K-12 teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of online EFL teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

2.1 CALL and K-12 online education

Since the late 2000s, there has been a significant increase in research regarding technology use in language education (Chang & Hung, 2019), which can play a fairly important role in teaching, and CALL has become normalised (Bax, 2011). A study targeted at a science class revealed technology’s potential for bridging the gap between teacher–student interactions and helping students build connections between academic contents and their understanding of these contents (Kim, 2020). Drawing a conclusion from 50 years of human–computer studies, Gaines (2019) stated that the focus of CALL research has shifted from facilitating human–computer interactions to managing the highly connected virtual and real worlds. In the field of CALL, only two years ago, in 2019, scholars’ remained concerned about the constantly evolving technologies that can challenge educators who are not ready for them (Lomicka & Lord, 2019). Furthermore, CALL was only considered helpful in enhancing language education, instead of the predominant media for language education, and education at large (Loucky, 2019).

Compared to traditional classroom teaching, the use of the computer only plays an assistant role, whereas the dominant feature of distance education lies in the fact that learners are at a distance from their teachers, teachers and learners can only communicate on their computers, tablets or other devices that bring the teachers and the learners together via the Internet. It is technology that makes online learning possible; it plays an essential role in distance education (Ally, 2008). Chang and Hung (2019) indicated that the involvement of technology substantially influences the learning of a second or a foreign language.

Meanwhile, interaction also plays a vital role in the CALL context, as it allows learning to occur (Gass, 1997). While receiving distance education, the learners use technology to interact with their teachers; meanwhile, technological support is provided to learners. Learners are expected to interact with the content, the instructors and other learners (Ally, 2008). Teachers and students can interact through texts and voice during online teaching and learning. Texts are considered supplementary to voice, and in an online environment, text turns often occur concurrently with voice turns (Nguyen, Vicentini, & Langevin, 2018). However, some students doubt the usefulness of online interactions and complain about the inconvenience of exchanging texts in online synchronous classes (Miwa & Wang, 2013). In terms of learners’ interactions with the content, learners favour instructional videos that are clear and logical, as well as rich in content, and can therefore learn from the videos while enjoying the learning process (Ding, 2020).

In terms of interaction types in online education, most research has been conducted on the following three types of interactions: interactions among the students, between students and teachers and between students and the content. Bernard et al. (2009) emphasised all three interactions and stated that compared to interactions in mediated synchronous online classes and face-to-face settings, there is a strong association between the strength of interactions and achievement in asynchronous online courses. Sharifi, Rostami AbuSaeedi, Jafarigohar, and Zandi (2018) discovered that, compared to interactions among students or those between students and the content, teacher–student interactions are the least effective. Bernard et al. (2009) suggested that student-centred interactions can improve the effectiveness of teacher–student interactions. In contrast, Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki (2013) claimed that synchronous student–student interactions do not contribute much to the overall effectiveness of online learning.

Although the literature has highlighted the importance of interactions in online learning, it remains unclear how teaching effectiveness is associated with the various interactions occurring in distance education, especially in distance language education. In addition, computers never played a dominant role in teaching and learning before the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, many previous studies in the CALL field might not cover the teaching and learning context in massive online EFL teaching and learning, as in the COVID-19 context. In 2020, and even in the early 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift towards distance education where, compared to classroom teaching or blended learning, teaching and learning occurred solely online through the Internet and computers or mobile devices.

2.2 Teaching effectiveness in an online context

Previous studies have reported different results regarding the effectiveness of online teaching. Means et al. (2013) conducted a meta-analysis on 50 effects collected from 45 studies and found that the learning outcomes tend to be more desirable when online learning is involved in some form, either solely online or blended learning. In online synchronous classes, students focus more on the process, instead of the product, of completing an academic task through synchronous computer-mediated communication. Often, students produce fewer words at the end of a task, but the fact is that they have spent longer time discussing (Nguyen & White, 2013). In addition, while students make mistakes in both synchronous and asynchronous learning activities, errors, which are considered opportunities for acquiring new knowledge, are more likely to be prompted in synchronous learning settings (Pineda, 2019). Asynchronous activities, in contrast, provide learners with opportunities to identify the types of errors they make, and thus, help them develop and enhance language awareness. Furthermore, according to some scholars, tools can make learning and teaching easier and more effective. While Rice (2006) argued that the medium of distance education does not appear to play as essential role as the teachers and students do with respect to the effectiveness of distance education, Loucky (2019) suggested that computer-mediated communication (CMC) and CALL tools can differentiate or individualise instruction, engage students at a higher level and make the learning content more accessible along the teaching and learning process.

Although most previous studies yielded positive results in teaching effectiveness in the online teaching context, it remains unclear whether teaching effectiveness is still positive when all teaching and learning has been moved online during the COVID-19 period. Thus, more research should be conducted to investigate teaching effectiveness in EFL teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.3 Theoretical framework for online teaching

To theoretically explore the teaching effectiveness in massive online EFL teaching during the pandemic, the researchers are interested in the following factors that might have significant effects on the effectiveness of online English language classes: TPACK and Hubbard’s (2019) eight principles in the CALL context. The researchers applied the aforementioned three theories to investigate English language teachers’ perceived effectiveness of online English language classes.

2.3.2 Technology acceptance model

Davis (1989)’s technology acceptance model (TAM) was developed from the theory of reasoned action (TRA) introduced by Ajzen and Fishbein in 1980. TAM takes TRA, introduced by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), as a general model and derives from perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness indicates the extent to which people believe a technology can assist them in performing a better job, whereas perceived ease of use refers to the amount of effort users consider that will require when using the technology (Davis, 1989). According to Davis (1989), when language learners believe that a computer is easy and almost effortless to use, and is helpful to their language learning, they might develop a favourable attitude towards the use of computer-assessed language learning (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

TAM (Davis, 1989).

3.1 Participants

The online questionnaire was completed by 132 K-12 EFL teacher participants at primary or middle schools from 12 provinces or cities in China, including northern region, such as Beijing (N = 33) and Hebei (N = 10), and eastern region, such as Jiangsu (N = 40) and Shandong (N = 22). Among the 132 participants, 42 were male and 90 were female. Their ages ranged 20–60 years old. Of the participants, 41% (N = 55) had more than 10 years of teaching experience in conventional classroom teaching.

In terms of levels, 29 respondents (21.6%) were teaching Year 1–Year 3 students, 53 respondents (39.6%) were teaching Year 4–Year 6 students, 28 respondents (20.9%) were teaching Year 7–Year 9 students and 24 respondents (17.9%) were teaching Year 10–Year 12 students. The class size ranged from less than 20 to more than 60 students. Approximately 80% (N = 107) of the participants perceived that they had used online sources to enhance classroom teaching, and 52% (N = 70) of the participants had had experience in using some online teaching platforms before the teaching and learning process was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.2 Instruments

The researchers employed mixed methods to collect data, including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire contained 40 questions. First, the participants’ demographic information, including gender, age, years of teaching and taught students’ grades and class size, was collected. In addition, the questionnaire was particularly designed according to the concepts of TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and Hubbard’s (2019) eight principles. The participants were required to evaluate their own technological, pedagogical and content knowledge; their acceptance of online teaching and their perceived effectiveness of online teaching. The questions regarding the concepts of TPACK and Hubbard’s eight principles had to be answered on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

To better understand teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of online teaching, semi-structured interviews were also adopted. In the interview, the researchers were particularly interested in 1) teachers’ communication and interaction with their students in online classroom settings and 2) teachers’ experience of transitioning from conventional face-to-face teaching to online teaching. Twelve teachers were invited to participate in the interview, each of which lasted approximately 30 min. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Then, the interview data were analysed with the same categories as those obtained from the questionnaire data. The interviewees were coded as T1, T2, T3, etc.

3.3 Data analysis

The researchers aimed to explore and thus understand the variables that can significantly affect the effectiveness of online teaching and how teachers vary in regard to effective online language teaching. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used in this study. SPSS 22 was used in the quantitative analysis process. Meanwhile, the interview data were discussed in the same categories as questionnaire data.

The researchers developed three scales pertaining to the concepts of TPACK, Hubbard’s eight principles and TAM. There were 22 test items, complex latent factors and multidimensional relationships in the present study (Table 1).

4.1 Research question 1: How were online English classes conducted during the coronavirus outbreak?

All teachers were informed to conduct online teaching at the beginning of the spring semester in 2020, because all teaching and learning had to be conducted online. As such, the teachers received limited training. The questionnaire data showed that 33% of the participating teachers did not receive training before the start of online teaching in March 2020, 53% received training for one week, 12% received training for two weeks and only 2% received training for more than two weeks. This indicates that the teachers could not deliver effective online teaching, as they received limited training in using technology and integration of pedagogy in the online environment.

In the questionnaire, while 44 (30%) participants reported that they neither delivered synchronous online classes nor taught in an asynchronous manner, the remaining 59 (44.1%) participants experienced synchronous classes, 7 (5.2%) experienced asynchronous classes and 24 (17.9%) experienced both classes. This means that most participants adopted synchronous online classes (i.e. live lessons online). Meanwhile, asynchronous classes were also conducted. According to the interview data, some asynchronous classes were delivered by selected teachers from the local education council. As T4 explained,

It was the subject leaders in Suzhou that were involved in arranging the so-called Weike (micro lessons).

Moreover, the teachers tended to hold different opinions regarding whether it is better to have synchronous or asynchronous online classes. For example, T1 expressed one benefit of live classes (i.e. instant feedback from the teacher to the students):

The advantage of live classes is that teachers can answer students’ questions at any time. If students have questions, they can post them to the message box, and the teacher can give feedback almost right away, just like in normal classroom.

However, one teacher thought that students may benefit more from asynchronous classes and develop learner autonomy. As T11 stated,

I prefer asynchronous classes, because students can watch the recorded videos over and over again, or skip the parts they didn’t need. I think it’s more autonomous.

While asynchronous classes might have benefited some students, the teachers also expressed their concerns about these classes. As T7 argued,

Some students are not able to learn from the recorded videos at home by themselves, consequently they hardly ever learn anything from the videos created by the teachers.

In addition, synchronous online classes often lasted longer than recorded lessons. According to the questionnaire data, 98 (72.79%) teachers had live classes that lasted more than 30 min but less than 60 min, 17 (12.59%) teachers had classes that were shorter than 30 min and only 14 (10.37%) teachers reported that they had classes for longer than 60 min. Regarding the length of the recorded videos, T9 stated,

A recorded video usually lasts for five to six minutes long, and there usually are three to four videos recorded for one particular unit.

In terms of the online platforms utilised during online teaching, various platforms were mentioned in the questionnaires and interviews. DingDing, Tencent Conference and Tencent Classroom were the three most popular platforms used by the teachers for synchronous online classes. For recorded lectures, teachers shared in the interviews that they would record videos and upload them to Cloud Storage Systems, which varied depending on the requirements of the schools the teachers worked at. Moreover, according to the questionnaire survey data, the teachers used WeChat or QQ to follow up students’ online learning progress, including asking and answering questions and checking homework. Additionally, some teachers used national online platforms and local governments’ own online platforms to obtain relevant resources to support their teaching.

Online platforms assisted teaching in multiple ways. Apart from delivering synchronous classes and uploading pre-recorded videos, 88 (65.19%) participants reported that they used the platform for uploading teaching materials, 68 (50.37%) used it for classroom management and 71 (52.59%) used it for after class tutorials (i.e., uploading homework and giving feedback to the students). Furthermore, the teachers used additional functions. In addition, they used a voting system for an online survey or quiz so that they could receive students’ responses instantly, and then provide feedback accordingly. Group teaching, audio communications, sharing PPT slides, online tests, online Q&A, checking students’ learning processes, taking online attendances and playbacking recorded lessons were also used during online teaching. Teaching assistants were also involved in providing tutorials to the students.

Regarding the interaction during online teaching, 43 (31.85%) of the participants reported that they and their students could both see each other in synchronous online classes through cameras, while 27 (20%) teachers could not see their students, and vice versa. In addition, 41 (30.37%) participants reported that while they could see their students, their students could only see the shared screen. The remaining participants could not see their students, while their students could see them. While some teachers could see their students, they chose not to do so for the reasons explained below:

I can see my students, but I usually don’t choose to see them, because the Internet will be jammed if all the students turn on their cameras. (T3)

Meanwhile, the teachers’ attitudes varied when they interacted with their students in synchronous classes; 84 (62.22%) of the participants perceived that they interacted with their students using the microphone function provided by the online teaching platform, 25 (18.52%) attempted to have students work in pairs and groups using the microphone served by the online teaching platform, 51 (37.78%) explored the chat box function of the teaching platform and interacted with their students through messages posted onto the chat box and 49 (36.56%) participants asked their students to interact with each other using the chat box. However, a few teachers suggested that they wanted to be careful while choosing to take advantage of the chat box. As T7 suggested,

Typing is a slow way to communicate, and it can be very time-consuming considering the limited amount of time we have for each lesson.

In addition, some teachers increased the number of questions they would normally ask in class, while others gave their students permission to try and use some interactive functions provided by the teaching platform (e.g. sharing screen and highlighting). Most teachers commented that online teacher–student interactions were achieved through speeches. T10 added,

The teacher-student interaction was done mostly through speech. We also typed when some students’ network couldn’t work properly. However, for the teachers, we want students’ instant voice response, because when students answer their face will be displayed on the screen, which is much better than typing on the screen.

Furthermore, the participants provided positive comments on interactions. The findings from the questionnaire showed that 98 (72.59%) of the participants considered it essential for teachers to interact with their students in online synchronous classes, and 80 (59.26%) argued the significance of student interactions. This indicates that most participants considered interactive activities to be fundamental in online classes. Nevertheless, two (1.48%) participants still considered it possible for teachers to have no interaction with their students in synchronous online classes. In addition, several teachers doubted the practicality of interactive activities in online classes. As T3 commented,

I don’t think student interaction is very feasible, because if you have two children discussing, they can’t see each other, but we can hear the sound of their discussion, we can hear the process.

Furthermore, several teachers doubted the practicality of interactive activities in online classes. They expressed their concerns as follows:

I think student interaction is important, but the problem is that teachers will not be able to be a good supervisor in the process. It’s hard to supervise, and a lot of teachers have shared that they don’t know how to organize interactive activities online. (T3)

We have group discussions, but (the interaction) is rare. For example, if I want two students to have a discussion, they may not get prepared at the same time, which can be a waste of time. Sometimes, I’m mostly worried that the parents will think the class is noisy and in disorder. (T6)

To investigate whether there was a statistically significant association between students’ grades and their interactions with the teachers, a correlation was computed. Spearman’s Rho in Table 3 was calculated: r (132) = −0.231, p = 0.037 < 0.05. This means that younger students tended to interact with teachers more often and better in synchronous online classes.

The findings above demonstrate that most participants integrated the synchronous method for online classes, and some teachers used asynchronous classes with video recording, which can benefit students’ learning because they can review recorded lessons frequently. This result agrees with that obtained by Ding (2020) in their study regarding the benefit of video-recorded lessons on learners’ online learning. Furthermore, either teacher–student or student–student interactions by speaking or typing messages were adopted during online teaching and were perceived as important by the participating teachers. These two types of interactions meet Ally’s (2008) expectation in an online learning environment. This finding corresponds with Nguyen et al.’s (2018) claim that text interaction can reinforce voice interaction in the online teaching context. This is because interactions are fundamental and can improve the effectiveness of online teaching, which can enhance learners’ understanding of the academic content (Kim, 2020). In addition, students can respond well if the interaction is carried out. This suggests that interactions should be considered during live online teaching, although there are some difficulties sometimes. This result is consistent with Bernard et al.’s (2009) suggestion on interactions during online teaching, especially for student–student interaction, as highlighted by Sharifi et al. (2018). Moreover, the result corresponds with Loucky’s (2019) suggestion on high engagement for learning through online communication. The findings above show that student–student interactions can also support learners’ learning progress, which contradicts Means et al.’s (2013) study on the uselessness of student–student interactions, because the current online technological tool for communication is much better than that available 10 years ago and it is now convenient to conduct interaction online. Meanwhile, teachers should be trained on how to control online interactions in order to provide more effective online teaching and learning.

4.2 Research question 2: How do teachers perceive the effectiveness of online teaching during the coronavirus outbreak?

To understand how teachers perceive the benefits of online teaching, the researchers adapted Hubbard’s eight principles and invited the participants to rate each principle on a scale of 1–5 according to their own experience (Table 4). Regarding teachers’ perspectives on teaching efficiency pertaining to online teaching, 46 (34.07%) out of the 132 participants indicated “strongly disagree”, 31 (22.96%) indicated “disagree”, 33 (24.44%) indicated “neutral”, 17 (12.59%) indicated “agree” and 7 (5.19%) indicated “strongly agree”. The mode for this variable was 1, and its mean, based on the 132 valid responses, was 2.29 (SD = 1.201), only slightly exceeding the two on the five-point Likert scale. The percentages, mean score and mode score suggested that more than half of the participants indicated disagreement with the statement; that is, most participants did not consider online teaching to be as efficient. The means of other factors were less than 3, which means that teachers thought online learning may not be effective and efficient. Only the means of access to materials and convenience were more than 3, indicating positive comments from participants.

The teachers in the interviews also expressed similar concerns. For example, as T2 noted,

Teacher cannot monitor well in online classes, thus it is difficult to keep track of students’ learning.

For the self-disciplined students in class, online course can be effective. However, the rest students lag behind during online teaching.

The results indicate that teachers did not consider their online teaching during COVID-19 to be effective. This may be largely because they received insufficient training and support before conducting online teaching. Therefore, the teachers should be trained to carry out online teaching. As suggested by Hubbard (2019), teachers should be trained and be lifelong learners to learn how to integrate their effective classroom teaching into the online teaching environment. Schools should also provide sufficient training to teachers to help them achieve efficient teaching online.

However, one teacher argued that teaching effectiveness is not impossible to achieve during online teaching, for the teachers would spend more time and effort preparing for the classes compared to traditional classroom teaching.

We are more serious and careful in preparing online teaching, because I need to concern all the aspects. I invested much more time and energy in online teaching.

This suggests that if teachers can spend more time and effort, online teaching can be made effective. Thus, more time should be given to teachers to make online teaching effective.

Furthermore, this study analysed the correlations among TPACK, Hubbard’s eight principles, TAM and teachers’ perceived teaching effectiveness in the online teaching environment during COVID-19.