The Dawn of Digital Classroom : Experiencing the English school subject through distance education during the covid-19 pandemic

(1)

The Dawn of Digital Classroom

Experiencing the English school subject through distance education during

the covid-19 pandemic.

COURSE: English for Subject Teachers 91 – 120, 15 credits AUTHOR: Niklas Persson

EXAMINER: Leon Yousif Barkho SUPERVISOR: Annika Denke TERM: Autumn 2020

(2)

Abstract

As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, peoples’ everyday lives have been affected, including the teachers and students in Swedish upper-secondary schools while teaching and learning English. Due to this, both parties have had to experience the English classroom in the shape of distance education through computer-mediated communication (CMC). A convenience sampling consisting of four teachers and four students was used to provide statements regarding the participants’ experiences of the virtual classroom, in comparison to the physical classroom. The study also examined how the four language skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing have been affected while teaching and learning English, due to distance education. The main findings consist of teachers claiming to have experienced difficulties regarding testing the English language skills known as reading and listening. In addition, a lack of non-verbal interaction was missed, according to the teachers, resulting among other things in the linguistic phenomenon such as turn-taking, to have taken place. The students on the other hand, have experienced difficulties regarding autonomy while studying English at home during the distance education as well as a different linguistic issue known as overlap in conjunction with a lack of non-verbal interaction and several people speaking simultaneously. The reported effects due to the covid-19 pandemic in conjunction with distance education are discussed along with the consequences of the obtained results and further suggestions regarding the topic.

Keywords: English, upper-secondary school, distance education, CMC, teachers, students

(3)

1. Introduction

In specific situations, such as the covid-19 pandemic, teachers and students in Swedish upper-secondary schools are required to partake in distance education through digital means. They are forced to adjust to the situation, which is not an easy task for either part. From experiencing teaching firsthand through computer-mediated communication (CMC) with my own students, based upon my own experience, distance education requires considerable effort from both parties. 1 For instance, from a teacher’s perspective, there were aspects which had to be learned within days, such as the video conferencing software known as Microsoft Teams. Additionally, within Teams, the goal was not simply to learn how to turn on the microphone or camera; teachers also had to learn how to create separate discussion channels and allow certain people into a specific channel. Furthermore, aside from learning how to use technology in innovative ways, teachers and students have had to depend on technology more than usual. They have also experienced a form of change in ways we as humans communicate as we usually do so with more features than solely the voice.

It is not unlikely that teachers and students in Sweden have experienced difficulties during the adjustment period of teaching and learning English as a school subject through CMC. Because the covid-19 pandemic escalated rapidly, the Swedish education system did not really have time to prepare for the possible implications of digital distance education. Furthermore, the use of technology “is never inconsequential […] in terms of costs, human resources and expectations involved” (White, 2006, p. 256). Even if you disregard costs, human resources and expectations, English distance education within the frames of CMC might entail unforeseen technical or linguistic issues in communication. The purpose of this study is to examine students’ and teachers’ experiences of the enforced English distance education through CMC at upper-secondary schools in Sweden during the Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, this study will investigate what possible linguistic and technical difficulties teachers and students might have experienced in the virtual English language classroom.

1_{The usage of CMC can happen in physical classroom but in this study it refers to distance education}

(6)

2. Background

There have been numerous studies on distance education through CMC and there is a wide spread of studies in different fields, but more research is still required. Some studies conclude that more research is needed in fields such as tutors’ training in conjunction with virtual classrooms, and how one introduces technology to a certain setting (White, 2006, pp. 253 - 256). More recent research by Hajek et al. suggests that “[f]ew studies have looked at the role of distance education for school-based, whole class contexts” (2019, p. 12). This study can be considered a relevant topic in today’s society but also in the particular situation the world is currently experiencing since there is a lack of research in the area which this study focuses on. There is also an importance in illuminating the areas in which society need to evolve.

2.1. Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-mediated communication is a generic term that essentially includes all sorts of communication that occurs “between individuals and among groups via networked computers” (Naidu & Järvelä, 2006, p. 98). Education through CMC can be carried out with various methods and with the aid of a variety of computer software. Other possible CMC approaches include electronic mail (E-mail), or a forum, which “functions essentially as a Web-based newsgroup”, and asynchronous or synchronous audio or video (Davis & Rouzie, 2002, p. 6). The participants are only separated from each other in terms of space, which is a situation that can be likened to a phone call (Naidu & Järvelä, 2006, p. 98). Having conversations through CMC can provide different experiences depending on whether the conversation is held asynchronously or synchronously.

Distance education through CMC in Sweden is for the most part carried out through software such as Microsoft Teams or Zoom. By using software that allows for synchronous audio and video feeds, teaching English through CMC can be facilitated. For example, the face-to-face (F2F) interaction might resemble the interactions that occur in the physical classroom. Hall and Knox examined issues in teaching English through CMC and according to one of their participants, educators and learners of English are still able to participate fully in the virtual classroom (2009, p. 74). However, a different participant in Hall’s and Knox’s study argues that solely having the means for distance studies will not suffice, but rather “situated professional development is the key” (2009, p. 74). The latter mentioned participant advocates developing pedagogical, administrative, organizational, and technological methods for aiding educators in carrying out distance education through CMC.

(7)

Whether a CMC discussion occurs synchronously or asynchronously, one of the more common problems that may arise involves type and degree of participation (Mason and Romiszowski, 1996, p. 399). People who participate passively and rarely take part in a discussion or conversation are called ‘lurkers’, and “most participants lurk most of the time” (Mason and Romiszowski, 1996, p. 399). This happens in most discussions, both online and offline, and if all participants were actively trying to contribute to a discussion it could become problematic (Mason & Romiszowski, 1996, p. 399). For instance, if all participants in a discussion were to contribute equally and at the same time, it could pose linguistic difficulties whether the interaction took place through CMC or F2F. The linguistic difficulties that come to mind involve aspects such as turn-taking and overlap. Turn-taking can be explained as someone taking control of a conversation when the control has not already been predetermined (Yule, 1996, p. 72). In other words, every participant might try to control the conversation if an order of speaking turns has not been decided upon before the conversation starts. Overlap, by contrast, is when two or more speakers in a conversation are “trying to speak at the same time” (Yule, 1996, p. 72). An important aspect to consider is that a lack of contribution, should not be understood as a “lack of […] engagement or of learning” whether in CMC or F2F interactions (Mason and Romiszowski, 1996, p. 399). This implies that even if the student participants in this study may at times resemble lurkers, it does not necessarily mean that they are in fact lacking in engagement or will to learn.

Distance education requires time and effort to produce “high-quality teaching material” (Neumann, 1998, p. 136). With the limited amount of interaction between teachers and students it is difficult to prepare completely for any possible options (Neumann, 1998, p. 136). As a consequence of the lack of interaction that comes with distance education, critics have pointed out that the learning becomes passive, and that more is required for a “high-quality education” to take place, such as the F2F interaction which occurs in the conventional classroom (Dumont, 1996, p. 192).

2.2. The Swedish National Agency for Education & Distance Education

In 2008, the Swedish national Agency for Education (SNAE) presented a proposition regarding distance education that would envelop compulsory school, upper-secondary school, non-municipal established schools and Sami schools. The proposition was aimed toward subjects concerning languages and courses in upper-secondary school. Students with medical, psychosocial or certain talents were focused on in the proposition regarding distance education (Hilborn & Wieslander, 2008, p. 12).

(8)

The purpose of distance education was in the beginning to organize education that did not require people to meet physically (Hilborn & Wieslander, 2008, p. 14). To understand what criteria must be met for education to be considered distance education, the list of criteria below was presented by Hilborn and Wieslander (2008, p. 20). It is based on five out of seven characteristics proposed by Desmond Keegan which define distance education (1986, pp. 49 - 50):

• Teachers and students are mostly separated during moments of teaching. • An educational coordinator has the responsibility of planning the education,

and the development of study material and support for the students.

• Different kinds of technological tools are used to reduce the gap of distance between teachers and students, to convey the course content

• A two-way communication exists to help the student in starting or participating in dialogues with the teacher

• Study groups rarely exist for the most part of the education, resulting in studies occurring individually.

It is possible to see that a proposal, made for specific students in certain situations, is similar to the enforced distance education that students and teachers in upper-secondary schools are experiencing at the moment.

2.3. Adjustments at upper-secondary school level

As the main objective with the enforced distance education was to limit the spread of the Coronavirus, upper-secondary schools in Sweden were to follow specific guidelines. Among these guidelines, the Swedish government recommended that education continue through digital distance education (Regeringen, 2020). Additionally, due to an estimation that the crisis would progress over an extended period of time, the Swedish government announced that a small number of students was allowed to be taught in school (Regeringen, 2020). The government’s decision was meant for those students who ran the risk of not being able to finish their education (Regeringen, 2020). These recommendations were subsequently followed by the upper-secondary schools in Jönköping (Jonkoping, 2020).

2.4. Advantages of distance education

Various studies show that language learning can benefit from CMC. For instance, Ortega found that CMC made it possible for language learners to contribute at an individually desired pace, and quantitatively as much as they preferred (1997, p. 81). With Ortega’s study in mind, some participants in this study might prefer to make use of asynchronous

(9)

text-based methods for teaching and learning English. At the same time, Hampel and Hauck question whether or not the “communicative skills” that learners attain in written cases such as chats and forum posts are “transferable” so as to be suitable for use in verbal communication (2004, p. 67). However, Hampel and Hauck also propose that the skills which a learner acquires through written CMC are now further complemented due to the existence of audio-graphic conferencing, which allows for oral skills to be developed as well (2004, p. 67). Warschauer and Kern et al. state that the students who are usually not part of discussions benefit more than others regarding the increase in general participation (1997, p. 473; 2008, p. 282). The studies by Warschauer and Kern et al. could explain why there are ‘lurkers’, as previously mentioned by Mason and Romiszowski (see 2.1), as some actually benefit from not contributing.

2.5. Disadvantages of distance education

Wang studied the possibilities of using synchronous distance language learning in combination with desktop videoconferencing, which displayed that research concerning language learning through CMC in distance education had mostly occurred in written form (2004, p. 92). Wang discusses the option of using audio conferencing tools to provide learners with the possibility of having oral interaction as it is important to be able to see the person with whom one is speaking (2004, p. 92). Being able to see the faces of the involved participants in a conversation can be crucial because of the nonverbal communication that usually occurs in conversations. For example, nonverbal communication can include facial expressions that show agreement, or disagreement.

Terhune researched students who used synchronous CMC in connection with oral language learning in a university English class (2016, p. 1085). The students seemed motivated in the beginning, but towards the end there was not as much enthusiasm. The enthusiasm was observed to be diminished once the students were to practice speaking together without a teacher present (Terhune, 2016, p. 1085). Instructions should be formed through pedagogical planning in order to guide the students, but it should also be done with the purpose of promoting an independency among the students gradually (Terhune, 2016, pp. 1086 - 1087). With this in mind, it is possible that one or both participating groups in this study have shown a lack of engagement, motivation or contribution due to different circumstances.

The abovementioned research show that conversations through CMC might provide different experiences (see 2.1). Thus, there is relevancy in examining the experiences of the participants in this study in conjunction with distance education through CMC.

(10)

Additionally, the participants’ experiences of similarities and differences might vary depending on their exposure to F2F interaction through CMC as opposed to the usual exposure in the physical classroom (see 2.1). Based on Yules description of turn-taking and overlap, there is an interest in examining if the participants have experienced any encounters which resembles these two linguistic phenomena and perhaps more while teaching and learning through CMC. The choice of aim and research questions can be considered to stem to some extent from the abovementioned research.

(11)

3. Aim & Research questions

The aim of this study is to examine how teaching and learning English, through CMC is experienced by teachers and students in two Swedish upper-secondary schools. It also investigates what types of linguistic and technical difficulties teachers and students in these upper-secondary school might have experienced in this process. The study aims to answer the following research questions:

• How is the overall experience of teaching and learning English in upper-secondary school through distance education and CMC described by the participants in the study?

• How do the participants describe their experiences of similarities and differences respectively between teaching and learning English language in distance education through CMC versus in the physical classroom?

• How have the teachers and students had to adjust in order to teach and learn the four language skills through distance education, what differences and similarities have the participants experienced?

• What linguistic and/or technical difficulties have the participants experienced while teaching and learning English through distance education in virtual classrooms? If so, what were they?

(12)

4. Method and material

To answer the research questions, semi-structured interviews were conducted separately with four teachers and four students in upper-secondary schools in Jönköping. The interviews were used to investigate the teachers’ and students’ opinions respectively regarding teaching and learning English through CMC. Semi-structured interviews were deemed to be appropriate for this study since they are usually conducted in a relaxed form. Longhurst explains that semi-structured interviews (also known as informal or conversational interviews) should be carried out “in a conversational manner” (2016, p. 143). According to Longhurst, semi-structured interviews enable the participants to develop their answers based on issues they believe to be of importance in a relaxed manner, as previously mentioned. Furthermore, they provide the participants with the opportunity to develop their answers. Table 1 in appendix A displays the questions that the participants were asked in the semi-structured interview.

4.1. Participants

The participants were selected from two upper-secondary schools in Jönköping through convenience sampling. The participating students were all 18 years of age or older and were informed that they would retain their anonymity. The interviews were held online synchronously through computer software such as Teams and Zoom. Before each interview, the interviewer informed the participants about necessary information required according to Swedish law; participants were informed what the study aims to examine, what methods were used, and that their participation was voluntary. The participants had the option of discontinuing their participation in the study at any given time without an explanation, in accordance with 16 §, 17 § and 18 § (2003:460 about ethical researching concerning people, ch. 9, paras. 1 - 7) and received the option of being provided with the end results of this study if interested.

The interviews were held with the aid of CMC, which allowed for them to be recorded. This facilitated transcription and made it possible for the interviewer to focus fully on the interview (Longhurst, 2016, p. 150). The recordings only occurred if the participants approved and were only handled by the author of this study.

4.2. Method of analysis

Thematic analysis (TA) was chosen as an appropriate method to analyze the collected data. Thematic analysis can be described as focusing on identifying that which is “common to the way a topic is talked or written about”, and how to understand what is perceived as common (Braun & Clarke, 2012, p. 57). It should be mentioned that themes

(13)

which can be considered common do not necessarily have to be important or meaningful on their own (Braun & Clarke, 2012, p. 57).

When conducting qualitative research, TA is considered an optimal method, as “it suits a wide variety of research questions and research topics” (Braun and Clarke, 2012, p. 58). According to Braun and Clarke, through TA, different qualitative research approaches such as inductive, deductive, or theory-driven data coding analysis, among others, can be utilized (2012, p. 58). For this study the inductive approach was chosen, since it is described as a bottom-up approach where the content of the data is focused on, which the “themes derive from” (Braun & Clarke, 2012, p. 58). Since the content of the collected data was focused on, it was important that the themes which were created, were also matched, as Braun and Clarke suggest (2012, p. 58). It is important to understand that whichever approach the data is analyzed from, it is seldom purely one or the other (Braun & Clarke, 2012, pp. 58 - 59). This means that when analyzing, it is common that the researcher interprets the collected data subconsciously. Thus, the created themes are made from interpretation while attempting to match the content of the collected data as much as possible.

(14)

5. Analysis

The participants’ answers have been categorized in line with the method of thematic analysis which was presented in section 4.2. For a summarized view of the results see Table 2 in appendix B that depicts four main themes, drawn from the participants’ answers. Additionally, each main theme was divided into subthemes in accordance with the main theme. Furthermore, table 2 displays a description of what each subtheme entails as well as the two participatory groups separately. The following section presents the results in accordance with the themes and subthemes of the thematic analysis (see table 2 in appendix B).

5.1. Experience of teaching and learning English through distance education

5.1.1. Previous experience of CMC

The responses regarding teachers’ previous experience of teaching English through CMC indicate that the respondents had no experience before the covid-19 pandemic. T1 and T2 stated that they had used the internet-based platform V-klass to hand out instructions and assignments, but otherwise they had no prior experience of teaching English through CMC. T3 had previously used Skype in conjunction with an oral assignment but never in a whole-class context. T4 claims that they had no experience at all of teaching English through CMC.

The students’ responses indicate that none of them had ever learned English through CMC before the covid-19 pandemic.

5.1.2. Current experience of CMC

Regarding the teachers’ current experiences of teaching English at distance through CMC, three teachers have had a positive experience. More specifically, T1, T2 and T4 claimed that it has been working, “fine”, “good” and” mostly good”. By contrast, T3 stated that the experience varied, due to the fact that “most students don’t really express anything, more that they attend the lessons that I’ve had” (see appendix E). Although teachers 1, 2 and 4 had more positive experiences, they still had their reservations about the experience. T1 stated that based on the guidelines from the Swedish National Agency for Education to keep it simple, T1 “[took] away some things that [were] not that necessary” and instead, the criteria for grades were focused on (see appendix C). T1 did not explain what parts were taken away. T2 expressed that working with seminars through CMC is not as effective as working with them in the classroom. The teacher speculated that this could be because of the technology, e.g. occasional experiences of “echoes”.

(15)

Moreover, T2 also specified that it is “not always a two-way communication, it’s really a one-way communication […], but it works fine, but of course the students have to take a lot more responsibility for using their English” (see appendix D). According to T4, the four language

skills differed with regard to testability. For instance, speaking and writing were stated to work, whereas listening and reading were more difficult, but the teacher still tried to make testing possible through software such as Exam.net. This is further elaborated in section 5.3. Lastly, T4 claimed that it was challenging to combine the different technologies of

Exam.net and Teams. For instance:

they were using Exam for the first time in their life, and […] in the classroom, normally I just go to the student and help him or her on the computer, […] but online, it was difficult, and I couldn’t even request them to control their computer because it was not possible, […] so it took 30 minutes or maybe more to instruct them, while having an ordinary simple listening test, so that’s what I think is the biggest challenge, the instructions to connect to the technical part of teaching (see appendix F).

At the same time, students’ lack of familiarity with technology is not necessarily synonymous with having technological difficulties. Thus, lack of familiarity with technology is connected more to current experiences, rather than technical difficulties.

The students displayed mixed feelings regarding their current experiences of learning English through CMC. S1 claims that it has been a good experience, one reason for this is the increased usage of computers, as opposed to classes in the physical classroom. S2, however, does not feel positive towards their current experience, they believe “it’s more difficult to focus at home and easier to receive help in school” (see appendix H). In addition, both S3 and S4 believe that the experience has been somewhere in between good and bad, but for different reasons. For instance, S3 claims that it is more difficult to work from home, not unlike S2. S4 on the other hand, believes it is difficult to know when a lesson starts or ends, and the teachers take attendance through different methods, with some taking attendance at the beginning of the lesson and others at end. Overall, S4 feels that English at distance through CMC is not as pedagogical as it is in the physical classroom.

(16)

5.2 Similarities and differences between teaching and learning English in the virtual classroom versus the physical classroom

5.2.1. Similarities

The teachers mentioned some similarities between teaching English through CMC and teaching in the physical classroom. T1 states that presentations can still be done in a similar fashion when teaching through CMC. Teachers 1, 2 and 4 believe that discussions in groups can be done with minor adjustments. Other aspects that have not changed are aspects such as giving instructions, and students being able to work on their own, according to T2. In addition, T3 claims that they still start the lessons similar: “we start the lesson pretty much the same way, take attendance, kind of just welcome them, going through what we’re going to do today” (see appendix E). T4 states that, as in the physical classroom, the higher the students’ level of English, the more group activities can still be had.

The students mention a few similarities between learning English at distance through CMC in contrast to the physical classroom. For instance, students still receive assignments, according to S2. Moreover, S3 claims that there are not many differences, other than the teacher not being able to help each student as well as in the physical classroom. S1 and S4 did not mention any similarities.

5.2.2. Differences

T1 states that “in a classroom you can see the looks, you can see the eyes, you can see if they understand, now I have to ask them do you understand”. The lack of facial expressions reduces the amount of information that the teacher receives from visual interpretation (see appendix C). Furthermore, T1 states that the amount of communication between the teacher and their students has been reduced and that it does not give them as much “energy back” as usual. T2 mentions that interaction and relationship are important aspects when nurturing one’s language proficiency. However, the teacher claims that these aspects are not built the same way through CMC as in the physical classroom. As previously mentioned, T1 feels that it is different due to a lack of facial expressions, which T3 also states, more specifically, not being able to see the students and solely hearing their voices. Much like T1 and T3, T4 elaborates on facial expressions, emphasizing that gestures, signs and body language are important aspects when communicating, features that are hard to rely on when teaching through CMC. T4 describes that discipline has improved through CMC, based on the students not being able to interact with each other. Furthermore, T4 has noticed that they are not as strict when it comes to punctuality

(17)

concerning attendance and connecting to a lesson in comparison to their regular physical lessons. Lastly, educational tools such as the whiteboard are more difficult to implement: “I use the whiteboard a lot actually in the classroom, with CMC it’s not so easy” (See appendix F).

Regarding the differences between learning English through CMC and the physical classroom for students, there are various opinions. The opinions among the students concern aspects such as the amount and clarity of instructions, students’ individual needs, teacher-student and student-student interaction, and rate of response. S1 claims that it is easier to learn from home because there is not as much noise as during the physical lessons, saying that CMC allows students to work faster and with more effectiveness. S2, however, states that there is a difference in how well they are able to learn while studying at home through CMC. Moreover, S2 claims that for learning to be easy and smooth depends on the school itself. S2 believes that it is difficult to retain the same kind of contact through CMC as they do in the physical classroom. In the same vein, S2 expresses divergence concerning the assignments. As other respondents noted earlier, S2 says the students still receive their assignments and instructions, but they lack sufficient information on how to do them. S3 mentions that “the teacher is not as good at helping every students with how each student needs help” (see appendix I). Lastly, S4 explains that there are more differences than similarities. Among these differences, S4 claims that the lessons appear to be loosely structured and that it is difficult to know when a lesson starts or ends.

5.3. Experience of adjustment, differences and similarities in teaching and learning the four language skills

5.3.1. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening

The teachers were also asked to express their experiences of how they have had to adjust while teaching one or more of the four language skills within the English language through CMC. In some instances, the teachers utilized various software as aid. T1 explains that they have followed their plan except for the national tests being canceled. Furthermore, T1 states that reading and discussion groups, have seemed to be working well through CMC. Additionally, they mention that they have not been focusing on writing, but if they had, they would have adjusted to it by utilizing the internet-based website known as Exam.net. T2 had to be more detailed and clearer when providing instructions, and they have also reduced the number of tasks in conjunction with reading.

(18)

Moreover, T3 states that speaking has as much of a focus during the distance education through CMC as in the physical classroom, and due to the difficulties involved in interpreting the students they started giving instructions in Swedish. T4 elaborates that regarding the different language skills, the method of testing has been adjusted. For example, when testing writing, T4 has used Exam.net in combination with Teams. In this case, the students connect to Teams with their cellphones while using Exam.net through the computers, as Exam.net prohibits the computer from exiting the test without turning in or aborting. Lastly, according to T4: “[w]hat can be difficult is reading and listening, but I still try to do it, I have conducted listening and reading, I have created my own tests, the same way with the help of Exam” (see appendix F).

All but one student state that there has been a difference in terms of learning one or more of the four language while learning through CMC. S1 is the only student who claims that they have not experienced the four language skills differently in comparison to the physical classroom, rather they have been learning English similar as to in the physical classroom. S2 states that there has been a difference but mainly regarding speaking and writing. Furthermore, S2 explains that speaking is usually more focused on in the physical classroom. S2 continues by claiming that since the distance education through CMC started, they have mainly been doing assignments concerned with writing. S3 states that writing has been mostly focused on. S4 continues by explaining that since they have received instructions through Google Classroom, reading and writing are the skills which they have been focusing the most on, while speaking and listening have not received much attention.

5.4 Participants’ experience of linguistic and/or technical difficulties in distance education

5.4.1. Linguistic difficulties

What can be interpreted as the main linguistic difficulty when conducting distance education in English through CMC is a lack of facial expressions and body language. For example, T1 claims that the students do not have their cameras on by choice, which can be considered annoying from the teacher’s perspective. Furthermore, T1 believes that having an increased focus on repeating instructions is necessary in order to avoid misunderstandings. T1 also explains that there was never an issue of several people speaking at once. The teacher mentions that “they, [the students], stop speaking once they notice someone else is doing that as well” (see appendix C). T1’s description resembles

(19)

the linguistic difficulty known as turn-taking; this will be further elaborated on in section 6.4. T2 claims that no misunderstandings have occurred more than usual. Except for a lack of facial expressions, T3 states that it has been working similarly as in the physical classrooms. At the same time, T3 claims that misunderstandings were more prone to occur in the beginning of conducting distance education in English through CMC:

I think one of the first lessons when I introduced this area that we’re working with, where the students were saying kind of where are we gonna go, where do we find the instructions, […] I can’t like point, but I’ve been trying to share my screen so that I can show them (see appendix E).

With the previous quotation in mind, T3 was prompted to be clearer while showing the students where to find the assignments through the computer. Much like T1, T4 believes that the more difficult part of teaching English through CMC is the lack of facial expressions and body language. Moreover, T4 has not experienced several people speaking at the same time.

Regarding speaking with their teacher through CMC, both S1 and S4 claim that at times where confusion has occurred or there have been unclear instructions, they have been able to contact the teacher with ease. S2 believes in general that it has been working well when communicating with the aid of technological tools, and they feel that it is similar to when they are in school physically. However, S2 also recalls an incident where they had misinterpreted the instructions before writing and submitting their assignment, which they then had to resubmit. According to S2, this was annoying. S3 states that there have been several instances of correspondence through e-mail, which they claim to be negative, due to the time they had to wait for responses. Additionally, S3 also states that it has been difficult to reach out to the teacher during the virtual lessons. In general, S3 cannot recall any moments where misunderstandings have occurred. Lastly, S4 believes everything to have been working well and if any misunderstanding were to happen, they would simply contact the teacher. In addition, both S1 and S3 have had experiences where their classmates did not turn off their microphones even though they were supposed to. S1 sees this as a problem because it results in them not hearing what the teacher is saying, which indicates that the linguistic difficulty known as overlap occurred, which will be further elaborated on in section 6.4. S3 mentions that the teachers applied the rule of students being required to turn off their own microphones when a teacher was speaking.

(20)

S2 and S4 have not experienced the issue of several people speaking simultaneously. However, in the case of S4, Google Classroom was used as a platform for learning English and receiving instructions, and the platform has also been utilized for communication between the students and teachers. Due to this, the issue of several people speaking simultaneously is not applicable as a possible issue to S4.

5.4.2. Technical difficulties

When the teachers first started using Teams, T1 states that there were issues which required assistance from their colleagues and a family member in order to understand how the program works. In addition, T2 explains that whenever something is not working, the students have been instructed to report this. Furthermore, T2 mentions echoes as a technical difficulty. However, this occurred because of several people speaking simultaneously with their microphone turned on. Thus, echoes in this case are not necessarily seen as a technical issue, but rather a result of human error conflicting with the technology. Additionally, when several people speak simultaneously without proper gear such as headphones, resulting in echoes as T2 described it. The echoes can be considered an issue due to a lack of necessary equipment, which gives rise to the linguistic issue known as overlap (see 6.4). As a result of this, the students began turning off their microphones when connecting to the lessons in Teams. T3 describes a different technological issue when using an extension tool within Teams called Classnotes. T3 appreciates this extension tool because they can see what the students are writing and working on in real-time.

When it comes to the students’ experiences of technical difficulties, S3 and S4 claim not to have experienced any technical difficulties. S1 explains that they have experienced issues with connecting to teams, due to either Teams not working properly, or the student’s own network being disrupted. While S1, S3 and S4 have had somewhat differing experiences, S2 did not develop their views on technical difficulties while learning English through CMC.

6. Discussion

This study examined how teachers and students have experienced teaching and learning English through distance education because of the covid-19 pandemic. Four research questions were used to illuminate the participants’ experiences of teaching and learning English through distance education in comparison to the physical classroom. The subsections are presented in the same order as the research questions were presented

(21)

earlier in section 3. Furthermore, the results of this study are presented in accordance with the subthemes of the four main themes presented in table 2 (see appendix B), which were created based on the four research question together with the chosen method of analysis known as thematic analysis (TA).

6.1. Overall experience

The teachers have had, according to themselves, no previous experience of teaching English other than through internet-based platforms such as V-klass and one Skype session. At the same time, among Keegan’s five characteristics which define distance education, there are three aspects that would support the usage of an internet-based platform and Skype as a form of distance education, whether or not it is in a whole-class context (see 2.3). The first aspect is that teachers and students are mostly separated during moments of teaching. Second, there are different kinds of technological tools which are used to reduce the distance between teachers and students, with the purpose of conveying course content. Lastly, there is a two-way communication for the purpose of aiding a student in starting or participating in a dialogue with the teacher (Hilborn & Wieslander, 2008, p. 20). Thus, seeing as how the teachers’ experiences display them having prior experience of teaching English through distance education, the students can also be seen as having had previous experiences of distance education. Interestingly, most of the participants claim to have no prior experience, which indicates that it might depend on a subjective interpretation of what can be considered distance education. For instance, the teachers who had used the platform known as V-klass might not consider an asynchronous approach (see 2.1) sufficient to be referred to as distance education.

Three teachers have had a positive experience of teaching English during the covid-19 pandemic (see 5.1). The teachers described certain challenges that were noticed, for instance, T2 mentioned that there is seldom a two-way communication between the teacher and students, and the students have to embrace more responsibility in regards to using and practicing their English on their own (see 5.1). At the same time, Terhune argues that educators should encourage students’ “autonomy and maturity through independent exercises” (2016, pp. 1085 - 1086). Interestingly, S2 and S3 described that their current experience of learning English through CMC has been more difficult when studying at home, since it is easier to receive help in the physical classroom. It might indicate that they required more attention than they have received. Furthermore, in conjunction with the students being required to embrace the responsibility of practicing their English on their own as described by T2 (see 5.1), it is possible that S2’s and S3’s

(22)

enthusiasm decreased over time, similar to what Terhune observed (2016, pp. 1085 – 1086, see 2.5).

6.2. Similarities & Differences

When comparing experiences of similarities between teaching and learning English through CMC and the physical classroom, T2 stated that “interaction and relationship are important aspects when nurturing one’s language proficiency” and that it is not the same through CMC (see 5.2). Likewise, S2 expressed that it is difficult to retain the same contact with the teacher through CMC in conjunction with expressing a difficulty in learning at home, instead of the physical classroom. T2’s and S2’s statements indicate that it is more difficult to teach and learn English through CMC in contrast to the physical classroom. As mentioned previously, the differences between the teachers and students in the study differed. For instance, the teachers focused on the fact that students did not turn on their cameras, whereas the students focused more on the structure of lessons and assignments (see 5.2).

6.3. The four language skills

In regard to the four language skills known as reading, writing, speaking and listening, the teachers had mainly noticed differences such as themselves being required to be clearer when giving instructions, and that testing reading and listening is more difficult than speaking and writing. The students however, mentioned differences in relation to the skill focused on since the distance education in English began. For instance, S2 believed that they had mostly been focusing on writing, which correlates with previous research by Wang, demonstrating that distance education in conjunction with language learning has mostly occurred in written form (2004, p. 92).

6.4. Linguistic and technical difficulties

The teachers provided statements about the lack of facial expressions and body language that occurs when the students choose to not have their cameras on. As mentioned earlier (see 2.2), critics believe that the learning becomes passive because of a diminishing interaction, which occurs in distance education through CMC (Dumont, 1996, p. 192). In other words, it is possible that the students’ learning had already shifted to a passive state from the beginning of the distance education since they chose to not turn on their cameras while learning through CMC. T1 described an interesting phenomenon of students refraining from speaking as soon as they heard someone else speak. The phenomenon can be attributed to the conversational skill known as turn-taking (see 5.4). Yule describes turn-taking as the linguistic skill through which someone attempts to take control of a

(23)

conversation (1996, p. 72, see 2.1). Turn-taking can be considered to have happened because the students stopped talking as someone else started speaking. However, had the students kept speaking at the same time, the issue known as overlap could be said to have taken place, with two or more people trying to speak at the same time (Yule, 1996, p. 72, see 2.1). With overlap in mind, S1 described that there had been instances where their classmates did not turn off their microphone as they were supposed to, which made it more difficult to hear what the teacher was saying. In other words, it was difficult for S1 to hear their teacher due to overlap from his or her classmates. Similarly, T2 mentioned that echoes occurred because of several people speaking simultaneously after the distance education had just begun. T2’s statement indicates that the echoes occurred because of overlap. Additionally, the overlap happened due to a lack of resources, more specifically, a set of proper headphones for each student, as previously mentioned (see 5.4).

As mentioned previously, the students choose to not have their own cameras turned on. It is possible to view the students’ decisions to turn their cameras off as lacking in participation. From this perspective, the students could be regarded as lurkers (see 2.1). It is still important to remember that though seen as lurkers and lacking in participation, it does not necessarily mean that the students are lacking in engagement or will to learn (Mason & Romiszowski, 1996, p. 399, see 2.1). In addition, by considering the students as lurkers due to them lacking in engagement in conjunction with not having their cameras turned on, it is possible that the teachers might have reduced their engagement to the distance education. It is difficult to prepare for any situation when there is a lack of interaction (Neuman, 1998, p. 136, see 2.2). In other words, the teachers might not have been participating in the distance education as much as preferred since it could be difficult to prepare for lessons consisting of black screens instead of their students’ faces. As mentioned previously, some of those who do not participate in discussions benefit from not contributing (Warschauer, 2008, p. 282, see 2.5).

6.5. Limitations

The participants claimed that they had no previous experience of teaching or learning English through CMC. However, distance education through CMC can occur in various ways such as synchronously or asynchronously (see 2.1). Thus, the participants were not certain of what defines distance education, which perhaps the interviewer should have more thoroughly explained to the participants. Regarding the participants that were selected, it would have been more desirable to interview four students and four teachers from the same upper-secondary school. Additionally, interviewing students and teachers

(24)

who work together while teaching and learning English might have produced interesting results. However, due to the teachers’ schedules it was difficult to find four teachers from the same school. Furthermore, students of the four participating teachers were not interested in being interviewed for this study, which resulted in the student participants in this study to be selected by convenience. More specifically, the ones who were able to participate were selected as participants. Thus, the eight participants who contributed through interviews are regarded as convenience sampling (see 4.1).

6.6. Future Research

For future research, it would be interesting to gather data from all upper-secondary schools in one Swedish region from both teachers and students. Thus, it is advisable that a similar study is conducted on a larger scale in the future. Utilizing more participants might provide clearer and more generalizing results. A different aspect which might be beneficial to study is what other linguistic issues may arise in conjunction with education and English through CMC. Since linguistic issues such as overlap, turn-taking and a lack of facial expressions were noticed to have occurred, it is conceivable that more could be found, or that the already existing issues can be seen to a greater extent. More research is required in terms of teaching and learning English in Swedish upper-secondary schools through CMC.

(25)

7. Conclusion

It is likely that the world will experience more pandemics or other situations that might require the usage of distance education. Because of this, it is important to keep researching how distance language learning is affected when conducted through CMC. Based on the themes presented in table 2 (see appendix B) which stems from the previously mentioned method of analysis TA (see 4.2), the major findings are presented in accordance with the four main themes. More specifically, experience of CMC,

education through CMC and IRL, the four language skills and linguistic and technical difficulties in CMC. In terms of the participants’ experiences of CMC, all of the

participants claim to have no previous experiences of teaching and learning English through CMC, it becomes apparent that it depends on how distance education through CMC is defined. Additionally, the teachers consider their current experience positive in general, whereas two of the four student participants deem it as more challenging to study on their own at home. Furthermore, the teachers express an appreciation for being able to focus on one student at a time while teaching English through CMC. The students believe that it is a struggle to motivate themselves while studying at home. Regarding Education through CMC and IRL, the teachers focus on similarities such as them still handing out assignments and providing instructions. Concerning the differences, the teachers explain that there is a variety in the amount of teacher – student verbal and nonverbal communication. The students’ similarities concur with the teachers’ in terms of aspects such as that the students still receive assignments and instructions. However, the students focus on distance education being different from the physical classroom context, and that there is not as much clarity in the instructions through CMC as in the physical classroom. Additionally, the students believe that there is a difference in the possibility to interact with their teacher. Concerning the four language skills, the teachers focus more on what skills are more challenging regarding testing, and that various software is necessary as an aid when testing skills such as reading and listening. The students, however, explain that the language skill known as writing is mostly focused on during the distance education through CMC, followed by speaking and reading. Regarding linguistic and technical difficulties in CMC, the teachers claim that there is a lack of nonverbal communication such as facial expressions and body language, which is a result of students turning off their cameras due to different reasons. Furthermore, the teachers explain that students

(26)

stop speaking as soon as someone else starts, which indicates that turn-taking has taken place. In addition, the teachers also express that echoes occurs due to the students forgetting to turn off their microphones, which gives rise to overlap. At the same time, the occurrence of overlap due to the students not turning off their microphones can be regarded as an issue created by a lack of resources such as headphones. Interestingly, the teachers cannot claim to have experienced many misunderstandings or technical difficulties except for the echoes, which should be regarded as a biproduct of human error. Most misunderstandings that they can recall, are either regarding instructions in conjunction with assignments or where to find instructions and assignments on their internet-based platform known as V-klass. The student participants also express experiences of other students not turning off their own microphones, resulting the student participants not being able to hear the verbal information given by their teachers. The students claim to recall instances where the software known as Teams not working properly and no other technical difficulties. To conclude, since the results between the students and teachers diverge to some extent, more studies with a higher number of participants appear to be necessary regarding teaching and learning English in Swedish upper-secondary schools through CMC in order to illuminate whether the results will be similar or not.

(27)

Sources cited

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3. 77-101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Davis, M., & Rouzie, A. (2002). Cooperation vs. Deliberation: Mediated Conferencing and the Problem of Argument in International Distance Education. The

International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1).

Dumont, R. A. (1996). Teaching and learning in cyberspace. IEEE Transactions on

Professional Communication, 39(4), 192-204.

Hajek, J., Slaughter, Y., O’Brien, A., & Smith, W. (2019). Distance education for languages: the role of technology.

Hall, D., & Knox, J. (2009). Issues in the education of TESOL teachers by distance education. Distance Education, 30(1), 63–85.

Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 66-82.

Hilborn, I., & Wieslander, C. (2008). Distansundervisning för Elever i Grundskola och

Gymnasieskola, Skolverket.

Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of Distance Education, Routledge. New York: Plemun Longhurst, R. (2016). Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In Clifford, N.,

Cope, M., Gillespie, T., & French, S (Eds). Key Methods in Geography (3rd ed., pp. 143 – 156). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mason, R., & Romiszowski, A. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication. Handbook

of research for educational communications and technology, 2, 397-431.

Naidu, S., & Järvelä, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC content for what?. Computers & Education, 46, 96 – 103.

Neumann, P. G. (1998). Risks of e-education. Communications of the ACM, 41(10), 136-137.

Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language

learning & technology, 1(1), 82-93.

Terhune, N. M. (2016). Language learning going global: linking teachers and learners via commercial Skype-based CMC. Computer assisted language learning, 29(6), 1071-1089.

Wang, Y. (2004). Supporting synchronous distance language learning with desktop videoconferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 90-121.

(28)

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer‐mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The modern language journal, 81(4), 470-481.

White, C. (2006). Distance learning of foreign languages. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics: Oxford University Press.

Electronic sources

Jönköpings kommun, (2020, May 10), Frågor och svar för dig som studerar på distans.

https://www.jonkoping.se/viktigtjustnu/undersidortillviktigtjustnu/fragorochsvarfordigso mstuderarpadistans.4.1d5a7f79171556f9a562229.html

Sveriges Riksdag, (2020, May 10), Lag (2003:460) om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor.

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2003460-om-etikprovning-av-forskning-som_sfs-2003-460 Utbildningsdepartementet, (2020, May 10), Elever får bättre förutsättningar att slutföra sin

utbildning, Regeringen. https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2020/04/elever-far-battre-forutsattningar-att-slutfora-sin-utbildning/

(29)

Appendix A

Note: *Adjusted questions in accordance with participant occupation. Table 1. Semi-structured interview. No. Questions for participants

1 What previous experiences did you have of learning/teaching English through computer-mediated communication before the covid-19 pandemic?

2 Tell me about your experience of learning/teaching English as a school subject through computer-mediated communication — was this learning experience good, bad or somewhere in between?

3 What were the main similarities and differences respectively between the computer-mediated learning/teaching sessions and your usual lessons?

4 a* Do you feel you learned reading, writing, speaking and listening differently in English during the computer-mediated lessons? Please tell me more about this. 4 b* Do you feel you have taught anything differently in terms of reading, writing,

speaking and listening in English during the computer-mediated lesson? Please elaborate.

5 How did you feel about communicating with your teacher/students through computer-mediated communication?

6 a* Were there ever any difficulties (example: misunderstandings, many people were speaking at the same time or problems with Teams) when you were conversing with your teacher? Please tell me more about this.

6 b* Have there ever been any difficulties (example: misunderstandings, many people were speaking at the same time, problems with Teams) when listening and speaking to your students? Please describe further.

7 a* Were there ever any difficulties (example: misunderstandings, many people were speaking at the same time or problems with Teams) when you were conversing with your classmates? Please explain more about this.

7 b* Have there ever been any difficulties (example: misunderstandings, many people were speaking at the same time, problems with Teams) between your students when conversing with each other? Please explain further.

8 Do you feel that learning/teaching through computer-mediated communication was easier or more difficult than in the regular classroom? Please elaborate.

9 Would you ever want to learn/teach English through computer-mediated communication again? Please tell me more about this.

(30)

Appendix B

Table 2. THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF LEARNING AND TEACHING

UPPER-SECONDARY ENGLISH

THOUGH COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND DISTANCE EDUCATION

Theme Subtheme Description Students Teachers

Experience of CMC Previous experience of CMC Participants describe their past experience of learning or teaching upper- secondary English at distance though CMC before the covid-19 pandemic. All of the students stated that they had no previous experience of learning upper-secondary English through CMC at distance, before the covid-19 pandemic.

All of the teachers stated that they had no previous experience of teaching upper-secondary English through CMC at distance, before the covid-19 pandemic. The teachers did however have previous experience of using internet-based platforms as part of education in the physical classroom. Current experience of CMC Participants describe their ongoing experience of learning or teaching upper- secondary English at distance though CMC during the covid-19 pandemic. The students expressed mixed feelings and attitudes towards their current experience of distance education and learning through CMC. Some found that they have more relaxed attitudes while attending assignments, increased sense of control and flexibility regarding own study time and schedule, which decreased the level of stress and increased the

Most of the teachers expressed that distance education and teaching students through CMC had been overall functioning positively. The teachers expressed an appreciation for being able to be attentive to each student and the attention has been distributed

equitably resulting in increased positive work environment for both teachers and students. Increased difficulties have been observed in

(31)

possibility of starting a school day more calmly. Others found it to be a struggle to motivate themselves and to get an instant confirmation from teachers when in need of support during an ongoing task. terms of technical adjustment, coherency with teacher-student interaction, nonverbal communicative cues, and required attentiveness towards own transference of information. Education through CMC and IRL Similarities Participants compare and describe the similarities of learning or teaching upper-secondary English in distance education and physical classrooms. The students found that receiving instructions by the teachers and following assignments and completing these are similar in distance education as in the physical classrooms. Teachers identified similarities between distance education and physical classrooms: presentations of topics (given both by teachers and/or students),

discussions in groups; giving out instructions, students’ independent work, and attendance check. Differences Participants compare and describe the differences of learning or teaching upper-secondary English in distance education and physical classrooms. Students found following differences in distance education and physical classrooms: quantity and clarity of instructions; further explanation based on individual needs; repeating teacher-student and student-teacher interaction; rate of response; clearness regarding start and end of lesson; learning environment; Teachers found following differences regarding distance education in virtual classrooms in comparison to physical classrooms: the ability to be attentive and help several students at a time; variety and amount of teacher-student verbal and non-verbal communication and its dependency on technology, ability to accordingly register language proficiency, ability to accordingly register student

(32)

teachers’ ability to be attentive and help several students at a time. attendance, and usage of educational tools. The four language skills Reading, Writing, Speaking, and Listening Participants compare and describe their experience of learning or teaching the four language skills within the English language in distance education and physical classrooms. A majority of the students experienced that the language skill that mostly differed in distance education compared to physical classroom was writing, followed by speaking and reading. Teachers provide individual experiences of which language skills they found to be different to teach out to the students through distance education. All teachers had to make some adjustments for their students, and in some cases rely on various

software in order to be consistent with teaching or testing one or more of the language skills. The teachers had to be very clear and detailed when providing instructions. Linguistic and technical difficulties in CMC Facial expressions, body language, turn-taking, overlap and technical aspects Participants highlight potential communicative obstacles, and technical aspects, that they might have encountered when teaching and learning English through distance education.

All students but one, display a unanimous positive feeling towards speaking with their teachers at distance through CMC. Additionally, communicating with the aid of technological tools has been working well, with no acknowledged difference to education in physical classrooms. Students describe A decreased level of non-verbal cues when teaching English through distance education was encountered. The majority of the teachers feel frustrated when students do not turn on their cameras or microphones, making it difficult for the teachers interpret and give responses to non-verbal cues, such as facial

expressions and body language. Further, the

(33)

human errors in the shape of forgetting to turn of microphones when supposed to, resulting in not hearing given verbal information by teacher. Adjustment to the microphone usage was therefore necessary to avoid disturbance of simultaneous talk, which created the linguistic issue known as overlap. Few students’ experienced issues with connecting to Teams, due to either Teams not working properly, or the network being disrupted. teachers have noticed students interrupting one another. Deep self-awareness was necessary when giving students verbal instructions for assignments, along with distribution of written instructions through the platform known as V-Klass. Concerns were raised regarding teachers’ prior experiences of technology and technical difficulties, such as having minor to no experience of using the software known as Teams, experiencing echoes, and it being challenging to combine different types of software.

The Dawn of Digital Classroom : Experiencing the English school subject through distance education during the covid-19 pandemic