatment, an issue that needs to be
appropriately addressed with preventive interventions (Mikolajczak et al., 2018).
During the Covid-19 months (i.e., from March 2020 national lockdown to present), parents have to
spend more time alone at home with their children since: (a) school’s timetable is reduced, (b) parents
are often recommended to work from home, (c) grandparents, aunts and uncles, and babysitters are
less engaged in family routine given the possibility of a mutual contagion. Defining barriers within the
family house between workspaces and children-spaces can be very challenging, depending on variables
associated with the family socioeconomic status (e.g., the house’s dimensions, the number of rooms,
the number of gardens). In this framework, parents of children in clinical conditions are more at risk of
developing burnout because the caregiver’s physical and psychological strain can become massive (e.g.,
autism, disabilities, intellectual disabilities, cancer, ADHD) (Arafa & Lamlom, 2020; Weiss, 2002).
These data underline the importance of professionals’ intervention to support children with physical or
psychological frailty during the Covid-19 era, providing them with a constant routine for learning and
socialization activities. This chapter proposes implementing an online adaptation of the Play Specialist
intervention model, addressing at ameliorating diverse aspects of the family life experiencing psycho-
social difficulties.
PLAY SPECIALIST-BASED INTERVENTION: WHO IS THE

PLAY SPECIALIST AND WHAT HE/SHE DOES?
Play Specialist (namely Healthcare Play Specialist in the UK and Certified Child Life Specialist in the
US) intervention can help families of children with clinical conditions facing the impact of Covid-19
norms and restrictions in their everyday life. Before analyzing how these professionals could support
families, it is essential to prioritize play specialists’ roles, aims, and responsibilities. Article 31 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child of the United Nations defines play as a right (Lundy, 2012) and
highlights the importance of play as a relief source among hospitalized and home inpatient children.
Playing is also recognized by different cultures and societies as a developmental parameter to evaluate
executive functioning, cognition, learning, and emotion (Koukourikos et al., 2015; Sutton-Smith, 1999).
Clinicians use play sessions with children with pathologies to catalyze the therapeutic change by increas-
ing positive coping strategies and resilience. Playing helps children with clinical conditions expressing
their inner self, sublimating negative emotions, learning empathy and moral judgment, ameliorating the
quality of the parent-child relationship (Drewes, 2006). The first insight about playing in the pediatric
hospital wards was given in the nineteenth century by two nurses: Nightingale, who stressed out the
potential of playing sessions, and then Erikson, who systemized playing sessions helping children to
adapt to the medical procedures (Francischinelli et al., 2012; Frauman & Gilman, 1989).
In the UK, the Play Specialist is a recognized health care professional by Healthcare Play Special-
ist Education Trust (HPSET), working with children, their families, and the hospital staff to develop
personalized play program for each child and adolescent. In the US, the same professionalism is offered
by the Child Life Specialist, certified by the Child Life Council. In Italy, the scenario is different: Play
Specialist has not been recognized yet by the Ministry of Health, and no-profit association spreads this
professionalism, normed by local administrations. However, the Italian health care system has not ac-
403

knowledged the Play Specialist’s professionalism yet. In Italy, Play Specialists offers both hospital-based
sessions but also home-based sessions. In fact, research suggests that the Play Specialists’ intervention
can also be implemented beyond the hospital context (e.g., with ASD children, alongside palliative
homecare of cancer patients, and with other specific medical conditions) (Arnaert & Wainwright, 2009;
Hubbuck, 2009; Sari, 2014).
Play Specialist’s intervention encompasses two main areas:
1. Medical play, which is specifically aimed at educating the children towards medical procedures;
2. Interactive or normative playing, art-activities, musical-activities to encourage the child’s com-
munication and creative skills;
Pet therapy and videogaming can be integrated in the approach to vehicle positive emotions and for
education purposes.
Evidence demonstrates the positive effect of Play Specialist’s intervention over children’s wellbeing,
ameliorating their coping strategies and reducing anxiety and stress levels (Gill, 2010; Li et al., 2016;
Moore et al., 2015; Ullan & Belver, 2019; Wong et al., 2018). In Italy, during the Covid-19 pandemic,
Play Specialist intervention strategies needed to be translated into the online environment (e.g., through
videocall platforms). As professionals working with children, educators using the Play Specialist strat-
egies are challenged to find new resources to engage children and adolescents, maintain a high level
of communication and closeness to the family, teach notions, and stimulate the youngsters’ learning
cognition (Bond, 2020).
AIMS OF THE PRESENT CHAPTER
The chapter aims to disseminate scientific knowledge about Play Specialists and its relevance in the
healthcare system at an international level. Given the restrictions experienced by Play Specialists in Italy
and the UK after the Covid-19 pandemic, the present chapters will focus on the crisis’ opportunities to
ameliorate the Play Specialist practice. In particular, the chapter will present three different methods:
1. A literature review will be conducted to define the Play Specialist intervention.

2. A quantitative study on a pioneering online adaptation of the Play Specialist’s intervention imple-
mented by Porto dei Piccoli charity (Genoa, Italy) will be presented. This adaptation was implemented
to reach the families through the internet environment (e.g., via Zoom, Skype, Teams, Meet). In
the light of a meta-analysis confirming the positive effects of web-based health interventions for
children with clinical conditions (Rantala et al., 2020), the Italian experience of the Telematic Play
Specialists’-based intervention (TPS) strengths, limitations, and future directions will be described.
3. A qualitative data collection will be illustrated, examining interviews with educators applying the
TPS method and parents of the participating children, comparing and discussing their experiences
before and during the Covid-19 pandemics.
404

Literature Review: The Play Specialist’s Intervention

Through the Lens of Research
Method
According to Roberts and Petticrew guidelines (2006), a literature review was conducted during November
2020. The following keywords and related synonyms «Play*» AND «Specialist*» AND «Child*» AND
«Hospital*» were inputted on Scopus, Pubmed, and Psychinfo. Six hundred ten publications resulted
(N=192 from Scopus, N=402 from Pubmed, N=16 from PsycInfo). After duplication removal (sub-
tracting N=109 sources), language screening to only include international English-written publications
(N=45), type of publication screening to only include peer-reviewed scientific publications (N=24),
two pertinence screening on the abstract (N=6) and the full-text (N=400), twenty-six publications have
undergone an inter-rater evaluation. Seventeen publications were finally included for the present review
under high inter-rater accordance (Cohen’s K =.89) (see Table 1).
Results
The selected publications cover a temporal range from 1974 to 2019, and they include three main topic
clusters: the role of the Play Specialist (encompassing aims, techniques, training), the historical evolu-
tion of the Play Specialist, and the benefits for the child. The three main topics will be described and
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Literature Review’s Discussion
The Role of Play Specialist in Literature

According to Harvey (1984), the Play Specialist completes a structured training path: the training’s focus
is on the specific value of playing in the hospital context. As a prerequisite, the individuals who approach
this training have completed a course of study of at least three years (BSc) in line with Lookabaugh and
Ballard (2018), or a Master’s (Metzger et al., 2013), in psychological or pedagogical subjects. The Play
Specialist has to know the child’s development milestones, the hospital environment, the implications
of hospitalization for the child, and the family (Harvey, 1984). The Play Specialist also needs to be able
to use diverse play techniques in the hospital environment for age-specific and diagnosis-specific cases.
Play Specialists structure play programs according to the age of the child. Beickert and Mora (2017)
state that the Certified Child Life Specialist approach is based on Erikson’s development stages. For
example, knowing the milestones of thinking that the child achieves with age helps the play specialist
anticipate the child’s misinterpretations regarding the vocabulary commonly used by doctors and nurses.
The simple phrase “Nurses take your vitals!” could be interpreted by a four-year-old as if hospital staff
may steal from him/her one of his/her vital parameters. In this case, the Play Specialist may focus on adapt-
ing the adult’s language to the child’s perspective by using the sentence “Nurses measure your vitals!”.
405

Table 1. Publications considered for the present review.
Author Year Journal Country Type

Lindqvist 1974 Pediatrician USA Focus Paper
Harvey 1984 Early Child Development and Care UK Focus paper
Rubin 1992 Children’s Health Care UK Review
Chambers 1993 Journal of Clinical Nursing UK Focus paper
Barry 2008 Journal of Diabetes Nursing USA Focus paper
Bandstra et al. 2008 The Journal of Pain Canada Survey Study
Gill 2010 Journal of Renal Nursing UK Focus Paper
Tanaka et al. 2010 Pediatric Nursing Japan Survey Study
Single Case
Metzger et al. 2013 Journal of Radiology Nursing USA
Study
Sherwood Burns Nader & Hernandez Reif 2014 Children’s Health Care USA Review
Grissom et al. 2016 Support Care Cancer USA Research paper
Beickert & Mora 2017 Pediatric Annals USA Review
Narumi & Yamamoto 2018 Children Japan Review
Lookabaugh e Ballard 2018 Journal of Child and Family Studies USA Survey Study
Single Case
Basak et al. 2019 Journal of Pain and Symptoms Management USA
Study
Goh et al. 2019 Nursing Children & Young People New Zeland Survey Study
Bottino et al. 2019 Clinical Pediatrics USA Survey Study
Regarding medical play, age plays an important role (Beickert & Mora, 201; Metzger et al., 2013). For
toddlers (under three years old), the games used are puppets and books appropriate for that age to create
scenarios that explain the diagnosis and the doctor’s role. Play Specialists induce a familiarization with
medical equipment in preschooler patients through creative activities (e.g., drawing, painting, coloring
material). A more detailed exploration of the medical environment can be implemented with school-
age children, for example, by showing children pictures of machines and instruments or inviting them
to produce drawings of what they expect from the upcoming medical exams. Finally, real exploratory
tours of the hospitals (for example, showing the MRI machine) and browsing explanatory websites are
the principal medical playing activities with teenagers.
Moreover, Sherwood Burns Nader and Hernandez Reif (2014) point out that the intervention of the
Play Specialist encompasses these main strategies:
• Normative Play, which conveys the message that the child can play in the hospital as he/she does
in well-known places, using everyday items that the child would use at home (books, board games,
drawing);
• Medical Play, which aims to help the child learn about health and familiarize himself/herself
with the hospital context (e.g., building reproductions of the doctor’s equipment with artistic
techniques);
406

A specific peculiarity of the Play Specialist, in the UK experience, is to take the intervention also
outside the hospital environment. Barry (2008) highlights the initiative of organizing house-visits and
experiential weekends for children who have diabetes to teach them how to manage the disease and
insulin administration beyond well-known places and develop a greater sense of mastery self-efficacy
on their health.
Survey studies design a more detailed Play Specialist profile (Bottino et al., 2019; Lookabaugh &
Ballard, 2018; Tanaka et al., 2010). The survey-study by Tanaka et al. (2010) collected the opinions of
ninety-one doctors and one hundred and thirty nurses on the beneficial potential of play to sick children.
73% of respondents reported playing with children for exam-preparation with distraction techniques
(reported by 77% of respondents), which are necessary to ensure that the child is relaxed during medi-
cal procedures.
According to Lookabaugh and Ballard (2018), the Play Specialist works in the hospital (as reported
by 93% of the 147 respondents) and interacts daily with sixteen patients per day. The main themes related
to the profession, in the study of Lookabaugh and Ballard (2018) are responsibility, growth, and passion;
at the same time, the areas of weakness reported by the Play Specialists are the concept of death, the
diagnosis, the need for more structured activities with parents, the need for more research supporting
the validity of the work of the play specialist.
Bottino et al. (2019) report that the Play Specialists are mainly women, of the average age of thirty-
four years, white, with at least ten years of experience, working mostly in the hospital context. 88% (from
a total of 110 respondents) report working on the strategies of coping of the pediatric patient, 84% on
family support, 73% with play therapy, 73% preparing the child to medical procedures, 44% on stress
management, and 39% of putting in place strategies of supervision over the child.
It is also noteworthy that, in line with data by Bandstra and colleagues (2008), the Play Specialists
receiving an official training certificate are the most likely to use intervention strategies based on evi-
dence from scientific research. Accordingly, the authors also emphasize the importance of collecting
data and measuring the Play Specialist’s intervention outcomes. Goh et al. (2019) highlight the need to
systematically document the Play Specialist’s work through a standardized data collection protocol so that
the information collected can be shared and discussed with medical personnel. The authors propose the
WISE format (Wellbeing, Interests, Strategies, Evaluation), a self-report sheet for an exhaustive collection,
potentially functional to corroborate the empirical research around the Play Specialist intervention results.
Historical Evolution of the Play Specialist in Literature

Metzger et al. (2013) state that Play Specialists began to work in English hospitals in the 1920s. The
authors also point out that Emma Plank established, in 1955, the first Child Life Program at the Mott
Children’s Hospital in Michigan.
Rubin (1992), while considering the vastness of synonyms in vogue between the ’60s and ’80s (pup-
pet lady, playing checkers, playing teacher, recreational therapist) to define this professional figure,
attributes the birth of this professionalism to two milestones in the field of infant nursing and devel-
opmental psychology. These books are Children in the Hospital (Bergmann, 1965) and Working with
Children in Hospital (Plank, 1971). The first, written by a close collaborator of Anna Freud, denotes
the psychoanalytic principles at the base of childhood play, highlighting the importance of introducing
these principles in the pediatric wards. Bergman’s idea was to provide a mental health kit to protect the
hospitalized pediatric patient’s psychological balance. The second book stressed out the Play Special-
407

ist’s need to work in synergy with the medical staff, for educational and recreational purposes, through
a structured plan, which Plank called the Child Life and Education Program.
Rubin (1992) also highlights the role of Mary Brooks (1970) in defining the Play Lady – which preceded
the play specialist - as a figure that is not only a recreational teacher but endowed with multidisciplinary
professionalism and ability to provide a structured, educational, and at the same time healing play pattern.
The Play Specialist Intervention Outcomes for the Child: Insights from Literature
When a child enters the hospital, the negative consequences on his/her biopsychosocial health could
be the following: regression at earlier stages of development, depression, withdrawal, sleep problems,
anxiety, hypochondria, all issues that can be addressed through the rehabilitative potential of playing
since the first step of the child into the medical setting (Chambers, 1993). Sherwood Burns Nader and
Hernandez Reif (2014) highlight that the play specialist’s intervention increases the child’s sense of
control by enhancing active coping. In this sense, the intervention is similar to a CBT program (Cogni-
tive Behavioral Therapy), where modeling and desensitization are implemented to temper the reactions
towards a stimulus eliciting anxiety (for example, the doctor), correlating it to positive emotions instead.
Among the other publications selected for this review, the impact of the intervention of the Play
Specialist on the child is described by the experiences reported in individual cases (Basak et al., 2019;
Metzger et al., 2013) and from one empirical study (Grissom et al., 2016). Metzger et al. (2013) report
a single case study in which Play Specialist intervention effectively reduced the child anxiety before
MRI-examination in an 8-year-old. In this case, anesthesia was not evaluated necessary by the radiolo-
gist before practicing the exam. Grissom et al. (2016) corroborate this data with a study on a sample of
n=116 children between 5 and 12 years suffering from the nervous system’s diseases. The Play Spe-
cialist’s intervention decreased the need to deliver anesthesia to the patients, leading to fewer physical
consequences for the children and significant savings for the hospital.
Basak and collaborators (2019) report that the Play Specialist intervention for a 14-year-old adolescent
with cancer was crucial in palliative care. Through a game called “Magic Aid Kit” the Play Specialist
conveyed to the patient a greater sense of mastery over the end-of-life experience. The inclusion of play
specialists in the palliative care of the terminal pediatric patient aims to create a supportive bond with
the family in the short and long term to provide parents with future information for the management of
the loss. Moreover, playing is a compensatory experience to provide the child with terminal cancer with
knowledge over natural elements (e.g., chemical transformations, trees, and gardens) and experience
emotional and cognitive states otherwise not accessible due to the disease conditions (Lindqvist, 1974).
Gill (2010) also documents a decrease in negative emotions of children hospitalized for kidney pa-
thologies. The author points out that such a decrease is possible through the Play Specialist’s interven-
tion, especially by recommending distraction techniques. Bandstra et al. (2008) document an increase in
pain management strategies of the child, as the Play Specialist intervention can effectively replace the
pharmacological intervention with behavioral (distraction, desensitization, medical coaching), physical

(positioning, massage, therapy, hot-cold), cognitive (breathing exercises, distraction, mental strategies,
imaginative, virtual reality), and complementary strategies (medical play, art therapy, use of music).
408

Table 2. Characteristics of participants.
TPS Group Control Group

N=33 (F=66%) N=33 (F=78%)
Parents mean age=43.36, SD=9.81 Parents mean age=41.84, SD=6.15
Children mean age=11.09, SD=4.01 Children with mean age=8.55, SD=4.77
Children diagnoses:
- ADHD (9%)
- Autism Spectrum Disorders (18%) Children diagnoses:
- Cytomegalovirus (3%) - ADHD (9%)
- Intellectual Disability (15%) - Autism Spectrum Disorders (9%)
- Muscular Dystrophy (3%) - Bardet-Biedl Syndrome (3%)
- Encephalomyelitis (3%) - Brugada Syndrome (3%)
- Hydrocephaly (3%) - Down Syndrome (6%)
- Hypoacusis (6%) - Cerebral palsy (3%)
- Genetic disease (9%) - Cancer (3%)
- Renal pathologies (6%) - Williams Syndrome (60%)
- Pluri-malformation (3%) - Plus, non-specified conditions.
- Tetra paresis (18%),
- Plus, non-specified conditions.
Quantitative Data: A Study on the Play Specialist-Based Telematic Intervention
Introduction
In Italy, the Covid-19 outbreak has hindered services like Play Specialist-Based intervention in the
hospital. The hospitals limited external individuals’ entrance into the pediatric wards. It is worth notic-
ing the Italian Health Ministry has not recognized the Play Specialists yet in the national healthcare
system. Although the regional administration of Liguria is has certificated the Play Specialist’s training
(promoted by Porto dei Piccoli charity that proposes a Play Specialist-based intervention since 2005),
the lack of official recognition in the hospital system hindered the entrance of these professionals into
hospitals during the pandemics. Covid-19 restrictions have lead to rethink Play Specialist-based strate-
gies through the online environment.
In other words, the Covid-19 crisis has become a challenge and an opportunity to redesign the play
specialist-based approach through videocalls on Zoom, Whatsapp, Skype, and Meet. Specifically, the fol-
lowing study has tested whether, in Italy, such telematic adaptation of Play Specialist-based intervention
– which reached the families under the name “The Sea on the web” (Perasso et al., 2020) - beneficially
influenced the life of families with a child suffering from medical conditions. The research tested if such
an online approach decreased parental burnout, stress, anxiety, depression, and children’s emotional and
behavioral problems (rated by the parents). Plus, it intended to test whether the approach increased the
social support perceived by the parent.
Method
Sample
The study compared sixty-six participants (Mean age=42.61, SD=8.15, F=72%): parents of children
participating in the telematic adaptation of play specialist intervention offered by Porto dei Piccoli (TPS
409

group, n=33) and parents of children not participating (Control group, n=33). The experimental group
consists of parents of children receiving Porto dei Piccoli support even before the pandemic outbreak.
Instead, the control group consists of parents of children with physical or psychological frailty enlisted
by an online announcement. The characteristics of the two groups are synthesized in Table 2.
Table 3. Significant effects from analysis of covariance.
Group Mean ANCOVA

Control (N=33) TPS (N=33) SS MS df F η2 p
Parent’s Stress 15.78(3.61) 7.24(4.1) 574.71 574.71 1 55.69*** .51 p<.001
Child Emotional
9.03(2.37) 6.97(2.55) 45.19 45.19 1 7.76** .12 .007
problems
Child conduct problems 8.01(1.52) 7.15(1.21) 9.88 9.88 1 5.41* .09 .02
Social Support 5.16(1.22) 5.93(0.98) 5.15 5.15 1 4.27* .07 .04
Parental Burnout 57.54(33.42) 40.66(13.84) 3158.56 3158.56 1 4.84* .08 .03
- Emotional distancing 6.54(3.51) 4.31(1.42) 36.15 36.15 1 4.62* .07 .03
- Fed-up 1.97(8.01) 8.12(3.08) 220.31 220.31 1 5.92* .09 .01
- Contrast with self 12.36(7.96) 8.31(2.71) 221.28 221.28 1 6.17* .10 .01
Note: Statistical significance at *=p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
Procedure
The recruitment took place in August and September 2020 (Perasso et al., 2020). All the participants
signed informed consent for their participation. Italian psychologists deontological code, Italian Psychol-
ogy Association ethical code, Italian law 56/98, and declaration of Helsinki were the ethical standards
followed for the present research.
Measures
Participants had to complete four self-report questionnaires. A transalted version of the Parental Burn-
out Assessment (PBA) (Roskam et al., 2017) was used to measure parents’ emotional distancing in the
interactions with the son, exhaustion related to the caregiving role, conflict with previous self - namely
perceiving themselves as a worse parent than before-, feeling fed up and not enjoying the parental role
anymore.
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) (Zimet et al., 1988) was admin-
istered to assess how parents perceived their family within a supportive network of relationships.
The Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) (Henry & Crawford, 2005) was used to
measure parents’ feelings of depression, anxiety, and stress (not strictly connected to caregiving).
Finally, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997) was administered
to investigate parents’ perception of children’s emotions and behaviors. In particular, the instrument
detects conduct problems, emotional problems, problems in the relationship with peers, hyperactivity,
prosociality, internalizing problems, externalizing problems.
410

Data Analyses and Results
Analyses of covariance were conducted to compare the TPS group with the control groups (see Table
3). In the analyses, the following variables’ effect was controlled: family type, socioeconomic status,
number of sons/daughters, parents’ age, child’s age.
The TPS group’s parents resulted less stressed, perceived higher social support, lower emotional
distancing from the child, lower contrast with other/previous self, less fed-up feelings, lower emotional
and behavioral child’s problems than the parents of the control group. Diverse insights emerged from
this study.
Quantitative Study’s Discussion
The study presented is one of the first to focus on Play Specialist strategies’ impact on parents. During the
Covid-19 pandemic, parents of children participating in a Play Specialist-based intervention’s telematic
adaptation experienced higher wellbeing than controls. Since the months of pandemic presented many
challenges to parents, especially in families with a vulnerable child, online support based on the Play
Specialist intervention’s telematic adaptation resulted crucial, as stated by previous research on telematic
support (Jurdi et al., 2020). From this perspective, it is essential to underline that, according to Spinelli
and colleagues (2020), parents’ and children’s wellbeing are correlated even more relevantly during the
pandemics. Providing children with a supportive telematic intervention indirectly also increases the
parent’s health. Another crucial finding regards the effectiveness of conducting an adaptation of Play-
Specialist intervention on the Internet environment with a broad range of pediatric patients (e.g., ASD,
ADHD, cytomegalovirus, intellectual disability, muscular dystrophy, encephalomyelitis, hydrocephaly,
hypoacusis, genetic disease, renal pathologies, pluri-malformation, tetra-paresis), extending the effec-
tiveness of this method beyond the hospital setting.
Insights From a Qualitative Survey
Method
Given the innovation of the play specialist intervention’s telematic adaptation, qualitative data from
interviews were also collected from: i. the parents of children who are directly participating to the tele-
matic sessions based on the play specialist intervention (N=7) ii. Porto dei Piccoli’s educators working
with children through the telematic adaptation of the Play Specialist intervention (N=6). After collecting
informed consent, parents and educators were administered an online survey (see Table 4).
411

Table 4. Survey items for qualitative data collections: all the questions were open-ended.
Questions for Parents

Please, indicate your son/daughter’s gender.
Please, indicate how old is your son/daughter.
Please, indicate your son/daughter’s diagnosis.
How long did you know Porto dei Piccoli before the telematic intervention?
What do you think about this new intervention?
Do you think it was useful for your son/daughter and your family?
What has changed from face-to-face interaction?
Could you explain what the benefits and the disadvantages of the telematic intervention are?
Questions for Porto dei Piccoli’s Educators
Please, indicate your gender.
Please, indicate how old you are.
How long have you been working for Porto dei Piccoli?
Describe how you work on the telematic environment, discussing your work aims, the advantages and the disadvantages.
From an educational perspective, do you think that telematic intervention can be useful?
What has changed from working face-to-face with the children and their families?
Data Analysis and Results from the Qualitative Survey
Seven (89% of mothers, mean age=42.28 years) completed the online survey. The majority reported
having daughters (89%) and knowing the Porto dei Piccoli association for at least five years (62%). Over-
all, the parents reported a wide range of children’s diagnoses (Down syndrome, quadriplegia, cerebral
palsy, genetic disease, autism, hearing impairment). Six Porto dei Piccoli educators (all females, mean
age=27.01) completed the online survey. The majority (65%) have been working at least for one year
with Porto dei Piccoli. Qualitative data are reported in Table 5.
Qualitative Results’ Discussion
Qualitative data revealed the positive and negative aspects of the telematic intervention. First of all, the
parents highlighted the intervention’s difficulties. One difficulty is that the parents have to participate as
facilitators in every online encounter between the child and the educator. In the face-to-face intervention,
in fact, the child-educator sessions constituted a moment for many parents to relieve and dedicate time
to other activities. Since the sessions are online, the parents have to participate more and directly help
them with creative activities and engage them in learning processes. However, the parents appreciated
several aspects of the telematic intervention, as the online environment is useful for maintaining a close
relationship between the educator and the family. Plus, in some cases, the operator’s presence has become
even more constant, with higher organizational flexibility than before. Finally, children are less alone
using video games as they are using the web in remote interaction with the educators.
412

Table 5. Extracts from parents and educators driven from the online survey.
Qualitative Data From Parents

“Given G.’s disease, a physically present person is essential because it encourages him to stay focused. When I come home, I usually rest,
but now I have to help G. maintaining attention with the video. Nevertheless, I’m happy because G. can play and have fun with music-
games.”
Mother of G., affected by ASD
“One obstacle is that in presence, you can work on many more things than me, you always do the wonderful creative jobs, which I cannot
do (laughs).”
Mother of A., affected by cerebral palsy
“We would very much like to see you again in person… It would mean that this horrible period is only a bad memory and that we can
finally return to the life of the past, as we knew it. However, I am also happy because, in this period, you have shown us that you are
always there for us, that we can count on you.”
Mother of S., affected by ASD and epilepsy
“A significant advantage is that you are always present for a call, even every day.”
Mother of T., affected by tetraplegia
“A positive aspect of these telematic sessions is that you are always present for a call, even every day… If we need company, we know we
can count on you. Plus, children are less alone in using the screen as they are remotely interacting with you.”
Mother of G., affected by ASD
Qualitative Data From Porto dei Piccoli Educators
“Working online and no longer in physical contact with children is a totally new and very different experience from how my colleagues
and I used to work. We had to find a new way to involve the children, we had to change our activities. For instance, I do not play with
the memory cards anymore or other activities I had invented for children, focusing more on musical activities. Anyhow, I think that
everything is more effective when the activities are done in the presence. Being physically close often gives more security to the child
but also to us. Plus, we have more choice in terms of activities to propose and surely communicating with children and family is easier in
person. Among the objectives that we set for ourselves daily, the first is definitely trying to be close to the child during the video calls as
if we were in the same room.”
D., educator of Porto dei Piccoli.
“Compared to the intervention in presence now the relationship is mediated by a screen and no longer direct and close, there is the
physical barrier of devices dividing us, but the force of empathy and relationship can undoubtedly break down such barriers. To carry out
activities, especially creative ones, we need more than before the parents’ collaboration to provide the necessary material, which before
was provided to the children by us. The passion and energy with which we daily workers dedicate ourselves to our children and their
families remain and will always remain the same.”
I., educator of Porto dei Piccoli.
“In the telematic environment is essential structuring the activities step-by-step. Firstly, we focus on the objective and on the preferential
channels to achieve it. Finally, we proceed to structure the activities. Therefore, each psycho-pedagogical intervention is flexible
and articulated after a careful analysis of the needs on a case-by-case basis. Flexibility is also important to offer play and didactic
activities. You work according to learning objectives designed to be achieved by using games. For example, alternative augmentative
communication is used mainly with children with ASD. Listening to stories and nursery rhymes for children with medical conditions,
music workshops, or the laboratories of cognitive offered online increase cognitive skills such as memory, learning, attention, shifting,
problem-solving, and neuronal plasticity. These activities are the same as they were the presence (in the hospital or at the child’s home).”
A., educator of Porto dei Piccoli.
“Working via the web allows us to organize our sessions in the best way possible, and to increase the number of hours dedicated to
families. Not having to move and travel to reach the family houses or the hospital helps to daily follow more children than before.”
F., educator of Porto dei Piccoli.
Data from the educators of Porto dei Piccoli also allow gathering more information about the telematic
experience. When Porto dei Piccoli educators were asked about how it is like working in the Internet
environment, the most salient information is that the lack of physical presence limits the range of activi-
ties proposed to the child. Moreover, the contact with the child is mediated by two critical variables: the
screen and the involvement of parents, which is strictly necessary. Notwithstanding these limitations,
the educators also highlight positive aspects. For example, the possibility of vehicle learning and cogni-
413

tive skills training to a wide range of children with clinical conditions has not changed in the telematic
environment. Additionally, educators stress out that the online environment allows them to work with
more children per-day than they did in presence.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present chapter presents three studies (a systematic review, a quantitative study, a qualitative study)
to propose the telematic Play Specialist-based intervention as a strategy addressed at supporting family
of children with medical conditions during the Covid-19 pandemic.
In the first place, the chapter aimed at defining the role of the Play Specialist in accordance with
evidence from a literature review of the literature. However, a Play Specialist’s unique definition has not
yet collected global scientific consensus, with the possibility of improper role overlaps and confusion
around such professional figures (Kihara, & Yamamoto, 2018; Tanaka et al., 2010). Moreover, the lack
of a unique definition negatively impacts the possibility of standardizing measures and concretizing
empirical research on the child’s and his/her family’s psychosocial health. Evidence from Randomized
Control Trials is required in this field to corroborate the effectiveness of Play Specialist intervention.
Nevertheless, the data by Bandstra et al. (2008) confirming that certified Play Specialists are the most
inclined to use evidence-based techniques demonstrate that official training procedures are scientifically
founded and updated. A solid scientific background constitutes an essential basis for facing the future
challenge of building empirical evidence around this professional.
The majority of the selected and discussed studies from this review depict the Play Specialist interven-
tion as located in the hospital. A minority emphasizes non-hospital located activity, encouraging to test
the Play Specialist approach beyond the pediatric wards. The Covid-19 crisis stresses out the necessity
to translate the Play Specialist approach online. In Italy, given the lack of institutional recognition for
the Play Specialist, we have tested the online adaptation of a play specialist-based intervention.
The quantitative study presented in this chapter focuses on the indirect effects of the telematic Play
Specialist-based intervention on parents since Covid-19 challenged many aspects of parenting, especially
in families with a child with physical or psychological frailty. As stated by previous research, online sup-
port can be crucial in ameliorating children’s wellbeing during pandemics (Jurdi et al., 2018; Rantala et
al., 2020). Plus, the parent’s and the child’s perception and wellbeing are entwined (Spinelli et al., 2020).
In accordance with this premise, this study demonstrated an increase in psychosocial health in parents
of children participating in the Play Specialist-based intervention’s telematic adaptation.
Finally, the chapter presents a qualitative study integrating information around the telematic Play
Specialist-based intervention’s positive and negative aspects throughout direct experiences and testi-
monies. Relevantly, both parents and educators revealed that the telematic modality consents greater
flexibility in time-scheduling the sessions than face-to-face encounters, guaranteeing a more constant
presence of the educators in children’s everyday lives. Such flexibility contributes to reducing the feel-
ings of isolation consequent to the pandemic.
As stressed out by Bond (2020), the covid-19 pandemic leads professionals working with children to
design or reshape their activities in the online environment, aiming at counteracting the perceived isolation
of youngsters, maintain closeness with the families, and engaging children and adolescents to interact
and learn. The telematic adaptation of the Play Specialist-based intervention successfully achieved such
aims. On the other hand, the Play Specialist-based intervention in the telematic environment presents
414

limitations (e.g., a restricted range of activities with the child, the lack of physical interaction, a neces-
sity to rely on parents to provide children with stimuli) that future empirical research should address.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The present chapter provides teachers, educators, experts in pedagogy, psychologists, pediatricians,
and parents of children with medical conditions with insights into structured play programs and how to
adapt them to the telematic environment. It is recommendable to parents, especially mothers and fathers
of children with physical, behavioral, or psychological frailty, to look forward for support in their daily
life routine, reshaped by pandemic outbreaks and related restrictions. Professionals in the psychological
and pedagogical field may provide effective supportive strategies through the online environment, as
demonstrated for the Play Specialist-based intervention strategies. At the same time, it is suggested that
professionals collect evidence from the online adaptations of pre-existing intervention models to under-
stand the advantages and disadvantages of the telematic adaptation. Finally, since the Play Specialist’s
professionalism is not recognized in Italy’s national healthcare system, the displayed evidence may draw
attention to this figure and on the urgency to nationally certify this professionalism.
REFERENCES
Arafa, S. M., & Lamlom, M. (2020). Burnout Syndrome in Caregivers of Children with ADHD. Arab
Journal of Psychiatry, 31(1).
Arnaert, A., & Wainwright, M. (2009). Providing care and sharing expertise: Reflections of nurse-specialists
in palliative home care. Palliative & Supportive Care, 7(3), 357–364. doi:10.1017/S1478951509990290
PMID:19788778
Bandstra, N. F., Skinner, L., LeBlanc, C., Chambers, C. T., Hollon, E. C., Brennan, D., & Beaver, C.
(2008). The role of child life in pediatric pain management: A survey of child life specialists. The Journal
of Pain, 9(4), 320–329. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.11.004 PMID:18201933
Barry, E. (2008). The role of the Hospital Play Specialist in paediatric diabetes management. Journal
of Diabetes Nursing, 12(1), 26.
Basak, R. B., Momaya, R., Guo, J., & Rathi, P. (2019). Role of Child Life Specialists in Pediatric
Palliative Care. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 58(4), 735–737. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsym-
man.2019.05.022 PMID:31195077
Beickert, K., & Mora, K. (2017). Transforming the pediatric experience: The story of child life. Pediatric
Annals, 46(9), e345–e351. doi:10.3928/19382359-20170810-01 PMID:28892551
Bergmann, T. (1965). Children in the hospital. New York International University Press.
415

Bottino, C. J., Daniels, A., Chung, M. E., & Dumais, C. (2019). Child Life Specialists’ Experiences
Addressing Social Determinants of Health: A Web-Based Survey. Clinical Pediatrics, 58(8), 851–856.
doi:10.1177/0009922819839233 PMID:30939928
P., Olcott, D. J., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. J., Roberts, R., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli,
of education due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal
of Distance Education, 15(1), 1–126. http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462
CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi. http://asianjde.org/ojs/index.
php/AsianJDE/article/download/447/297
Brooks, M. (1970). Why play In the hospitals? The Nursing Clinics of North America, 5(3), 431–441.
PMID:5201135
Burns-Nader, S., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (2016). Facilitating play for hospitalized children through child
life services. Children’s Health Care, 45(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/02739615.2014.948161
Chambers, M. A. (1993). Play as therapy for the hospitalized child. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2(6),
349–354. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.1993.tb00192.x
Colizzi, M., Sironi, E., Antonini, F., Ciceri, M. L., Bovo, C., & Zoccante, L. (2020). Psychosocial and
behavioral impact of COVID-19 in autism spectrum disorder: An online parent survey. Brain Sciences,
10(6), 341. doi:10.3390/brainsci10060341 PMID:32503172
Courtney, D., Watson, P., Battaglia, M., Mulsant, B. H., & Szatmari, P. (2020). COVID-19 impacts on
child and youth anxiety and depression: Challenges and opportunities. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
65(10), 688–691. doi:10.1177/0706743720935646 PMID:32567353
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1-2), 1–6. doi:10.100711125-
020-09464-3 PMID:32313309
De Girolamo, G., Cerveri, G., Clerici, M., Monzani, E., Spinogatti, F., Starace, F., Tura, G., & Vita, A.
(2020). Mental health in the coronavirus disease 2019 emergency—The Italian response. JAMA Psy-
chiatry, 77(9), 974. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.1276 PMID:32352480
De Miranda, D. M., Da Silva Athanasio, B., De Sena Oliveira, A. C., & Silva, A. C. S. (2020). How is
COVID-19 pandemic impacting mental health of children and adolescents? International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 101845, 101845. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101845
Dong, H., Yang, F., Lu, X., & Hao, W. (2020). Internet addiction and related psychological factors
among children and adolescents in China during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic.
Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 751. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00751 PMID:32982806
416

Drewes, A. A. (2006). Play-based interventions. Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology, 2,
139–157.
Francischinelli, A. G. B., Almeida, F. D. A., & Fernandes, D. M. S. O. (2012). Routine use of therapeutic
play in the care of hospitalized children: Nurses’ perceptions. Acta Paulistica de Enfermagen, 25(1),
18–23. doi:10.1590/S0103-21002012000100004
Frauman, A. C., & Gilman, C. M. (1989). Creating a therapeutic environment in a pediatric renal unit.
ANNA Journal, 16(1), 20–22. PMID:2923498
Gill, C. (2010). Helping children cope with renal disease: The role of play specialist. Journal of Renal
Nursing, 2(5), 244–247. doi:10.12968/jorn.2010.2.5.78490
Goh, G., Edmonds, L., & Christos, J. (2019). Development and evaluation of play specialist documen-
tation in a New Zealand hospital. Nursing Children and Young People, 31(2), 32–36. Advance online
publication. doi:10.7748/ncyp.2019.e1144 PMID:31468769
Goodman, R. (1997). SDQ: Information for Researchers and Professionals about the Strengths & Dif-
ficulties Questionnaires. Youthinmind.
Grissom, S., Boles, J., Bailey, K., Cantrell, K., Kennedy, A., Sykes, A., & Mandrell, B. N. (2016). Play-
based procedural preparation and support intervention for cranial radiation. Supportive Care in Cancer,
24(6), 2421–2427. doi:10.100700520-015-3040-y PMID:26634562
Harvey, S. (1984). Training the hospital play specialist. Early Child Development and Care, 17(4),
277–290. doi:10.1080/0300443840170403
Hawryluck, L., Gold, W. L., Robinson, S., Pogorski, S., Galea, S., & Styra, R. (2004). SARS control and
psychological effects of quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(7), 1206–1212.
doi:10.3201/eid1007.030703 PMID:15324539
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short‐form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales
(DASS‐21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227–239. doi:10.1348/014466505X29657 PMID:16004657
Hubbuck, C. (2009). Play for sick children: Play specialists in hospitals and beyond. Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Italian Government. (2020). Italian Government: Measures to Face the Coronavirus Covid-19. http://
www.governo.it/it/coronavirus
Jurdi, S., Montaner, J., Garcia-Sanjuan, F., Jaen, J., & Nacher, V. (2018). A systematic review of game
technologies for pediatric patients. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 97, 89–112. doi:10.1016/j.
compbiomed.2018.04.019 PMID:29715597
Kihara, N., & Yamamoto, T. (2018). Developmental Support for Sick Children through Play in Japan’s
ECEC System: A Comparison with Hospital Play Specialists. Children (Basel, Switzerland), 5(10), 133.
doi:10.3390/children5100133 PMID:30248939
417

Koukourikos, K., Tzeha, L., Pantelidou, P., & Tsaloglidou, A. (2015). The importance of play during
hospitalization of children. Materia Socio-Medica, 27(6), 438. doi:10.5455/msm.2015.27.438-441
PMID:26889107
Lazzerini, M., & Putoto, G. (2020). COVID-19 in Italy: Momentous decisions and many uncertainties.
The Lancet. Global Health, 8(5), e641–e642. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30110-8 PMID:32199072
Lee, J. (2020). Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. The Lancet. Child & Ado-
lescent Health, 4(6), 421. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30109-7 PMID:32302537
Li, W. H., Chung, J. O. K., Ho, K. Y., & Kwok, B. M. C. (2016). Play interventions to reduce anxiety and
negative emotions in hospitalized children. BMC Pediatrics, 16(1), 36. doi:10.118612887-016-0570-5
PMID:26969158
Lindqvist, I. (1974). Play as therapy. Paediatrician, 3, 295–300.
Lindström, C., Åman, J., & Norberg, A. L. (2011). Parental burnout in relation to sociodemographic,
psychosocial and personality factors as well as disease duration and glycaemic control in children with
Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway), 100(7), 1011–1017. doi:10.1111/j.1651-
2227.2011.02198.x PMID:21414025
Liu, X., Kakade, M., Fuller, C. J., Fan, B., Fang, Y., Kong, J., Guan, Z., & Wu, P. (2012). Depression
after exposure to stressful events: Lessons learned from the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53(1), 15–23. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.02.003 PMID:21489421
Lookabaugh, S., & Ballard, S. M. (2018). The scope and future direction of child life. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 27(6), 1721–1731. doi:10.100710826-018-1031-6
Lundy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and educational policy in Europe: The implementation of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Oxford Review of Education, 38(4), 393–411. doi:10.1
080/03054985.2012.704874
Metzger, T., Mignogna, K., & Reilly, L. (2013). Child life specialists: Key members of the team in
pediatric radiology. Journal of Radiology Nursing, 32(4), 153–159. doi:10.1016/j.jradnu.2013.08.001
Mikolajczak, M., Brianda, M. E., Avalosse, H., & Roskam, I. (2018). Consequences of parental burnout:
Its specific effect on child neglect and violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 80, 134–145. doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2018.03.025 PMID:29604504
Moore, E. R., Bennett, K. L., Dietrich, M. S., & Wells, N. (2015). The effect of directed medical play
on young children’s pain and distress during burn wound care. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 29(3),
265–273. doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2014.12.006 PMID:25631102
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Black-
well Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470754887
Pisano, L., Galimi, D., & Cerniglia, L. (2020). A qualitative report on exploratory data on the pos-
sible emotional/behavioral correlates of Covid-19 lockdown in 10 years children in Italy. PsyArXiv, 4
10.31234/osf.io/stwbn
418

Plank, E. N. (1962). Working with children in hospitals. Tavistock Publications.

Rantala, A., Pikkarainen, M., Miettunen, J., He, H. G., & Pölkki, T. (2020). The effectiveness of web‐
based mobile health interventions in paediatric outpatient surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76, 1949–1960. doi:10.1111/jan.14381
PMID:32281673
Roskam, I., Raes, M. E., & Mikolajczak, M. (2017). Exhausted parents: Development and preliminary
validation of the parental burnout inventory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 163. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00163
PMID:28232811
Rubin, S. (1992). What’s in a name? Child life and the play lady legacy. Children’s Health Care, 21(1),
4–13. doi:10.120715326888chc2101_1 PMID:10183619
Sari, O. T. (2014). Outcomes of play-based home support for children with autism spectrum disorder.
Social Behavior and Personality, 42(1), 65S–80S. doi:10.2224bp.2014.suppl.S65
Sorkkila, M., & Aunola, K. (2020). Risk factors for parental burnout among Finnish parents: The role of
socially prescribed perfectionism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(3), 648–659. doi:10.100710826-
019-01607-1
SpinelliM.LionettiF.PastoreM.FasoloM. (2020). Parents and Children Facing the COVID-19 Outbreak
in Italy. doi:10.2139srn.3582790
Sutton-Smith, B. (1999). Evolving a consilience of play definitions: Playfully. Play & Culture Studies,
2, 239–256.
Tanaka, K., Yoshikawa, N., Kudo, N., Negishi, Y., Shimizu, T., & Hayata, N. (2010). A need for play
specialists in Japanese children’s wards. Nursing Children and Young People, 22(6), 31–32. Advance
online publication. doi:10.7748/paed2010.07.22.6.31.c7842 PMID:20695310
Ullan, A. M., & Belver, M. H. (n.d.). Integrative Pediatrics and Child Care Play as a Source of Psycho-
logical Well-Being for Hospitalized Children: Study Review. Integrative Pediatrics and Child Care,
2(1), 92-98.
Weiss, M. J. (2002). Hardiness and social support as predictors of stress in mothers of typi-
cal children, children with autism, and children with mental retardation. Autism, 6(1), 115–130.
doi:10.1177/1362361302006001009 PMID:11918107
Wong, C. L., Ip, W. Y., Kwok, B. M. C., Choi, K. C., Ng, B. K. W., & Chan, C. W. H. (2018). Effects of
therapeutic play on children undergoing cast-removal procedures: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ
Open, 8(7), e021071. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021071 PMID:29980545
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of per-
ceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. doi:10.120715327752jpa5201_2
PMID:2280326
Zimmerman, J. (2020). Coronavirus and the Great Online-Learning Experiment. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Coronavirusthe-Great/248216
419

Anxiety: Emotional status experienced by children and adults, provoked by overwhelming concerns,
and accompanied by increased arousal and blood pressure. When persisting and intense, anxiety can turn
into anxiety disorders that may negatively impact on the individual’s health, social life, and daily routines.
Conduct Problems or Disorders (Children): Persistent and repetitive behavioral and emotional
patterns of children and adolescents. Conduct problems lead to difficulties in respecting rules and
interacting with peers in a socially acceptable way. Disobeying rules, cheating, destroying others’ pos-
sessions, and physically harassing others are relevant examples of conduct problems that can also be
called ‘Externalizing Behaviors’.
Depression: Depression consists of a persistent feeling of sadness, accompanied by a lack of inter-
est in activities previously perceived as enjoyable. Depression can cause sleep, concentration, and ap-
petite issues, and persistent tiredness. It can affect people’s normal functioning with long-term effects.
Depression can be caused by social, psychological, and biological factors, and it can be treated with
psychopharmacological intervention and psychotherapy.
Emotional Problems (Children): During development, humans can encounter difficulties in emo-
tion regulation, materialized as anger, guilt, anxiety, despair, sadness, depression, sleeping problems,
appetite problems, psychosomatic complaints.
Pandemic: A disease that spreads across the world (e.g., COVID-19), provoking global emergency,
and government interventions. The term needs to be distinguished from epidemic, which refers to a
disease spreading in a circumscribed community in a specific time range.
Parental Burnout: Parental burnout consists of emotional and physical fatigue related to parenting.
Parental burnout leads mothers and fathers to consider the interaction with the child as no more enjoy-
able, less engaging than before, with massive emotional distancing, psychosomatic complaints, and
depressive symptoms. Parental burnout can predict children’s neglect and maltreatment.
Perceived Social Support: The term refers to how much a person perceives his/her social system
as supportive in terms of emotional, informational, companionship, and tangible resources. Thus, the
construct reflects how much a person perceives that he/she can rely on his/her social network in need of
assistance. The primary sources of social support are family, friends, coworkers, pets, etc.
Play Specialist: The Play Specialist is a professional with an educational background in psychology
or pedagogical sciences who provides hospitalized or at home inpatient children with structured play
programs. In the UK, the Play Specialist is called and certified as “Healthcare Play Specialist”, while
in the US this role is labeled as “Certified Child Life Specialist”. This professionalism has not been
institutionally recognized yet in many countries (e.g., Italy).
Telematic(s): This term refers to the branch of information technology that allows transmitting in-
formation from remote, dealing with the long-distance (e.g., through the internet).
420
421
Chapter 22
The Power of Inclusion:
Embracing Multilingual E-Learning
Opportunities in Science Education
Erasmos Charamba
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8650-6931
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
ABSTRACT
The year 2019 saw the emergence of COVID-19, an infectious disease spread through human-to-human
transmission. This resulted in the immediate worldwide suspension of contact classes as countries tried to
contain the wide spread of the pandemic. Consequently, educational institutions were thus left with only
one option: e-learning. E-learning is the delivery of learning experiences through the use of electronic
mail, the internet, the world wide web, and it can either be synchronous or asynchronous. Through the
translanguaging lens, this chapter reports on a qualitative study that sought to explore the crucial role
The e-learning lessons were in the form of videos, multilingual glossaries, and narrated slides in English
and isiZulu languages. Data was collected through lesson observations and interviews held via Microsoft
Teams. This chapter suggests numerous cognitive and socio-cultural benefts of multilingual e-learning
pedagogy and recommends its use in education.
INTRODUCTION
For decades upon decades educators and researchers the world over engaged in heated academic debates
about how to enhance English proficiency. Some academics suggested that learning through two languages
was somehow confusing to students and detrimental to full concept comprehension. Far too often, these
academics showed little or no regard for how a student’s first language tied them to their family, commu-
nity, and culture. This resulted in educational institutions adopting monolingual pedagogy in education
spaces despite documented shortcomings of the approach, chief among them being students’ academic
underachievement in various learning areas (Charamba, 2020a; Karlsson, Larsson & Jakobsson, 2020).
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch022

The Power of Inclusion
However, a body of new research on the cognitive, social, and economic benefits of multilingualism
presented a paradigm shift (see for example Garcia & Otheguy, 2020; Li, 2018; Srhir, 2020) signal-
ing the emergence of new pedagogies for the future of education. Current universal educational policy
debates and research point to an urgent ongoing need to question and cross-question how a practice as-
sociated with alleged cognitive deficiencies (monolingual pedagogy) continues to be practiced and still
dominates discussions about present-day educational policy and practice (Garcia, 2019). This is also
the situation in South Africa where the two languages of instruction (English and Afrikaans) happen to
be the first languages for less than 20% of the country’s population (South Africa Statistics, 2019). This
is against a backdrop of unsatisfactory academic performance in national and international assessments
by most of the country’s students who are taught through a language different from their first language
(Karlsson et.al., 2020).
For example, in the past four years (from 2015 to 2018) the twelfth-grade pass rate for Physical Sci-
ences in South Africa stood at 58.6%; 62.0%; 65.1%; and 63.6% respectively (Department of Education,
National Senior Certificate School Subject Report 2019). Although these results might appear ‘pleasing’,
according to the South African education assessment standards, for a student to obtain a pass in science
they must achieve a score of at least 30% (Department of Education Physical Sciences CAPS Document
2012). This, therefore, suggests that in the year 2015 for example, 58.6% of the candidates managed to
obtain a score of at least 30%. Twelfth-grade is the last grade in the South African high school education.
As a result, students in this grade sit for school-leaving examinations at the end of the year.
In international assessments, the country has been underachieving in both the Progress in International
Reading Literacy (PIRLS) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assess-
ments. TIMSS is an assessment of the mathematics and science knowledge of fourth and eighth-grade
students from selected countries around the world. The 2019 TIMSS results show that South African
students continue to underperform academically in both Mathematics and Science assessments (Mullis
et.al. 2020). In Mathematics, at the fourth-grade level 1% of South African students reached the ad-
vanced benchmark, with 5% reaching the High level, 16% reaching the Intermediate level, 37% reaching
the low benchmark, with 41% scoring below the low benchmark. In science, 2% of the fourth-graders
reached the advanced benchmark, 6% reached the High level benchmark, 14% Intermediate, and 28%
reached the low benchmark, with 50% scoring below the low benchmark (Mullis et.al. 2020). The 2016
PIRLS results indicate that 78% of the country’s fourth-grade students cannot read for understanding
(Charamba 2020b). PIRLS assesses reading comprehension and monitors trends in reading literacy at
five-year intervals.
In its analysis of the results of these national and international assessments, Umalusi, South Africa’s
quality assurance body on education, asserted that students being taught in a language other than their
first language continue to experience great difficulty in comprehending concepts, interpreting questions
and drawing up responses resulting in them underperforming academically. This suggests more should be
done with regards to the languages of instruction (National Treasury Report on South African Education
2018). This was made worse in the year 2020 following the emergence of COVID-2019 (an infectious
disease spread through human-to-human transmission) towards the end of the year 2019 (WHO, 2020)
when schools had to suspend contact classes in a bid to curb the spread of the virus. This robbed students
of the much needed further clarifications and assistance they would get from their educators and peers
during contact classes.
422

BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the immediate worldwide suspension of traditional contact classes
as countries tried to contain the wide spread of the virus. This robbed some students of the much-needed
educator-student relationship where some benefitted from further explains/clarifications from their re-
spective educators as educational institutions were left with only one option: e- learning (Allo, 2020).
E-learning (also known as electronic learning) involves the electronic delivery of learning experiences
using electronic mail, the Internet, the World Wide Web (Bond, 2020). In spite of the fact that the popu-
larity of e-learning continues to rise, and it accounted for nearly 40 percent of formal learning hours used
in 2017 (ADT, 2018), there are students, especially in developing countries who had not been exposed
to this learning platform prior 2020 following the indefinite suspension of contact classes.
Through e-learning, lessons can either be synchronous or asynchronous. In a synchronous setting
learning takes place in real-time where the e-teacher and the student can verbally and non-verbally inter-
act with each other through audio and visual techniques (Hrastinski, 2008) whereas in an asynchronous
framework, the e-teacher and student do not communicate in real-time with each other, and dialogue occurs
mainly through established discussion fora (Gaba, Ashok & Sethy, 2010). The instructional strength of
both models is that e-lessons can be recorded giving the student an opportunity to repeatedly play them
anytime, anywhere (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). The focus by some schools was now on supporting these
students by building on their linguistic strengths—and on harnessing that repertoire to help them suc-
ceed in the e-classroom. A recent body of research documents that linguistically diverse students draw
on their collective linguistic repertoires to meet their communicative goals in the educational space (see
for example Charamba, 2020b; Garcia & Otheguy, 2020; Srhir, 2020; Zhang et.al., 2020). This suggests
that multilingual students’ language use is not strictly compartmentalised, rather it is fluid.
The natural simultaneous use of multiple languages together by multilingual students for commu-
nication purposes has been in practice worldwide since time immemorial (Garcia, 2019; Li, 2018).
There is, therefore, a need for the 21st century educator in a multilingual community to recognise and
acknowledge the student as a multilingual speaker who has a multilingual repertoire and uses it in social,
technological, and educational spaces. In these multilingual settings, language plays a central role in
students’ acquisition of concepts as it is the transmitter of cultural tools, the mechanism for thinking, and
the most important mental tool (García & Otheguy, 2020; Wedin, 2020). South Africa has 12 official
languages with its legislature endorsing instructional approaches that accommodate the use of more than
one language in the classroom, for example the South African Constitution of 1996, and the Language
in Education Policy of 1996 (Mkhize & Ndimande-Hlongwa, 2014).
Despite the endorsement of multilingual pedagogy by various South African legislature, education
in the country largely still follows a monolingual trajectory in which either English or Afrikaans is used
as the sole medium of instruction. The two languages (English and Afrikaans) are the first language of
a combined 24% of the country’s total population (Charamba & Zano, 2019; South Africa Statistics,
2019). Translingual practices have always been the norm within the country’s schools, presenting an
unquestionable case for the use of multilingual instructional practices that blur boundaries between differ-
ent named languages. Even though many studies on multilingual pedagogy have criticised the prevalent
monolingual bias, very few frameworks have been developed to account for ontological, epistemological,
and methodological framing of these practices with regards to e-learning (Sun & Chen, 2016). Using
translanguaging as a theoretical framework, the present study explores how multilingual teachers and
students language scientific concepts in e-classrooms.
423

Theoretical Perspectives of Translanguaging in Multilingual Education
In today’s multicultural and multilingual education communities addressing the educational needs of
culturally and linguistically diverse students apexes the ‘to-do list’ for most schools with great focus being
placed on instructional practices, such as culturally relevant or culturally responsive, that work toward just
and equitable sociocultural experiences in linguistically diverse classrooms (García & Otheguy, 2020;
Wedin, 2020). Translanguaging views language as a continuous process that only exists as languaging
which shapes and is shaped by multilingual speakers as they interact in various social contexts (Vogel
& Garcia, 2017). The practice challenges Cummins’s (2008) ‘two solitudes’ approach to bilingualism
in which different languages were kept and used separately (Garcia & Otheguy, 2020).
Sociolinguists and other language practitioners view translanguaging as the ability of multilingual
speakers to shuttle between ‘named languages’, treating the diverse languages that form their respec-
tive linguistic repertoires as a singular communicative system (Seltzer & García, 2019). The concept of
translanguaging emerged in the 1980s when Cen Williams and his colleagues were exploring effectual
pedagogics for bilingual students to simultaneously use two languages in the same lesson. Williams
and colleagues coined the term ‘trawsieithu’ (Li, 2018) to describe the process in which their bilingual
students would read or hear in one language (for example English) and then write or speak about what
they would have read or heard in another (for example Welsh, or vice versa).
The term ‘trawsieithu’ was later translated into English as ‘translanguaging’ by Colin Baker (Lewis,
Jones & Baker, 2012) signaling a pedagogical paradigm shift as linguists moved away from then tra-
ditional linguistic terms such as code-switching, and code-mixing (Osborne, 2020), calling into ques-
tion the existence of ‘named languages’ as distinguishable, clear-cut systems (Seltzer & García, 2019;
Wedin, 2020). Through a translanguaging lens, language can be viewed as a multilingual, multimodal,
and multisensory meaning-making resource (Hua, Li & Jankowicz-Pytel, 2020) in which speakers do
not recognize the existence of boundaries between languages. Garcia, Johnson and Seltzer (2017) posit
translanguaging as a unitary meaning-making system in which multilinguals make use of multiple dis-
cursive practices to understand their worlds. Translanguaging facilitates the creation of a communication
space where multilinguals make use of their linguistic and semiotic repertoire (Olivares-Orellana, 2020).
In defining translanguaging, another scholar, Grosjean (2019) uses a sports analogy of hurdles, where
two athletic skills, high jump and sprinting are involved. Athletes use these skills as a unitary whole to
excel in their sport just in the same way multilingual speakers use their linguistic skills to communicate
effectively. Translanguaging involves going between and beyond linguistic systems and structures in-
cluding different modalities such as writing, speaking, and signing (Osborne,2020). It implies the fluid
and dynamic linguistic practices that go beyond the boundaries between the different named societal
languages, language varieties, and other semiotic systems (Li, 2018). In other words, translanguaging
breaks the artificial and ideological divides between named languages. From this perspective, languages
are no longer delimited, self-contained units submerged in static communicative activities (García &
Otheguy, 2020).
Rather languaging becomes a dynamic and transformative process in which multilingual speakers
structure and restructure several named languages across different modes in various contexts for meaning-
making purposes (Karlsson et.al., 2020; Omidire, 2019). In that way, translanguaging also disrupts the
hierarchy of languages and cultures in the multilingual classroom (Iversen, 2020). Translanguaging is
a practice that involves dynamic and functionally integrated use of different languages and language
varieties. More importantly, it should be viewed as a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond
424

named languages (Olivares-Orellana, 2020; Vallejo & Dooly, 2020). Translanguaging takes us past the
“linguistics of systems and speakers to linguistics of participation” (Li, 2018, p.15). In their definition,
Lasagabaster and Garcia (2014) posit translanguaging as a process by which multilingual students
make use of the many communicative resources their multilingual status offers to communicate and for
meaning-making purposes in social, technological, and academic spaces.
Translanguaging is a theory that presupposes that rather than commanding several independent lan-
guage systems, as has been traditionally thought, multilinguals conveniently select and deploy certain
features from a single linguistic repertoire to make meaning (Iversen, 2020). Through translanguaging,
multilingual students make use of their idiolect, that is, their full linguistic repertoire disregarding socially
and politically defined language labels or boundaries (Cook & Li, 2016). Translanguaging leverages the
fluid linguistic practices of multilingual students to learn deeply, while also equipping them to recognise
when to use what linguistic features for what purposes (Olivares-Orellana, 2020). As a pedagogical
practice in e-learning, translanguaging presents both cognitive and socio-cultural advantages: on one
hand, it enhances meaning-making and rebalances the hierarchical ordering of named languages within
the multilingual classroom (Charamba, 2020b; Vogel & Garcia, 2017; Zhang et.al., 2020).
On the other, translanguaging underpins home-school cooperation, by favouring parental interven-
tion in students’ education, as well as classroom interaction between the language of instruction and
language learners (Mazzaferro, 2018). Although there are various definitions of translanguaging, they
are all grounded in the idea that a multilingual’s modes of communication are intertwined belonging to
the same linguistic repertoire and supporting multilinguals’ education in one way or the other (García,
Aponte & Le, 2020). Translanguaging in e-learning transforms e-classrooms from being spaces for
sole random transferals of international theories and information into spheres where acts of cognition
are brought about with students’ linguistic repertoire (Fanga, Caoa & Murray, 2020). A body of recent
research suggests that the simultaneous use of more than one language in the same lesson has positive
academic, social, and emotional effects (see for example Olivares-Orellana, 2020; Osborne,2020; Vallejo
& Dooly, 2020; Zhang et.al, 2020). Using the theory of translanguaging, the present study explores the
pivotal role language plays in the e-learning of eleventh-grade Chemistry students.
Research questions:
1. How do multilingual teachers and students language scientific concepts in e-learning classes?
2. How does translanguaging affect the academic performance of secondary school Chemistry students?
LANGUAGING-FOR-LEARNING: TRANSLANGUAGING TO ACTIVELY

SCAFFOLD SCIENCE EDUCATION THROUGH E-LEARNING
The lessons during the study were delivered through e-learning in compliance with health measures
issued to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. The official language of in-
struction at the school is English though none of the students there are native English speakers. This
therefore means they are taught through a language different from their home language and “most of
them [students] have a low proficiency in the language [English]. The only time they speak the language
[English] is when they are in class and most find it very difficult to understand what will be happening
during lessons” (Mr. Nkhambule).
425

Recent studies in science education in South Africa suggest that students’ low proficiency in the
medium of instruction is one of the major causes of academic underperformance amongst students who
are taught through a single language especially when the medium of instruction is different from the
students’ home language (see for example Charamba, 2020a; McKinney, & Tyler, 2019; Msimanga,
Denley &Gumede, 2017; Omidire, 2019; Probyn, 2019). Research across the globe also demonstrates
that the simultaneous use of multiple languages in the same lesson has positive academic, social, and
emotional effects (see for example García & Otheguy, 2020; Karlsson et.al., 2020; Li, 2018; Vogel &
Garcia, 2017; Zhang et.al., 2020).
In view of findings of the cited studies, students’ linguistic repertoire can become a pivotal peda-
gogical resource in e-learning, particularly since many students who are taught through a language
different from their first language keep on struggling to meet the academic demands of the curriculum
texts (Probyn, 2019). In the present study Mr. Nkhambule delivered one 40-minute lesson per week on
Energy and Chemical Change (Department of Basic Education, 2012) through Microsoft Teams and all
32 participants attended the Chemistry lessons for the four weeks. During the study, both the teacher
and students would constantly translanguage, for example during a discussion on how bonds break or
form during a chemical reaction:
Mr. Nkhambule: When a chemical reaction enzeka, izibopho kuma (… takes place, bonds from the …)
reactants break, while new bonds form kumphumela (… in the products). For example, Hydrogen ihlan-
gana ne (… combines with …) oxygen ukwakha (to form) water. In this reaction, i- bond (… the bond…)
between the two hydrogen atoms izophuka (… will break), as will the bond between the oxygen atoms
in the oxygen molecule. Kuzokwakhiwa ama-bond amasha (New bonds will form…) between the two
hydrogen atoms and the single oxygen atom in the water molecule that is formed njenge (… as the…)
product. But what exactly happens?
In response to Mr. Nkhambule’s question, Nombuso says:
Ukuze amabhondi agqashuke (for bonds to break), energy must be absorbed. When new bonds form,
kukhishwa amandla (energy is released).
Mr. Nkhambule: What is the energy needed to break a bond called? What term refres to the energy …
Maletsatsi: Amandla adingekayo (the energy that is needed) to break a bond abizwa (… is called…) the
bond energy or bond dissociation energy.
Fred: Kodwa (But) what exactly is bond energy?

Betty: Bond energy yisilinganiso samandla esibopho (is a measure of bond strength) in a chemical bond.
It is the amount of energy edingekayo ukuphuka (that is needed to break) the chemical bond between
two atoms, bafo (brother).
Nikkie: Mina I read ukhuthi (I read that) when a bond forms the atoms asondela ndawonye (move closer
together) and the distance between them iyancipha (decreases). So, when a bond forms kukhishwa
amandla (energy is released).
426

The students were also given video lessons with voice overs in English language and subtitles in
isiZulu, for example:
English voice over: Energy is important to all living things

isiZulu subtitle: Amandla abalulekile kuzo zonke izinto eziphilayo
English voice over: In a chemical reaction energy is either lost or gained
isiZulu subtitle: Ku chemical reaction amandla azolahleka noma azuzwe
English voice over: Energy is released as either heat or light
isiZulu subtitle: Amandla akhishwa njengokushisa noma ukukhanya
English voice over: There are many uses of energy
isiZulu subtitle: Kunokusetshenziswa okuningi kwamandla
English voice over: For example, plants use energy to make their food
isiZulu subtitle: Isibonelo izitshalo zisebenzisa amandla ukwenza ukudla kwazo
Mr. Nkhambule also provided the students with a bilingual dictionary written in English and isiZulu
explaining key words found in the topic they were covering, for example:
Energy ……………………………………….. Amandla

Has been released ……………………………. Ikhishwe
Decreases ……………………………………… iyancipha
Stir in the ……………………………………… Hlanganisa
From the sun …………………………………… kusuka elangeni
It absorbs energy in the form of heat or light …..ithatha amandla ngendlela yokushisa noma ukukhanya
When answering activities some students resorted to translanguaging. For example, in whether pho-
tosynthesis was an endothermic or exothermic reaction, Ernest wrote:
Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction ngoba amandla (because energy) in the form of sunlight is
absorbed ngesikhathi senqubo (during the reaction).
Translanguaging in e-learning entails a holistic view of multilinguals which recognises that they
have just one language system, not two or more, and that effectual pedagogy involves exploring ways
to help multilingual students draw on all their full repertoire to learn scientific content (Garcia, 2019).
Methodology
This is part of a larger project on multilingualism that generated responses from a sample of 32 eleventh-
grade Chemistry students from a township secondary school in South Africa on the role language plays
in e-learning. The class was conveniently sampled as it was the only eleventh-grade Chemistry class in
the school. The Chemistry teacher in the study holds a Bachelor of Education degree and is an isiZulu
native speaker with more than ten years’ teaching experience. The study was carried out in a South
African township. The small town was created in the 1930s when the apartheid government started
427

separating Blacks from Whites, creating black “townships” (Grinker, 2014). All ethical considerations
were observed and both teacher and students were referred to using pseudonyms.
All participants were multilingual with isiZulu as their first language. These participants had received
bilingual education through English and isiZulu from grade R to the third- grade, which meant that
the students used both languages as a resource in all class activities. Grade R classes in South Africa
enroll students who, on average, are five years old and it is a class below the first-grade. When students
in these townships go to the fourth-grade, they are then introduced to monolingual pedagogy where
all instruction and learning materials are strictly in the English language which happens to be the first
language of 9.6% of the country’s population (South Africa Statistics, 2019). During his prime years in
the profession, Mr. Nkhambule the eleventh-grade Chemistry teacher, had complied with the school’s
monolingual approach until “as a department we realised that students’ performance in science was
getting worse due to the language barrier and I decided to start using more than one language for teach-
ing purposes” (Mr. Nkhambule).
The focus of this chapter will be on qualitative data collected through observing e-learning lessons
over a period of four weeks. To support the qualitative data collected through observing the e-learning
lessons, interviews were conducted with the teacher and students who were translanguaging during the
lessons as the author tried to understand how students’ authentic language use could affect their under-
standing of scientific concepts (Lemke, 2012).
Qualitative data analysis involved a combination of both inductive and deductive analysis, where the
author drew deductive codes for all materials from the literature reviewed and this included: e-learning,
multilingualism, monolingualism, science education, translanguaging, meaning-making, and epistemo-
logical access. Inductive codes were derived from an analysis of interview transcripts, and video footage
of classroom interactions paying great attention to sections where these multilingual eleventh-grade
science students were actively translanguaging. Using the thematic analysis approach, which centres
around discovering, interpreting, and reporting patterns and clusters of meaning within a set of the data
collected, the author methodically identified key themes guided by the two research questions (Creswell,
2014). After analysing the data, the author came up with themes, which are also supported by prototypi-
cal quotes in the Solutions section.
SOLUTIONS
Before colonisation, education in South Africa was holistic and was part of the process of socialising
the youth to become competent and responsible members of society, and this was done in one’s home
language. Pre-colonial education, therefore, was meant to expose the youth to a wide range of social,
cultural, economic, medical, and other essential knowledge traditions. As a result, linguistic competence
was greatly valued for socialisation purposes (Mkhize & Ndimande-Hlongwa, 2014) as it was the ve-
hicle through which knowledge was transferred. This is the reason language has been associated with
a people’s culture, their heritage, and the prior knowledge and experiences that students bring into the
classroom when they enter the science classroom, regardless of whether it is a contact class or e-learning
(Karlsson et.al., 2020).
The present study joins an international body of studies that acknowledges the focal role language
plays in the teaching and learning of science (see for example Licona, & Kelly, 2020; Probyn, 2019;
Vallejo & Dooly, 2020; Wedin, 2020). Through translanguaging, students’ full linguistic repertoire is
428

used to facilitate effective e-learning as their various ‘languages’ will be working in collaboration and
not against each other (Garcia, 2019). To exemplify themes emerging from the study and triangulate
my interpretations of practices that took place in the eleventh-grade e-learning science classroom, rep-
resentative samples of e-learning classroom discourse are included.
Advancing Cognition of Scientific Knowledge Through Translanguaging
Although multilingual pedagogies are acknowledged in the country’s statutes cited elsewhere in this
chapter, all but two of the eleven official languages are excluded as languages of instruction in South
African classrooms from the fourth-grade upwards. Due to its linguistic landscape, multilingual practices
have always been the norm in and outside of the country’s schools presenting an undisputable case for use
of multilingual communication practices that blur boundaries between different languages. Considering
the advancement of computer technology, and the emergence of natural disasters such as the COVID-19
pandemic, multilingual e-learning makes education accessible to students at their convenient time and
location as it can either be synchronous or asynchronous (Hodges et.al. 2020).
According to interview responses from some of the participants “e-learning materials must be in
languages we understand. IsiNgisi sinzima (English is difficult). Let our teachers also write in isiZulu
and pictures”, suggests Buhle. If the materials are written in a language the students understand fully,
“this makes us understand what we are reading. Also, othisha bethu (our teachers) must use izilimi es-
iziqonda (languages we understand) when teaching us. Akusizi ukusebenzisa (It doesn’t help to use…)
English only”, adds Hlengiwe. In agreement to this, Mr Nkhambule added that “all students in this
school come from the township where English is nothing but a classroom language. So for them to have
a clear understanding of the scientific knowledge, there is need for us to use all linguistic repertoire at
our disposal as their proficiency in English is quite low”.
These responses, together with similar ones from other participants support Cummins’ claims that
to understand concepts delivered to them in class, a student should have high proficiency in the me-
dium of instruction. The scholar (Cummins, 2008) identifies two levels of language proficiency: basic
interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive- academic language proficiency (CALP). The
former concept represents the language of a natural, informal conversation which students use in their
daily informal conversations on the playground. This daily conversational ability is context embedded
or contextualised and does not help students much in academic activities (Cummins, 2008). To perform
well in e-learning students like Buhle and Hlengiwe need to make use of CALP, the type of language
proficiency they would need to read and understand scientific literature, participate in scientific discus-
sions, and to provide written responses to Chemistry assessments. This therefore means if they have not
yet developed this much-needed proficiency their chances of succeeding academically are thin (Cum-
mins, 2008).
In addition to “making me understand the work better, ukufundisa ngezilimi eziningi kungikhuthaza
ukuba ngifunde (multilingual pedagogy motivates me to learn). When I come out of the class, ngiyobe
ngiqonde konke (I will have understood everything) and I pass my tests” (Omphile). With multilingual
e-learning “how can I fail in class? Ngeke kwenzeke (that won’t happen) ngoba (because) learning
becomes so easy” (Hlaviso). These students’ responses suggest that multilingual e-learning pedagogy
facilitates effective education. Hence, the present study suggests that to have effective education, e-lessons
and learning materials should be in multiple languages. In cases where the educator is not proficient in
more than one language, translations by colleagues can be sought. They can also make use of Google
429

Translate. However, when using this site, it is always advisable to make use of the ‘Back Translation’
option as it validates the initial translation.
In most monolingual science classes around the country most students are passive listeners due to
the language barrier caused by their low proficiency in the medium of instruction in cases where it is
different from their first language (McKinney & Tyler, 2019; Probyn, 2019; Omidire, 2019). Such dis-
crepancy also renders the e-learning resources irrelevant to most students unless presented in a language
they understand. The situation can be redressed if educators view multilingualism as a resource by
“making use of multilingual pedagogy in e-learning. Through translanguaging, my students’ academic
performance has improved, and they are now all submitting their work in time. Also, all students now
participate during e-learning lessons and collaborative e-group discussions” (Mr. Nkhambule).
During one of the e-lessons, students were asked to describe how they would determine whether a
chemical reaction was exothermic or endothermic and Nxumalo’s group reported that:
Nxumalo: We will cut imbobo encane esivalweni (a small hole into the lid).
Doris: Then sithele i-citric acid (pour some citric acid) into the cup,
Sindiswa: After that we will cover the cup with its lid and sizobhala ukushisa kwe- solution (we will
record the temperature of the solution).
Martin: After that we [pretending to be stirring] sodium bicarbonate, then siphinde sivale inkomishi
(we cover the cup again).
Nthabiseng: Sizokala izinga lokushisa (we will take the temperature) every two minutes to see if it’s
increasing or decreasing.
It was interesting to note the coherence and scientific logic behind the group’s response presented
through translanguaging. The use by students of their entire linguistic repertoire did not change the
scientific correctness of what they were saying. Scientifically, this is an acceptable procedure to deter-
mine whether a chemical reaction is exothermic or endothermic, depending on the temperature readings
recorded at regular intervals (in this case: every two minutes) considering an exothermic reaction is one
that releases heat, causing the temperature of the immediate surroundings to rise while an endothermic
reaction absorbs heat and cools the surroundings. Translanguaging in e-classrooms therefore, facilitates
sound scientific engagement.
DISCUSSION
If science students do not have the necessary communication skills in the language of instruction, they
often have problems obtaining access to the scientific knowledge delivered through e-learning, which
in turn hinders them from demonstrating their actual knowledge resulting in a negative spiral in which
motivation, interest and scientific knowledge development risk becoming reduced (Olivares-Orellana,
2020). E-learning should not be seen only as a question of students’ biologically-given capacity to learn.
Rather, earlier knowledge and proficiencies need to be related to the context in which education takes
430

place (Hodges et.al. 2020). This involves educators paying attention to how students relate with their
classmates as well as how they make use of different intellectual, physical, and linguistic resources in
the process of e-learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
In the modern-day e-learning classroom, language and other forms of communication do not have fixed
or universal meanings, nor do they exist on their own. Instead, they gain meaning through their use in a
specific context (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). As such communication in the e-learning science classroom
should involve the use of a wide range of linguistic resources, all contributing towards students’ learning
of scientific knowledge. In many traditional contact classrooms, a body of research shows various ways
that teachers have tried to support multilingual students to develop both content and literacy in science
education through translanguaging (Chimbutane, 2013).
Allowing students to use their linguistic repertoire in the science classroom has been suggested to
offer smoother interface between their home knowledge and school knowledge, and to support students’
comprehension of scientific knowledge. E-learning should not be an exception. In their study, Kiramba
and Harris (2018) present a comparative study of English-only instruction and translanguaging practices
in the teaching/learning of science. Findings from their study suggest that English-only classrooms are
punctuated by rote repetition, copying, and little participation from students during class and collabora-
tive group discussions. In science classrooms where teachers allowed translingual practices, students
engaged actively in knowledge production and showed high levels of concept comprehension, suggesting
the efficacy of translanguaging.
Translingual practices in most science classrooms have been in multilingual settings where they are
often not intentionally designed with teachers having to play agentive roles under restrictive policies to
facilitate effective learning in their classrooms (see for example, Garcia et.al., 2020). Given the effectual-
ness of translanguaging in contact classrooms, this chapter suggests teachers adopt the same strategy in
e-learning as language is the core to interaction and cognition. As observed during the study, languaging
can be either verbal or non-verbal. Basing on the interview responses and lessons observed during the
current study, translanguaging enhances students’ participation during e-learning lessons, keeps them
motivated to learn, and facilitates deep comprehension of scientific knowledge. Since translanguaging
is a normal practice in most multilingual communities, teachers should realise that it is also a strategy
they can use to help multilingual students draw on all their linguistic resources as they read, write, and
discuss scientific concepts in the e- classroom.
A body of research in sociolinguistics and neurolinguistics has shown that bilinguals do not have
two separate languages but have one linguistic repertoire that consists of features of their verbal and
non-verbal forms of communication (Kleyn & García, 2019). Their language repertoire includes fea-
tures (phonological, morphological, syntactic, and pragmatic) of all the languages they speak (García &
Alonso, 2020). Effective e-learning instruction should, therefore, involve using strategies that draw on
all the language resources these multilingual students have. As seen in the present study, translanguaging
in e-learning does not change the scientific correctness of concepts discussed.
For example, as cited elsewhere in this chapter, Mr. Nkhambule was able to give a correct scientific
explanation about the processes that take place during the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxy-
gen molecules. Through translanguaging, he explained the breaking of bonds and formation of new ones
leading to the formation of water molecules. Similarly, during one of the e-learning lessons Nxumalo’s
group was able to describe, through translanguaging, scientific processes in establishing whether the
chemical reaction between citric acid and sodium bicarbonate is exothermic or endothermic. The pres-
ent study makes principal the case for a definitive attention to students’ language as educators need to
431

understand the connections between language and e-learning and that language is the vehicle through
which science students make meaning in academic activities (Bond, 2020).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The thesis this chapter sought to defend is the need for educators to come up with alternative ways of
viewing e-learning in the multilingual South African school curricula. Although there are several ap-
proaches that educators might use to teach their students through e-learning, central to any approach
must be rethinking of the language through which the content is delivered to the students. This chapter,
grounded in the conception that both students and educators bring diverse linguistic knowledge that
can effectively be used as an instructional resource (Hedman and Magnusson, 2020), recommends the
adoption of multilingual pedagogy in e-learning.
A body of recent research suggests that to achieve sound learning and cognitive development among
multilingual students, foster creativity and critical thinking, the use of translanguaging in the classroom
is inevitable (see for example Garcia et.al., 2020; Licona, & Kelly, 2020; Probyn, 2019; Vallejo & Dooly,
2020; Wedin, 2020). The body of recent research further suggests that translanguaging also promotes
cultural cohesion, creativity, instills confidence, boosts self- esteem, enhances academic performance,
and promotes oneness among students, parents, and teachers. While the major goal of e-learning is to
avail education to students at a place and time convenient to them, this should be done through a mode
of communication they have high proficiency in.
Through translanguaging, multilingual science students can read, write, and discuss scientific
knowledge through their full linguistic repertoire. Results from the present study, and other recent re-
search on multilingualism and multilingual pedagogy in e-learning offer evidence on the potentials of
this pedagogy in improving students’ academic achievement in science (see for example Allo, 2020;
Chimbutane, 2013; Kleyn & García, 2019; Mislinawati & Nurmasyitah, 2018; Sangrà, Vlachopoulos
& Cabrera, 2012; Zhang et.al., 2020).
As learning institutions around the world respond to the rapidly evolving situation around technology;
e-learning, and COVID-19, educators across the educational field are providing critical guidance and
support to students and faculties (Hodges, 2020). Research suggests that e-learning has been shown to
increase retention of information among students, and takes less time, meaning the changes technology
and COVID-19 have caused might be here to stay (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020; Chernev, 2020; Li & Lalani,
2020). In response to the increasing global demand for e-learning, several platforms are now offering
free access to their services and this has seen an increase of more than 200% in e-learning (Bond, 2020;
Buti, Giudice & Leandro, 2020).
However, for students to maximise e-learning, there needs to be a collaborative attempt by educators
to surpass reduplicating a traditional physical class by making use of a wide range of collaborative and
engagement methods that promote inclusion, personalisation and cognition, and the inclusion of students’
language happens to be one of them (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). Very little, if any, attention has been
paid to the critical role students’ language plays in e-learning and to efforts by institutions to prepare
432

prospective linguistically responsive educators to teach and assess the growing number of multilingual
science students through e-learning. Translanguaging in e-learning makes use of the students’ linguistic
repertoire facilitating a deep understanding of the scientific knowledge being discussed. In assessing
these multilingual science students, educators can also come up with bi/multilingual assessments. More
research is thus called for in exploring the efficacy of multilingual e-learning pedagogy across the cur-
riculum. This can also be extended to include multilingual e-learning assessments.
CONCLUSION
Research conducted by various scholars the world-over suggests that translanguaging is an effective
instructional resource that can be used in the process of teaching multilingual science students. The
present study joins this body of research in urging educators to move away from the current monolingual
pedagogy which in most cases results in academic underachievement by students taught in a language
different from their first language. Translanguaging in the e-learning science classroom promotes a
deeper and fuller understanding of the scientific knowledge and helps the sustainability and develop-
ment of minority languages.
It also enhances students’ acquisition of and proficiency in the language of instruction. Through
multilingual e-learning, students’ entire linguistic repertoire can be used to facilitate effective learning
of scientific concepts as their different modes of communication will be working with and not against
each other. E-learning gives educators the opportunity to adopt either a synchronous or an asynchronous
model to teaching and learning. Whichever e-learning model they choose, for effective science learning
to take place, educators must support their students in whatever way possible, and one such way is the
acknowledgement of multilingualism through the use of multilingual pedagogy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
profit sectors.
REFERENCES
Allo, M. D. G. (2020). Is the online learning good in the midst of Covid-19 Pandemic? The case of EFL
learners. Jurnal Sinestesia, 10(1), 1–11.
tion, 15(2), i–x. http://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/512
433

Buti, M., Giudice, G., & Leandro, J. (2020). Strengthening the Institutional Architecture of the Economic
and Monetary Union. CEPR Press.
Charamba, E. (2020a). Translanguaging in a Multilingual Class: A study of the Relation between students’
languages and Epistemological access in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 42(11),
1779–1798. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09500693.2020.1783019
Charamba, E. (2020b). Pushing linguistic boundaries: Translanguaging in a bilingual Science and
Technology classroom. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–15. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/01434632.2020.1783544
Charamba, E., & Zano, K. (2019). Effects of translanguaging as an intervention strategy in a South Af-
rican Chemistry classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(3), 291–307. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/15235882.2019.1631229
Chernev, B. (2020). 27 Astonishing E-learning. Stat, 2020. Retrieved August 17th, 2020, from https://
techjury.net/blog/elearning-statistics/#gref
Chimbutane, F. (2013). Codeswitching in L1 and L2 Learning Contexts: Insights From a Study of Teacher
Beliefs and Practices in Mozambican Bilingual Education Programmes. Language and Education, 27(4),
314–328. doi:10.1080/09500782.2013.788022
Cook, V., & Li, W. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence. Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107425965
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
(4th ed.). Sage.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street
& N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education: Vol. 2. Literacy (2nd ed.). New
York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
Department of Basic Education. (2012). CAPS Document. Physical Sciences.
Department of Higher Education and Training. (2015). Report on the use of African Languages as me-
diums of instruction in Higher Education. DHET.
Fanga, Z., Caoa, P., & Murray, N. (2020). Language and meaning-making: Register choices in sev-
enth- and ninth-grade students’ factual writing. Linguistics and Education, 56, 100798. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2020.100798
García, O., & Alonso, L. (2020). The Glotopolítica of English teaching to Latinx students in the U.S. In
Worldwide English Language Education Today: Ideologies, Policies and Practices (pp. 117-134). New
York: Routledge.
García, O., Aponte, G. Y., & Le, K. (2020). Primary bilingual classrooms: Translations and translanguag-
ing. In S. Laviosa & M. González Davies (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and education
(pp. 81–94). Taylor and Francis.
434

García, O., & Otheguy, R. (2020). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and divergences.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(1), 17–35. doi:10.1080/13670050.
2019.1598932
Grinker, D. (2014). Inside Soweto: Memoir of an Official 1960s-1980s. Eastern Enterprises.
Grosjean, F. (2019). A Journey in languages and cultures: The life of a bicultural bilingual. Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198754947.001.0001
Hedman, C., & Magnusson, U. (2020). Student ambivalence toward second language education in three
Swedish upper secondary schools. Linguistics and Education, 55, 100767. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.100767
gency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/
Hua, Z., Li, W., & Jankowicz-Pytel, D. (2020). Translanguaging and embodied teaching and learning:
Lessons from a multilingual karate club in London. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 23(1), 65–80. doi:10.1080/13670050.2019.1599811
Iversen, J. Y. (2020). ‘Pre-service teachers’ translanguaging during field placement in multilingual,
mainstream classrooms in Norway’. Language and Education, 34(1), 51–65. doi:10.1080/09500782.2
019.1682599
Karlsson, A., Larsson, P. N., & Jakobsson, A. (2020). The continuity of learning in a translanguaging
science classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 1–25. doi:10.100711422-019-09933-y
Kiramba, L., & Harris, V. (2018). Navigating Authoritative Discourses in a Multilingual Classroom:
Conversations With Policy and Practice. TESOL Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/
tesq.493
Kleyn, T., & García, O. (2019). Translanguaging as an act of transformation: Restructuring teaching
and learning for emergent bilingual students. In L. de Oliveira (Ed.), Handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp.
69–82). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119421702.ch6
Lasagabaster, D., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging: towards a dynamic model of bilingualism at
school / Translanguaging: hacia un modelo dinámico de bilingüismo en la escuela. Cultura y Educación,
26(1), 557–572. doi:10.1080/11356405.2014.973671
Lemke, J. (2012). Analyzing Verbal Data: Principles, Methods, and Problems. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, &
C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1471–1484). Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_94
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school
to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation. An International Journal on Theory and
Practice, 18(7), 641–654.
435

Li, C., & Lalani, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. World
Economic Forum. Accessed 17th August, 2020 at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-
education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.
doi:10.1093/applin/amx039
Licona, P. R., & Kelly, G. J. (2020). Translanguaging in a middle school science classroom: Construct-
ing scientific arguments in English and Spanish. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 485–510.
doi:10.100711422-019-09946-7
Mazzaferro, G. (2018) Translanguaging as Everyday Practice. An Introduction-Draft. . doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-94851-5_1
Mislinawati, V. M., & Nurmasyitah, M. (2018). Students’ perceptions on the implementation of e learn-
ing: Helpful or unhelpful? Paper presented at the 6th South East Asia Design Research International
Conference.
Mkhize, N., & Ndimande-Hlongwa, N. (2014). African Languages, Indigenous Knowledge Systems
(IKS), and the Transformation of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Higher Education. Alternation
(Durban), 21(2), 10–37.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International
Results in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved 17 July 2020 from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS
International Study Center website: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/
Olivares-Orellana, E. (2020). More than an English language learner: Testimonios of immigrant high
school students. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(1), 71–91. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1
5235882.2019.1711463
Omidire, M. F. (2019). Language teaching and learning challenges in multilingual contexts. In M. F.
Omidire (Ed.), Multilingualism in the classroom: teaching and learning in a challenging context (pp.
2–10). UCT Press.
Osborne, D. (2020). Code switching practices from “other tongues” to the “mother tongue” in the
provincial Philippine classroom. Linguistics and Education, 55, 100780. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.100780
Probyn, M. (2019). Pedagogical translanguaging and the construction of science knowledge in a mul-
tilingual South African classroom: Challenging monoglossic/post-colonial orthodoxies. Classroom
Discourse, 10(3-4), 216–236. doi:10.1080/19463014.2019.1628792
Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an Inclusive Definition of E-Learning: An
Approach to the Conceptual Framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 13(2). Assessed July 31st, 2018 from www.irrodl.org
Seltzer, K., & García, O. (2019). Sustaining Latinx Bilingualism in New York’s Schools: The CUNY-
NYSIEB Project. In Informes del Observatorio / Observatorio Reports. Harvard University. doi:10.15427/
OR048-02/2019EN
436

Srhir, A. M. (2020). Making children multilingual: Language policy and parental agency in transnational
and multilingual Moroccan families in Spain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
41(1), 108–120. doi:10.1080/01434632.2019.1621879
Statistics South Africa. (2019) Education series volume v: higher education and skills in South Africa,
2017. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
Vallejo, C., & Dooly, M. (2020). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Emergent approaches and shared
concerns. Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingual-
ism, 23(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/13670050.2019.1600469
Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In G. Noblit & L. Moll (Eds.), Oxford Research Encyclo-
pedia of Education (pp. 32–56). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. In M. Cole,
V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psy-
chological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wedin, A. (2020). ‘Negotiating identities through multilingual writing: Local school policy that opens
up spaces for students’ diverse languages’. Linguistics and Education, 55, 100775. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.100775
Zhang, Q., Osborne, C., Shao, L., & Lin, M. (2020, March 2). Caitríona Osborne, Lijie Shao and Mei
Lin (2020) ‘A translanguaging perspective on medium of instruction in the CFL classroom’. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–14. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/0143463
2.2020.1737089
ADDITIONAL READING
Blommaert, J., García, O., Kress, G., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). Communicating beyond diversity:
A bricolage of ideas. In A. Sherris & E. Adami (Eds.), Making signs; Translanguaging ethnographies.
Exploring urban, rural and educational space (pp. 9–35). Multilingual matters.
García, O. (2019). The Curvas of translanguaging. In Zhongfeng, T. and Link H. (Eds.). Positive syner-
gies. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 5(1), 86-93.
García, O. (2019). Decolonizing foreign, second, heritage and first languages: Implications for
education. In D. Macedo (Ed.), Decolonizing foreign language education (pp. 152–168). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780429453113-6
Johnson, S. I., García, O., & Seltzer, K. (2019). Biliteracy and translanguaging in Dual language bilingual
education. In D. DeMatthews & E. Izquierdo (Eds.), Dual Language Education: Teaching and leading
in two languages (pp. 119–132). Springer.
Kleyn, T., & García, O. (2019). Translanguaging as an act of transformation: Restructuring teaching
and learning for emergent bilingual students. In L. de Oliveira (Ed.), Handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp.
69–82). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119421702.ch6
437

Seltzer, K., & García, O. (2019). Mantenimiento del bilingüismo en estudiantes latinos de las escuelas
de Nueva York. El proyecto de CUNY-NYSIEB. Informes del Observatorio / Observatorio Reports. Ob-
servatorio del español, FAS. Harvard University., doi:10.15427/OR048-02/2019SP
Seltzer, K., & García, O. (2019). Sustaining Latinx Bilingualism in New York’s Schools: The CUNY-
NYSIEB Project. Informes del Observatorio / Observatorio Reports. Observatorio del español, FAS.
Harvard University., doi:10.15427/OR048-02/2019EN
Vogel, S., Ascenzi-Moreno, L., & García, O. (2018). An Expanded View of Translanguaging: Leveraging
the Dynamic Interactions Between a Young Multilingual Writer and Machine Translation Software. In
J. Choi & S. Ollerhead (Eds.), Plurilingualism in Teaching and Learning: Complexities Across Contexts
(pp. 89–106). Taylor & Francis Ltd. doi:10.4324/9781315392462-6
Wright, W. E., Boun, S., & Garcia, O. (Eds.). (2015). The Handbook of bilingual and multilingual edu-
cation. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118533406
Asynchronous Learning: Various forms of digital and online learning in which students learn from
instruction such as prerecorded video lessons that is not being delivered in person or in real time.
Home Language: A language (or the variety of a language) that is most spoken by the members of
a family for everyday interactions at home.
Monolingualism: Understanding or having the knowledge to speak or write in only one language.
Multi-Competence: The knowledge of more than one language in one person’s mind.
Multilingualism: The knowledge and use of more than one language, either by an individual speaker
or by a group of speakers.
Open Educational Resources: These are freely accessible, openly licensed text, media, and other
digital assets that are useful for teaching, learning, and assessing as well as for research purposes.
Synchronous Learning: All types of learning in which students and educators are in the same place,
at the same time, in order for learning to take place.
Translanguaging: The process whereby multilingual speakers use their languages as an integrated
communication system.
438
439
Compilation of References
Abou-Khalil, V., Helou, S., Khalifé, E., Chen, M. A., Majumdar, R., & Ogata, H. (2021). Emergency Online Learn-
ing in Low-Resource Settings: Effective Student Engagement Strategies. Education Sciences, 11(1), 24. doi:10.3390/
educsci11010024
Abrams, J., & Von Frank, V. (2013). The multigenerational workplace: Communicate, collaborate, and create com-
munity. SAGE Publications.
Abu El-Haj, T. R., & Rubin, B. C. (2009). Realizing the equity-minded aspirations of detracking and inclusion: To-
ward a capacity-oriented framework for teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(3), 435–463. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
873X.2009.00451.x
Active Minds. (2020). COVID-19 Impact on College Student Mental Health (infographic). Retrieved from https://www.
activeminds.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Student-Survey-Infographic.pdf
Adams, T. E., & Holman Jones, S. (2008). Autoethnography is queer. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith
(Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 373–390). Sage.
Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. In-
teractive Learning Environments, 1–13. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
Adıyaman, Z. (2002). Uzaktan Eğitim Yoluyla Yabancı Dil Öğretimi [Foreign Language Teaching Through Distance
Education]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 92–97.
Affouneh, S., Salha, S., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2020). Designing quality e-learning environments for emergency remote teach-
ing in coronavirus crisis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(2), 1–3. doi:10.30476/
ijvlms.2020.86120.1033
Afşar, M. (2011). Eğitimin ekonomik temelleri ve ekonomik büyüme [Economic fundamentals of education and economic
growth]. Anadolu Üniversitesi Basımevi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Aguliera, E., & Nightengale-Lee, B. (2020). Emergency remote teaching across urban and rural contexts: Perspectives
on educational equity. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 471–478. doi:10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0100
Ahmad, L., Sosa, M., & Musfy, K. (2020). Interior design teaching methodology during the global covid-19 pandemic.
Interiority, 3(2), 163–184. doi:10.7454/in.v3i2.100
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative variables. Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 6(4), 466–487.
Ak, M., Şahin, L., Çiçekler, A. N., & Ertürk, M. A. (2020). Kovid-19 Küresel Salgın Sürecinde İstanbul Üniversitesi
Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulamalarına Genel Bir Bakış. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 40(2), 1-10.
Akbaba, S. (2006). Eğitimde motivasyon. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, 343–361.
Akbulut, M., Sahin, U., & Esen, A. C. (2020). More than a virus: How covid19 infected education in turkey? Journal
of Social Science Education, 19, 30–42.
Akcan Tüfekci, A., & Şad, S. N. (2019). Nitel Araştırmalar için Kodlama El Kitabı [The Coding Manual for Qualitative
Researchers]. Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
Akgün, A. İ. (2020). COVID-19 Sürecinde Acil Durum Uzaktan Eğitimi Yoluyla Verilen Muhasebe Eğitimine Yönelik
Öğrenci Görüşleri. [Student views on accounting education delivered through emergency distance education during the
COVID-19 process]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 208–236.
Akgün, A. İ. (2020). Covid-19 sürecinde acil durum uzaktan eğitimi yoluyla verilen muhasebe eğitimine yönelik öğrenci
görüşleri. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 208–236.
Akhter, T. (2020). Problems and challenges faced by efl students of saudi arabia during covid-19 pandemic. Rupkatha
Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 12(5), 1–7. doi:10.21659/rupkatha.v12n5.rioc1s23n5
Akmansoy, V. (2012). Kaos Teorisi ve Eğitime Yansımaları (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Mehmet Akif Ersoy Uni-
versity, Institute of Education Sciences, Burdur, Turkey.
Alawamleh, M. (2020). COVID-19 and higher education economics. Journal of Economics and Economic Education
Research, 21(2), 1–2. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/covid-19-and-higher-education-economics-1533-3604-21-
2-e001.pdf
Albashtawi, A., & Al Bataineh, K. (2020). The effectiveness of google classroom among efl students in jordan: An in-
novative teaching and learning online platform. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(11),
78–88. doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i11.12865
Alderman, L., Towers, S., & Bannah, S. (2012). Student feedback systems in higher education: A focused literature
review and environmental scan. Quality in Higher Education, 18(3), 261–280. doi:10.1080/13538322.2012.730714
Ali, W. (2020). Online and Remote Learning in Higher Education Institutes: A Necessity in light of COVID-19 Pandemic.
Higher Education, 10(3), 16–25.
Aliyyah, R. R., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin, A., Syaodih, E., Nurtanto, M., & Tambunan, A. R. S. (2020). The Percep-
tions of Primary School Teachers of Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period: A Case Study in Indonesia.
Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(2), 90–109. doi:10.29333/ejecs/388
Alkan, C. (1987). Açıköğretim [Open Learning]. Ankara: Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Publica-
tions. No:157.
Allen, R., Jerrim, J., & Simms, S. (2020). How did the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic affect teacher wellbeing?
Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO). https://repec-cepeo.ucl.ac.uk/cepeow/cepeowp20-15.
pdf
Allen, J., Rowan, L., & Singh, P. (2020). Teaching and teacher education in the time of covid-19. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Teacher Education, 48(3), 233–236. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2020.1752051
Allo, M. D. G. (2020). Is the online learning good in the midst of Covid-19 Pandemic? The case of EFL learners. Jurnal
Sinestesia, 10(1), 1–11.
440
Alma, M. H., Demirel, T., & Kayaduman, H. (2020). Covid-19 Pandemisine Bağli Uzaktan Eğitim Geçiş Süreci Ve
Değerlendirmesi: Iğdır Üniversitesi Örneği [The Transition Process of Distance Education Regarding Covid-19 Pandemic:
Igdir University Case]. Online International Conference of COVID-19 (CONCOVID), 127–128. https://concovid.org/
dosyalar/CONCOVID-Sosyal-Bilimler.pdf
Al-Samarrai, S., Gangwar, M., & Gala, P. (2020). The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on education financing. World
Bank Group Education. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/479041589318526060/pdf/The-Impact-of-the-
COVID-19-Pandemic-on-Education-Financing.pdf
Alshehri, Y. A., Mordhah, N., Alsibiani, S., Alsobhi, S., & Alnazzawi, N. (2020). How the Regular Teaching Converted
to Fully Online Teaching in Saudi Arabia during the Coronavirus COVID-19. Creative Education, 11(07), 985–996.
doi:10.4236/ce.2020.117071
Altable, M., de la Serna, J. M., & Gavira, S. M. (2020). Child and adult autism spectrum disorder in COVID-19 Pandemic.
PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/ doi:10.31234/osf.io/kt3a4
Altinpulluk, H. (2019). Determining the trends of using augmented reality in education between 2006-2016. Education
and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1089–1114. doi:10.100710639-018-9806-3
Altinpulluk, H., Kesim, M., & Kurubacak, G. (2020). The usability of augmented reality in open and distance learning
systems: A qualitative delphi study. Open Praxis, 12(2), 283–307.
Altinpulluk, H., Kesim, M., & Kurubacak, G. (2020). The Usability of Augmented Reality in Open and Distance Learn-
ing Systems: A Qualitative Delphi Study. Open Praxis, 12(2), 283–307. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.12.2.1017
Altıparmak, M., Kapıdere, M., & Kurt, İ. D. (2011). E-Öğrenme ve Uzaktan Eğitimde Açık Kaynak Kodlu Öğrenme
Yönetim Sistemleri. In Akademik Bilişim’11 - XIII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri Kitabı içinde (pp. 319-
327). Malatya.
Altıparmak, M., Kurt, İ. D., & Kapıdere, M. (2011). E-öğrenme ve uzaktan eğitimde açık kaynak kodlu öğrenme yöne-
tim sistemleri [E-Learning And Open Source Code Management Systems In Education]. XIII. Academic Informatics
Conference Proceedings Book, 319-327.
Altunçekiç, A. (2020). Çevimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Erişilebilirlik ve Mobil Teknolojiler [Accessibility and Mobile
Technologies in Online Learning Environments]. In Theory and Research in Educational Sciences II. Ankara: Gece
Publishing.
Alvarez, A. J. (2020). The phenomenon of learning at a distance through emergency remote teaching amidst the pandemic
crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 127–143. http://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/453
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD Countries.
OECD Publishing. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/21st-century-
skills-and-competences-for-new-millennium-learners-in-oecd-countries_218525261154
Anda, R. F., Felitti, F. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C., Perry, B. D., Dube, S. R., & Giles, W. H. (2006,
April). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. A convergence of evidence from
neurobiology and epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186.
doi:10.100700406-005-0624-4 PMID:16311898
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In
Handbook of distance education. Erlbaum.
441
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing
context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. doi:10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875
Anderson, V., Rabello, R., Wass, R., Golding, C., Rangi, A., Eteuati, E., Bristowe, Z., & Waller, A. (2020). Good teach-
ing as care in higher education. Higher Education, 79(1), 1–19. doi:10.100710734-019-00392-6
Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualita-
tive Health Research, 10(3), 378–395. doi:10.1177/104973230001000308 PMID:10947483
Anthony, A., Gimbert, B., & Fultz, D. (2013). The effect of e-coaching attendance on alternatively certified teachers’
sense of self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 277–299. https://www.learntechlib.org/
primary/p/41519/
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and
methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386. doi:10.1002/pits.20303
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D. H., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engage-
ment: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. doi:10.1016/j.
jsp.2006.04.002
Apriyanti, D., Syarif, H., Ramadhan, S., Zaim, M., & Agustina, A. (2019, March). Technology-based Google classroom
in English business writing class. In Seventh International Conference on Languages and Arts (ICLA 2018) (pp. 689-
694). Atlantis Press. 10.2991/icla-18.2019.113
Aquino, E. M., Silveira, I. H., Pescarini, J. M., Aquino, R., & Souza-Filho, J. A. D. (2020). Social distancing measures to
control the COVID-19 pandemic: Potential impacts and challenges in Brazil. Ciencia & Saude Coletiva, 25, 2423–2446.
doi:10.1590/1413-81232020256.1.10502020 PMID:32520287
Arafa, S. M., & Lamlom, M. (2020). Burnout Syndrome in Caregivers of Children with ADHD. Arab Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 31(1).
Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life
of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12(20), 8438. doi:10.3390u12208438
Arnaert, A., & Wainwright, M. (2009). Providing care and sharing expertise: Reflections of nurse-specialists in palliative
home care. Palliative & Supportive Care, 7(3), 357–364. doi:10.1017/S1478951509990290 PMID:19788778
Arnove, R. F. (2020). Imagining what education can be post-COVID-19. Prospects, 49(1-2), 43–46. doi:10.100711125-
020-09474-1 PMID:32836419
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.
Ashfaquzzaman, M. (2020). Pandemic pedagogy in post-COVID age. Communication Education, 69(4), 534–535. doi
:10.1080/03634523.2020.1804130
Atasoy, R., Özden, C., & Kara, D. N. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi sürecinde yapılan E-ders uygulamalarının etkililiğinin
öğrencilerin perspektifinden değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Studies, 15(6), 95–122. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.44491
Atchley, W., Wingenbach, 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.
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461
442
Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2011). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1),
38–43. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
Aydemir, M., Kursun, E., & Karaman, S. (2016). Question-Answer Activities in Synchronous Virtual Classrooms in
Terms of Interest and Usefulness. Open Praxis, 8(1), 9–19. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.8.1.226
Aydın, M., & Egemberdiyeva, A. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinin psikolojik sağlamlık düzeylerinin incelenmesi [An
investigation of university students’ resilience levels]. Turkey Journal of Education, 3(1), 37–53.
Azzi-Huck, K., & Shmis, T. (2020). Managing the impact of COVID-19 on education systems around the world: How
countries are preparing, coping, and planning for recovery. World Bank. Retrieved from: https:// blogs.worldbank.org/
education/managing-impact-covid-19-education-systems-around-worldhow-countries-are-preparing
Baber, H. (2020). Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the
pandemic of Covid19. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(3), 285-292.
Baggeley, J. (2017). Where did online education go wrong? Distance Education in China, 4, 5–14. doi:10.13541/j.cnki.
chinade.2017.04.001
Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of experienced in-
structors. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 152–155. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.002
Bailey, T. L., & Brown, A. (2016). Online student services: Current practices and recommendations for implementation.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(4), 450–462. doi:10.1177/0047239515616956
Baker-Ericzén, M. J., Brookman-Frazee, L., & Stahmer, A. (2005). Stress levels and adaptability in parents of toddlers
with and without autism spectrum disorders. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(4), 194–204.
doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.4.194
Baker, M. (2013). Industrial actions in schools: Strikes and student achievement. The Canadian Journal of Economics.
Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 46(3), 1014–1036. doi:10.1111/caje.12035
Bakioğlu, B., & Çevik, M. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemisi Sürecinde Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin Uzaktan Eğitime
İlişkin Görüşleri [Science Teachers’ Views on Distance Education in the COVID-19 Pandemic Process]. Turkish Stud-
ies, 15(4), 109–129.
Baldwin, S. J., & Trespalacios, J. (2017). Evaluation instruments and good practices in online education. Online Learn-
ing, 21(2), 104–121. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i2.913
Baldwin, S., Ching, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2018). Online course design in higher education: A review of national and statewide
evaluation instruments. TechTrends, 62(1), 46–57. doi:10.100711528-017-0215-z
Bali, M. (2020a, April 16). Care is not a fad: Care beyond COVID-19. Reflecting Allowed. Retrieved from https://blog.
mahabali.me/pedagogy/critical-pedagogy/care-is-not-a-fad-care-beyond-covid-19/
Bali, M. (2020b, May 13). Literacies Teachers Need During Covid-19. Retrieved from https://www.al-fanarmedia.
org/2020/05/literacies-teachers-need-during-covid-19/
Bali, M. (2020c, May 28). Pedagogy of Care: Covid-19 Edition. Retrieved from https://blog.mahabali.me/educational-
technology-2/pedagogy-of-care-covid-19-edition/
443
Baltacı, A. (2020). Kriz dönemlerinde yönetim ve liderlik [Management and leadership in times of crisis]. In E. Okumuş
(Ed.), Küresel salgınlara farklı bakışlar. Psikolojk, sosyolojik, dini, kültürel, tarihi, hukuki ve siyasi analizler [Different
perspectives on global epidemics. Psychological, sociological, religious, cultural, historical, legal and political analyzes]
(pp. 529–560). Eski Yeni Yayınları.
Balyer, A., Özcan, K., & Yıldız, A. (2017). Teacher empowerment: School administrators’ roles. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 17(70), 1–18. doi:10.14689/ejer.2017.70.1
Bandstra, N. F., Skinner, L., LeBlanc, C., Chambers, C. T., Hollon, E. C., Brennan, D., & Beaver, C. (2008). The
role of child life in pediatric pain management: A survey of child life specialists. The Journal of Pain, 9(4), 320–329.
doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.11.004 PMID:18201933
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 PMID:2782727
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21–41.
doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00024
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in man-
agement (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
Ba, O. (2020). When teaching is impossible: A pandemic pedagogy of care. PS, Political Science & Politics, 54(1),
171–172. doi:10.1017/S104909652000150X
Bao, W. (2020). COVID‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior
and Emerging Technologies, 113–115(2), 113–115. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/hbe2.191 PMID:32510042
Barak, M., Watted, A. & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of
language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49–60. .Compedu.2015.11.010 doi:10.1016/j
Baran, E., Chuang, H. H., & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and development tool for teacher
educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(4), 370–377.
Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. TechTrends, 58(5),
95–101. doi:10.100711528-014-0791-0
Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2017). What motivates exemplary online teachers? A multiple case study. In J. M. Spector,
B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory,
research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–17). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_33-2
Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2013). Tracing successful online teaching in higher education: Voices of
exemplary online teachers. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–41.
Bardakçı, S. (2010). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamında algılanan sosyalleşme ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması.
Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences, 43(1), 17-40.
Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J. (1993). Understanding other minds: perspectives from autism.
Oxford University.
Barry, E. (2008). The role of the Hospital Play Specialist in paediatric diabetes management. Journal of Diabetes Nurs-
ing, 12(1), 26.
Basak, R. B., Momaya, R., Guo, J., & Rathi, P. (2019). Role of Child Life Specialists in Pediatric Palliative Care. Journal
of Pain and Symptom Management, 58(4), 735–737. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.05.022 PMID:31195077
444
Basilaia, G., & Kvavadze, D. (2020). Transition to online education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (CO-
VID-19) pandemic in Georgia. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), 1–9. doi:10.29333/pr/7937
Bates, A. W. T. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for teaching and learning (2nd ed.). https://opentextbc.ca/
teachinginadigitalage
Bates, T. (2020, July 27). Research reports on COVID-19 and emergency remote learning/online learning [Web log
message]. https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/07/27/research-reports-on-covid-19-and-emergency-remote-learning-online-
learning/
Bates, T. (2020a, April 20). Emergency online learning and inequity: developed countries. Retrieved from https://www.
tonybates.ca/2020/04/20/emergency-online-learning-and-inequity-developed-countries/
Bates, T. (2020b, April 26). Crashing into online learning: a report from five continents – and some conclusions.
Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/04/26/crashing-into-online-learning-a-report-from-five-continents-and-
some-conclusions/
Bates, T. (2020c, June 18). Equity and online learning: practical design steps. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.
ca/2020/06/18/equity-and-online-learning-practical-design-steps/
Bates, T. (2020d, July 27). Research reports on Covid-19 and emergency remote learning/online learning. Retrieved from
https://www.tonybates.ca/2020/07/27/research-reports-on-covid-19-and-emergency-remote-learning-online-learning/
Batı, H. A., & Sayek, İ. (2020). Tıp Eğitimi ve Covid-19 Salgını. Türk Tabipler Birliği Covid-19 Panedemisi Altıncı Ay
Değerlendirme Raporu [COVID-19 Pandemic 6th Month Assessment Report]. Retrieved from https://www.ttb.org.tr/
yayin_goster.php?Guid=42ee49a2-fb2d-11ea-abf2-539a0e741e38
Bauer, L. (2020, July 9). About 14 Million Children in the US Are Not Getting Enough to Eat. The Brookings Institu-
tion. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/07/09/about-14-million-children-in-the-us-are-not-
getting-enough-to-eat/
Bautista, R. (2012). An overlooked approach in survey research: Total survey error. In L. Gideon (Ed.), Handbook of
survey methodology for the social sciences (pp. 37–49). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_4
Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competency-based teacher
education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397. doi:10.1080/01587910903236536
Bayburtlu, Y. S. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi dönemi uzaktan eğitim sürecinde öğretmen görüşlerine göre Türkçe eğitimi.
Turkish Studies, 15(4), 131–151. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.44460
Beard, C., & Wilson, J.P. (n.d.). Experiential learning: A handbook for education, training and coaching. Kogan Page.
Beardsworth, A. (2011). How much is too much? Obligation, ambition, and coercion in the sessional contract. English
Studies in Canada, 37(1), 9–12. doi:10.1353/esc.2011.0008
Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. Paper presented at the Curriculum, Technology &
Transformation for an Unknown Future 2010, Sydney, Australia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285012845_In-

dicators_of_engagement
Beickert, K., & Mora, K. (2017). Transforming the pediatric experience: The story of child life. Pediatric Annals, 46(9),
e345–e351. doi:10.3928/19382359-20170810-01 PMID:28892551
Békés, V., & Aafjes-van Doorn, K. (2020). Psychotherapists’ attitudes toward online therapy during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(2), 238–247. doi:10.1037/int0000214
445
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2015). Technology tools to support learning design: Implications derived
from an investigation of university teachers’ design practices. Computers & Education, 81, 211–220. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2014.10.016
Benton, S. L. (2018). IDEA Paper #69: Best practices in the evaluation of teaching. The IDEA Center.
Bergdahl, N., & Nouri, J. (2020). Covid-19 and Crisis-Promted Distance Education in Sweden. Technology, Knowledge
and Learning. doi:10.100710758-020-09470-6
Berger, T. (2017). The therapeutic alliance in internet interventions: A narrative review and suggestions for future research.
Psychotherapy Research, 27(5), 511–524. doi:10.1080/10503307.2015.1119908 PMID:26732852
Berge, Z. L. (1995). The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/238348806_The_Role_of_the_Online_InstructorFacilitator
Berg, J., Osher, D., Moroney, D., & Yoder, N. (2017). The intersection of school climate and social and emotional de-
velopment. American Institutes for Research.
Bergmann, T. (1965). Children in the hospital. New York International University Press.
Bhamani, S., Makhdoom, A. Z., Bharuchi, V., Ali, N., Kaleem, S., & Ahmed, D. (2020). Home learning in times of COVID:
Experiences of parents. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 7(1), 9–26. doi:10.22555/joeed.v7i1.3260
Bickerstaff, S., & Cormier, M. S. (2015). Examining faculty questions to facilitate instructional improvement in higher
education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 74–80. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.11.004
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1(1), 5–22.
Bilen, E., & Matros, A. (2021). Online cheating amid COVID-19. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 182,
196–211. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.004
Bizaer, M. (2020, April 17). Pandemic reveals Iran’s online-learning challenges. Al-Monitor. Retrieved from https://
www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/04/iran-pandemic-online-learning-challenges-coronavirus-covid19.
html#ixzz6KHcmOabJ
Björklund, A., & Salvanes, K. G. (2011). Education and family background: Mechanisms and policies. In E. A. Ha-
nushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 201–247). Elsevier.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00003-X
Bjursell, C. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic as disjuncture: Lifelong learning in a context of fear. International Review
of Education, 66(5-6), 673–689. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711159-020-09863-w PMID:33144741
Black, S. (2020, April 30). OPINIONISTA: Covid-19 has given us the breathing space to fix our broken education
system. Daily Maverick. Retrieved from https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2020-04-30-covid-19-has-given-
us-the-breathing-space-to-fix-our-broken-education-system/
Black, E., Ferdig, R., & Thompson, L. (2020). K-12 Virtual Schooling, COVID-19, and Student Success. JAMA Pedi-
atrics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3800 PMID:32780093
Black-Hawkins, K., & Florian, L. (2012). Classroom teachers’ craft knowledge of their inclusive practice. Teachers and
Teaching, 18(5), 567–584. doi:10.1080/13540602.2012.709732
Bliss, C. (2020, August 17). Stanford makes strides to improve online learning in pandemic environment. Stanford
News. Retrieved from https://news.stanford.edu/2020/08/17/stanford-makes-strides-improve-online-learning-pandemic-
environment/Bozkurt
446
Bochner, A. P. (1994). Perspectives on inquiry II: Theories and stories. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook
of interpersonal communication (pp. 21–41). Sage.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: Introduction and Methods. Allyn and Bacon.
Bolton, S. C. (2000). Who cares? Offering emotion work as a ‘gift’ in the nursing labour process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 32(3), 580–586. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01516.x PMID:11012799
Bonal, X., & Gonzalez, S. (2020). The impact of lockdown on the learning gap: Family and school divisions in times
of crisis. International Review of Education, 66(5-6), 635–655. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711159-020-
09860-z PMID:32952208
Bond, M. (2020). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living rapid systematic
review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191–247. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4425683
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engage-
ment and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–30.
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engage-
ment and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 2. doi:10.118641239-019-0176-8
Bonk, C. J. (2020). Pandemic ponderings, 30 years to today: Synchronous signals, saviors, or survivors? Distance Edu-
cation, 41(4), 589–599. doi:10.1080/01587919.2020.1821610
Bottino, C. J., Daniels, A., Chung, M. E., & Dumais, C. (2019). Child Life Specialists’ Experiences Addressing Social
Determinants of Health: A Web-Based Survey. Clinical Pediatrics, 58(8), 851–856. doi:10.1177/0009922819839233
PMID:30939928
Bozalek, V. G., McMillan, W., Marshall, D. E., November, M., Daniels, A., & Sylvester, T. (2014). Analysing the profes-
sional development of teaching and learning from a political ethics of care perspective. Teaching in Higher Education,
19(5), 447–458. doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.880681
Bozalek, V., Watters, K., & Gachago, D. (2015). Power, democracy and technology: The potential dangers of care for
teachers in higher education. Alternation (Durban), 16, 259–282.
Bozalek, V., Zembylas, M., & Tronto, J. C. (2021). Introduction. In V. Bozalek, M. Zembylas, & J. C. Tronto (Eds.),
Posthuman and political care ethics for reconfiguring higher education pedagogies. Routledge.
Bozkurt, A. (2020a). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik değerlendirmeler:
Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim paradigması [The evaluations for education during and after the Coronavirus (Covid-19)
pandemic process: New normal and new educa]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 112–142.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/auad/issue/56247/773769
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih, M., Pete, J., Ol-
cott, D., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. V., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N.,
de Coëtlogon, P., ... Rodes, V.(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. http://asianjde.org/
ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/462/307
Bozkurt, A. (2017). Türkiye’de Uzaktan Eğitimin Dünü, Bugünü ve Yarını [The Past, Present and Future of the Distance
Education in Turkey]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 85–124.
447
Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) Pandemi Süreci Ve Pandemi Sonrası Dünyada Eğitime Yönelik
Değerlendirmeler: Yeni Normal Ve Yeni Eğitim Paradigmasi [Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic process and educa-
tional evaluations in the post-pandemic world: New normal and new education paradigm]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları
ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 112–142.
Bozkurt, A. (2020a). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik değerlendirmeler:
Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim paradigması. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 112–142.
Bozkurt, A. (2020b). Koronavirüs (Covıd-19) Pandemisi Sırasında İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Uzaktan Eğitime Yönelik
İmge Ve Algıları: Bir Metafor Analizi [Images And Perceptions Of Primary School Students Towards Distance Educa-
tion During Coronavirus (Covid-19) Pandemic: A Meta]. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 1–23.
doi:10.29065/usakead.777652
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., ... Paskevicius, M. (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.
Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., ... Paskevicius, M. (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. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3878572
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic.
Asian Journal of Dİstance Education, 15(1), i–vi.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observations from the past,
insights from the present and projections for the future. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), i–x. https://www.
asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/512
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to Coronavirus pandemic.
Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic.
Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3778083
Branicki, L. J. (2020). COVID‐19, ethics of care and feminist crisis management. Gender, Work and Organization, 27(5),
872–883. doi:10.1111/gwao.12491 PMID:32837015
Brasfield, M. W., Lancaster, C., & Xu, Y. J. (2019). Wellness as a mitigating factor for teacher burnout. Journal of
Education, 199(3), 166–178. doi:10.1177/0022057419864525
Brazendale, K., Beets, M. W., Weaver, R. G., Pate, R. R., Turner-McGrievy, G. M., Kaczynski, A. T., Chandler, J. L.,
Bohnert, A., & von Hippel, P. T. (2017). Understanding differences between summer vs. school obesogenic behaviors
of children: The structured days hypothesis. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
14(1), 100. doi:10.118612966-017-0555-2 PMID:28747186
Brem, A., Viardot, E., & Nylund, P. A. (2020). Implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak for innovation:
Which technologies will improve our lives? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120451. doi:10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.120451 PMID:33191956
Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., & Eide, E. R. (2010). Theoretical concepts in the economics of education. In D. J.
Brewer & P. J. McEwan (Eds.), Economics of education (pp. 3–8). Elsevier.
448
Briggs, B. (2018). Education under attack and battered by natural disasters in 2018. Theirworld. https://theirworld.org/
news/education-under-attack-in-2018-conflicts-natural-disasters
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer
self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1),
22–43. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782471
Brink, P. J., & Edgecombe, N. (2003). What is becoming of ethnography? Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 1028–1030.
doi:10.1177/1049732303253542 PMID:14502967
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Brooks, D. C., Grajek, S., & Lang, L. (2020, April 9). Institutional readiness to adopt fully remote learning. Educause
Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/4/institutional-readiness-to-adopt-fully-remote-learning
Brooks, M. (1970). Why play In the hospitals? The Nursing Clinics of North America, 5(3), 431–441. PMID:5201135
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The
psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet, 395(10227), 912–920.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8 PMID:32112714
Brown, M., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Brooks, C., Grajek, S., Alexander, B., Bali, M., Bulger, S. R., Dark, S., Engelbert,
N., Gauthier, A., Gibson, D. C., Gibson, R., Lundin, B., Veletsianos, G., & Weber, N. (2020). 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon
Report. Teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2020/3/2020-educause-
horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition
Brown, V. S., Lewis, D., & Toussaint, M. (2018). Students’ perceptions of quality across four course development mod-
ules. Online Learning, 22(2), 173–195. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i2.1213
Brun, M., & Hinostroza, J. E. (2014). Learning to become a teacher in the 21st century: ICT integration in Initial Teacher
Education in Chile. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 222–238.
Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99–136). American
Psychological Association.
Bubb, S., & Jones, M. (2020, November). Learning from the COVID-19 home-schooling experience: Listening to pupils,
parents/carers and teachers. Improving Schools, 23(3), 209–222. doi:10.1177/1365480220958797
Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2002). The intolerance of uncertainty scale: Psychometric properties of the English version.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(8), 931–945. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00092-4 PMID:12186356
Buluk, B., & Eşitti, B. (2020). Koronavirüs (COVİD-19) sürecinde uzaktan eğitimin turizm lisans öğrencileri tarafindan
değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Awareness, 5(3), 285–298.
Burgess, S. (2020, June 16). How we should deal with the lockdown learning loss in England’s schools. VoxEU & CEPR.
https://voxeu.org/article/how-we-should-deal-lockdown-learning-loss-england-s-schools
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19 on education. VoxEU.
org. Retrieved from: https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-education 05.01.2021
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020, April 1). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19 on education.
VOX. Retrieved from https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-education
449
Burke, L. (2020, March 19). #PassFailNation. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/19/

colleges-go-passfail-address-coronavirus
Burke-Harris, N. (2018). The deepest well: Healing the long-term effects of childhood adversity. Bluebird Publishing.
Burns-Nader, S., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (2016). Facilitating play for hospitalized children through child life services.
Children’s Health Care, 45(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/02739615.2014.948161
Butcher, N. (2015). A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Report for the Commonwealth of Learning and
UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215804e.pdf
Buti, M., Giudice, G., & Leandro, J. (2020). Strengthening the Institutional Architecture of the Economic and Monetary
Union. CEPR Press.
Çakın, M., & Külekçi Akyavuz, E. (2020). Covid-19 süreci ve eğitime yansıması: Öğretmen görüşlerinin incelenmesi.
International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 6(2), 165–186.
Cakrawati, L. M. (2017). students’ perceptions on the use of online learning platforms in efl classroom. English Language
Teaching and Technology Journal (ELT-Tech Journal), 1(1), 22–30. doi:10.17509/elt%20tech.v1i1.9428
California Department of Education. (2020). State superintendent Thurmond announces new guidance on grades and
graduation for seniors. California Department of Education. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr20/yr20rel18.asp
Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at
school. Journal of E-learning and Knowledge Society, 4(3), 183–193.
Cameron, J. (2007). Teaching a politics of hope and possibility. National Conference of New Zealand Social Science
Teachers, 1-17.
Cameron-Standerford, A., Menard, K., Edge, C., Bergh, B., Shatter, A., Smith, K., & VandenAvond, L. (2020). The
phenomenon of moving to online/distance delivery as a result of COVID-19: Exploring initial perceptions of higher
education faculty at a rural midwestern university. Frontiers in Education, 5, 583881. Advance online publication.
doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.583881
Campbell, R. C. (2013). How can engineering students learn to care? How can engineering faculty teach to care? In J.
Lucena (Ed.), Engineering Education for Social Justice (pp. 111–131). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6350-0_6
Cantrell, K., Doolan, E., & Palmer, K. (2020) Doomscrolling, Zoom overload, and COVID fatigue: Teaching creative
writing during the pandemic. NiTRO: Non-Traditional Research Outcomes, 32. https://nitro.edu.au/articles/2020/12/4/
doomscrolling-zoom-overload-and-covid-fatigue-teaching-creative-writing-during-the-pandemic
Cape Town Open Education Declaration. (2007). Cape Town open education declaration: Unlocking the promise of open
educational resources. https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration
Cape Town Open Education Declaration. (2017). Cape Town open education declaration: 10th Anniversary. Ten direc-
tions to move open education forward. https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/cpt10/
Cardenas, M. C., Bustos, S. S., & Chakraborty, R. (2020). A ‘parallel pandemic’: The psychosocial burden of COVID‐19 in
children and adolescents. Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway), 109(11), 2187–2188. doi:10.1111/apa.15536 PMID:32799388
Carey, K. (2020, March 13). Everybody ready for the big migration to online college? Actually, no. The New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
Carleton, R. N. (2016). Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty. Journal
of Anxiety Disorders, 39, 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.02.007 PMID:26945765
450
Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance
of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21(1), 105–117. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 PMID:16647833
Carlson, A., & Walker, B. (2018). Free universities and radical reading groups: Learning to care in the here and now.
Continuum, 32(6), 782–794. doi:10.1080/10304312.2018.1525925
Carnevale, A., Peltier, M., & Campbell, K. (2020). Workplace basics: The competencies employers want. Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/
workplace-basics.pdf
CASEL. (2020). Core SEL competencies. CASEL: Educating Hearts, Inspiring Minds. https://casel.org/core-competencies/
Castells, M. (2010). The information age. Economy, society, and culture. End of Millennium (2nd ed., vol. 3). Wiley &
Blackwell.
Cavanaugh, C., & DeWeese, A. (2020). Understanding the professional learning and support needs of educators during
the initial weeks of pandemic school closures through search terms and content use. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 28(2), 233–238. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216073
Cavanaugh, J. K., & Jacquemin, S. J. (2015). A large sample comparison of grade based student learning outcomes in
online vs. face-to-face courses. Online Learning, 19(2), 1–8. doi:10.24059/olj.v19i2.454
Cavus, N., Sani, A. S., Haruna, Y., & Lawan, A. A. (2021). efficacy of social networking sites for sustainable education
in the era of covid-19: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(2), 808. doi:10.3390u13020808
CCTV News. (2020, February 17). Ministry of Education: national elementary and middle school network cloud platform
opens for free use today. Access address: http://www.chinanews.com/ sh / 2020 / 02-17 / 9094648.shtml)
Çeli̇k, H., Baykal, N., & Memur, H. (2020). Nitel Veri Analizi ve Temel İlkeleri [Qualitative Data Analysis and Funda-
mental Principles]. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(1), 379–406.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict perfor-
mance: A 40‐ year meta‐ analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. doi:10.1037/a0035661 PMID:24491020
Çetin, C., & Anuk, Ö. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi sürecinde yalnizlik ve psikolojik dayaniklilik: Bir kamu üniversitesi
öğrencileri örneklemi. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(5), 170–189.
Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Overstreet, S., & Santos, N. M. (2016). Toward a blueprint for trauma-informed
service delivery in schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 144–162. doi:10.100712310-015-9166-8
Chaiprasurt, C. & Esichaikul, V. (2013). Enhancing motivation in online courses with mobile communication tool sup-
port: A comparative study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 377-401.
Chambers, M. A. (1993). Play as therapy for the hospitalized child. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2(6), 349–354.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.1993.tb00192.x
Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F., & Hernandez, K. A. C. (2016). Collaborative autoethnography. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315432137
Chan, L., Girish, D., Hird-Younger, M., Hunter, M., & Way, K. (2020). Equity and Online Learning Survey Results.
Research Memo 1, Discovering University Worlds. University of Toronto.
Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality stan-
dards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106–121. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912
451
Charamba, E. (2020a). Translanguaging in a Multilingual Class: A study of the Relation between students’ languages
and Epistemological access in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 42(11), 1779–1798. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/09500693.2020.1783019
Charamba, E. (2020b). Pushing linguistic boundaries: Translanguaging in a bilingual Science and Technology classroom.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–15. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/01434632.20
20.1783544
Charamba, E., & Zano, K. (2019). Effects of translanguaging as an intervention strategy in a South African Chemistry
classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(3), 291–307. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15235882.2019.1631229
Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. Handbook of interview research: Context
and method. Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications Inc.
Chen, E., Kaczmarek, K., & Ohyama, H. (2020). Student perceptions of distance learning strategies during COVİD‐19.
Journal of Dental Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/jdd.12339
Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self‐ determination theory. Comput-
ers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
Chen, S., Yao, N., & Qian, M. (2018). The influence of uncertainty and intolerance of uncertainty on anxiety. Journal
of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 61, 60–65. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.06.005 PMID:29909250
Chernev, B. (2020). 27 Astonishing E-learning. Stat, 2020. Retrieved August 17th, 2020, from https://techjury.net/blog/
elearning-statistics/#gref
Chew, Q. H., Wei, K. C., Vasoo, S., Chua, H. C., & Sim, K. (2020). Narrative synthesis of psychological and coping
responses towards emerging infectious disease outbreaks in the general population: Practical considerations for the
COVID-19 pandemic. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 61(7), 350–356. PMID:32241071
Chimbutane, F. (2013). Codeswitching in L1 and L2 Learning Contexts: Insights From a Study of Teacher Beliefs and
Practices in Mozambican Bilingual Education Programmes. Language and Education, 27(4), 314–328. doi:10.1080/0
9500782.2013.788022
Christensen, C., Johnson, C., & Horn, M. (2011). Disrupting class, expanded edition: How disruptive innovation will
change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill.
Christopher, R., de Tantillo, L., & Watson, J. (2020). Academic caring pedagogy, presence, and communitas in nurs-
ing education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nursing Outlook, 68(6), 822–829. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2020.08.006
PMID:32981671
Chu, A. H., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” procrastination behavior on
attitudes and performances. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(3), 245–264. doi:10.3200/SOCP.145.3.245-264
PMID:15959999
Cipriano, C., & Brackett, M. (2020). Teachers are anxious and overwhelmed: They need SEL now more than ever. EdSurge.
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-04-07-teachers-are-anxious-and-overwhelmed-they-need-sel-now-more-than-ever
Clark, J. T. (2020). Distance education. Clinical Engineering Handbook (ss. 410-415) (E. Iadanza, Ed.). Academic Press.
Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 35(4), 31–35. doi:10.5032/jae.1994.04031
452
Classroom, R. (2020). Principles and practices. Responsive Classroom. https://www.responsiveclassroom.org/about/

principles-practices/
Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 32(2), 121–141. doi:10.1080/02602930600801878
Code, J., Ralph, R., & Forde, K. (2020). Pandemic designs for the future: Perspectives of technology education teachers
during COVID-19. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 419–431. doi:10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0112
Coffey, J., Cook, J., Farrugia, D., Threadgold, S., & Burke, P. J. (2020). Intersecting marginalities: International stu-
dents’ struggles for ‘survival’ in COVID‐19. Gender, Work and Organization. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/
gwao.12610
CoHE. (2020a). Press briefing. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/YKS%20Ertelenmesi%20

Bas%C4%B1n%20A%C3%A7%C4%B1klamas%C4%B1.aspx
CoHE. (2020b). Press briefing. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/erteleme-ve-kayit-

dondurma-hakki.aspx
CoHE. (2020c). Press briefing. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/yok-ten-sinavlara-iliskin-

karar.aspx
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
doi:10.1086/228943
Colizzi, M., Sironi, E., Antonini, F., Ciceri, M. L., Bovo, C., & Zoccante, L. (2020). Psychosocial and behavioral
impact of COVID-19 in autism spectrum disorder: An online parent survey. Brain Sciences, 10(6), 341. doi:10.3390/
brainsci10060341 PMID:32503172
College Pulse. (2020). COVID-19 on Campus: The Future of Learning. Retrieved from https://marketplace.collegepulse.
com/img/covid19oncampus_ckf_cp_final.pdf
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. Harper Business.
Common Wealth of Learning (COL). (2020). Guidelines on Distance Education during COVID-19. Burnaby: COL.
Collaboration. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/education-responses-tocovid-19-embracing-digital-
learning-and-online-collaboration-d75eb0e8/
Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 8(2), 31–44. http://docushare3.dcc.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-9844/FacultyReflection-
sTeachingOnline.pdf
Cook, V., & Li, W. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence. Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107425965
Corbeil, J. R., Kahn, B. H., & Corbeil, M. E. (Eds.). (2020). Microlearning in the digital age: The design and delivery
of learning snippets. Routledge.
Costello, E., Brown, M., Donlon, E., & Girme, P. (2020). The Pandemic Will Not be on Zoom: A Retrospective from
the Year 2050. Postdigital Science and Education, 1-9. doi:10.100742438-020-00150-3
Coswatte Mohr, S., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional development: A
Delphi study. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 123–140. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i4.1273
453
Courtney, D., Watson, P., Battaglia, M., Mulsant, B. H., & Szatmari, P. (2020). COVID-19 impacts on child and
youth anxiety and depression: Challenges and opportunities. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 65(10), 688–691.
doi:10.1177/0706743720935646 PMID:32567353
Cowan, W., Herring, S. D., Rich, L. L., & Wilkes, W. (2009). Collaborate, Engage, and Interact in Online Learning,
Successes with Wikis and Synchronous Virtual Classrooms at Athens State University. The 14th Annual Instructional
Technology Conference. http://www.athens.edu
Cowie, J., Clementi, M. A., & Alfano, C. A. (2018). Examination of the intolerance of uncertainty construct in youth
with generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 47(6), 1014–1022. doi:10.108
0/15374416.2016.1212358 PMID:27654145
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P., & Lam, S. (2020).
COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning &
Teaching, 3(1), 1–20.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Crick, T., Knight, C., Watermeyer, R., & Goodall, J. (2020, September). The impact of Covid-19 and “Emergency Re-
mote Teaching” on the UK computer science education community. In United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education
Research conference (pp. 31-37). doi:10.1145/3416465.3416472
Crompton, H. (2017). ISTE Standards for educators: A guide for teachers and other professionals. International Society
for Technology in Education.
Crowe, D., LaPierre, M., & Kebritchi, M. (2017). Knowledge based artificial augmentation intelligence technology:
Next step in academic instructional tools for distance learning. TechTrends, 61(5), 494–506.
Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 314–324.
Cucinotta, D., & Vanelli, M. (2020). WHO declares Covid-19 a pandemic. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 91(1),
157–160. PMID:32191675
Cumming, G., & Calin-Jageman, R. (2016). Introduction to the new statistics: Estimation, open science, and beyond.
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315708607
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N.H. Hornberger
(Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education: Vol. 2. Literacy (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Science + Business
Media LLC.
Cundell, A., & Sheepy, E. (2018). Student perceptions of the most effective and engaging online learning activities in a
blended graduate seminar. Online Learning, 22(3), 87–102. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i3.1467
454
Cutri, R. M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E. F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: Transitioning to online
teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 523–541. doi:10.1080/026
19768.2020.1815702
Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., de Villiers, M., Felix, A., Gachago,
D., Gokhale, C., Ivala, E., Kramm, N., Madiba, M., Mistri, G., Mgqwashu, E., Pallitt, N., Prinsloo, P., Solomon, K.,
Strydom, S., & Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: Inequity and Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning.
Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 946–967. doi:10.100742438-020-00187-4
Danese, A., Smith, P., Chitsabesan, P., & Dubicka, B. (2020). Child and adolescent mental health amidst emergencies
and disasters. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 216(3), 159–162. doi:10.1192/bjp.2019.244 PMID:31718718
Daniel, J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91–96. doi:10.100711125-020-09464-3
PMID:32313309
Darby, F. (2020, June 16). Sorry not sorry: Online teaching is here to stay. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sorry-Not-Sorry-Online/248993
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID...and beyond. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457–465. doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Man-
agement Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
Day, T. (2015). Academic continuity: Staying true to teaching values and objectives in the face of course interruptions.
Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 3(1), 75–89. doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.3.1.75
De Acosta, A. (2012). That teaching is impossible. In R. H. Haworth (Ed.), Anarchist pedagogies: Collective actions,
theories, and critical reflections on education. PM Press.
De Franceschi, C. (2018). Italy. Prioritising human capital. In M. Neufeind, J. O’Reilly, & F. Ranft (Eds.), Work in the
digital age. Challenges of the fourth industrial revolution (pp. 471-482). Rowman & Littlefield International.
De Girolamo, G., Cerveri, G., Clerici, M., Monzani, E., Spinogatti, F., Starace, F., Tura, G., & Vita, A. (2020). Mental
health in the coronavirus disease 2019 emergency—The Italian response. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(9), 974. doi:10.1001/
jamapsychiatry.2020.1276 PMID:32352480
de Miranda, D. M., da Silva Athanasio, B., de Sena Oliveira, A. C., & Silva, A. C. S. (2020). How is COVID-19 pandemic
impacting mental health of children and adolescents? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, 101845.
doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101845 PMID:32929399
De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). Routledge Books.
Degges-White, S. (2020). Zoom Fatigue: Don’t Let Video Meetings Zap Your Energy. Some ‘cheats’ to help you beat Zoom
fatigue before it beats you. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lifetime-connections/202004/
zoom-fatiguedont-let-video-meetings-zap-your-energy
Deimann, M. & Bastiaens, T. (2010). The role of volition in distance education: An exploration of its capacities. Inter-
national Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1). .V11i1.778 doi:10.19173/irrodl
Demirbilek, M. (2014). The ‘digital natives’ debate: An investigation of the digital propensities of university students.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 115–123. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1021a
455
Demir, E. (2014). Uzaktan Eğitime Genel Bir Bakış [Overview Of Distance Education]. Dumlupinar University Journal
of Social Science, 39, 203–212.
DeMonte, J. (2013). High quality professional development for teachers: Supporting teacher training and to improve
student learning. Centers for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/DeMon-
teLearning4Teachers-1.pdf
Dennis, M., Fornero, S., Snelling, J., Thom, S., & Surles, J. (2020). Evaluating student perceptions of a course-embedded
faculty advising model. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 15(6), 10–21. doi:10.33423/jsis.v15i6.3592
Dennis, M., Halbert, J., DiMatteo-Gibson, D., Agada, C., & Fornero, C. (2020). Implementation of a faculty evaluation
model. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 17(5), 30–37. doi:10.33423/jlae.v17i5
Department of Basic Education. (2012). CAPS Document. Physical Sciences.
Department of Higher Education and Training. (2015). Report on the use of African Languages as mediums of instruc-
tion in Higher Education. DHET.
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 49(1), 5–22. doi:10.1177/0047239520934018
Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpiński, Z., & Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education:
Reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets (Vol. 30275). Publications Office of the
European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC121071/jrc121071.pdf
Diana, F. (n.d.). Why resilience is imperative in a post-pandemic world. https://www.tcs.com/perspectives/articles/why-

resilience-is-imperative-in-a-post-pandemic-world
Dietrich, A., Keuster, K., Müller, G. J., & Schoenle, R. (2020). News and uncertainty about covid-19: Survey evidence
and short-run economic impact. FRB of Cleveland Working Paper No. 20-12. http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.2139srn.3573123
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging?
The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.
Dong, H., Yang, F., Lu, X., & Hao, W. (2020). Internet addiction and related psychological factors among children and
adolescents in China during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 751.
doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00751 PMID:32982806
Donnelly, V., & Watkins, A. (2011). Teacher education for inclusion in Europe. Prospects, 41(3), 341. doi:10.100711125-
011-9199-1
Draskovic, D., Misic, M., & Stanisavljevic, Z. (2016). Transition from traditional to LMS supported examining: A case
study in computer engineering. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(5), 775–786. doi:10.1002/cae.21750
Drewes, A. A. (2006). Play-based interventions. Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology, 2, 139–157.
Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results?
A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course.
Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312–331. doi:10.1177/0092055X12446624
Driver, R. (1988). Constructivist approach to Curriculum development. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Developments and Dilem-
mas in Science Education. Falmer Press.
Duban, N., & Şen, F. G. (2020). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının Covid-19 pandemi sürecine ilişkin görüşleri. Turkish Stud-
ies, 15(4), 357–376. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.43653
456
Dugas, M. J., Buhr, K., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). The role of intolerance of uncertainty in etiology and maintenance. In
R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk & D. S. Mennin (Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice
(pp. 143–163). The Guilford Press.
Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary test of a
conceptual model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(2), 215–226. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00070-3 PMID:9613027
Dugas, M. J., Laugesen, N., & Bukowski, W. M. (2012). Intolerance of uncertainty, fear of anxiety, and adolescent worry.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(6), 863–870. doi:10.100710802-012-9611-1 PMID:22302481
Dugas, M. J., Schwartz, A., & Francis, K. (2004). Brief report: Intolerance of uncertainty, worry, and depression. Cogni-
tive Therapy and Research, 28(6), 835–842. doi:10.100710608-004-0669-0
Duke, N. N., Perringell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowksy, I. W. (2010). Adolescent violence perpetration: Associa-
tions with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Pediatrics, 125(4), 778–786. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0597
PMID:20231180
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2018). Online educators’ recommendations for teaching online: Crowdsourcing in
action. Open Praxis, 10(1), 79–89. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.721
Durak, G., & Çankaya, S. (2020). Emergency distance education process from the perspectives of academicians. Asian
Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 159–174.
Durak, G., Çankaya, S., & İzmirli, S. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemi Döneminde Türkiye’deki Üniversitelerin Uzaktan
Eğitim Sistemlerinin İncelenmesi [Examining the Turkish Universities’ Distance Education Systems During the COVID-19
Pandemic]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education., 14(1), 787–810.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballentine Books.
Dwyer, D., Ringstaff, C., Sandholtz, J., & Apple Computer Inc. (1990). Teacher beliefs and practices: Patterns of change.
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Advanced Technology Group. ACOT Report.
Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision
rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358–361. doi:10.1037/h0036316
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educa-
tional Technology, 42(1), 5–13.
Earls, F., Raviola, G. J., & Carlson, M. (2008). Promoting child and adolescent mental health in the context of the HIV/
AIDS pandemic with a focus on sub‐Saharan Africa. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines,
49(3), 295–312. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01864.x PMID:18221344
EbnerN. (2020). ‘Next week, you will teach your courses online’: A reassuring introduction to pandemic pedagogy.
SSRN. doi:10.2139srn.3552124
Education International. 2020. Guiding Principles on the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://www.ei-ie.org/ en/detail/16701/
guiding-principles-on-the-covid-19-pandemic
Edwards, M., Perry, B., & Janzen, K. (2011). The making of an exemplary online educator. Distance Education, 32(1),
101–118. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.565499
Egan, T. M., & Akdere, M. (2005). Clarifying distance education roles and competencies: Exploring similarities and
differences between professional and student-practitioner perspectives. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2),
87–103. doi:10.120715389286ajde1902_3
457
Eğilmez, M. (2012, December 16). Orta gelir tuzağı ve Türkiye [Middle-income trap and Turkey]. https://www.mahfie-
gilmez.com/2012/12/orta-gelir-tuzag-ve-turkiye.html
Ekici, G. (2003). Uzaktan Eğitim Ortamlarının Seçiminde Öğrencilerin Öğrenme Stillerinin Önemi [The Importance
of Students’ Learning styles for Selecting Distance educational Mediums]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education,
24, 48–55.
Ekmekci, E. (2017). The flipped writing classroom in Turkish EFL context: A comparative study on a new model. Turk-
ish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 151–167. doi:10.17718/tojde.306566
Elham Hussein, E., Daoud, S., Alrabaiah, H., & Badawi, R. (2020). Exploring undergraduate students’ attitudes towards
emergency online learning during COVID-19: A case from the UAE. Children and Youth Services Review, 119.
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research
results. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511761676
Engen, B. K., Giæver, T., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Hatlevik, O., Mifsud, L., & Tomte, K. (2014, March). Digital Natives:
Digitally Competent? In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2110-
2116). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university
online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(3), 185–215. doi:10.1111/dsji.12097
Erbaggio, P., Gopalakrishnan, S., Hobbs, S., & Liu, H. (2012). Enhancing student engagement through online authentic
materials. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 42(2), 27–51. doi:10.17161/iallt.v42i2.8511
Ergün, E., & Usluel, Y. K. (2015). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenci bağlılık ölçeği’nin türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik
ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1), 18–33. doi:10.17943/etku.64661
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Youth, change, and challenge. Basic Books.
Erkut, E. (2020). Covid-19 Sonrası Yükseköğretim, Yükseköğretim Dergisi. Çevrimiçi Erken Baskı. doi:10.2399/yod.20.002
Ersoy, F. (2016). Fenomenoloji. In A. Saban & A. Ersoy (Eds.), Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri. Anı Yayıncılık.
Ertug, C. (2020). Coronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemisi ve pedagojik yansımaları: Türkiye’de açık ve uzaktan eğitim
uygulamaları. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 11–53.
ESCAP. (2020). European Society Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Guidelines and recommendations in multiple lan-
guages. https://www.escap.eu/resources/coronavirus/covid-19-resources-in-various-languages
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2010). Teacher education for inclusion: International
literature review. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education: Education and Culture DG Lifelong
Learning Programme.
European Commission. (2020). Digital education action plan 2021-2027. Resetting education and training fort he
digital age. Brussels: Comission staff working document. https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/digital-

education-action-plan_en
European Commission. (2020a). Young people shaping the future of education in Europe: Video conference on the
European Education Area. https://ec.europa.eu/education/events/young-people-shaping-the-future-of-education-in-
europe-video-conference-on-the-european-education-area_en
European Commission. (2020b). Achieving a European Education Area by 2025 and resetting education and training
for the digital age. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_1743
458
European Commission. (2020c). European Education Area. https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/european-

education-area_en
Evisen, N., Akyilmaz, O., & Torun, Y. (2020). A case study of university EFL preparatory class students’ attitudes
towards online learning during Covid-19 in Turkey. Gaziantep University Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 73–93.
Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a
virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology, 43(3), 187–209. doi:1
0.1080/15391523.2011.10782569
Famularsih, S. (2020). Students’ experiences in using online learning applications due to Covid-19 in english classroom.
Studies in Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 112–121. doi:10.46627ilet.v1i2.40
Fanga, Z., Caoa, P., & Murray, N. (2020). Language and meaning-making: Register choices in seventh- and ninth-
grade students’ factual writing. Linguistics and Education, 56, 100798. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.
linged.2020.100798
Fansury, A. H., Januarty, R., & Ali Wira Rahman, S. (2020). Digital content for millennial generations: Teaching the Eng-
lish foreign language learner on Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 55(3), 40. doi:10.35741/
issn.0258-2724.55.3.40
Fayer, L. (2014). A multi-case study of student perceptions of online course design elements and success. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 13. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080113
Febrianto, P. T., Mas’ udah, S., & Megasari, L. A. (2020). Implementation of online learning during the Covid-19 pandemic
on Madura island, Indonesia. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(8), 233–254.
Federal Communications Commission. (2017). Title II of the telecommunications act: FCC-17-60A1. Federal Com-
munications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-17-60A1.docx
Fegert, J. M., Vitiello, B., Plener, P. L., & Clemens, V. (2020). Challenges and burden of the Coronavirus 2019 (CO-
VID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: A narrative review to highlight clinical and research needs
in the acute phase and the long return to normality. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 14(1), 1–11.
doi:10.118613034-020-00329-3 PMID:32419840
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies, European Commission. http://www.ifap.ru/ library/book522.pdf
Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., & Guzzo, T. (2020). Online learning and emergency remote teaching: Opportunities and challenges
in emergency situations. Societies (Basel, Switzerland), 10(4), 86. doi:10.3390oc10040086
Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
Fifilan, K. (2019, September 3). Could micro-learning make employees more engaged? HR learning and develop-
ment. https://www.raconteur.net/hr/micro-learning-engagement?utm_source=email&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_
campaign=Weekly&utm_term=July-23&utm_content=1
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L.
Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-
4614-2018-7_5
Fırat, M., Altınpulluk, H., Kılınç, H., & Büyük, K. (2017). Determining open education related social media usage trends
in Turkey using a holistic social network analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 17(4).
459
Fırat, M., Kılınç, H., & Yüzer, T. V. (2018). Level of intrinsic motivation of distance education students in e‐learning
environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 63–70. doi:10.1111/jcal.12214
Fishbane, L., & Tomer, A. (2020). As classes move online during COVID-19, what are disconnected students to do?
Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/03/20/as-classes-move-online-during-covid-19-what-are-
disconnected-students-to-do
Fisher, B., & Tronto, J. (1990). Toward a feminist theory of caring. In E. Abel & M. Nelson (Eds.), Circles of care: Work
and identity in women’s lives (pp. 35-62). State University of New York Press.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of
responsibility. ASCD.
Flack, C. B., Walker, L., Bickerstaff, A., Earle, H., & Margetts, C. (2020). Educator perspectives on the impact of CO-
VID-19 on teaching and learning in Australia and New Zealand. Pivot Professional Learning.
Flint, A. S., Zisook, K., & Fisher, T. R. (2011). Not a one-shot deal: Generative professional development among expe-
rienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1163–1169. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.009
Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms: Key lessons for the professional develop-
ment of teacher educators from Scotland’s inclusive practice project. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275–285.
doi:10.1177/0022487112447112
Florian, L. (2015). Conceptualising inclusive pedagogy: The inclusive pedagogical approach in action. In J. Deppeler,
T. Loreman, R. Smith, & L. Florian (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy across the curriculum (pp. 11–24). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Florian, L., & Beaton, M. (2018). Inclusive pedagogy in action: Getting it right for every child. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 22(8), 870–884. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1412513
Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy to enhance
teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 369–386. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588
Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education for inclusive education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 594–601. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.003
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter:
Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992 PMID:3712234
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 41(4).
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational Research, 43(3),
235–245. doi:10.1080/00131880110081017
Fourtounas, A., & Thomas, S. J. (2016). Cognitive factors predicting checking, procrastination and other maladaptive
behaviours: Prospective versus inhibitory intolerance of uncertainty. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related
Disorders, 9(9), 30–35. doi:10.1016/j.jocrd.2016.02.003
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
Francescucci, A., & Foster, M. (2013). The VIRI (virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor-led) classroom: The impact of
blended synchronous online courses on student performance, engagement, and satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 43(3), 78–91. doi:10.47678/cjhe.v43i3.184676
460
Francescucci, A., & Rohani, L. (2019). Exclusively Synchronous Online (VIRI) Learning: The Impact on Student Per-
formance and Engagement Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 60–69. doi:10.1177/0273475318818864
Francischinelli, A. G. B., Almeida, F. D. A., & Fernandes, D. M. S. O. (2012). Routine use of therapeutic play in the
care of hospitalized children: Nurses’ perceptions. Acta Paulistica de Enfermagen, 25(1), 18–23. doi:10.1590/S0103-
21002012000100004
Frankel, A. S., Friedman, L., Mansell, J., & Ibrahim, J. K. (2020). Steps towards success: Faculty training to support
online student learning. Journal of Faculty Development, 34(2), 23–32.
Frauman, A. C., & Gilman, C. M. (1989). Creating a therapeutic environment in a pediatric renal unit. ANNA Journal,
16(1), 20–22. PMID:2923498
Fredricks, J. A. (2013). Behavioral engagement in learning. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Educational psy-
chology handbook series. International guide to student achievement (pp. 42–44). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the
evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Wang, M. T., & Brauer, S. (2019). Profiles of school disengagement: Not all disengaged students
are alike. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions :
Working with Disengaged Students (pp. 31–43). Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00003-6
Frey, B. B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781506326139
Frumos, L. (2020). Inclusive education in remote instruction with universal design for learning. Revista Romaneasca
pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 12(2), 138-142. doi:10.18662/rrem/12.2Sup1/299
Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2016). Supporting students’ motivation for e‐ learning: Teachers matter on and offline.
Intenet and Higher Education, 30, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.003
Fujita, S., Moscarini, G., & Postel-Vinay, F. (2020, March 30). The labour market policy response to COVID-19 must
save aggregate matching capital. VoxEU & CEPR. https://voxeu.org/article/labour-market-policy-response-covid-19-
must-save-aggregate-matching-capital
Future of School. (2020). Progress report on crisis schooling: National survey of America’s teachers [Video]. https://
www.futureof.school/fos-webi-replay/progress-report-on-crisis-schooling-national-survey-of-americas-teachers
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instructional design.
Performance Improvement, 44(2), 44–46. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140440211
Garcia de Avila, M. A., Hamamoto Filho, P. T., Jacob, F. L. D. S., Alcantara, L. R. S., Berghammer, M., Jenholt Nolbris,
M., Olaya-Contreras, P., & Nilsson, S. (2020). Children’s anxiety and factors related to the COVID-19 pandemic: An
exploratory study using the children’s anxiety questionnaire and the numerical rating scale. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5757. doi:10.3390/ijerph17165757 PMID:32784898
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020, September 10). COVID-19 and student performance, equity, and U.S. education policy:
Lessons from pre-pandemic research to inform relief, recovery, and rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved
from https://www.epi.org/publication/the-consequences-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-education-performance-and-
equity-in-the-united-states-what-can-we-learn-from-pre-pandemic-research-to-inform-relief-recovery-and-rebuilding/
García, O., & Alonso, L. (2020). The Glotopolítica of English teaching to Latinx students in the U.S. In Worldwide
English Language Education Today: Ideologies, Policies and Practices (pp. 117-134). New York: Routledge.
461
García, O., Aponte, G. Y., & Le, K. (2020). Primary bilingual classrooms: Translations and translanguaging. In S. Laviosa
& M. González Davies (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and education (pp. 81–94). Taylor and Francis.
García, O., & Otheguy, R. (2020). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and divergences. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(1), 17–35. doi:10.1080/13670050.2019.1598932
Gares, S. L., Kariuki, J. K., & Rempel, B. P. (2020). Community matters: Student-instructor relationships foster student
motivation and engagement in an emergency remote teaching environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9),
3332–3335. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00635
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(2–3), 87–105.
Gartner. (2020a). Prepare for the long-term impacts of COVID-19 and the next normal in higher education. https://www.
gartner.com/en/webinars/3986713/prepare-for-the-long-term-impacts-of-covid-19-and-the-next-norma
Gartner. (2020b, September 10). The current world context is pushing organizations to make better-informed, faster
decisions to survive in a rapidly changing environment. https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/why-now-is-the-
time-to-accelerate-digital/
Gasaymeh, A. M. (2017). Faculty members’ concerns about adopting a learning management system (LMS): A devel-
oping country perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7527–7537.
doi:10.12973/ejmste/80014
Gates, T. G., Beazley, H., & Davis, C. (2020). Coping with grief, loss, and well-being during a pandemic: A collab-
orative autoethnography of international educators during COVID-19. International Social Work, 63(6), 782–785.
doi:10.1177/0020872820949622
Gay, G. H. (2016). An assessment of online instructor e-learning readiness before, during, and after course delivery.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 199–220. doi:10.100712528-016-9115-z
GCPEA. (2018). Education under attack 2018. Protectingeducation. http://www.protectingeducation.org/sites/default/

files/documents/eua_2018_full.pdf
Gelbal, S., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Teachers’ profıcıency perceptıons of about the measurement and evaluatıon technıques
and the problems they confront. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(33), 135–145.
Gelles, L. A., Susan, M. L., Gordon, D. H., Diana, A. C., & Joel, A. M. (2020). Compassionate Flexibility and Self-
Discipline: Student Adaptation to Emergency Remote Teaching in an Integrated Engineering Energy Course during
Covid-19. Education Sciences, 10(11), 1–23. doi:10.3390/educsci10110304
Genç, M. F., & Gümrükçüoğlu, S. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) sürecinde ilâhiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin uzaktan
eğitime bakışları. Turkish Studies, 15(4), 403–422. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.43798
Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2017). The university and the economy. Pathways to growth and economic development. Edwar
Elgar Publishing.
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asyn-
chronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 30(1), 30–50. doi:10.1111/jcal.12020
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer
networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41(4), 235–284. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7
462
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the
literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
Gilani, I. (2020). Coronavirus pandemic reshaping global education system? https://www.aa.com.tr/en/education/

coronavirus-pandemic-reshaping-global-educationsystem/1771350
Gill, C. (2010). Helping children cope with renal disease: The role of play specialist. Journal of Renal Nursing, 2(5),
244–247. doi:10.12968/jorn.2010.2.5.78490
Gillet-Swan, J., & Grant-Smith, D. (2019). Addressing mentor wellbeing in practicum placement mentoring relationships
in initial teacher education. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 9(4), 393–409. doi:10.1108/
IJMCE-02-2020-0007
Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of
Learning Design, 10(1), 20–30. doi:10.5204/jld.v9i3.293
Gillis, A., & Krull, L. M. (2020). COVID-19 remote learning transition in Spring 2020: Class structure, student percep-
tions, and inequality in college courses. Teaching Sociology, 48(4), 283–299. doi:10.1177/0092055X20954263
Ginsburg, K. R., & Jablow, M. M. (2006). Building resilience in children and teens: Giving kids roots and wings.
American Academy of Pediatrics.
Gjeldsvik, T. (2020). Secretary General’s summary of the ICDE Presidents’ Forum 2020. https://www.icde.org/icde-
news/summary-of-pf2020.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2011). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental
approach (9th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Godley, S. (2020). A love letter to my public health students during a global pandemic. Pedagogy in Health Promotion,
6(4), 233–234. doi:10.1177/2373379920944198
Goh, G., Edmonds, L., & Christos, J. (2019). Development and evaluation of play specialist documentation in a New
Zealand hospital. Nursing Children and Young People, 31(2), 32–36. Advance online publication. doi:10.7748/ncyp.2019.
e1144 PMID:31468769
Göncü, A., Çeti̇n, İ., & Top, E. (2018). Öğretmen Adaylarının Kodlama Eğitimine Yönelik Görüşleri:Bir Durum Çalışması
[Pre-Service Teachers’ Views Related to Computing Education: A Case Study]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, (48), 85–110.
Gonzalez, T., De La Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., & Sacha, G. M. (2020). Influ-
ence of COVİD-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLoS One, 15(10), e0239490.
Goodman, R. (1997). SDQ: Information for Researchers and Professionals about the Strengths & Difficulties Question-
naires. Youthinmind.
Goodwin, B., & Shebby, S. (2021). Research matters/restoring teachers’ efficacy. Educational Leadership, 78(4), 76–77.
Google. (2020). Google workspace data dashboard. Google. https://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en&v=status&

ts=1606291199000
Görgülü-Arı, A. & Hayır-Kanat. M. (2020). Covid-19 (Koronavirüs) üzerine öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri. Van Yüzüncü
Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 459-492.
463
Grant-Smith, D., Donnet, T., Macaulay, J., & Chapman, R. (2019). Principles and practices for enhanced visual design
in virtual learning environments: Do looks matter? In M. Boboc & S. Koç (Eds.), Student-centered virtual learning
environments in higher education (pp. 103-133). IGI Global.
Grant-Smith, D., Gillett-Swan, J., & Chapman, R. (2017). WILWellbeing: Exploring the impacts of unpaid practicum
on student wellbeing. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education.
Grant-Smith, D., Laundon, M., & Feldman, A. (2020). Submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Education
& Employment Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote
Students) Bill 2020: Submission 18. Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment.
Green, J. (2020). How not to evaluate teaching during a pandemic. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-not-to-

evaluate-teaching-during-a-pandemic/
Green, A., & de Bodisco, C. (2020). Using team-based learning in discussion and writing classes. International Review
of Economics Education, 35, 100195. doi:10.1016/j.iree.2020.100195
Green, J. K., Burrow, M. S., & Carvalho, L. (2020). Designing for transition: Supporting teachers and students coping
with emergency remote education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(6), 1–17. doi:10.100742438-020-00185-6
Grinker, D. (2014). Inside Soweto: Memoir of an Official 1960s-1980s. Eastern Enterprises.
Grissom, S., Boles, J., Bailey, K., Cantrell, K., Kennedy, A., Sykes, A., & Mandrell, B. N. (2016). Play-based procedural
preparation and support intervention for cranial radiation. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24(6), 2421–2427. doi:10.100700520-
015-3040-y PMID:26634562
Groot, B., Vink, M., Haveman, A., Huberts, M., Schout, G., & Abma, T. (2018). Ethics of care in participatory health
research: Mutual responsibility in collaboration with co-researchers. Educational Action Research, 27, 1–17.
Grosjean, F. (2019). A Journey in languages and cultures: The life of a bicultural bilingual. Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/oso/9780198754947.001.0001
Grummell, B., Devine, D., & Lynch, K. (2009). The care‐less manager: Gender, care and new managerialism in higher
education. Gender and Education, 21(2), 191–208. doi:10.1080/09540250802392273
Gülbahar, Y. (2012). E-öğrenme (2nd ed.). Pegem yayıncılık.
Güneş, E., & Hamutoğlu, N. B. (2020). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme. Uzaktan Eğitimin Geleceği In Uzaktan Eğitimde
Araştırma ve Değerlendirme (1. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Gürlesel, C. F. (2014). Kalkınmada yeni paradigma bütünsel kalkınma yaklaşımı [New paradigm in development holistic
development approach]. In M. Dinçer (Ed.), Yeni paradigma [New paradigm] (pp. 269–283). Optimist.
Gurr, D. (2020). Academia letters. Educational leadership and the pandemic.
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3/4), 381–391.
doi:10.1080/135406002100000512
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2013). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson
Education Limited.
Hamington, M. (2004). Embodied care: Jane Addams, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and feminist ethics. University of Illinois
Press.
Hammock, M., Freeth, D., Copperman, J., & Goodsman, D. (2009). Being interprofessional. Polity Press.
464
Hamutoğlu, N. B., & Arslan, G. (2020). Covid-19 küresel salgın dönemi: Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi deneyimi –
Yenilikçi uygulamalar. In Covid-19 küresel salgın sürecinde öğretim elemanlarının ve öğrencilerin uzaktan eğitim
deneyimlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları (Baskıda).
Hansen, D. E. (2008). Knowledge transfer in online learning environments. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2),
93–105. doi:10.1177/0273475308317702
Han, T., Oksuz, A., Sarman, G., & Nacar, A. M. (2020). Flow experiences of tertiary level Turkish EFL students in
online language classes during Covid-19 outbreak. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 1059–1078.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessman, L. (2020). The economic impacts of learning losses. Education Working Papers, No.
225. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/education/the-economic-impacts-of-learning-losses-21908d74-en.htm
Harari, N. Y. (2016). Hayvanlardan tanrılara: Sapiens. Retrieved from https://anarcho-copy.org/free/sapiens.pdf
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
Harris, F., & Woods, J. L. (2020). Equity-Minded and Culturally-Affirming Teaching and Learning Practices in Virtual
Learning Communities. Center for Organizational Responsibility and Advancement (CORA)/Northern Illinois University.
Retrieved from https://www.niu.edu/keepteaching/workshops/equity-in-virtual-learning.shtml
Hartnett, M., George, A. S., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex,
multifaceted and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6),
20–38. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.1030
Harvey, S. (1984). Training the hospital play specialist. Early Child Development and Care, 17(4), 277–290.
doi:10.1080/0300443840170403
Hasan, N., & 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,
105355. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105355 PMID:32834276
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hawryluck, L., Gold, W. L., Robinson, S., Pogorski, S., Galea, S., & Styra, R. (2004). SARS control and psychological
effects of quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(7), 1206–1212. doi:10.3201/eid1007.030703
PMID:15324539
Hayman, J., Heiser, R., & Ishmael, K. (2018). Open learning and open communities: OER for preK-12 educators. Pre-
print Chapter. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oqbzyGNNQGUVyQY3-EfxMQulIDjdJToPuRhQoxx5-yQ/edit#
Hays, J. M. (2008). Teacher as servant applications of Greenleaf’s servant leadership in higher education. Journal of
Global Business Issues, 2(1), 113–134.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed
learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in
cyberspace (pp. 159–190). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606373.011
Hedman, C., & Magnusson, U. (2020). Student ambivalence toward second language education in three Swedish upper
secondary schools. Linguistics and Education, 55, 100767. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.100767
Helgelsen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion: Architecture for building great organizations. Beard Books.
Hemmings, C. (2012). Affective solidarity: Feminist reflexivity and political transformation. Feminist Theory, 13(2),
147–151. doi:10.1177/1464700112442643
465
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short‐form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS‐21):
Construct validity and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2),
227–239. doi:10.1348/014466505X29657 PMID:16004657
Hens, N., Ayele, G. M., Goeyvaerts, N., Aerts, M., Mossong, J., Edmunds, J. W., & Beutels, P. (2009). Estimating the
impact of school closure on social mixing behaviour and the transmission of close contact infections in eight European
countries. BMC Infectious Diseases, 9(187), 1–12. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-9-187
Herman, P. C. (2020, June 10). Online learning is not the future. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/digitallearning/views/2020/06/10/online-learning-not-future-higher-education-opinion
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps
and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
doi:10.100711423-006-9022-5
Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Ralston-Berg, P., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2016). The impact of previous online course experience
on students’ perceptions of quality. Online Learning, 20(1), 25–40. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i1.565
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (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
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (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
and online learning. Educause Review. Retrieved from: https://medicine.hofstra.edu/pdf/faculty/facdev/facdev-article.pdf
and online learning. EducauseReview. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-
and online learning. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-
online-learning
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote
teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emer-
gency-remoteteaching-and-online-learning
teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-
remote-teaching-and-online-learning
teaching and online learning. EduCause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emer-
gency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-
466
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The Difference between Emergency Remote
Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-
teaching and online learning. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-
and-online-learning
and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review.
Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of preservice
teachers in a secondary MA Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83–106. doi:10.108
0/15391523.2012.10782598
Hollweck, T., & Doucet, A. (2020). Pracademics in the pandemic: Pedagogies and professionalism. Journal of Profes-
sional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 295–305. https://www.emerald.com/insight/2056-9548.htm
Holman Jones, S. (2007). Autoethnography. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. John Wiley and Sons.
Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg
(Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 114–122). Croom Helm; Routledge. Routledge
Holmberg. B. (2005). The evolution, principles and practices of distance education (vol 11). Oldenburg: BIS Studien
und berichte der Arbeitsstelle Fernstudienforschung der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.
Hölscher, D. (2018). Caring for justice in a neoliberal university: The ethics of care and academic development. South
African Journal of Higher Education, 32(6), 31–48. doi:10.20853/32-6-2676
Holzweiss, P. C., Walker, D. W., Chisum, R., & Sosebee, T. (2020). Crisis planning for online students: Lessons learned
from a major disruption. Online Learning, 24(2), 22–37. doi:10.24059/olj.v24i2.2135
Horesh, D., & Brown, A. D. (2020). Traumatic stress in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical gaps and adapt to
new realities. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(4), 331–335. doi:10.1037/tra0000592
PMID:32271070
Horner, J. (2019, May 1). Let’s think about Equity, Equality, & Justice! Retrieved from https://psychology.wisheights.
org/2019/05/01/lets-think-about-equity-equality-justice/
Horzum, B. (2003). Öğretim Elemanlarının İnternet Destekli Eğitime Yönelik Düşünceleri (Sakarya Üniversitesi Örneği)
[Instructors’ opinions on internet-based education (Sakarya University example)] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
Sakarya University Institute of Social Sciences.
Huang, R., Liu, D., Tlili, A., Knyazeva, S., Chang, T. W., Zhang, X., Burgos, D., Jemni, M., Zhang, M., Zhuang, R., &
Holotescu, C. (2020). Guidance on open educational practices during school closures: Utilizing OER under COVID-19
pandemic in line with UNESCO OER recommendation. Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University.
Hua, Z., Li, W., & Jankowicz-Pytel, D. (2020). Translanguaging and embodied teaching and learning: Lessons from a
multilingual karate club in London. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(1), 65–80. doi:
10.1080/13670050.2019.1599811
Hubbuck, C. (2009). Play for sick children: Play specialists in hospitals and beyond. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
467
Huber, S. G., & Helm, C. (2020). COVID-19 and schooling: Evaluation, assessment and accountability in times of
crises—reacting quickly to explore key issues for policy, practice and research with the school barometer. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(2), 237–270. doi:10.100711092-020-09322-y PMID:32837626
Hughes, C., Clouder, L., Pritchard, J., Purkis, J., & Barnes, V. (2007). Caring Monsters? In P. Cotterill, S. Jackson, & G.
Letherby (Eds.), Challenges and negotiations for women in higher education (pp. 131-147). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
1-4020-6110-3_7
Hughes, M. C., Henry, B. W., & Kushnick, M. R. (2020, August 6). Teaching during the pandemic? An opportunity to
enhance curriculum. Pedagogy in Health Promotion. https://doi-org/ doi:10.1177/2373379920950179
Hughes, J. N. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and school adjustment: Progress and remaining challenges. Attach-
ment & Human Development, 14(3), 319–327. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672288 PMID:22537527
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional Development in Educa-
tion, 37(2), 177–179. doi:10.1080/19415257.2010.523955
Huremović, D. (2019). Introduction. D. Huremović (Ed.), Psychiatry of pandemics: A mental health response to infection
outbreak. Springer. https://doi.org/ doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15346-5
Hurley, P., & Van Dyke, N. (2020). Australian investment in education: Higher education. Mitchell Institute.
Hytten, K., & Bettez, S. C. (2011). Understanding education for social justice. Educational Foundations, 25(1-2), 7–24.
İlğan, A. (2020). Öğretmenler için etkili mesleki gelişim yaklaşımları ile bir model önerisi ve uygulama yönergesi [Ef-
fective professional development approaches for teachers, a model suggestion and practice guidelines]. Eğitim ve İnsani
Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 11(21), 172–197.
Imran, N., Aamer, I., Sharif, M. I., Bodla, Z. H., & Naveed, S. (2020). Psychological burden of quarantine in children and
adolescents: A rapid systematic review and proposed solutions. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(5), 1106–1116.
doi:10.12669/pjms.36.5.3088 PMID:32704298
Inamorato Dos Santos, A., Punie, Y., & Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016). The OpenEdu framework. Joint Research Center.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE Standarts for Students. Retrieved from https://
www.iste.org/standards/ standards/standards-for-students
Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
22(1), 120–134. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.002
Isumi, A., Doi, S., Yamaoka, Y., Takahashi, K., & Fujiwara, T. (2020). Do suicide rates in children and adolescents change
during school closure in Japan? The acute effect of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic on child and adolescent mental
health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 110(2), 104680. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104680 PMID:32847679
Italian Government. (2020). Italian Government: Measures to Face the Coronavirus Covid-19. http://www.governo.it/
it/coronavirus
Iversen, J. Y. (2020). ‘Pre-service teachers’ translanguaging during field placement in multilingual, mainstream class-
rooms in Norway’. Language and Education, 34(1), 51–65. doi:10.1080/09500782.2019.1682599
Jack, S. J., & Ronan, K. R. (2008). Bibliotherapy: Practice and research. School Psychology International, 29(2), 161–182.
doi:10.1177/0143034308090058
468
Jaggars, S. S., Edgecombe, N., & Stacey, G. W. (2013). What we know about online course outcomes: Online higher
education is expanding rapidly. Columbia University, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from https://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542143.pdf
Jeffery, K. A., & Bauer, C. F. (2020). Students’ responses to emergency remote online teaching reveal critical factors for
all teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2472–2485. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00736
Jennings, P. A. (2019). The trauma sensitive classroom: Building resilience with compassionate teaching. W. W. Norton
Company.
Jensen, D., Cohen, J. N., Mennin, D. S., Fresco, D. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2016). Clarifying the unique associations
among intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 45(6), 431–444. doi:10.1080
/16506073.2016.1197308 PMID:27314213
Jia, M., Li, L., & Tisworth, S. (2015). Teaching as emotional work: Instructor’s empathy and students’ motives to com-
municate out of class. La Review Electronic de Communication, 25(3-4), 1–15.
Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020). U.S. faculty and administrators’ experiences and approaches in the
early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning, 24(2), 6–21. doi:10.24059/olj.v24i2.2285
Jørgensen, T., & Claeys-Kulik, A-L. (2021, February 6). What does the future hold for Europe’s universities? University
World News.
Journell, W. (2015). Practical guidelines for creating online courses in K-12 education. In T. L. Heafner, R. Hartshorne,
& T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments (pp. 86–107). IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6383-1.ch005
Jurdi, S., Montaner, J., Garcia-Sanjuan, F., Jaen, J., & Nacher, V. (2018). A systematic review of game technologies for pe-
diatric patients. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 97, 89–112. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.04.019 PMID:29715597
Kahn, B. H. (2010). The global e-learning framework. Academic Press.
Kahn, B. H. (2014). Continuum in e-learning: People, process and product (P3). https://elearningindustry.com/continuum-
in-e-learning-people-process-and-product-p3
Kahn. B. H. (2020). E-learning framework and models. Academic Press.
Kaiper-Marquez, A., Wolfe, E., Clymer, C., Lee, J., McLean, E. G., Prins, E., & Stickel, T. (2020). On the fly: Adapting
quickly to emergency remote instruction in a family literacy programme. International Review of Education, 66(5-6),
691–713. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711159-020-09861-y PMID:33071304
Kapasia, N., Paul, P., Roy, A., Saha, J., Zaveri, A., Mallick, R., ... Chouhan, P. (2020). Impact of lockdown on learning
status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVİD-19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and
Youth Services Review, 116, 105194.
Karadağ, E., & Yücel, C. (2020). Distance Education at Universities during the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic: An
Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 10(2), 181–192. doi:10.2399/yod.20.730688
Karakaya, K. (2020). Design considerations in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A human-
centered approach. Educational Technology Research and Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.100711423-
020-09884-0 PMID:33250609
469
Karakuş, N., Ucuzsatar, N., Karacaoğlu, M. Ö., Esendemir, N., & Bayraktar, D. (2020). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının
uzaktan eğitime yönelik görüşleri. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (19), 220–241. doi:10.29000/
rumelide.752297
Karakuş, N., Ucuzsatar, N., Karacaoğlu, M., Esendemi̇r, N., & Bayraktar, D. (2020). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının uzaktan
eğitime yönelik görüşleri [Turkish teacher candidates’ views on distance education]. RumeliDE Journal of Language
and Literature Studies, (19), 220–241.
Karataş, Z. (2015). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative research Methods in The Social Sciences].
Manevi Temelli Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 62–80.
Karlsson, A., Larsson, P. N., & Jakobsson, A. (2020). The continuity of learning in a translanguaging science classroom.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 1–25. doi:10.100711422-019-09933-y
Karp, M. M. (2011). Toward a new understanding of non-academic student support: Four mechanisms encouraging
positive student outcomes in the community college. CCRC Working Paper No. 28, Community College Research Center,
Columbia University.
Katzman, N. F., & Stanton, M. P. (2020). The integration of social emotional learning and cultural education into online
distance learning curricula: Now imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic. Creative Education, 11(09), 1561–1571.
doi:10.4236/ce.2020.119114
Kawachi, P. (2014). Quality assurance guidelines for open educational resources: TIPS framework. CEMCA.
Kayaduman, H., & Battal, A. (2020). The Relationship Between Digital Literacy and Distance Education Perceptions.
13th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, 2223–2227. 10.21125/iceri.2020.0533
Kayaduman, H., & Demirel, T. (2019). Investigating the Concerns of First-Time Distance Education Instructors. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(5), 85–103. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4467
Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2011). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills. In G. Wan & D. M. Gut (Eds.),
Bringing schools into the 21st century (pp. 41–65). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0268-4_3
Kaysi, F. (2020). Covid-19 salgını sürecinde Türkiye’de gerçekleştirilen uzaktan eğitimin değerlendirilmesi. 5th Inter-
national Scientific Research Congress (IBAD - 2020).
Keast, D. A. (1997). Toward an effective model for implementing distance education programs. American Journal of
Distance Education, 11(2), 39–55. doi:10.1080/08923649709526960
Kee, C. E. (2020). The impact of COVID-19: Graduate students’ emotional and psychological experiences. Journal of
Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10911359.2020.1855285
Keefe, E. S. (2020). Learning to practice digitally: Advancing preservice teachers’ preparation via virtual teaching and
coaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 223–232.
Keefe, E. S., & Steiner, A. (2018). Remixing the Curriculum: The teacher’s guide to technology in the classroom. Row-
man & Littlefield.
Keeling, R. P. (2014). An ethic of care in higher education: Well-being and learning. Journal of College and Character,
15(3), 141–148. doi:10.1515/jcc-2014-0018
Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self‐understanding, vulnerability and reflection.
Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 257–272. doi:10.1080/13540600902875332
470
Kelland, K. (2020). The new coronavirus: key terms explained. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-

terms-explainer-idUSKBN21I1PQ
Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Develop-
ment, 2(4), 26–34. doi:10.1007/BF02904345
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3
Kershner, R. (2009). Learning in inclusive classrooms. In P. Hick, R. Keshner, & P. T. Farrel (Eds.), Psychology for
inclusive education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 52–65). Routledge.
Keskin, M., & Özer Kaya, D. (2020). COVID-19 Sürecinde Öğrencilerin Web Tabanlı Uzaktan Eğitime Yönelik Geri
Bildirimlerinin Değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Students’ Feedbacks on Web-Based Distance Education in the CO-
VID-19 Process]. İzmir Katip Çelebi University Faculty of Health Sciences Journal, 5(2), 59-67.
Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. Routledge.
Khlaif, N. Z., Salha, S., Affouneh, S., Rashed, H., & ElKimishy, A. L. (2020). The Covid-19 Epidemic: Teachers’
Responses to School Closure in Developing Countries. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1–15. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2020.1851752
Kihara, N., & Yamamoto, T. (2018). Developmental Support for Sick Children through Play in Japan’s ECEC System:
A Comparison with Hospital Play Specialists. Children (Basel, Switzerland), 5(10), 133. doi:10.3390/children5100133
PMID:30248939
Kılınç, H. (2020). Çevrimiçi Grup Tartışmalarının Öğrenenler Üzerindeki Etkisinin Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından
İncelenmesi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Örneği (Doctoral Dissertation). Anadolu University, Social
Sciences Institute, Eskişehir, Turkey.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Kim, J. (2020). Learning and teaching online during Covid-19: Experiences of student teachers in an early childhood educa-
tion platform. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(2), 145–158. doi:10.100713158-020-00272-6 PMID:32836369
Kim, L. E., & Ashbury, K. (2020). ‘Like a rug had been pulled from under you’: The impact of COVID-19 on teach-
ers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4),
1062–1083. doi:10.1111/bjep.12381 PMID:32975830
Kıral, B. (2019). Eğitim yönetiminde öğretmen güçlendirme [Teacher empowerment in the education method]. In N.
Cemaloğlu & M. Özdemir (Eds.), Eğitim yönetimi [Education management] (pp. 627–737). Pegem.
Kiramba, L., & Harris, V. (2018). Navigating Authoritative Discourses in a Multilingual Classroom: Conversations With
Policy and Practice. TESOL Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/tesq.493
Kleyn, T., & García, O. (2019). Translanguaging as an act of transformation: Restructuring teaching and learning for emergent
bilingual students. In L. de Oliveira (Ed.), Handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp. 69–82). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119421702.ch6
Klikauer, T. (2015). What is managerialism? Critical Sociology, 41(7-8), 1103–1119. doi:10.1177/0896920513501351
Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the
decline of civic life. Broadway Books.
Kline, P. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. Acaderric Press.
471
Kluge, H. H. P. (2020a). Statement - physical and mental health key to resilience during COVID-19 pandemic. http://www.
euro.who.int/en/mediacentre/sections/statements/2020/statement-physical-and-mental-health-key-to-resilienceduring-
covid-19-pandemic
Kluge, H. H. P. (2020b). Mental health and psychological resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. http://www.euro.
who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid19/news/news/2020/3/mental-health-and-psychological-
resilience-during-the-covid-19- pandemic
Kneese, T. (2021). How a dead professor is teaching a university art history class. Future Tense. https://slate.com/tech-
nology/2021/01/dead-professor-teaching-online-class.html
Knudson, D. (2020). A tale of two instructional experiences: Student engagement in active learning and emergency
remote learning of biomechanics. Sports Biomechanics, 1–11. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14763141.202
0.1810306 PMID:32924795
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Inte-
grating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012
Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Facilitating synchronous online language learning through Zoom. RELC Journal.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0033688220937235
König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher
education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 43(4), 608–622. doi:10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650
Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., Klein, D., & Nord, J. H. (2016). The importance of active learning elements in the design
of online courses. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 4(2), 17–28. doi:10.36965/OJAKM.2016.4(2)17-28
Kopp, M., Gröblinger, O., & Adams, S. (2019, March 11–13). Five common assumptions that prevent digital transforma-
tion at higher education institutions. In INTED2019 Proceedings (pp. 1448–1457). 10.21125/inted.2019.0445
Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, Ç. (2020). Are we ready for the post-Covid-19 educational practice? An investigation into
what educators think as to online learning. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 293–309.
Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, Ç. (2020). Are we ready for the post-covid-19 educational practice? An investigation into
what educators think as to online learning. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 293–309.
doi:10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.110
Koukourikos, K., Tzeha, L., Pantelidou, P., & Tsaloglidou, A. (2015). The importance of play during hospitalization of
children. Materia Socio-Medica, 27(6), 438. doi:10.5455/msm.2015.27.438-441 PMID:26889107
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organiza-
tions (6th ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Van Buuren, H. (2007). Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported
collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176–192. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.004
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage Publications Inc.
Kuh, D. G. (2003). What We’re Learning About Student Engagement From NSSE: Benchmarks for Effective Educational
Practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. doi:10.1080/00091380309604090
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Liu, J. (2020). Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19
school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 549–565. doi:10.3102/0013189X20965918
472
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2011). Student Success in College: Creating conditions that matter.
John Wiley & Sons.
Kuijpers, J. M., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Wubbels, T. (2010). An integrated professional development model for effective
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1687–1694. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.021
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Bossu, C., Coughlan, T., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Rienties, B.,
Sargent, J., Scanlon, E., Tang, J., Wang, Q., Whitelock, D., & Zhang, S. (2021). Innovating pedagogy 2021: Open Uni-
versity innovation report 9. The Open University. http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/innovating/
Kumar, S., Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Ele-
ments of award-winning courses. Online Learning, 23(4), 160–180. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i4.2077
Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2015). Learning theory and online learning in K-12 education: Instructional models and implications.
In T. L. Heafner, R. Hartshorne, & T. Petty (Eds.), Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments
(pp. 126–146). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6383-1.ch007
Lai, M. (2008, January 4). Technology readiness, internet self‐efficacy and computing experience of professional ac-
counting students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(1), 18–29. doi:10.1108/10650740810849061
Lambert, S. (2018). Changing our (dis)course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open education. Journal
of Learning for Development, 5(3), 225–244. https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/290
Lamri, M., Akrouf, S., Boubetra, A., Merabet, A., Selmani, L., & Boubetra, D. (2014). From local teaching to distant
teaching through IoT interoperability. In Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL), 2014
International Conference on (pp. 107-110). IEEE.
Lancaster, T., & Cotarlan, C. (2021). Contract cheating by STEM students through a file sharing website: A Covid-19
pandemic perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–16. doi:10.100740979-021-00070-0
Lasagabaster, D., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging: towards a dynamic model of bilingualism at school / Trans-
languaging: hacia un modelo dinámico de bilingüismo en la escuela. Cultura y Educación, 26(1), 557–572. doi:10.10
80/11356405.2014.973671
Laundon, M., Cathcart, A., & Greer, D. (2020). Teaching philosophy statements. Journal of Management Education,
44(5), 577–587. doi:10.1177/1052562920942289
Lawrence, T. B., & Maitlis, S. (2012). Care and possibility: Enacting an ethics of care through narrative practice. Academy
of Management Review, 37(4), 641–663. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0466
Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and
practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. doi:10.3102/0034654313480891
Lazzerini, M., & Putoto, G. (2020). COVID-19 in Italy: Momentous decisions and many uncertainties. The Lancet.
Global Health, 8(5), e641–e642. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30110-8 PMID:32199072
Lederman, D. (2020, June 10). What do we know about this spring’s remote learning? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/digitallearning/article/2020/06/10/what-do-we-know-and-what-should-we-try-
learn-aboutsprings
Lee, J. (2020). Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health, 4(6),
421. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30109-7 PMID:32302537
473
Lee, J. S. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? The
Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.807491
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, jdd.12350. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/
jdd.12350 PMID:32717106
Lee, K. (2020). Who opens online distance education, to whom, and for what? Distance Education, 41(2), 186–200. do
i:10.1080/01587919.2020.1757404
Lee, K., Fanguy, M., Lu, X. S., & Bligh, B. (2021). Student learning during COVID-19: It was not as bad as we feared.
Distance Education, 42(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/01587919.2020.1869529
Lee, Y. J., & Recchia, S. L. (2016). Zooming in and out: Exploring teacher competencies in inclusive early childhood
classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/02568543.2015.1105330
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(3), 517–528. doi:10.2224bp.7054
Lelli, C. (2021). Trauma-sensitive schools: The importance of instilling grit, determination, and resilience. Rowman
and Littlefield.
Lemke, J. (2012). Analyzing Verbal Data: Principles, Methods, and Problems. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.),
Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1471–1484). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_94
Levinson, M., Cevik, M., & Lipsitch, M. (2020). Reopening Primary Schools during the Pandemic. The New England
Journal of Medicine, 383(10), 981–985. doi:10.1056/NEJMms2024920 PMID:32726550
Lewin, K. M. (2020). Contingent refections on coronavirus and priorities for educational planning and development.
Prospects, 49(1-2), 17–24. doi:10.100711125-020-09480-3 PMID:32836423
Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty.
Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83–98. doi:10.100710755-006-9010-z
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond.
Educational Research and Evaluation. An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 18(7), 641–654.
Li, C., & Lalani, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. World Economic
Forum. Accessed 17th August, 2020 at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-
online-digital-learning/
Li, C., & Lalani, F. (2020, April 29). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. Retrieved
from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/
Li, X. (2020, April 28). Online learning the new normal and a sign of the future. Retrieved from https://www.shine.cn/
education/2004287134/
Liberman, J., Levin, V., & Luna-Bazaldua, D. (2020, April 27). Are students still learning during COVID-19? Formative
assessment can provide the answer. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/are-students-still-learning-
during-covid-19-formative-assessment-can-provide-answer
Licona, P. R., & Kelly, G. J. (2020). Translanguaging in a middle school science classroom: Constructing scientific argu-
ments in English and Spanish. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 485–510. doi:10.100711422-019-09946-7
474
Lieberman, A. F., Chu, A., Van Horn, P., & Harris, W. W. (2011). Trauma in early childhood: Empirical evidence and clini-
cal implications. Development and Psychopathology, 23(2), 397–410. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000137 PMID:23786685
Lindqvist, I. (1974). Play as therapy. Paediatrician, 3, 295–300.
Lindström, C., Åman, J., & Norberg, A. L. (2011). Parental burnout in relation to sociodemographic, psychosocial and
personality factors as well as disease duration and glycaemic control in children with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Acta
Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway), 100(7), 1011–1017. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02198.x PMID:21414025
Liu, X., Kakade, M., Fuller, C. J., Fan, B., Fang, Y., Kong, J., Guan, Z., & Wu, P. (2012). Depression after exposure
to stressful events: Lessons learned from the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic. Comprehensive Psychiatry,
53(1), 15–23. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.02.003 PMID:21489421
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. doi:10.1093/ap-
plin/amx039
Li, W. H., Chung, J. O. K., Ho, K. Y., & Kwok, B. M. C. (2016). Play interventions to reduce anxiety and negative emo-
tions in hospitalized children. BMC Pediatrics, 16(1), 36. doi:10.118612887-016-0570-5 PMID:26969158
Lombardi, M., & Oblinger, D. (2008). Making the grade: The role of assessment in authentic learning. EDUCAUSE. Re-
trieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2008/1/making-the-grade-the-role-of-assessment-in-authentic-learning
Lookabaugh, S., & Ballard, S. M. (2018). The scope and future direction of child life. Journal of Child and Family Stud-
ies, 27(6), 1721–1731. doi:10.100710826-018-1031-6
Lorenz, E. N. (1972). Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? Paper
presented at 139th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
Lowenhaupt, R., McKinney, S., & Reeves, T. (2013). Coaching in context: The role of relationships in the work of three
literacy coaches. Professional Development in Education, 5, 740–757. doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.847475
Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student Motivation. Research Roundup, 10(3).
Lundy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and educational policy in Europe: The implementation of the United Nations Con-
vention on the Rights of the Child. Oxford Review of Education, 38(4), 393–411. doi:10.1080/03054985.2012.704874
Lynch, K. (2010). Carelessness: A hidden doxa of higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(1),
54–67. doi:10.1177/1474022209350104
Lynch, K., Ivancheva, M., O’Flynn, M., Keating, K., & O’Connor, M. (2020). The care ceiling in higher education. Irish
Educational Studies, 39(2), 157–174. doi:10.1080/03323315.2020.1734044
Lynch, M. (2020). E-Learning during a global pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 189–195.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.3881785
Maeda, J. (2019). Design in Tech Report 2019 (Section 6 Addressing Imbalance). Retrieved from https://designintech.
report/2019/03/11/%F0%9F%93%B1design-in-tech-report-2019-section-6-addressing-imbalance
Male, B. (2020, April 26). Online learning: The ‘new normal’. Retrieved from https://www.wnypapers.com/news/article/
featured/2020/04/26/141219/online-learning-the-new-normal
Maloney, E. J., & Kim, J. (2020). 15 Falls Scenarios. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/
blogs/learning-innovation/15-fall-scenarios
475
Mandernach, B. J. (2009). Effect of instructor-personalized multimedia in the online classroom. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1–19. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.606
Manfuso, L. G. (2020, April 15). How the remote learning pivot could shape Higher Ed IT. EdTech Magazine. https://
edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2020/04/how-remote-learning-pivot-could-shape-higher-ed-it
Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2005). The role of internet self-efficacy in the acceptance of web-based electronic medical records.
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 17(1), 38–57. doi:10.4018/joeuc.2005010103
Mariskind, C. (2014). Teachers’ care in higher education: Contesting gendered constructions. Gender and Education,
26(3), 306–320. doi:10.1080/09540253.2014.901736
Marston, C., Renedo, A., & Miles, S. (2020). Community participation is crucial in a pandemic. Lancet, 395(10238),
1676–1678. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31054-0 PMID:32380042
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development. Innovation in
Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249–267. doi:10.11120/ital.2006.05040249
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strate-
gies in the online learning environment. Online Learning., 22(1), 205–222. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Roles
and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1), 184–205. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i1.1329
Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course
design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43. doi:10.1016/j.ihe-
duc.2019.04.001
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. doi:10.1037/h0054346
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139164603
Mayring, P. (1994). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Retrieved
from https://www.psychopen.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/books/mayring/ssoar-2014-mayring-Qualitative_content_analy-
sis_theoretical_foundation.pdf
Mazzaferro, G. (2018) Translanguaging as Everyday Practice. An Introduction-Draft. . doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94851-5_1
McBrien, J., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom to Facilitate
Student Engagement in Online Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3).
Advance online publication. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
McBurnie, C. (2020, April 8). The Role of Interactive Radio Instruction in the COVID-19 Education Response. Open
Development & Education. Retrieved from https://opendeved.net/2020/04/08/the-role-of-interactive-radio-instruction-
in-the-covid-19-education-response/
McCall, B. P. (2014). Human capital. In D. J. Brewer & L. O. Picus (Eds.), Encyclopedia of education economics &
finance (Vol. 1, pp. 391-393). Sage Publications.
McCombs, B. L. (2000, September 11-12). Assessing the role of educational technology in the teaching and learning
process: A learner-centered perspective [White paper]. The Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology, 2000:
Measuring Impacts and Shaping the Future, Alexandria, Virginia, United States. https://www.ed.gov/Technology/tech-
conf/2000/mccombs_paper.html
476
McCombs, B. L. (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for balancing academic achievement
and social emotional learning outcomes. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building
academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say (pp. 23–39). Teachers College Press.
McCombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8),
1582–1600. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00534.x
McDonough, A., Clarke, B., & Clarke, D. M. (2002). Understanding, assessing and developing children’s mathematical
thinking: The power of a one-to-one interview for preservice teachers in providing insights into appropriate pedagogical
practices. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(2), 211–226. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00061-7
McIntyre, L. L., & Garbacz, S. A. (2014). Best practices in system-level organization and support for effective family-
school partnerships. In P. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices of school psychology: System level services (pp.
455–465). National Association of School Psychology.
McKeown, C., & McKeown, J. (2019). Accessibility in online courses: Understanding the deaf learner. TechTrends,
63(5), 506–513. doi:10.100711528-019-00385-3
McKibbin, W., & Fernando, R. (2020). The economic impact of covid-19. In R. Baldwin & B. W. Di Mauro (Eds.),
Economics in the time of covid- 19 (pp. 45–51). CEPR Press.
McMillan, S.J. (n.d.). COVID-19 and strategic communication with parents and guardians of college students. Cogent
Social Sciences, 6. doi:10.1080/23311886.2020.1843836
McMillan, J. H., & Forsyth, D. R. (1991). What theories of motivation say about why learners learn. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 1991(45), 39–52. doi:10.1002/tl.37219914507
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Metzger, T., Mignogna, K., & Reilly, L. (2013). Child life specialists: Key members of the team in pediatric radiology.
Journal of Radiology Nursing, 32(4), 153–159. doi:10.1016/j.jradnu.2013.08.001
Mikolajczak, M., Brianda, M. E., Avalosse, H., & Roskam, I. (2018). Consequences of parental burnout: Its specific effect
on child neglect and violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 80, 134–145. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.025 PMID:29604504
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expande sourcebook. Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149–159. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.htm
Miltiadou, M., & Savenye, W. C. (2003). Applying social cognitive constructs of motivation to enhance student success
in online distance education. AACE Journal, 11(1), 78–95.
Ministry of Health. (2020). Press briefing. Retrieved from https://tr.euronews.com/2020/03/10/sagl-k-bakan-koca-

koronavirus-covid-19-salg-n-ile-ilgili-ac-klama-yap-yor
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational
technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48–53. doi:10.100711528-009-0325-3
477
Mislinawati, V. M., & Nurmasyitah, M. (2018). Students’ perceptions on the implementation of e learning: Helpful or
unhelpful? Paper presented at the 6th South East Asia Design Research International Conference.
Mitra, R. (2020). COVID-19 is killing education budgets: Are educational public-private partnerships an answer? Journal
of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 255–264. doi:10.1108/JPCC-07-2020-0056
Mkhize, N., & Ndimande-Hlongwa, N. (2014). African Languages, Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS), and the
Transformation of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Higher Education. Alternation (Durban), 21(2), 10–37.
Mohmmed, A. O., Khidhir, B. A., Nazeer, A., & Vijayan, V. J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching during Coronavirus
pandemic: The current trend and future directive at Middle East College Oman. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions,
5(3), 1–11. doi:10.100741062-020-00326-7
Mokhoali, V. (2020, April 20). Boycott e-learning until all students are brought on board—Sascoc. Retrieved from
https://ewn.co.za/2020/04/20/boycott-e-learning-until-all-students-are-brought-on-board-sascoc
Moore, M. G. (1993). Is teaching like flying? A total systems view of distance education. Retrieved from https://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08923649309526806?journalCode=hajd20
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, 1, 22-38.
Moore, M. G. (2014). From Radio to the Virtual University: Reflections on the History of American Distance Educa-
tion from One Who Was There! Distance Education in China, 1, 24-34+58. doi:10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2014.01.008
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A System View. Wadsworth.
Moore, E. R., Bennett, K. L., Dietrich, M. S., & Wells, N. (2015). The effect of directed medical play on young chil-
dren’s pain and distress during burn wound care. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 29(3), 265–273. doi:10.1016/j.
pedhc.2014.12.006 PMID:25631102
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
doi:10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education
(pp. 22–38). Routledge.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (pp. 22–38).
Routledge.
Moore, M. G., & Diehl, W. C. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of distance education (4th ed.). Routledge.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course “forced” online due to the CO-
VID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609–611. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/0260
7476.2020.1755205
Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unravelling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Educa-
tion, 20(1), 96–108. doi:10.1080/0158791990200108
Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). The focus group kit (Vol. 1–6). Sage Publications Inc.
Morgan, H. (2020). Best practices for implementing remote learning during a pandemic. The Clearing House: A Journal
of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 93(3), 135–141. doi:10.1080/00098655.2020.1751480
478
Moriggi, A., Soini, K., Bock, B. B., & Roep, D. (2020). Caring in, for, and with nature: An integrative framework to
understand green care practices. Sustainability, 12(8), 3361. doi:10.3390u12083361
Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy Inc.
Moss, G., Allen, R., Bradbury, A., Duncan, S., Harmey, S., & Levy, R. (2020). A duty of care and a duty to teach:
Educational priorities in response to the COVID-19 crisis. UCL Institute of Education. https://committees.parliament.
uk/writtenevidence/9081/pdf/
Mu’ayyadah, K., & Sahiruddin, S. (2020). Blended online learning culture in an Indonesian tertiary education during
Covid-19 pandemic. Studi Budaya Nusantara, 4(2), 133–143.
Mukeredze, T., Kokutse, F., & Dell, S. (2020, April 22). Student bodies say e-learning is unaffordable and elitist. Uni-
versity World News. Retrieved from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200422075107312
Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Is COVID-19 the gateway for digital learning in mathematics education?
Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep269. doi:10.30935/cedtech/7949
Müller, A. M., Goh, C., Lim, L. Z., & Gao, X. (2021). COVID-19 Emergency eLearning and Beyond: Experiences and
Perspectives of University Educators. Education Sciences, 11(1), 19. doi:10.3390/educsci11010019
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Math-
ematics and Science. Retrieved 17 July 2020 from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website:
https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/
Murphy, M. P. (2020). COVID-19 and emergency eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education
for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy, 41(3), 492–505. doi:10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749
Naffi, N. (2020). Disruption in and by Centres for Teaching and Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Leading the
Future of Higher Ed. Québec City: L’Observatoire Internationale sur les Impacts Sociétaux de l’IA et du Numerique and
the Government of Québec. Retrieved from https://observatoire-ia.ulaval.ca/en/whitepaper-leading-the-future-of-higher-ed/
Naples, N. A. (2003). Feminism and method: Ethnography, discourse analysis, and activist research. Routledge.
Nart, S., & Altunışık, R. (2013). Improving distance education system: Problems and solutions from the perspective of
lecturers. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 10(10), 23.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Student access to digital learning resources outside of the classroom.
Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098/ind_15.asp
National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Schools Committee. (2017). Creating, supporting, and sustaining trauma-
informed schools: A system framework. National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.
National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. (2020). Notice on strengthening psychological assistance
and social work services in response to the new crown pneumonia epidemic. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/jkj/ s3577/202003/
a9b0bcb3bb7445298c480c5003c51d6d.shtml
Nessipbayeva, O. (2012). The competencies of the modern teacher. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, 148-154.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567059.pdf
Neubauer, B. E., Witcop, C. T., & Vapiro, L. (2019, April). How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences
of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 90–97. doi:10.100740037-019-0509-2 PMID:30953335
Noddings, N. (2012). The language of care ethics. Knowledge Quest, 40(5), 52–56.
479
Novak, J., & Gowin, B. (1984). Learning How To Learn. Cambridge Universty Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139173469
O’Keefe, L., Rafferty, J., Gunder, A., & Vignare, K. (2020). Delivering High-Quality Instruction Online in Response to
COVID-19: Faculty Playbook. Online Learning Consortium.
O’Malley, B. (2018, December 16). Higher education role is to reassert universal values. University World News.
Obara, S. (2010). Mathematics coaching: A new kind of professional development. Teacher Development: An International
Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development, 14(2), 241-251. http://dx.doi.org/. doi:10.1080/13664530.2010.494504
Oberle, E., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher
burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 30–37. doi:10.1016/j.
socscimed.2016.04.031 PMID:27156042
Odabaş, H. (2003). Internet Tabanlı Uzaktan Eğitim ve Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümleri [Internet Based Distance
Education and Departments of Information And Records Management]. Turkish Librarianship., 17(1), 22–36.
OECD. (2013). Supporting investment in knowledge capital, growth and innovation. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-il-
ibrary.org/industry-and-services/supporting-investment-in-knowledge-capital-growth-and-innovation_9789264193307-en
OECD. (2016). New skills for the digital economy. Measuring the demand and supply of ICT skills at work. 2016 Min-
isterial meeting on the digital economy technical report. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-
technology/new-skills-for-the-digital-economy_5jlwnkm2fc9x-en
OECD. (2020). Education Responses to COVID-19: Embracing Digital Learning and Online Collaboration. https://
read.oecdilibrary.org/view/?ref=120_1205448ksud7oaj2&title=Education_responses_to_Covid-19_Embracing_digi-
tal_learning_and_online_collaboration
OECD. (2020). The OECD learning compass. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/

learning/
OECD. (2020, June 29). Education and COVID-19: Focusing on the long-term impact of school closures. OECD.
OECD. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19: How STI systems responded to the crisis, and the challenges that lie ahead. OECD
Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, and ACRL/Choice for a presentation of the key findings from the
new STI Outlook. https://www.choice360.org/webinars/impacts-of-covid-19-how-sti-systems-responded-to-the-crisis-
and-the-challenges-that-lie-ahead/
Okumuş, E. (2020). Afetleri çok yönlü okumanın önemi [The importance of reading disasters from multiple perspec-
tives]. In E. Okumuş (Ed.), Küresel salgınlara farklı bakışlar. Psikolojk, sosyolojik, dini, kültürel, tarihi, hukuki ve siyasi
analizler [Different perspectives on global epidemics. Psychological, sociological, religious, cultural, historical, legal
and political analyzes] (pp. 13–50). Eski Yeni Yayınları.
Olcott, D. (2020). The Leadership imperative: Back to the future after the COVID-19 pandemic. Distance Education in
China, 7, 1-6+40. doi:10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2020.07.001
Olivares-Orellana, E. (2020). More than an English language learner: Testimonios of immigrant high school students.
Bilingual Research Journal, 43(1), 71–91. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15235882.2019.1711463
Omidire, M. F. (2019). Language teaching and learning challenges in multilingual contexts. In M. F. Omidire (Ed.),
Multilingualism in the classroom: teaching and learning in a challenging context (pp. 2–10). UCT Press.
480
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Education Responses to Covid-19: Embracing
Digital Learning and Online Collaboration. http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/education-responses-to-
covid-19-embracing-digital-learning-and-online-collaboration-d75eb0e8/
Orgilés, M., Morales, A., Delvecchio, E., Mazzeschi, C., & Espada, J. P. (2020). Immediate psychological effects of the
COVID-19 quarantine in youth from Italy and Spain. Frontiers in psychology. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://
psyarxiv.com/5bpfz/
Orland-Barak, L. (2010). Learning to mentor as praxis: Foundations for a curriculum in teacher education. Springer.
Osborne, D. (2020). Code switching practices from “other tongues” to the “mother tongue” in the provincial Philippine
classroom. Linguistics and Education, 55, 100780. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.100780
Osborne, N., & Grant-Smith, D. (2015). Supporting mindful planners in a mindless system: Limitations to the emotional
turn in planning practice. The Town Planning Review, 86(6), 677–698. doi:10.3828/tpr.2015.39
Osborne, N., & Grant-Smith, D. (2017). Resisting the ‘employability’ doctrine through anarchist pedagogies and pre-
figuration. Australian Universities Review, 59(2), 59–69.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2012). Benchmarking e-learning in higher education: Lessons learned from international projects
(Doctoral dissertation). Oulu University, Finland.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2020a). After Covid-19: Some challenges for universities. In A. Tlili, D. Burgos, & A. Tabacco (Eds.),
Education in a crisis context: COVID-19 as an opportunity for global learning. Springer.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2020d). Reflection on 21st century competences, smart learning environments, and digitalization in
education. Near East University Online Journal of Education – NEUJE. http://dergi.neu.edu.tr/index.php/neuje/article/
view/244
Ossiannilsson, E. (2021a). OER: Open to ideas, open to the world. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Ossiannilsson, E., Glapa-Grossklag, J., & Zhang, X. (2019, November). Opening pathways for access, inclusion, flex-
ibility, and quality. Paper presented at the ICDE WCOL 2019, Dublin, Ireland.
Ossiannilsson, E., Zhang, X., Wetzler, J., Gusmão, C. M. G., Aydin, C. H., Jhangiani, R. S., Glapa-Grossklag, J., Makoe,
M., & Harichandan, D. (2020). From open educational resources to open educational practices: For resilient sustainable
education. DMS-DMK Distance et mediations des saviors – Distance and mediations of knowledge.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2019). OER and OEP for access, equity, equality, quality, inclusiveness, and empowering lifelong learn-
ing. The International Journal of Open Educational Resources, 1(2). Advance online publication. doi:10.18278/ijoer.1.2.9
Ossiannilsson, E. (2020b). Online open pedagogy and management. In F. Altinay & Z. Altinay (Eds.), Online pedagogy
and management for smart societies. Pegem Akademi. doi:10.14527/9786257052498.02
Ossiannilsson, E. (2020c). Quality models for open, flexible, and online learning. Journal of Computer Science Research,
2(4).
Ossiannilsson, E. (2021b). The new normal: Post COVID-19 is about change and sustainability. Near East University
Online Journal of Education – NEUJE.
Outlaw, V., & Rice, M. (2015). Best practices: Implementing an online course development & delivery model. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(3), 1–10.
Ozer, M. (2020). Educational policy actions by the Ministry of National Education in the times of Covid-19 pandemic
in Turkey. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 28(3), 1124–1129.
481
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287.
doi:10.1037/h0084295
Pakpour, A. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). The fear of COVID-19 and its role in preventive behaviors. Journal of Con-
current Disorders, 2(1), 58–63.
Palmer, K., & Cantrell, K. (2019, May 6). The casualities of academia: A response to The Conversation. Overland.
Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online Education: Worldwide
status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241.
doi:10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
Panayiotou, M., Humphrey, N., & Wigelsworth, M. (2019). An empirical basis for linking social and emotional learning
to academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 193–204. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.009
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational
effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004
Paper Pipecone. (2020, June 4). Teaching the difference between equality, equity and justice in preschool. Retrieved from
https://www.paperpinecone.com/blog/teaching-difference-between-equality-equity-and-justice-preschool
Park, S., Stone, S. I., & Holloway, S. D. (2017). School-based parental involvement as a predictor of achievement and
school learning environment: An elementary school-level analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 82, 195–206.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.012
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2012). Student Engagement: What do we know and what should we do? University of Alberta.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Volume 2.
Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
Paulsen, P., & Fuller, D. (2020). Scrolling for data or doom during COVID-19? Canadian Journal of Public Health,
111(4), 490–491. doi:10.1726941997-020-00376-5 PMID:32642969
Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student en-
gagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of Second Life. Computers in Human Behavior,
35, 157–170. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048
Peters, M., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Zipin, L., Brennan, M., Robertson, S.,
Quay, J., Malbon, J., Taglietti, D., Barnett, R., Chengbing, W., McLaren, P., Apple, R., Papastephanou, M., Burbules,
N., ... Misiaszek, L. (2020). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-19. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 1–44. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655
Petillion, R. K., & McNeil, W. S. (2020). Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: Impacts of instructor prac-
tice on student learning, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2486–2493. doi:10.1021/
acs.jchemed.0c00733
Petko, M. C. (2014). Economic development and education. In D.J. Brewer, & L. O. Picus (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
education economics & finance (Vol. 1, pp. 245-248). Sage Publications.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing.
doi:10.1002/9780470754887
482
Phirangee, K. (2016). Exploring the Role of Community in Online Learning [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Uni-
versity of Toronto/ Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Canada.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
Pierce, E. B. (2020). Supporting school community wellness with social and emotional learning (SEL) during and after
a pandemic. The Pennsylvania State University. https://www.prevention.psu.edu/uploads/files/PSU-SEL-Crisis-Brief.pdf
Pisano, L., Galimi, D., & Cerniglia, L. (2020). A qualitative report on exploratory data on the possible emotional/behav-
ioral correlates of Covid-19 lockdown in 10 years children in Italy. PsyArXiv, 4 10.31234/osf.io/stwbn
Plank, E. N. (1962). Working with children in hospitals. Tavistock Publications.
Poellhuber, B., Anderson, T., & Roy, N. (2011). Distance students’ readiness for social media and collaboration. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 102–125.
Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1–12. doi:10.1023/A:1007537902813
Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2021). ‘Homeschooling in times of corona’: Exploring Mexican and German
primary school students’ and parents’ chances and challenges during homeschooling. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 36(1), 35–50. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/08856257.2021.1874152
Presidency of the Republic of Turkey. (2020). Press briefing. Retrieved from. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/live/haberler-
turkiye-51849600
Prinsloo, P. (2020, August 12). Rethinking student vulnerability and risk: Researching student success and retention in
open education contexts. Retrieved from https://opendistanceteachingandlearning.wordpress.com/2020/08/12/rethinking-
student-vulnerability-and-risk-researching-student-success-and-retention-in-open-education-contexts/
Probst, B. (2016). Both/and: Researcher as participant in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research Journal, 16(2),
149–158. doi:10.1108/QRJ-06-2015-0038
Probyn, M. (2019). Pedagogical translanguaging and the construction of science knowledge in a multilingual South
African classroom: Challenging monoglossic/post-colonial orthodoxies. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 216–236. doi:
10.1080/19463014.2019.1628792
Proehl, R. A. (2001). Organizational change in the human services. Sage Sourcebooks for the Human Services.
Puri, R. (2020, April 10). Online Learning is the New Norm. retrieved from https://www.highereducationdigest.com/
online-learning-is-the-new-norm/
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. doi:10.1353/
jod.1995.0002
Pynoos, R. S., Fairbank, J. A., Steinberg, A. M., Amaya-Jackson, L., Gerrity, E., Mount, M. L., & Maze, J. (2008).
The National Child Traumatic Stress Network: Collaborating to improve the standard of care. Professional Psychology,
Research and Practice, 39(4), 389–395. doi:10.1037/a0012551
Radha, R., Mahalakshmi, K., Kumar, V. S., & Saravanakumar, A. R. (2020). E-Learning during lockdown of Covid-19
pandemic: A global perspective. International Journal Of Control And Automation, 13(4), 1088–1099.
Rahiem, M. D. H. (2020). The Emergency Remote Learning Experience of University Students in Indonesia amidst the
COVID-19 Crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(9), 1–26. doi:10.26803/
ijlter.19.6.1
483
Rahiem, M. D. H. (2020). The Emergency Remote Learning Experience of University Students in Indonesia amidst the
COVID-19 Crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research., 19(6), 1–26.
Rahim, A. F. A. (2020). Guidelines for online assessment in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Education in Medicine Journal, 12(2), 59–68. doi:10.21315/eimj2020.12.2.6
Ramsetty, A., & Adams, C. (2020). Impact of the digital divide in the age of COVID-19. Journal of the American Medi-
cal Informatics Association: JAMIA, 27(7), 1147–1148. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa078 PMID:32343813
Rantala, A., Pikkarainen, M., Miettunen, J., He, H. G., & Pölkki, T. (2020). The effectiveness of web‐based mobile
health interventions in paediatric outpatient surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled
trials. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76, 1949–1960. doi:10.1111/jan.14381 PMID:32281673
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(3), 923–945.
doi:10.100742438-020-00155-y
Raveendran, H. (2020, August 21). Remote learning is education’s new normal. Retrieved from https://insights.samsung.
com/2020/08/21/remote-learning-is-educations-new-normal/
Rawlings, R. (2013, November 11). Cited in M. O’Neil, New council to develop standards, best practices for online
learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-council-
to-develop-standards-best-practices-for-online-learning/48171
Redecker, C., Leis, M., Leendertse, M., Punie, Y., Gijsbers, G., Kirschner, P., Stoyanov, S., & Hoogveld, B. (2011). The
future of learning: Preparing for change. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/future-learning-preparing-change
Redmond, P., Abawi, L. A., Brown, A., Henderson, R., & Heffernan, A. (2018). An online engagement framework for
higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183–204. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
Redmond, T. (2010). The Teacher’s Role in Enforcing Hand Washing Techniques Among School-Aged Children in the
Midst of the H1N1 Pandemic. Perspectives In Learning, 11(1), 10.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of
2020. https://oecd.dam-broadcast.com/pm_7379_126_126988-t63lxosohs.pdf
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought. How the Covid-19 pandemic is chang-
ing education. OECD & Global Education Innovation Initiative. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=133_133390-
1rtuknc0hi&title=Schooling-disrupted-schooling-rethought-How-the-Covid-19-pandemic-is-changing-education
Ren, X. (2020). Pandemic and lockdown: A territorial approach to COVID-19 in China, Italy and the United States.
Eurasian Geography and Economics, 61(4-5), 423–434. doi:10.1080/15387216.2020.1762103
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of
the engagement construct. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-
4614-2018-7_1
Ribbers, A., & Waringa, A. (2015). E-Coaching: Theory and practice for a new online approach to coaching. Routledge.
484
Rice, M. F., Lowenthal, P. R., & Woodley, X. (2020). Distance education across critical theoretical landscapes: Touch-
stones for quality research and teaching. Distance Education, 41(3), 319–325. doi:10.1080/01587919.2020.1790091
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning
in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Richardson, S. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ development, exploration, and advancement of technological pedagogical
content knowledge in the teaching and learning of algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education,
9(2), 117–130.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess (Eds.),
Analysing Qualitative Data (pp. 173–194). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools. The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Viking
Penguin.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone Publishing Ltd.
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (Vol. 2). Pearson/Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Roca, E., Melgar, P., Gairal-Casado, R., & Pulido-Rodriguez, M. (2020). Schools that ‘open doors’ to prevent child
abuse in confinement by COVID-19. Sustainability, 12(11), 4685. Advance online publication. doi:10.3390u12114685
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Gable, R. A., & Zigmond, N. P. (2009). Virtual coaching for novice teachers: Technology en-
ables university professors to observe and literally whisper in the ear of a teacher during instruction. Phi Delta Kappan,
91(2), 36–41. doi:10.1177/003172170909100209
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Howard, P. W., Ploessl, D. M., Maughn, S., Gable, R. A., & Zigmond, N. P. (2009). See me,
hear me, coach me. Journal of Staff Development, 30(3), 24–31.
Rodgers, D. (2021). The confluence of K12 education technology leadership. TechTrends.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation (5th ed.). Free Press.
Roskam, I., Raes, M. E., & Mikolajczak, M. (2017). Exhausted parents: Development and preliminary validation of the
parental burnout inventory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 163. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00163 PMID:28232811
Rossett, A., & Marino, G. (2005). If coaching is good, then e-coaching is. TD, 59(11), 46-49.
Ross, J. (2020). Economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic for higher education: A circuit breaker in Australian
universities’ business model? Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1351–1356. doi:10.1080/07294360.
2020.1825350
Rotgans, J. I., Schmidt, H. G., Rajalingam, P., Hao, J. W. Y., Canning, C. A., Ferenczi, M. A., & Low-Beer, N. (2018). How
cognitive engagement fluctuates during a team-based learning session and how it predicts academic achievement. Advances
in Health Sciences Education : Theory and Practice, 23(2), 339–351. doi:10.100710459-017-9801-2 PMID:29101496
Rouse, M. (2008). Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education. Education in the North,
16(1), 6–13.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 3(1), 1–16. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79
485
Roy, M., & Boboc, M. (2016). Professional Development Needs of Online Teachers. Journal of Online Learning Re-
search, 2(3), 283–302. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/172451
Roy, R., & Vekusa, S. (2020). Collaborative autoethnography: “Self-reflection” as a timely alternative research approach
during the global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 20(4), 383–392. doi:10.1108/QRJ-06-2020-0054
Rubin, S. (1992). What’s in a name? Child life and the play lady legacy. Children’s Health Care, 21(1), 4–13.
doi:10.120715326888chc2101_1 PMID:10183619
Rushby, N. (2013). The future of learning technology: Some tentative predictions. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 16(2), 52–58.
Sabol, T., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher-child relationships. Attachment & Human Devel-
opment, 14(3), 213–231. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.672262 PMID:22537521
Sağlam, Y., & Ve Kanadlı, S. (2020). Nitel Veri Analizinde Kodlama (3. Bs.) [Coding in Qualitative Data Analysis].
Pegem Publishing.
Sağlık Bakanlığı, T. C. (2020). COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 enfeksiyonu) genel bilgiler, epidemioloji ve tanı. Bilimsel
Danışma Kurulu Çalışması.
Şahin, A., Tasci, M., & Yan, J. (2020). The Unemployment Cost of COVID-19: How High and How Long? Technical
Report. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. doi:10.26509/frbc-ec-202009
Şahin, S. M., Köğce, D., Özpınar, İ., & Yenmez, A. A. (2014). Instructors’ Views on Standards for the 21th Century
Learners and Lifelong Learning. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty, 22, 185–213.
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, 2019(4), 4–9. doi:10.7759/cureus.7541
Sakarya, G., & Zahal, O. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi sürecinde uzaktan keman eğitimine ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. Turkish
Studies, 15(6), 795–817. doi:10.7827/TurkishStudies.44504
Sala, A., Punie, Y., Garkov, V., & Cabrera-Giraldez, M. (2020). LifeComp: The European framework for personal, social
and learning to learn key competence. doi:10.2760/302967
Sá, M. J., & Serpa, S. (2020). The global crisis brought about by SARS-CoV-2 and its impacts on education: An overview
of the Portuguese panorama. Sci. Insights Educ. Front., 5(2), 525–530. doi:10.15354ief.20.ar039
Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an Inclusive Definition of E-Learning: An Approach to
the Conceptual Framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2). Assessed
July 31st, 2018 from www.irrodl.org
Sanky, M. (2021). Technology enhanced learning: getting the technology mix right (translated by Junhong Xiao). Dis-
tance Education in China, 3, 24-35+60. Doi:10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2021.03.003’
Sarıçam, H., Erguvan, F. M., Akın, A., & Akça, M. Ş. (2014). The Turkish short version of the intolerance of uncertainty
(IUS-12) scale: The study of validity and reliability. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 1(3), 148–157.
Sari, O. T. (2014). Outcomes of play-based home support for children with autism spectrum disorder. Social Behavior
and Personality, 42(1), 65S–80S. doi:10.2224bp.2014.suppl.S65
Satici, B., Gocet-Tekin, E., Deniz, M. E., & Satici, S. A. (2020). Adaptation of the fear of COVID-19 scale: Its associa-
tion with psychological distress and life satisfaction in Turkey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.
Advance online publication. doi:10.100711469-020-00294-0 PMID:32395095
486
Sator, A., & Williams, H. (2020). Removing Barriers to Online Learning Through a Teaching and Learning Lens. Vic-
toria BC: BCcampus/ABLE Research Consultants. Retrieved from https://bccampus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
Report_Removing-Barriers-to-Online-Learning-Through-a-Teaching-and-Learning-Lens.pdf
Saulnier, K. G., Allan, N. P., Raines, A. M., & Schmidt, N. B. (2019). Depression and intolerance of uncertainty: Rela-
tions between uncertainty subfactors and depression dimensions. Psychiatry, 82(1), 72–79. doi:10.1080/00332747.201
8.1560583 PMID:30730786
Sawchuk, S. (2011). Teacher-coaching boosts secondary scores, study finds. Teacher Beat blog. http://blogs.edweek.
org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/08/teachercoaching_boosts_scores.html
Sayan, H. (2020). Covid-19 pandemisi sürecinde öğretim elemanlarının uzaktan eğitime ilişkin görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi.
AJIT-e: Bilişim Teknolojileri Online Dergisi, 11(42), 100–122. doi:10.5824/ajite.2020.03.004.x
Schleicher, A. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on education. Insights from education at a glance 2020. OECD. https://
www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-2020.pdf
Schlesselman, L. S. (2020). Perspective from a teaching and learning center during emergency remote teaching. American
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(8), 1–2. doi:10.5688/ajpe8142 PMID:32934391
Schrock, L. (2019). Supporting caring teachers in universities: An ethics of care perspective to the teacher-student rela-
tionship. In M. Fotaki., G. Islam, & A. Antoni (Eds.), Business ethics and care in organizations (pp. 187-200). Routledge.
Schroeder, V. M., & Kelley, M. L. (2010). Family environment and parent-child relationships as related to executive
functioning in children. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1), 1285–1298. doi:10.1080/03004430902981512
Schwab, K., & Malleret, T. (2020). Covid 19: The great reset. World Economic Forum. Forum Publishing.
Schwab, K., & Zahidi, S. (2020a). The future of jobs report 2020. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/
reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020
Schwab, K., & Zahidi, S. (2020b). Global competitiveness report special edition 2020: How countries are performing on
the road to recovery. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2020
Schwartzman, R. (2020, October 6). Performing pandemic pedagogy. Communication Education, 69(4), 502–517. doi
:10.1080/03634523.2020.1804602
Seesaw. (2020). Seesaw Status. Seesaw. https://status.seesaw.me/history?page=3
Seltzer, K., & García, O. (2019). Sustaining Latinx Bilingualism in New York’s Schools: The CUNY-NYSIEB Project. In
Informes del Observatorio / Observatorio Reports. Harvard University. doi:10.15427/OR048-02/2019EN
Selwyn, N. (2020, April 30). Online learning: Rethinking teachers’ ‘digital competence’ in light of COVID-19. Manosh
Lens. Retrieved from https://lens.monash.edu/@education/2020/04/30/1380217/online-learning-rethinking-teachers-
digital-competence-in-light-of-covid-19
Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide. New Media & Society,
6(3), 341–362. doi:10.1177/1461444804042519
Selwyn, N. (2011). In praise of pessimism - the need for negativity in educational technology. British Journal of Edu-
cational Technology, 42(5), 713–718. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01215.x
Semmar, Y. (2006). Distance learners and academic achievement: The roles of selfefficacy, self‐ regulation and motiva-
tion. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 12(2), 244–256. doi:10.7227/JACE.12.2.9
487
Serçemeli, M., & Kurnaz, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemi döneminde öğrencilerin uzaktan eğitim ve uzaktan muhasebe
eğitimine yönelik bakiş açilari üzerine bir araştirma. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1),
40–53.
Sever, M. ve Özdemir, S. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) sürecinde öğrenci olma deneyimi: Bir fotoses (photovoice)
çalışması. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 31(4), 1653–1679.
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. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578 PMID:33071405
Shin, M., & Hickey, K. (2020). Needs a little TLC: Examining college students’ emergency remote teaching and learning
experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and Higher Education, •••, 1–14. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2020.1847261
Shuldman, M. (2004). Superintendent conceptions of institutional conditions that impact teacher technology integration.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 319–343. doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782418
Simamora, R. M., de Fretes, D., Purba, E. D., & Pasaribu, D. (2020). Practices, challenges, and prospects of online
learning during Covid-19 pandemic in higher education: Lecturer perspectives. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 1(3),
185–208. doi:10.46627ilet.v1i3.45
Singh, S., Singh, A., & Singh, K. (2012). Motivation levels among traditional and open learning undergraduate students
in India. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 19–40. doi:10.19173/irrodl.
v13i3.1050
Sintema, E. J. (2020). Effect of Covid-19 on the performance of grade 12 students: Implications for stem education.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7), 1–6. doi:10.29333/ejmste/7893
Şirin, S. R. (2016). Yol ayrımındaki Türkiye. Ya özgürlük ya sefalet [Turkey at the crossroads. Either freedom or misery]
(11th ed.). Doğan Kitap.
Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies
and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity,
48(3), 1291–1303. doi:10.100711135-013-9835-3
Smith, H. A., & Hornsby, D. (2020). Towards a pandemic pedagogy: Power and politics in learning and teaching.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341113230_Towards_a_Pandemic_Pedagogy_power_and_politics_in_learn-
ing_and_teaching
Solak, H. İ., Ütebay, G., & Yalçın, B. (2020). Uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin basılı ve dijital ortamdaki sınav başarılarının
karşılaştırılması. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 41–52.
Sorkkila, M., & Aunola, K. (2020). Risk factors for parental burnout among Finnish parents: The role of socially pre-
scribed perfectionism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(3), 648–659. doi:10.100710826-019-01607-1
SpinelliM.LionettiF.PastoreM.FasoloM. (2020). Parents and Children Facing the COVID-19 Outbreak in Italy.
doi:10.2139srn.3582790
Sprang, G., & Silman, M. (2013). Posttraumatic stress disorder in parents and youth after health-related disasters. Disaster
Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 7(1), 105–110. doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.22 PMID:24618142
Srhir, A. M. (2020). Making children multilingual: Language policy and parental agency in transnational and multilin-
gual Moroccan families in Spain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 41(1), 108–120. doi:10.108
0/01434632.2019.1621879
488
Stanger, A. (2020). Make all courses pass/fail now. https://www.chronicle.com/article/make-all-courses-pass-fail-now/
Stankovic, M., Jelena, S., Stankovic, M., Shih, A., Stojanovic, A., & Stankovic, S. (2020). The Serbian experience of
challenges of parenting children with autism spectrum disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and the state of emer-
gency with the police lockdown. http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.2139srn.3582788
STATISTA. (2020). Proportion of selected age groups of world population in 2020, by region. https://www.statista.com/
statistics/265759/world-population-by-age-and-region/
Statistics South Africa. (2019) Education series volume v: higher education and skills in South Africa, 2017. Pretoria:
Statistics South Africa.
Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203843130
Stevens, K. B. (2013). Contributing factors to a successful online course development process. The Journal of Continu-
ing Higher Education, 61(1), 2–11. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.758554
Stracke, C. M., Bozkurt, A., Conole, G., Nascimbeni, F., Ossiannilsson, E., Sharma, R. C., . . . Shon, J. G. (2020). Open
education and open science for our global society during and after the COVID-19 Outbreak. Proceedings of the Open
Education Global Conference 2020. www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4275669
Stranger, A. (2020, March 19). Make all courses pass/fail now. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 66(26). https://www.
chronicle.com/article/make-all-courses-pass-fail-now/
Strang, K. (2013). Cooperative learning in graduate student projects: Comparing synchronous versus asynchronous col-
laboration. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 24, 447–464.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511557842
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
Sulaiman, J., & Ismail, S. N. (2020). Teacher competence and 21st century skills in transformation schools 2025 (TS25).
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3536–3544. doi:10.13189/ujer.2020.080829
Sulkowski, M. L., & Michael, K. (2014). Meeting the mental health needs of homeless students in schools: A Multi-Tiered
System of Support framework. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 145–151. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.014
Sullivan, M. (2012). A study of the relationship between personality types and the acceptance of technical knowledge
management systems (TKMS) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. https://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/
Maureen_Sullivan_Dissertation_2012.pdf
Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐regulation: Their impact on student
engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2010.01157.x
Supriyanto, A., Hartini, S., Irdasari, W. N., Miftahul, A., Oktapiana, S., & Mumpuni, S. D. (2020). Teacher professional
quality: Counselling services with technology in Pandemic Covid-19. Counsellia: Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling,
10(2), 176-189. http://dx.doi.org/. doi:10.25273/counsellia.v10i2.7768
Surendran, P. (2012, August). Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. International Journal of Business
and Social Research, 2(4), 175–178.
Surry, D. W., & Ensminge, D. (2001, July-August). What’s wrong with media comparison studies? Educational Technol-
ogy, 41(4), 32–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428679
489
Sutton-Smith, B. (1999). Evolving a consilience of play definitions: Playfully. Play & Culture Studies, 2, 239–256.
Suwantika, A. A., Zakiyah, N., Diantini, A., Abdulah, R., & Postma, M. J. (2020). The role of administrative and sec-
ondary data in estimating the costs and effects of school and workplace closures due to the covid-19 pandemic. Data,
5(4), 98. doi:10.3390/data5040098
Swartz, B., Gachago, D., & Belford, C. (2018). To care or not to care: Reflections on the ethics of blended learning in
times of disruption. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(6), 2659. doi:10.20853/32-6-2659
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Edu-
cational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
Sykes, P., & Gachago, D. (2018). Creating ‘safe-ish’ learning spaces‒attempts to practice an ethics of care: The ethics
of care and academic development. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(6), 83–98. doi:10.20853/32-6-2654
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn and Bacon.
Taha, S., Matheson, K., Cronin, T., & Anisman, H. (2014). Intolerance of uncertainty, appraisals, coping, and anxiety:
The case of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19(3), 592–605. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12058
PMID:23834735
Tait, A. (2014). From Place to Virtual Space: Reconfiguring Student Support for Distance and E-Learning in the Digital
Age. Open Praxis, 6(1), 4–16. doi:10.5944/openpraxis.6.1.102
Tam, G., & El-Azar, D. (2020, March 13). 3 ways the coronavirus pandemic could reshape education. Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/3-ways-coronavirus-is-reshaping-education-and-what-changes-might-be-
here-to-stay
Tanaka, K., Yoshikawa, N., Kudo, N., Negishi, Y., Shimizu, T., & Hayata, N. (2010). A need for play specialists in
Japanese children’s wards. Nursing Children and Young People, 22(6), 31–32. Advance online publication. doi:10.7748/
paed2010.07.22.6.31.c7842 PMID:20695310
Tapscott, D. (2015). The digital economy: Rethinking promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. 20th an-
niversary edition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Tarbox, C., Silverman, E. A., Chastain, A. N., Little, A., Bermudez, T. L., & Tarbox, J. (2020). Taking ACTion: 18 Simple
Strategies for Supporting Children with Autism During the COVID-19 Pandemic. https://doi.org/ doi:10.100740617-
020-00448-5
Tavşancıl, E., & Aslan, E. (2001). Sözel, yazılı ve diğer materyaller için içerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri [Content
analysis and application examples for verbal, written and other materials]. Epsilon Publishing.
Taylor, J. (2001). 5th Generation Distance Education. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology., 4(1). Advance
online publication. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511495618.002
Teräs, H., & Kartoğlu, Ü. (2017). A grounded theory of professional learning in an authentic online professional develop-
ment program. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7). Advance online publication.
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2923
Teräs, M., Suoranta, J., Teräs, H., & Curcher, M. (2020). Post-Covid-19 education and education technology ‘solution-
ism’: A seller’s market. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 863–878. doi:10.100742438-020-00164-x
Tesar, M. (2020). Towards a post-covid-19 ‘new normality?’: Physical and social distancing, the move to online and
higher education. Policy Futures in Education, 18(5), 556–559. doi:10.1177/1478210320935671
490
Tett, L., Cree, V. E., Mullins, E., & Christie, H. (2017). Narratives of care amongst undergraduate students. Pastoral
Care in Education, 35(3), 166–178. doi:10.1080/02643944.2017.1363813
The Flangipanis. (n.d.). Global warming makes my beer warm. https://flangipanis.bandcamp.com/track/global-warming-

makes-my-beer-warm
The SUNY online course quality review rubric OSCQR. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://oscqr.suny.edu/
The World Bank. (2020). Remote learning and COVID-19: The use of educational technologies at scale across an educa-
tion system as a result of massive school closings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to enable distance education
and online learning. The World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/266811584657843186/pdf/Rapid-
ResponseBriefing-Note-Remote-Learning-and-COVID-19-Outbreak.pdf
Tinto, V. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16–21. PMID:10124451
Tinto, V. (2005). Moving from theory to action. College Retention: Formula for Student Success, 3, 317–333.
Toquero, C. M. (2020). Emergency Remote Teaching amid COVID-19: The Turning Point. Asian Journal of Distance
Education, 15(1), 185–188. http://asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/450
Toquero, C. M. (2020a). Emergency remote education experiment amid COVID-19 pandemic. IJERI: International
Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 15(15), 162–172. doi:10.46661/ijeri.5113
Toquero, C. M. (2020b). Emergency remote teaching amid COVID-19: The turning point. Asian Journal of Distance
Education, 15(1), 185–188. https://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/450
Toquero, C. M., & Talidong, K. J. (2020). Webinar technology: Developing teacher training programs for emergency
remote teaching amid COVID-19. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(3), 200–203.
doi:10.30476/IJVLMS.2020.86889.1044
Toutkoushian, R. K. (2006). Economics, theories of. In F. W. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational leadership and
administration (Vol. 1, pp. 315-318). Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412939584.n188
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. Jossey-Bass.
Tronto, J. (2009). Joan Tronto: Interview. Ethics of care: Sharing views on good care. https://ethicsofcare.org/joan-tronto/
Tronto, J. (2017). There is an alternative: Homines curans and the limits of neoliberalism. International Journal of Care
and Caring, 1(1), 27–43. doi:10.1332/239788217X14866281687583
Tronto, J. C. (2010). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality, and purpose. Ethics & Social Welfare, 4(2), 158–171.
doi:10.1080/17496535.2010.484259
Tronto, J. C. (2018). Higher education for citizens of caring democracies: The ethics of care and academic development.
South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(6), 6–18. doi:10.20853/32-6-2710
Tronto, J. C. (2021). Response-ability and responsibility: Using feminist new materialisms and care ethics to cope with
impatience in higher education. In V. Bozalek, M. Zembylas, & J. C. Tronto (Eds.), Posthuman and political care ethics
for reconfiguring higher education pedagogies. Routledge.
491
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy.
Trowler, V., & Trowler, P. (2010). Student engagement evidence summary. Higher Education Academy.
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(2), 189–199. https://www.learntechlib.
org/primary/p/215995/
Tucker, S. A., & Cofsky, K. M. (1994). Competency-based pay on a banding platform: A compensation combination for
driving performance and managing change. The Journal of Total Rewards, 3(1), 30.
Tumen Akyıldız, S. (2020). Pandemi döneminde yapılan uzaktan eğitim çalışmalarıyla ilgili İngilizce öğretmenlerinin
görüşleri (bir odak grup tartışması). RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (21), 679–696. doi:10.29000/
rumelide.835811
Turan, Z., & Gürol, A. (2020). Eğitimde acil bir dönüşüm: Covid-19 pandemisi döneminde çevrim içi ders alan üniversite
öğrencilerinin stres algıları ve görüşleri. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 17(2), 222–242.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2020, July 1). Identifying the source of the outbreak. https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/about-epidemiology/identifying-source-outbreak.html#:~:text=Pandemic%3A%20
Event%20in%20which,large%20number%20of%20people
Ullan, A. M., & Belver, M. H. (n.d.). Integrative Pediatrics and Child Care Play as a Source of Psychological Well-Being
for Hospitalized Children: Study Review. Integrative Pediatrics and Child Care, 2(1), 92-98.
UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank. (2020a). What have we learnt? Overview of findings from a survey of ministries of
education on national responses to COVID-19. https://data.unicef.org/resources/national-education-responses-to-covid19/
UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank. (2020b). Survey on National Education Responses to COVID-19 School Clo-
sures, round 2. http://tcg.uis.unesco.org/survey-education-covid-school-closures/
UNESCO. (2002). Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher education: A Planning Guide. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring Access to education for all. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.
org/ark:/48223/pf0000140224
UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: towards a global common good? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/

pf0000232555
UNESCO. (2016). Sustainable development goal 4. http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/sustainable-development-goal-4
UNESCO. (2018). The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework For Teachers. UNESCO & Microsoft. https://www.
open.edu/openlearncreate/pluginfile.php/306820/mod_resource/content/2/UNESCO%20ICT%20Competency%20
Framework%20V3.pdf
UNESCO. (2019). Futures of education. UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2020). Covid-19 educational disruption and response. https://en.unesco.org/Covid19/educationresponse
UNESCO. (2020). School closures caused by Coronavirus (Covid-19). UNESCO. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/
covid19/educationresponse
UNESCO. (2020). Why the world must urgently strengthen learning and protect finance for education. https://en.unesco.
org/news/why-world-must-urgently-strengthen-learning-and-protect-finance-education
492
UNESCO. (2020, April). Covid-19 a Global Crisis for Teaching and Learning. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000373233
UNESCO. (2020a). Adverse consequences of school closures. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationre-

sponse/consequences
UNESCO. (2020a). Covid 19 Impact on Education. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
UNESCO. (2020a). Covid-19 crisis: UNESCO call to support learning and knowledge sharing through open educational
resources. https://en.unesco.org/news/covid-19-crisis-unesco-call-support-learning-and-knowledge-sharing-through-
open-educational
UNESCO. (2020b). COVID-19 Educational disruption and response. http://www.iiep.unesco.org/en/covid-19-educational-

disruption-and-response-13363
UNESCO. (2020b). Distance learning solutions. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/solutions
UNESCO. (2020b). Supporting learning and knowledge sharing through open educational resources (OER). https://
en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/covid19_joint_oer_call_en.pdf
UNESCO. (2020b). Urban Solutions: Learning from cities’ responses to Covid 19. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/
files/ucp_meeting_report_.pdf
UNESCO. (2020c). Global education coalition: Teachers. UNESCO. https://globaleducationcoalition.unesco.org/home/

flagships/teachers
UNESCO. (2020c, July 1). Towards resilient education systems for the future: A new joint study launched by UNESCO
and IEA. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2020d). Recommendation on open educational resources (OER). Ref: CL/4319.
UNESCO. (2020e). OER. https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowledge-societies/oer/recommendation
UNESCO. (2020f) OER dynamic coalition. https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowledge-societies/oer/dynamic-

coalition
UNESCO. (2020g). Embracing a culture of lifelong learning: Contribution to the Futures of Education initiative. https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374112
UNICEF. (2020a). How many children and young people have internet access at home? https://data.unicef.org/
UNICEF. (2020b). COVID-19 and its implications for protecting children online https://unicef.at/fileadmin/media/News/
Pressemeldungen/2020/COVID19_and_its_implications_for_protecting_children_online_Technical_note.pdf
United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human Development Report 2019. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.
org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2020a). COVID-19 education response.
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition
United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). (2020). UNICEF and Microsoft launch global
learning platform to help address COVID-19 education crisis. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-and-microsoft-
launch-global-learning-platform-help-address-covid-19-education
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
493
United Nations. (2020). Covid-19 Response. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-

team/united-nations-working-mitigate-covid-19-impact-children
United Nations. (2020). Education during COVID-19 and Beyond. Policy Brief. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/
development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf
United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. https://www.un.org/development/desa/
dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf
United Nations. (2020). Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and Beyond. https://unsdg.un.org/resources/policy-
brief-education-during-covid-19-and-beyond
United Nations. (n.d.). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.
un.org/2030agenda
Uşun, S. (2006). Uzaktan Eğitim [Distance Education]. Nobel Publishing.
Vallance, P. (2020). ‘If anyone tells you a date they’re using a crystal ball’: When can we really expect coronavirus to
end? https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-when-will-it-end-date-outbreak-stop-
a9414196.html
Vallejo, C., & Dooly, M. (2020). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Emergent approaches and shared concerns. In-
troduction to the special issue. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(1), 1–16. doi:10.10
80/13670050.2019.1600469
Van Heuvelen, K. M., Daub, G. W., & Van Ryswyk, H. (2020). Emergency remote instruction during the COVID-19
pandemic reshapes collaborative learning in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2884–2888.
doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00691
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century
skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2017.03.010
Van Laarhoven, T. R., Munk, D. D., Lynch, K., Bosma, J., & Rouse, J. (2007). A model for preparing special and
general education preservice teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 440–455.
doi:10.1177/0022487107306803
van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11–30. http://www.maxvanmanen.
com/files/2011/04/2007-Phenomenology-of-Practice.pdf
VanAllen, J., & Katz, S. (2020, June 15). Teaching with OER during pandemics and beyond. Journal for Multicultural
Education, 14(3/4), 209–218. doi:10.1108/JME-04-2020-0027
Vavasseur, C. B., & MacGregor, K. S. (2008). Extending content-focused professional development through online
communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 517–536. doi:10.1080/15391523.20
08.10782519
Veenman, S., & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training studies. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 7(4), 385–417. doi:10.1076/edre.7.4.385.8936
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal
field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
494
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward
a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 425–478.
Vessey, J. A., & Betz, C. L. (2020). Everything old is new again: COVID-19 and public health. Journal of Pediatric
Nursing, 52, A7–A8. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2020.03.014 PMID:32273143
Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., ... Booy, R. (2020). School closure and man-
agement practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVİD-19: A rapid systematic review. The Lancet. Child &
Adolescent Health. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X
Vogel, S., & García, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In G. Noblit & L. Moll (Eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Education (pp. 32–56). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181
Vollbrecht, P. J., Porter-Stransky, K. A., & Lackey-Cornelison, W. L. (2020). Lessons learned while creating an effective
emergency remote learning environment for students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Advances in Physiology Educa-
tion, 44(4), 722–725. doi:10.1152/advan.00140.2020 PMID:33141599
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner,
S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press.
Walker, C., & Gleaves, A. (2016). Constructing the caring higher education teacher: A theoretical framework. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 54, 65–76. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.013
Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children dur-
ing the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet, 395(10228), 945–947. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30547-X PMID:32145186
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school
and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 31–39. doi:10.1111/
j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x PMID:22822296
Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales:
Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26. doi:10.1016/j.learn-
instruc.2016.01.008
Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Educa-
tion and Teaching International, 45(4), 411–419. doi:10.1080/14703290802377307
Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 10(1), 148–156.
Watters, A. (2014, November 16). From “open” to justice. Retrieved March 28, 2017, fromhttp://hackeducation.
com/2014/11/16/from-open-to-justice
Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quar-
terly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23–32.
Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success
and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 591–611. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0090
Wedenoja, L. (2020). What to expect when you weren’t expecting online classes. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
https://rockinst.org/blog/what-to-expect-when-you-werent-expecting-online-classes/
495
Wedin, A. (2020). ‘Negotiating identities through multilingual writing: Local school policy that opens up spaces for students’
diverse languages’. Linguistics and Education, 55, 100775. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.100775
Weeden, K. A., & Cornwell, B. (2020). The small-world network of college classes: Implications for epidemic spread
on a university campus. Sociological Science, 7, 222–241. doi:10.15195/v7.a9
Weiss, M. J. (2002). Hardiness and social support as predictors of stress in mothers of typical children, children with
autism, and children with mental retardation. Autism, 6(1), 115–130. doi:10.1177/1362361302006001009 PMID:11918107
Welner, K. G. (2020). NEPC Review: “Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flexibility for Schools
during COVID-19.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/
coronavirus
Westine, C., Oyarzun, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Casto, A., Okraski, C., Park, G., Person, J., & Steele, L. (2019). Famil-
iarity, Current Use, and Interest in Universal Design for Learning Among Online University Instructors. International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(5), 15–41. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4258
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(2), 189–199.
Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s. Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Crown House Publishing.
White, C. P., Ramirez, R., Smith, J. G., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face course to on-
campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34–40. doi:10.100711528-010-0418-z
Whiting, S. E., Jenkins, W. S., May, A. C., Rudy, B. M., Davis, T. E. III, & Reuther, E. T. (2014). The role of intoler-
ance of uncertainty in social anxiety subtypes. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(3), 260–272. doi:10.1002/jclp.22024
PMID:23843207
Whittle, C., Tiwari, S., Yan, S., & Williams, J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching environment: A conceptual frame-
work for responsive online teaching in crises. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5-6), 311–319. doi:10.1108/
ILS-04-2020-0099
WHO. (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus
WHO. (2020). Coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/emergen-
cies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
Wiggins, G. (1998). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703–713.
Wilde, A., & Avramidis, E. (2011). Mixed feelings: towards a continuum of inclusive pedagogies. Education 3–13, 39(1),
83-101. http://dx.doi.org/. doi:10.1080/03004270903207115
Williams, C. (2012). MGMT (5th ed.). SouthWestern College Publishing.
Williamson, B., Potter, J., & Eynon, R. (2019). New research problems and agendas in learning, media and technology:
the editors’ wishlist. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2019.1614953
Williamson, B., Eynon, 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. doi:10.1080
/17439884.2020.1761641
Wilson, A. (2010). Knowledge power: Interdisciplinary education for a complex world. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203858035
496
Wimpenny, K., & Savin-Baden, M. (2013). Alienation, agency and authenticity: A synthesis of the literature on student
engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 311–326. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.725223
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the concep-
tual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
doi:10.3102/00346543072002131
Wolverton, C. C., Hollier, B. N. G., & Lanier, P. A. (2020). The Impact of Computer Self Efficacy on Student Engagement
and Group Satisfaction in Online Business Courses. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(2), 175-188. doi:10.34190/
EJEL.20.18.2.006
Wong, C. L., Ip, W. Y., Kwok, B. M. C., Choi, K. C., Ng, B. K. W., & Chan, C. W. H. (2018). Effects of therapeutic play
on children undergoing cast-removal procedures: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 8(7), e021071. doi:10.1136/
bmjopen-2017-021071 PMID:29980545
Woodbridge, J. (2004). Technology integration as a transforming teachings strategy. Retrieved April 20, 2006, from
http://www.techlearning.com/ Story /showArticle.Jhtml?articleID=17701367
Woodhall, M. (1995). Human capital concepts. In M. Carnoy (Ed.), International encyclopedia of economics of educa-
tion (2nd ed., pp. 24–28). Pergamon Press.
World Bank. (2012). World development report 2012. Gender equality & development. The World Bank. https://open-
knowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/4391
World Economic Forum. (2020, July 20). Reimagining the future of skills: What do young people think? https://www.
weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/reimagining-future-skills-what-we-learned-young-people?utm_source=facebook&utm_
medium=social_scheduler&utm_term=Youth+Perspectives&utm_content=09/01/2021+12:00&fbclid=IwAR0a5A-
LA9mhvBIUvMtuTBL6xwgLTbF2lKwdk_hQU51MEFrFfQ4QIgB7EJ4
World Economic Forum. (2021). Strategic intelligence: Education and skills. https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1
Gb0000000LPFfEAO?tab=publications
World Health Organization. (2020, January 22). Timeline: WHO’s COVID-19 response. Retrieved from https://www.
who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline#event-28
Worley, C. G., & Jules, C. (2020). COVID-19’s uncomfortable revelations about agile and sustainable organizations in
a VUCA world. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 279–283. doi:10.1177/0021886320936263
Xiao, J. (2018). On the margins or at the center? Distance education inhigher education. Distance Education, 39(2),
259–274. doi:10.1080/01587919.2018.1429213
Yakar, B., Kaygusuz, T. Ö., Pirinçci, E., Önalan, E., & Ertekin, Y. H. (2020). Knowledge, attitude and anxiety of
medical students about the current COVID-19 outbreak in Turkey. Family Practice and Palliative Care, 5(2), 36–44.
doi:10.22391/fppc.737469
Yamamoto, G. T. & Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve çevrimiçi (online) eğitimin önlenemeyen yükselişi. Üniversite
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-34.
Yan, J. (2020, July 8). Online education normalization will be the trend in the post-pandemic age. Retrieved from http://
coaledu.cn/cinfocontent.php?id=8049
Yandell, J. (2020). Learning under lockdown: English teaching in the time of Covid-19. Changing English, 27(3),
262–269. doi:10.1080/1358684X.2020.1779029
497
Yang, Z., Wang, R., Chen, H., & Ding, J. (2015). Personality and worry: The role of intolerance of uncertainty. Social
Behavior and Personality, 43(10), 1607–1616. doi:10.2224bp.2015.43.10.1607
Yayla, G. (2011, April). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin tecrübeleriyle alternatif ölçme ve değerlendirme yaklaşımlarına
yönelik öz yeterlilikleri arasındaki ilişki. In 2nd International Conference on new trends in education and their implica-
tions (pp. 27-29). Academic Press.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the
social sciences] (9th ed.). Şeçkin.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayınları.
Yıldız, İ. & Uyanık, N. (2004). On measurement and evaluatıon ın mathematıcs teachıng. Kastamonu Education Journal,
12(1), 97–104.
Yılmaz İnce, E., Kabul, A., & Diler, İ. (2020). Distance education in higher education in the COVİD-19 pandemic
process: A case of Isparta Applied Sciences University. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science,
4(4), 343–351.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study methods: design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Pbc.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford Publications.
Yoder, N., Posamentier, J., Godek, D., Seibel, K., & Dusenbury, L. (2020). From response to reopening: State efforts
to elevate social and emotional learning during the pandemic. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL). https://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CASEL-CFC-final.pdf
YOK. (2020). “Yok dersleri platformu” öğrencilerin erişimine açıldı. https://www.yok.gov.tr/
Yolcu, H. H. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi sürecinde sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının uzaktan eğitim deneyimleri.
Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 237–250.
Yurdakul Kabakçı, I. (2013). Teknopedegojik eğitime dayalı öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarımı [Instructional
technologies and material design based on technopedegogical education]. Anı Yayıncılık.
Yurtbakan, E., & Akyıldız, S. (2020). Sınıf öğretmenleri, ilkokul öğrencileri ve ebeveynlerin Covid-19 izolasyon
döneminde uygulanan uzaktan eğitim faaliyetleri hakkındaki görüşleri. Turkish Studies, 15(6), 949–977. doi:10.7827/
TurkishStudies.43780
Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (Eds.). (2014). Online distance education—Towards a research agenda. Athabasca
University Press. doi:10.15215/aupress/9781927356623.01
Zembylas, M., Bozalek, V., & Shefer, T. (2014). Tronto’s notion of privileged irresponsibility and the reconceptualisation
of care: Implications for critical pedagogies of emotion in higher education. Gender and Education, 26(3), 200–214. do
i:10.1080/09540253.2014.901718
Zepeda, S. J. (2017). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 11(3), 167–177. doi:10.1177/1469787410379680
Zhang, J. (2020). A resurgence of Internet-based education. Oriental Outlook, 16. Retrieved from http://www.dooland.
com/magazine/online.php?pid=MjExMjU2
498
Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Yang, L., & Wang, C. (2020). Suspending classes without stopping learning: China’s education
emergency management policy in the COVID-19 Outbreak. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/13/3/55
Zhang, Q., Osborne, C., Shao, L., & Lin, M. (2020, March 2). Caitríona Osborne, Lijie Shao and Mei Lin (2020) ‘A
translanguaging perspective on medium of instruction in the CFL classroom’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 1–14. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/01434632.2020.1737089
Zhao, Y. (2020). COVID-19 as a catalyst for educational change. Prospects, 49(1-2), 29–33. doi:10.100711125-020-
09477-y PMID:32836421
Zhao, Y., An, Y., Tan, X., & Li, X. (2020). Mental health and its influencing factors among self-isolating ordinary
citizens during the beginning epidemic of COVID-19. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(6-7), 580–593. doi:10.1080/15
325024.2020.1761592
Zhou, S. J., Zhang, L. G., Wang, L. L., Guo, Z. C., Wang, J. Q., Chen, J. C., Liu, M., Chen, X., & Chen, J. X. (2020).
Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of psychological health problems in Chinese adolescents during the outbreak
of COVID-19. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(6), 749–758. doi:10.100700787-020-01541-4 PMID:32363492
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social sup-
port. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. doi:10.120715327752jpa5201_2 PMID:2280326
Zimmerman, J. (2020). Coronavirus and the great online learning experiment. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/coronavirus-and-the-great-online-learning-experiment/
Zimmerman, J. (2020). Coronavirus and the Great Online-Learning Experiment. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Coronavirusthe-Great/248216
Zimmerman, J. (2020, March 10). Coronavirus and the great online learning experiment. The Chronicle for Higher
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/coronavirus-and-the-great-online-learning-experiment/
Zimmerman, J. (2020, March 10). Coronavirus and the Great Online-Learning Experiment. Chronicle of Higher Educa-
tion. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/coronavirus-and-the-great-online-learning-experiment/
Zlomke, K. R., & Jeter, K. M. (2014). Stress and worry: Examining intolerance of uncertainty’s moderating effect.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 27(2), 202–215. doi:10.1080/10615806.2013.835400 PMID:24033115
Zwain, A. A. A. (2019). Technological innovativeness and information quality as neoteric predictors of users’ accep-
tance of learning management system: An expansion of UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(3),
239–254. doi:10.1108/ITSE-09-2018-0065
499
500
About the Contributors
Aras Bozkurt is a researcher and faculty member in the Department of Distance Education, Open
Education Faculty at Anadolu University, Turkey. He holds MA and PhD degrees in distance education.
Dr. Bozkurt conducts empirical studies on distance education, open and distance learning, and online
learning, to which he applies various critical theories, such as connectivism, rhizomatic learning, and
heutagogy. He is also interested in emerging research paradigms, including social network analysis,
sentiment analysis, and data mining. He shares his views on his Twitter feed @arasbozkurt
***
Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın, Ph.D, is an Associate Professor of Basic Education at Necmettin Er-
bakan University in Konya, Turkey. She received her undergraduate degree in Department of Primary
Teacher Education from Gazi University, Faculty of Education in 2006. She received her Ph.D degrees
in Department of Primary Teacher Education from Amasya University in 2017. Dr. Alkış Küçükaydın’s
scholarly work focuses on pedagogical content knowledge, the roles of educational technology in learn-
ers’ scientific practices, use of technology in education, science and technology education in primary
and science misconceptions. Alkış Küçükaydın has 3 books that are edited by her at national level. In
addition, she has a book, book chapters, articles, papers and projects related to her study field.
Chiara Allegri is a Psychologist and an operator of Porto dei Piccoli charity (Genoa, Italy). In 2012
she obtained a B.sc in Personality and Relational Psychology at University of Padua (Italy) with a thesis
around adolescents with hypoacusis experiences of social network sites. In 2015, she obtained a M.Sc
degree in Work and Communication Psychology at University of Padua (Italy) with first honor. Her M.Sc
thesis consisted of a cross-cultural study of emotion recognition (e.g., in Italy and Portugal), developed
under the supervision of Professor A. Mass. Chiara Allegri joined the national Psychologists Register in
2018. In 2019, she achieved a M.Sc in Psychology of Emergency. During 2016, she worked at TAMAT
ONG (Perugia, Italy) were she gained expertise in designing European social projects, by taking part
to Social Stat Ups (Erasmus + KA2). Since 2017, Chiara is a Porto dei Piccoli (Genoa, Italy) operator,
working as Child Play Specialist with hospitalized and inpatient children. In particular, she supports
children with clinical conditions in many pediatric departments of hospitals in northern and center Italy
(e.g., neuropsychiatry, maxillofacial, odontolaryngologist, etc.). Nowadays, she has achieved the role
of Porto dei Piccoli Coordinator, implying human resources management, and cross-district national
coordination of Porto dei Piccoli projects (i.e., Genoa, Turin, Mantua, Rome).

Hakan Altınpulluk is an Assistant Professor of Open and Distance Education at Open Education
Faculty, Anadolu University. He undertook undergraduate studies in the field of Computer Education
and Instructional Technologies (CEIT) between the years of 2005 and 2009 at Anadolu University. He
received his Ph.D. Degree in the field of Distance Education in 2018. Hakan Altinpulluk continues to
work in the field of Open and Distance Education, Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, Mobile Learn-
ing, Mobile Health, Massive Open Online Courses, Learning Management Systems, Open Educational
Resources, Personal Learning Environments, and E-Learning Systems.
Alper Altunçekiç gave lectures in the field of computer technologies. The author, who has works
in the fields of mobile learning, distance education, self-efficacy and science education, has recently
developed mobile applications for mobile technologies and mobile learning environments. It continues to
work on this issue in order to increase mobile learning environments and to use them more effectively. In
addition, there are learning management system software developed by him to carry out distance educa-
tion and online lifelong learning activities. In addition to training activities, he has also participated in
joint projects with many public institutions and organizations that have developed themselves in software.
Kelly Ballard’s expertise rests within Culturally Responsive Practices in Urban School Settings,
Literacy Instruction and Evidence-Based Interventions. She has facilitated professional development for
over 400 teachers working with vulnerable student populations and is responsible for the creation and
management of an on-line MSSpEd program at a liberal arts college outside of northeast Philadelphia, PA.
Ali Battal is an assistant professor at Selçuk University, Faculty of Education, Department of

Educational Sciences. He works as a faculty member and conduct courses related to how to integrate
technology in education at the bachelor and graduate level. He recently graduated from Middle East
Technical University with a PhD degree in the field of Instructional technology in 2018. He tries to make
use of technology to facilitate learning. He studied in his dissertation to understand the use of virtual
worlds to teach the basics of programming for children. His main research areas are 3D virtual worlds,
programming/computing education and physical computing education for kids as well as gamification,
human-computer interaction and designing usable learning environments.
Giulia Boldrini is a professional consultant, graduated in international relations. She is involved in

intercultural communication and conflict-solving strategies. She currently works for non-profit organi-
zations pursuing health and social care.
Gulden Bozkus-Genc is working at Anadolu University, Faculty of Education, Special Education

Department. Her scientific interests include autism spectrum disorder, evidence-based practices, effective
teaching methods, pivotal response treatment, social and communication skills, and special education
in early childhood.
Gloria Camurati has twenty years of experience in school teaching with children and adolescents.
She is GM (General Manager) of the charity Porto dei Piccoli (Genoa, Italy). She founded Porto dei
Piccoli in 2005, aiming at creating a network of services to support families of children in clinical con-
ditions. When she founded Porto dei Piccoli, Gloria Camurati addressed at combining her philanthropy
with her love for the sea. In fact, the main seat of Porto dei Piccoli is Genoa, one of the main ports of
501
the Mediterranean area. The term Porto dei Piccoli is translated as “Children’s Harbor”, metaphorically
evocating socio-emotional safety as in Bowlby’s Attachment Theory. Plus, the association is supported by
shipping companies on the territory. Porto dei Piccoli works in synergy with northern Italy hospitals to
provide families with Child Play Specialists’ intervention into the pediatric wards, at home, and through
web-based platforms. Porto dei Piccoli also implements school-based projects to decrease stereotypes
over illness among children and interactive experiences (e.g., trips) to get children in clinical conditions
to familiarize with the sea. Gloria Camurati is also a pioneer in proposing a Play Specialists’ training
in Italy, which has been approved by the Region Liguria administration. She is a member of Porto dei
Piccoli scientific and consultive committee and she is part of the Editorial team of Porto dei Piccoli
quarterly magazine. She is directing research on Porto dei Piccoli projects to corroborate the charity
reputation through scientific findings and international partnerships.
Erasmos Charamba Having taught at primary, secondary and university levels, Erasmos is cur-
rently a lecturer in the Foundation Studies division in the School of Education, University of the Witwa-
tersrand, South Africa. He writes and presents widely on issues of language education, multilingualism,
multiculturalism, science education, decolonisation and transformation of education. He has taught in
Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Michelle Dennis currently serves as the Interim Executive Dean of the Online Campus of Adler
University. She previously served as the Chair of the Department of Leadership and Applied Psychol-
ogy and has served as the Director of multiple graduate programs. She has held various positions in the
field of higher education over the past 20 years and previously worked as a statistician. Dr. Dennis also
serves the Online Administration Network of the Association for Professional, Continuing and Online
Education and she is a member of the Illinois Coalition for Higher Education in Prisons. She earned her
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Marquette University, her M.A. in Training and Development from
Roosevelt University, and her M.Ed. in Higher Education Administration from the American College
of Education. Dr. Dennis has published in the areas of online faculty management and virtual student
and faculty engagement.
Murat Ekici is a faculty member at Usak University Faculty of Education. He received his Ph.D.
degree in Computer Education and Instructional Technologies from Hacettepe University in 2018. His
research interests include mobile learning, technology integration, human-computer interaction, net-
worked learning, design and development of technology-enhanced constructivist learning environments.
Audrey Falk, Ed.D., is Chair of the Department of Applied Human Development and Community
Studies in the Winston School of Education and Sociai Policy at Merrimack College. She is also the
Director of the Community Engagement Program and an Associate Professor. Dr. Falk focuses on the
scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of engagement. She completed her doctoral studies in Com-
munity Agency Educational Administration at Boston University and she participated in post-doctoral
research fellowships at the University of Maryland, College Park and at the American Institutes for
Research. Prior to coming to Merrimack College in 2011, Dr. Falk spent four years in the Department
of Family Studies and Community Development at Towson University. Earlier in her career, Dr. Falk
served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Romania and held leadership positions in community-based non-
profit organizations.
502
Amber L. Gentile received her Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from Immaculata University and
her MS in Counseling from West Chester University. She has a background in psychology/counseling,
alternative education, special education, juvenile education, and school administration. She is currently
an Assistant Professor in Teacher Education, the Coordinator of the Graduate Secondary Education and
Undergraduate Special Education programs, and the Assistant Director of the Barbara and John Jordan
Center for Children of Trauma and Domestic Violence Education at Cabrini University. She researches
and provides professional development and trainings on best practices in teaching and learning (including
Universal Design for Learning, Teacher Mindsets, and Social Emotional Learning), Trauma Informed
Practices, Mental Health First Aid and QPR suicide prevention.
Nil Göksel currently works as an English language instructor at Anadolu University. She received her
MA Degree in Distance Education with “Learner -Instructor Interaction within University-Community
Partnerships by Giving Samples from Second Life (SL)” in 2009. To pursue her PhD degree, she then
completed a research study entitled “Utilizing the Personal Learning Environment for English as a
Foreign Language within the Scope of Open and Distance Learning” in 2018. Her research interests
lie broadly in online-immersive learning, new learning technologies, Personal Learning Environments
(PLEs), educational social networks, virtual interaction, Augmented Reality, Web 2.0 tools used for
foreign language teaching and learning, Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs).
Deanna Grant-Smith, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the QUT Business School and Deputy Direc-
tor of the QUT Centre for Decent Work and Industry. Deanna is a Senior Fellow and Associate Fellow
(Indigenous) of the Higher Education Academy and was awarded an Australian Awards for University
Teaching (AAUT) Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning and named a National
Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE) and Equity Practitioners in Higher Education
Australasia (EPHEA) Champion for Change.
Hasan Gurgur is working at Anadolu University, Faculty of Education, Department of Education of

the Hearing Impaired. His scientific interests in education of the hearing impaired, inclusive practices,
teacher training and empowerment, qualitative and action research methods.
Nazire Burçin Hamutoglu graduated from Sakarya University, Faculty of Education, and Depart-
ment of Computer & Instructional Technology Education in 2011. She received her M.S and Ph.D. in
Computer & Instructional Technology Education at Sakarya University and now an Instructor (ph.D) at
Eskisehir Technical University, The Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence. He has been at Mid-
delesex University in United Kingdom as an Academic Visitor for 6 months. She published more than
50 research papers in refereed journals and conference proceedings. Her areas of interest are technology
integration, nomophobia, FoMO, technology addiction, Web 2.0 tools, teaching and learning.
Halil Kayaduman is a Dr. Lecturer in Distance Education Application and Research Center at Inonu
University, Turkey. He earned his doctoral degree from the Department of Computer Education and
Instructional Technology at METU, Turkey. His primary research interests fall primarily in the areas
of teaching and learning in open and distance education environments, learning analytics, technology
adoption in education, design and use of technology-enhanced learning environments, and human-
computer interaction.
503
Eren Kesim is faculty member of the Anadolu University Faculty of Education, Department of
Educational Sciences and Division of Educational Administration. He graduated from the Anadolu
University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Economics in 2001. He
continued to study at the Anadolu University Institute of Educational Sciences in the field of Educational
Administration, Supervision, Planning and Economics. He received his Master degree in 2004, and his
doctorate degree in 2009. His academic research continues in the fields of economics of education,
economics of distance education, educational administration, educational technology management and
the training of school principals.
Hakan Kilinc is currently working as a research assistant doctor of Open and Distance Education at
Open Education Faculty, Anadolu University. He undertook undergraduate studies in the feld of Com-
puter Education and Instructional Technologies (CEIT) between the years of 2009 and 2013 at Anadolu
University. He received his master degree in the feld of Distance Education in 2016, May. In addition
to this, he received his Ph.D. Degree in the feld of Distance Education in 2020, April. Hakan Kilinc
continues to work in the feld of distance education technology, personalized learning environments,
information and communication technologies, synchronous, asynchronous, and interactive communica-
tions, learner-generated content and online group discussions.
Colleen Lelli is a Professor and the Director of the Barbara and John Jordan Center for Children of
Trauma and Domestic Violence Education at Cabrini University. Her research interests include: develop-
ing special education advocacy and support; enhancing pre-service and in-service teachers’ knowledge
of domestic violence; and growing their abilities to support the learning of those who have witnessed
trauma. One key focus in her research practice is the use of children’s literature to advocate for children
with special needs (e.g., helping children of trauma gain resilience and foster social emotional learning).
Additionally, Dr. Lelli has published and presented providing teachers and professionals key strategies
to support children of trauma to learn effectively in the classroom. Her first book, Trauma Sensitive
Schools: The Importance of Instilling Grit, Determination, and Resilience was just published by Row-
man and Littlefield.
Alice Maggiore obtained a M.Sc degree in Clinical and Community Psychology in 2017 (University
of Genoa, Italy), and joined the Professional Register of Psychologists in 2019. In 2017 she took part
to a research by University of Genoa in the field of SLD (Specific Learning Disorders), examining the
correlation between motivation to study in adolescents and academic performance through the enhance-
ment and empowerment of self-image and self-esteem towards one’s own abilities. In 2018 she worked at
La Spezia (Italy) penitentiary as a Psychologist and Educator, collaborating with the team of territorial
services (Ser.T), social services, cooperatives, and rehabilitation communities, mainly working to sup-
port inmates in detoxification and autonomy. She also worked together with the team of educators and
psychiatrists chosen by the Director of the penitentiary, in order to help the prisoners in reintegrating into
society, mediating between the penitentiary and potential employers, supporting the inmates’ autonomy
and reintegration. Since 2019 she has been working with Porto dei Piccoli (Genoa, Italy), as educator and
Child Play Specialist, operating across-Italy in many services and hospitals and working with children
and families with fragile conditions/backgrounds or pathologies (psychiatric disorders, genetic diseases
/ hereditary, neurodegenerative diseases, oncohematological diseases, surgical operations); nowadays
she is collaborating in experimental research to study the benefits of the telematic intervention of the
Child Play Specialist on the wellbeing of the families.
504
Kate Orbon received a BA from the University of New Hampshire in 2002. Since that time, she
has taught at the preschool, elementary, and middle school levels. Ms. Orbon received her Master’s of
Education in Special Education from Lesley University in 2007 with a specialty in reading instruction.
She is presently pursuing a second Master’s of Education in Community Engagement with a focus on
K-12 Education at Merrimack College.
Ebba Ossiannilsson is the V President for the Swedish Association for Distance Education and for
the Swedish Association for E-Competence. She is the CEO of her company on Quality in Open Online
Learning. She was awarded the EDEN Fellow title in 2014 and she became Open Education Europa
(OEE) Fellow in 2015, and an Ambassador for Open Education Europe (OEE) in 2017. Since 2016 she
is ambassador for GLOBE the Community of digital learning. She is a researcher reviewer, advisor and
consultant within the area of open, online, flexible, and technology enabled teaching and learning (OO-
FAT) and quality. Since the year 2000, she worked at Lund University, Sweden, as an e-learning, open
online learning expert, and advisor with special focus on quality. She is frequently invited as keynote
speaker. She is board member in international associations. She is in the ICDE Quality Network, in the
policy committee for the global advocacy of OER and Chair the ICDE OER Advocacy Committee. In
addition, she is member of International Council on Badges and Credentials (ICoBC). She earned her
PhD at Oulu University, Finland in 2012 on Benchmarking e-learning in higher education. Her disserta-
tion had a large outreach and is often cited. She has over 200 publications.
Ryan Payne is a PhD Candidate and Sessional Academic in the QUT Business School. A Senior
Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Ryan has previously been a personal shopper in London and
Lecturer in Canada.
Giulia Perasso holds a PhD in Psychology, Neuroscience and Data-Science, obtained at University
of Pavia in March 2021. After obtaining a MSc in Psychology (2015), she researched as visiting intern
at Middlesex University (London, UK), approaching the theme of juvenile cybercrime (2016). In 2017,
she obtained a Master’s in Criminology (at Sapienza Unitelma University, Rome, Italy). She has worked
with the data of the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (2014). One of her main research focus
is the impact of the Play Specialist intervention on in-patient children. In fact, since Semptember 2020,
Giulia collaborates with Porto dei Piccoli of Genoa (Italy), that is one of the first no-profit associations
promoting this approach in Italy.
Devery J. Rodgers has been impacting education for over 25 years as a K12 teacher, administrator,
and university professor. During her tenure, Dr. Rodgers has led three education technology departments,
and her primary research interest is Education Technology Leadership. Having received her doctorate in
Education Leadership from the University of Southern California, she is currently an Education Lead-
ership Professor at the California State University, Long Beach. Dr. Rodgers is engaged in a deep and
long-term exploration of the application of the tenets, tools, and methods towards performance improve-
ment in education, expanding on her other research interests (African-American girls and technology,
digital technologies in teaching and learning, and instructional technology professional development).
Her experiences build on her goal to promote a quality education for all students.
505
Mark Ryan currently serves as the Superintendent of the North Valley Military Institute in the San
Fernando Valley of California. He has served as a K-12 teacher and administrator for more than 30
years. His Ph.D. is from the University of Southern California in Curriculum and Instruction, and he
has taught as an adjunct faculty member at Loyola Marymount University, California State University
Dominguez Hills, California State University East Bay, and the University of San Francisco, among
others. He teaches courses in teacher preparation, curriculum, assessment, multicultural education, and
content area literacy for National University and California State University Northridge.
Sunagül Sani-Bozkurt is working at Anadolu University, Faculty of Education, Special Education

Department. Her scientific interests include autism spectrum disorder, evidence-based practices in special
education, effective teaching, and technology-supported applications in special education.
Ayse Taskiran is an instructor at Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department,

Anadolu University. Taskiran gained her BA in English Language Teaching (ELT) in 1999 in Middle
East Technical University. In 2010 she completed her MA in ELT at Institute of Educational Sciences,
Anadolu University. Currently, Taskiran is a Ph.D. candidate in Distance Education Department in Institute
of Social Sciences at Anadolu University. Her academic interests include automated feedback systems
for foreign language teaching and learning, artificial intelligence, e-learning, educational networks,
online-immersive learning, mobile learning, achievement motivation, augmented reality, gamification,
interactive course materials, and instructional technologies.
Cigdem Uysal was born in Eskişehir in 1987 and completed his primary, secondary and high school
education in Eskişehir. In 2009, she graduated from Anadolu University Special Education Department
Hearing Impaired Education Program. She worked as a teacher for the hearing impaired in Erzurum and
Izmit between 2009-2013. In 2013, she started to work as a research assistant in Karamanoğlu Mehmet
Bey University Faculty of Education, Special Education Department. In 2016, she completed her mas-
ter’s degree in Anadolu University Institute of Educational Sciences, Special Education Department,
Department of Education of the Hearing Impaired. She still continues his doctorate education in Anadolu
University Special Education Department, Department of Education of Hearing Impaired. Among the
scientific fields of study: Education of the hearing impaired, inclusive practices, support special educa-
tion services, individualized education program (IEP), teacher training and empowerment.
Junhong Xiao is Professor of English at Shantou Radio and Television University’ into ‘Shantou
Radio and Television University (Shantou Open University), China. His current research interests cover
linguistics, applied linguistics, and open and distance learning. He has published widely in both Chinese
and English journals.
506
507
Index
A 189-190
case study 69, 78, 80-81, 96, 114, 226, 281, 286, 295,
Academic Planning 82 299-300, 315, 395, 408
accessibility 35, 85, 98, 102, 104, 284, 289-290, 295, challenges 11, 16, 18-19, 21-22, 25-27, 31-38, 41, 44-
297, 300, 313 47, 49-50, 52-56, 59, 61-63, 67, 77-78, 89, 91-92,
active learning strategies 101, 103, 112 95, 105, 128, 141, 157-159, 173, 185-186, 232,
adolescents 369, 372-377, 381-383, 385, 402, 404, 236, 242, 245, 262, 272, 274, 280, 282, 316, 319,
414, 416, 420 348-351, 354-355, 360-363, 370-371, 374, 380,
anxiety 19, 34, 49, 51-52, 104-105, 137, 179, 181, 382, 384, 398, 402, 411, 416, 424, 436
204, 208, 223, 232, 254, 271, 274, 279, 328-332, change 18, 20-22, 26, 28, 30-31, 34-38, 41-43, 50-51,
340-341, 343-346, 348, 355, 368-369, 371-373, 53, 55-56, 59, 61, 83-84, 86, 103, 139, 141, 147-
375, 377, 379-380, 383, 385, 402, 404, 408-410, 148, 150, 164, 170, 176, 183, 189-190, 193, 230-
416-418, 420 238, 242, 248-249, 267, 270, 295, 306, 316, 329,
assessment and evaluation 19, 98, 114, 223, 275, 277, 332, 347, 358-359, 361, 365-367, 370, 375, 381-
301, 303, 319, 379 383, 390, 392-393, 399, 401-403, 426, 430-431
assets 360-361, 367, 438 checklist 114, 397
assignment 83, 90, 93-94, 153, 179, 209, 212, 218-220, children 4, 9, 11, 17, 29, 36, 46, 52, 55-56, 58-59, 62-
223-224, 229, 251, 356 63, 91, 128, 143, 193, 227, 281, 294, 298, 302,
Asynchronous Distance Learning 144 317-318, 351-356, 360-361, 366, 369-385, 387,
asynchronous learning 78-79, 229, 255, 264, 268, 389, 392, 398, 401-404, 406-412, 414-420, 437
272, 377, 438 classroom management 284, 286, 292-293, 295, 297,
autoethnography 169, 173, 182-184, 186, 189-190, 300, 376, 390
348, 352, 365, 367 coaching 154, 156-157, 185, 364, 386, 391-395, 397-
399, 408
B cognitive 9, 34, 46, 61, 65, 105, 107-108, 113, 127,
129, 131-137, 139, 143-144, 149, 171, 207, 272,
basic interpersonal communicative skills 421, 429 329-330, 344, 371, 373, 375, 378, 380, 408, 413,
behavioral 57, 65, 127, 129-137, 141, 143-144, 149, 421-422, 425, 432
171, 330, 340, 356, 367, 372, 374, 381, 402, 408- Cognitive Academic Language Profciency 421
409, 411, 415-416, 418, 420 cognitive engagement 129, 131-137, 143-144, 272
behavioral engagement 129, 131-136, 141, 144 Community Engagement 347, 350-351, 357-360
best practice 2, 15, 84, 86-89, 91, 94, 99, 102, 114, Conduct Problems or Disorders (Children) 420
151, 176 coronavirus 1-2, 14-15, 28, 43, 62, 66, 78-80, 95-96,
Budget Management in Digital Schools 249 98-99, 106, 110, 112-113, 140, 144-145, 164,
166-167, 184, 191, 206, 208, 211, 227-229, 232,
C 240, 246, 265-266, 280-281, 283, 298, 316-317,
329, 345-347, 349-350, 359, 381-384, 386, 389,
Canvas (Mergen) 276, 283 396, 402, 416-417, 419
care ethics 169-173, 175, 179, 181-182, 184, 187, Cost Management in Educational Institutions During

Index
Crises 249 E
counseling 158, 328, 331, 368, 373, 377, 380, 385, 394
Counseling and Guidance Activities 377, 385 e-coaching 386, 392-395, 398-399
COVID-19 1-4, 6-7, 9-20, 22, 25, 28-31, 34-36, 39-48, economic function of education 233
51-54, 57-58, 61-64, 66-71, 73-82, 95-96, 98-99, Economics of Higher Education in the Digital Age 249
101-102, 106, 112-114, 127-130, 136-137, 139- education 1-49, 52, 56-59, 61-62, 64, 66-83, 87-88,
146, 148, 150, 158, 160, 162-168, 170, 184-185, 90-93, 95-104, 106-107, 110-114, 127-130,
187-189, 191-196, 198, 200, 202-212, 214-222, 137-151, 155-159, 161-174, 176-190, 192-194,
224-232, 235, 237, 239-248, 250, 252-253, 262, 197, 204-213, 218, 220, 222-251, 253-255, 261,
266-267, 269-274, 276-277, 279-286, 294-301, 266-274, 276-277, 279-286, 288-306, 308, 313-
315-319, 328-331, 333, 335, 339-342, 344-347, 319, 328-329, 331, 333-337, 339-345, 347-353,
349-353, 358-361, 364-374, 376-377, 379-386, 355-357, 359-371, 373, 376-399, 402-404, 408,
389-390, 392-396, 398-399, 401-404, 409, 411, 415-416, 418-419, 421-438
414-421, 423, 425, 429, 432-433, 436 education technology 145-151, 155-156, 165, 167-
culturally responsive 57, 350-351, 367, 424 168, 318
Culturally responsive pedagogy 350 emergency 1-4, 6-7, 10-12, 15-17, 35, 39, 45-47, 57,
61-63, 66-69, 73, 75-99, 102, 104, 112-113, 127-
D 128, 136-147, 151, 163-170, 173, 176, 180-184,
186-187, 190, 192, 206-207, 211-212, 222, 225-
depression 137, 329-330, 340-341, 344-345, 348, 377, 227, 232, 240, 242, 245-246, 250, 253, 264-272,
402, 408-410, 416-418, 420 276-277, 279-283, 285, 295-300, 302, 305, 316-
digital divide 19, 28-29, 66-67, 76-77, 80-81, 137-138, 319, 345, 347-349, 353, 360, 362-365, 367-371,
159, 161-162, 241, 247, 350, 368, 370, 379 373, 376-377, 379-381, 383-384, 386, 389-390,
digital language learning 272, 274, 276, 279, 283 393-396, 398, 401, 415-416, 420, 433, 435
digital literacy 28, 30, 33, 66-68, 72-77, 80-81, 162, emergency online education (EoE) 1, 3, 15
303, 378 Emergency Planning 82
Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions Emergency Preparedness 82
249 Emergency Remote Education (ERE) 145-146, 168,
discussion board 84-85, 88-89, 94, 99, 277, 359 270-271, 283
Discussion Forum 209, 212, 229 emergency remote teaching (ERT) 104, 128, 146, 168,
disengagement 19, 127, 130, 136, 141, 144, 182 264, 268, 348
distance education 2-3, 6, 8-14, 16-17, 31-32, 35, 39-41, emotion work 169, 171, 176, 178, 181, 183, 190
62, 66-68, 70-81, 96, 99, 101-104, 111-113, 128, emotional 34-35, 44-47, 51-52, 55-57, 61-62, 64-65,
137, 139-140, 142-144, 146-147, 151, 162-164, 104, 127, 129-135, 137, 141, 143-144, 165, 167,
166, 170, 184, 192-193, 197, 205-213, 222-226, 171, 173, 177-178, 180-182, 186-187, 190, 235,
228-230, 234-236, 239-241, 243, 245, 248-249, 272, 330, 340-341, 348, 350, 352, 356-357, 365-
266, 268-274, 276-277, 279-286, 288-290, 292, 366, 369, 371, 373, 375, 385, 402-403, 408-411,
294-301, 303-304, 313, 315-317, 329, 336-337, 418, 420, 425-426
339, 341-342, 345, 348-349, 367, 369, 373, 376- emotional engagement 129, 131-135, 137, 144, 182
377, 381, 384, 386, 389-390, 392, 395-396, 398, Emotional Problems (Children) 420
415-416, 433 empathetic approach 44-45, 47, 54, 64, 279
distance learning 18, 25, 28, 31-32, 34, 36, 52, 57, 96, empowering teachers 386, 390-392
98, 106, 127-128, 137, 144, 146-148, 152-154, engagement 23, 31, 34-35, 38, 46, 49-51, 53-55, 82-84,
156, 159-160, 162, 166, 168, 205, 207-208, 210, 87-88, 91-93, 97-99, 105, 111, 127-144, 157-158,
224-226, 251-254, 256-257, 261-262, 268, 273, 160-162, 168-171, 173, 175, 177-184, 189, 206,
285, 329, 365, 378-379 225, 250-251, 264, 266-268, 272-273, 348-352,
diversity 2, 5, 23, 33, 35, 45, 86, 233, 347-348, 350, 357-360, 362-363, 367, 379, 382, 430, 432
352, 379, 387, 394, 437 English learners 254-255, 268
English teaching and learning 269-270
equality 1, 3-6, 10, 12-13, 15, 24-25, 28, 33, 41, 188,
190, 233, 248, 274, 387, 394
508
Index
equity 1, 4-13, 15, 32, 35, 41, 44-45, 62, 106, 159, 161- instructional design 101-104, 106-107, 112-114, 207,
162, 167, 180, 185, 280, 347, 350, 359, 363-364 243, 301, 304, 306, 308, 319, 360, 380
ERT 102, 104, 106, 111, 115, 128-130, 136, 138, 146, instructors’ opinions 66, 68-71, 73, 75, 77-78, 299
168, 250, 253, 264, 266, 268, 302, 348-353, 355- interaction 8, 17, 35, 41, 49, 75, 83, 94, 102, 105, 108-
356, 360-363 109, 136-137, 144, 156, 170, 181, 192, 217, 222,
232, 236, 238, 242, 274-277, 285, 291, 295-297,
F 300, 315, 349, 358-359, 374, 377-379, 391, 394,
412, 415, 420, 425, 431
Face-to-Face (F2F) Instruction 268 intolerance of uncertainty 328-335, 339-341, 343-346
Faculty training 95, 97
family engagement 348, 350-352, 367 J
Formative Evaluation 114, 319, 387
fully synchronous learning 250-251, 259, 268 Joan Tronto 171, 188
Futures of Education 16-18, 20, 22, 42 justice 1, 4-7, 9-10, 12-20, 25, 34-35, 38, 104, 171,
174, 184, 186, 188, 190, 359, 363, 379, 387, 394
G
K
Gagne’s Instructional Design 114
generalized anxiety disorder 328-330, 343, 346 K-12 learners 7-8, 368
GeoGebra 101, 108-109, 114, 117, 119-123, 301, 308, Knowledge-Based Economic Competition 249
311-312, 319-320
guidance 29, 31, 40, 54, 56, 91, 107-108, 146-147, L
154, 157, 164, 314, 328, 331, 356, 358, 376-377,
380, 385, 432 learner 5, 8, 23, 98, 102, 107-109, 111, 114, 128, 148,
Guideposts 44-45, 47, 57, 60-61, 64 159-161, 169-170, 185, 202, 204, 208, 252, 268,
Guideposts for Trauma Informed Strategies 44-45, 47, 281, 285, 303, 319, 355, 370, 377-380, 385, 436
57, 60-61, 64 learner engagement 111, 128, 268, 379
learner-centered 23, 208, 349, 366-367
H learners 1-2, 4-9, 16, 18, 23-25, 28-29, 32, 34-36, 38, 43,
45-46, 54, 85, 105, 109, 111, 114, 127-128, 137,
HelpDesk 145-147, 150-151, 155-156, 168 155, 157-158, 170, 177-179, 191-198, 200-205,
higher education 6-8, 11-13, 15-16, 20, 28, 30, 36-38, 207-208, 245, 248, 250, 253-255, 268, 270, 272,
40-41, 62, 67, 70, 78-79, 82-83, 87, 91-93, 95- 275, 279, 284-285, 295, 303, 312, 318, 349, 356,
99, 110, 112, 114, 128-130, 139-140, 142-143, 360, 362, 367-373, 375-380, 394, 399, 425, 433
166-167, 169-174, 176-177, 179-189, 207, 211, Learners With Special Needs 399
226, 228, 232, 234-236, 239-241, 244-245, 247- learning environments 41, 64, 66-67, 75, 78, 101, 103,
249, 266-267, 269-273, 276-277, 279, 282-283, 106, 109-112, 129, 148, 156, 158, 161-162, 185,
300, 302-303, 315, 319, 328-329, 342, 347-348, 192, 207-208, 267, 277, 295, 297, 301-305, 315,
359, 364, 370, 377, 380, 383, 419, 434, 436-437 349, 370, 378, 380, 383, 389-390
home language 425-426, 428, 438 learning management system (LMS) 212, 222, 226,
hospital 294, 296, 401, 403-409, 411, 414-415, 417 229, 250, 268
learning outcomes 23, 47, 75, 88, 93, 96, 101, 103-
I 104, 106-108, 110-112, 114, 127, 129-130, 148,
192-193, 208, 266, 301, 305-308, 314-315, 319,

ICT self-efcacy 135-138, 144 321, 366
inclusion 9-10, 20, 25, 27-29, 41, 44-45, 48, 59, 62, 84, lifelong learning 4, 16-17, 20-24, 27-30, 32, 38-39,
224, 347, 355, 365, 395-397, 399, 408, 421, 432 41-42, 313, 318, 391, 394, 396
inclusive education 24, 364, 393-397, 399, 421 Listening Session 93, 99
inclusive pedagogy 386-389, 394, 396, 399 live lecture 209, 212, 215-216, 222-223, 229
inclusive practices 386-387, 389-391, 394
Individual Training 284, 300
509
Index
M online teaching 2-3, 11, 68, 75-79, 87, 95-99, 104,

110, 114, 128, 141, 145-146, 167, 190, 251, 315,
Management of the Digital Transformation in 348-349, 352, 358, 363, 370, 377
Educational Institutions 249 open educational resources 17, 39-43, 66, 77, 438
managerialism 185-186, 190
Manipulatives 301, 319-320 P
mathematics education 298-299, 301, 304-306, 314-
315, 331 Padlet 101, 108-109, 114, 116, 119-121
Mentorship 83, 90, 99 pandemic 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 16-19, 22, 25-26, 28-31, 33-
Microsoft OneDrive 277, 283 36, 39-40, 44-48, 50-53, 56, 58-59, 61-62, 66-71,
Mix-Method 328, 346 73-80, 82-83, 91-92, 95-99, 101-106, 110-114,
Monolingualism 428, 438 127-128, 130, 137-152, 156-175, 180-186, 188-
Mother-Scholar-Practitioner 367 189, 191-196, 198, 200, 202-206, 209-225, 227-
motivation 18, 23, 38, 49, 52, 58, 63, 73-77, 97, 104, 232, 234-235, 237-245, 247, 250-251, 253-254,
111, 129, 136, 141, 180, 187, 191-195, 198, 200, 262, 265-266, 269-274, 279-286, 289, 294-298,
202-208, 219, 224, 226, 267, 273-274, 284, 291, 300-303, 305, 315-317, 328-331, 333, 335-342,
294-296, 300, 313, 341, 369, 378-379, 385, 430 344-348, 351-352, 354, 357, 360-362, 365-384,
Multi-Competence 434, 438 389-390, 392-398, 401-402, 404, 410-411, 414-
multilingualism 422, 427-428, 430, 432-433, 436, 438 416, 420-421, 423, 425, 429, 433, 436
Multi-Media 99 pandemic pedagogy 145-147, 150, 156, 158, 162-163,
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Framework 64 165, 167-168, 183, 185, 188, 269-270, 272-274,
279, 283, 346, 367
N pandemic-induced stress 368, 380
Parental burnout 402-403, 409-410, 418-420
neoliberal university 171, 186 parents 6, 19, 24, 48-51, 54-55, 146-148, 153-154,
Neoliberalism 172, 188, 190 157-158, 160, 193, 204, 251, 253, 255, 262, 279,
new normal 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-16, 35, 39, 41, 79, 350-354, 360, 363-364, 366, 369, 371-376, 380,
163, 176, 184, 245, 253, 266, 270, 279, 298, 393, 384, 392, 395, 401-404, 407-415, 419, 432
396, 402, 416, 433 pathology 401
pedagogy 8-10, 27, 34, 40-41, 75-77, 102, 105-106,
O 108, 110, 145-147, 150, 156, 158-163, 165, 167-
168, 173, 181-189, 252, 269-270, 272-274, 279,
OEP 34, 41, 43 283, 299, 303, 307, 314-315, 317, 341, 346-347,
OER 17, 20, 23-25, 32, 34, 36, 39-43, 165-166 350, 367-368, 370, 378, 386-389, 394, 396, 399,
online education 1-10, 14-15, 36, 67-68, 76-77, 82-83, 415, 421-423, 427-430, 432-433
87-88, 90, 95-98, 100, 148, 170, 180, 223-224, Perceived Social Support 402, 410, 419-420
236, 269, 271, 279, 282-283, 302, 348, 350, 359, Phenomenology 145, 148, 165-166, 191, 194, 208-209,
361, 363, 370, 381 212, 214, 229
online exam 212, 218, 220, 223-224, 229, 276 phenomenology design 191, 194, 208-209, 212, 214
online faculty 82, 90, 96, 102 Play Specialist 401-409, 411, 414-415, 417, 420
online learning 2-3, 6, 8, 10-14, 23, 30, 39, 41, 50, 53, Play Specialist approach 401, 414
63, 68, 75-78, 80, 95-99, 101-106, 108-113, 115- playing 374, 401, 403-408
117, 120, 122-123, 127-130, 136-139, 141-142, practical training 284-285, 291-293, 295
146-147, 150, 152, 157-159, 163, 165-167, 176, privileged irresponsibility 182, 189-190
180, 185-186, 206-207, 225, 227, 232, 246, 250, professional competency 386
252, 254-255, 266-268, 271-272, 274, 279-285, professional learning 31, 145, 147-148, 150-151, 161,
295, 297-298, 300, 302, 305, 315-317, 348-350, 163-164, 168, 251, 318, 382
353-354, 361-362, 370, 377-380, 382-384, 389, Psychological Problem 346
395, 433, 435, 438 psychological support 204, 376-377
online learning environments 75, 101, 103, 106, 109- psychosocial well-being 369, 371, 374-375, 380, 385
112, 129, 267, 295, 297, 370, 378, 389
510
Index
Q student engagement 34-35, 49-51, 53-54, 84, 97, 127,

129-131, 133-144, 158, 169-171, 180-181, 183-
quality 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 17, 20, 24-25, 28, 32, 35-36, 40-41, 184, 189, 251, 267, 349, 357, 382
43, 53, 84, 88, 95-97, 101-104, 106, 108-114, 127, student retention 91
130, 149, 155, 159-162, 165, 170-171, 175, 178, student support 14, 82-83, 91, 93, 95, 186, 356
181, 215, 223, 229, 231-234, 238, 249, 271-273, sustainability 17, 19-20, 25-26, 28, 35, 38, 41, 96, 139,
288, 293-294, 296, 338, 358, 367, 375, 378, 387, 178, 187-188, 280, 433
389-390, 392, 394, 396, 398, 402-403, 422 Sustainable Development Goals 1, 3-4, 20, 43
quality assurance 40, 101-103, 106, 110-112, 114, Synchronous Distance Learning 144
159-162, 422 synchronous learning 250-252, 255-257, 259, 264,
268, 438
R
T
Real Manipulatives 319
Refective Practice 352, 367 teacher competency 388, 400
remote teaching 3, 10, 12, 45, 62-63, 79-80, 82-91, teacher empowerment 391-394, 396-397, 400
93-99, 104, 112-113, 127-128, 136-138, 140-141, Teaching philosophy 182, 187
143, 145-147, 164-166, 168-170, 173, 180-181, Technology Acceptance Model 145-146, 148-150,
184, 186, 190, 206-207, 211-212, 227, 246, 166-167, 211
250, 264, 266-269, 279-282, 285, 295, 299-300, telematic intervention 401, 409, 411-412
302, 312-313, 315-317, 345, 347-349, 352, 360, the Coronavirus pandemic 14, 145, 347
364-365, 367-371, 376-377, 379-381, 383-384, the new normal 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 16, 35, 41, 176, 279, 402
395-396, 398, 416, 435 Theory of Action 181, 190
remote virtual instruction 163 transactional distance 80, 266, 282, 369, 378, 384-385
Remote Virtual Learning 145, 168 Translanguaging 421, 423-425, 427-438
resilience 18-19, 27, 30, 34-36, 39, 43, 58-59, 62-64, trauma 19, 44-48, 50, 56-58, 60-65, 144, 265, 331, 384
130, 172-173, 235, 342, 344, 363, 403 trauma informed practices 44-47, 61, 64-65
responsibilities 18, 54, 68, 105, 109, 154, 171, 176,
179, 181-182, 190-191, 193, 231, 241, 342, 351- U
352, 354, 357, 378, 390, 392, 402-403
roles 19, 25, 33, 38, 68, 77-79, 87, 90, 98, 150, 173, Understanding and interpreting the digital economy 249
191, 193-198, 200-204, 207, 231, 233, 352-353, Universal Design 162-163, 300, 347, 350, 364
360, 388-390, 392, 396, 403, 431 university instructors 66, 68-69, 71, 75-77, 79, 81,
rubric 102, 108-109, 113-114, 119-121, 313, 319, 323 284, 300
university operations 264
S
V
scientifc knowledge 404, 429-433
SDG 3-4, 6, 10, 17, 20, 25, 36, 43 vicarious trauma 45-46, 50, 65
Sessional Academic 190 Videoconferencing Platform 251, 268
SMART 6, 38, 40-41, 101, 103, 106-108, 112, 114, Virtual Interactive Real-Time Instructor-Led (VIRI)
229, 234, 357, 361 Technology 268
social-emotional learning 44-45, 58, 347, 349, 367, 385 Virtual Manipulatives 320
special education 48, 250, 254-255, 268, 355-356

Structural Violence 171, 190
511

Handbook of Research On Emerging Pedagogies For The Future of Education, Trauma-Informed, Care, and Pandemic Pedagogy Aras Bozkurt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Handbook of Research On Emerging Pedagogies For The Future of Education, Trauma-Informed, Care, and Pandemic Pedagogy Aras Bozkurt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Handbook of Research On Emerging Pedagogies For The Future of Education, Trauma-Informed, Care, and Pandemic Pedagogy Aras Bozkurt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Research on

Emerging Pedagogies for

A volume in the Advances in Educational

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Simulation and Game-Based Learning in Emergency and Disaster Management

Applications of Work Integrated Learning Among Gen Z and Y Students

Career Ready Education Through Experiential Learning

Practical Perspectives on Educational Theory and Game Development

Advancing the Power of Learning Analytics and Big Data in Education

Machine Learning Approaches for Improvising Modern Learning Systems

Developing Mathematical Literacy in the Context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Alkış Küçükaydın, Menşure / Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey............................................ 328

Rodgers, Devery J. / California State University, Long Beach, USA................................................. 145

Best Practices for Emergency Remote Teaching................................................................................... 82

University Instructors’ Views on Distance Medical Education Activities........................................... 284

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 439

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 500

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 439

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 500

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

considered in case of emergency remote teaching applications in terms of enhancing psycho-social

TARGET AUDIENCE AND POTENTIAL USES

EMERGENCY ONLINE EDUCATION: A MAKESHIFT RESPONSE

EDUCATION IN THE DISCOURSE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

EMERGENCY ONLINE EDUCATION IN THE DISCOURSE

Figure 1. A visual summary of inequality, equality, equity and justice

LESSONS LEARNED FROM EMERGENCY ONLINE EDUCATION

ALL, at least in the foreseeable future. In these circumstances, the online-education-as-the-new-normal

THE NEW NORMAL

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER

CURRENT GLOBAL INITIATIVES

UNESCO Sustainability Goals

The Futures of Education

A Culture of Lifelong Learning

• Recognize the holistic nature of lifelong learning.

• Ensure better and equitable access to learning technologies.

UNESCO OER Recommendation

The definition of open license was also revised to the following:

Support Learning and Knowledge Sharing Due to the COVID-19 Crisis

The Commonwealth of Learning

OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030

Figure 2. Future of education and skills 2030

Figure 3. OECD learning compass 2030.

Inclusion to Bridge the Digital Divide

Mental Health and Wellbeing Online

World Economic Forum

GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP DURING CRISES

Figure 4. Resilient leadership.

• Environmental and human factors

Figure 5. The 8-P framework of resilient education.

Finally, universities need to focus on professionalization. Leadership should be inclusive, diverse,

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Pivoting to the Next Normal State

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Figure 6. Toward a framework of resilient education

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.