Teaching online in a Global Pandemic: A Look at the Work involved

(1)

Teaching online in a Global Pandemic

A Look at the Work involved

Patrick Dooley

Department of Sociology

Teaching online in a Global Pandemic, Bachelor's thesis 15 Credits Supervisor: Ingrid Schild, PhD

VT 2020

(2)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse the process of teaching on line amongst Swedish high school teachers. The empirical material for the study is based on four one-hour qualitative interviews with high school teachers who taught a range of subjects between them. The teachers interviewed all worked in the same high school in Mid Sweden and they were compelled to teach online as part of a series of measures deployed by the Swedish Government in response to the COVID19 global

pandemic. The interview data were analysed with the help of Anselm Strauss’ pragmatist- interactionist notion of work and articulation work, and with the help of the concept of tacit

knowledge. The study shows the range and nature of the extra work tasks engaged in by the teachers when teaching online. It also highlights the difficulties teachers had in communicating with students in an online setting, where they were unable to put their tacit classroom skills to use. Teachers felt that their professional practice depended on creative and spontaneous classroom communication, and that such classroom interaction was necessary for successful pupil outcomes. The study highlights that the online environment did not allow for this creative and spontaneous classroom practice. In the online environment teachers could not pick up cues from learners. Teachers’ ability to perform professionally was thereby compromised by the online environment. Further research into teachers’ methods for online teaching is required.

Keywords: Online teaching, Tacit Knowledge, Articulation work, Sociology of work.

(3)

1. Introduction

This is a study about Swedish high school teachers teaching online. It is relevant because all Swedish high schools in the spring semester of 2020 were forced to change teaching form overnight from the normal physical classroom to online teaching. This changed occurred, as part of several national measures taken by the Swedish Government in response to the COVID19 global pandemic.

The theoretical framework of this study is informed by a particular notion of work. Work in its most common meaning today is something we do for which we get paid. It is something that tends to happen separately from the rest of life. We have a common sense

understanding of what work is and how it differs from non-work. Work may require a skill, which in turn requires training and experience.

…little is obvious in any general sense about what exactly counts as work.

When people agree, it may seem obvious or natural to think of some set of actions as work, or as leisure. But as soon as the legitimacy of the action qua work is questioned, debate or dialogue begins (Strauss, 1988).

What counts as work for teachers? Teachers bear with them knowledge from life and knowledge from educational institutions, such as a university. The knowledge they have acquired from university is what they teach at high school, for example English or Swedish. Hitherto, pupils have been taught such subjects in the physical classroom.

Teaching inside a classroom setting is a part of a teacher’s professional skillset and work routine.

But it was about to change and never in the history of teaching high school pupils in Sweden has the entire country switched from teaching in the classroom to teaching online overnight. The teachers interviewed in this study shared their experiences about preparing and conducting online lessons. During the study, aspects of work and

knowledge were uncovered that may not have been previously considered work by the respondents.

(5)

The author of this study is a teacher and was also compelled to teach online and therefore found it fitting to conduct a study project about teaching online. To take a scientific look at the work involved teaching online.

1.1 Description of the teaching context

To provide context, in which, all the respondents found themselves at the time of this study, was unfolding an unprecedented situation in teaching in Sweden, maybe the world at large. Each teacher found himself or herself hearing the same news at the same time.

They all heard either directly from the principal or a colleague that tomorrow they were going to be teaching their classes online. The COVID19 pandemic had compelled the Swedish Government to recommend to the individual legislative bodies governing the high schools of Sweden to close all high schools.

There was no particular planning nor was there any systematic approach to how online teaching would be conducted. There are no provisions in the Swedish curriculum for such an event. Overnight, the pupils vanished from the school premises and became faces on a computer screen and they needed to be taught online. The schools were left to figure out how they would make this work. This particular high school had a policy in place where it was mandatory for each pupil to receive a Chromebook or PC when starting at the school.

Upon receiving their Chromebook or PC each pupil had an account created for them. The account gave access to the Google Education platform, which consisted of many software applications including; Google Classroom, Gmail, Google Meet and several other

applications including extensions to the Google Chrome Web browser. In this school, each teacher has access to the same system as the pupils, with a slightly more powerful

Chromebook or PC and more administrative rights in the Google Education platform.

There is no formal or systematic training in place for teachers or pupils on how to use the IT equipment and/or software to which they have access. Since no formal training for the specialised education platform existed in this high school, the teachers interviewed had varying levels and kinds of IT knowledge. They could all use the basic applications and email on their devices but tended not to be experts on the applications they had at their disposal for online teaching.

(6)

There is an IT department at the school, which is mainly tasked with administration and ad hoc problem solving as the need arises. Since the Swedish curriculum does not formally stipulate the systematic use of IT within high school courses, there was a varied range of use of the IT tools amongst the teachers interviewed before the swap to online teaching. After the swap to online teaching all teachers had to use the both the

applications available within the Google Education Platform and other applications.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine how teachers experience teaching online. Teaching online means conducting lessons online. Part of conducting lessons is communicating with the pupils. How does communicating with pupils online differ from communicating with them in a classroom? Communication with pupils serves more than one function. It serves to identify when pupils need assistance. Pupils need assistance when they have not understood something the teacher is communicating to them. Communication serves to transfer

knowledge from the teacher to the pupil and this happens during the lesson.

1.3 Aim and research questions

The aim of this study is to understand the process of teaching online as work, amongst a group of Swedish high school teachers.

Empirical research questions:

1. How do teachers manage the classroom situation when the lesson is online?

2. How do teachers experience teaching online?

1.4 Disposition

The following chapter, chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework used to analyse the interview data. Chapter 3 presents the methods, that is how the data was collected. Chapter 4 is about the analysis of the data connected with theory and Chapter 5 are the conclusions of this study. Chapter 6 are the References. Chapters 7 and 8 are the appendices.

(7)

2. Theory

Below I describe the theoretical approach with which I frame how I analyse the data

acquired from the respondent teachers. I begin by describing how I use the terms work and knowledge and the theoretical approaches that inform these understandings. I conclude the chapter by summarising how this theoretical understanding aids the empirical analysis.

Work as an activity can be perceived in different ways. The dictionary defines work as: “to exert oneself physically or mentally especially in sustained effort for a purpose or under compulsion or necessity” (Merriam-Webster.com 2020). From a sociological view point work is anything that a person does with a goal of being productive in some way that addresses human needs, since ultimately the purpose of work, has hitherto, been to provide for humans. It includes both mental and physical effort and something getting done (What is Work? - Sociological Definition & Analysis, 2017).

The above dictionary perspective on work is not the objective of this study but rather the nature of work online. Strauss provides a framework within which to understand work as a process, this understanding of work may shed light at the nature of the processes that the teachers interviewed in this project found difficult to put into words.

An indication of how Strauss perceives work can be found in a quotation he chose to include at the beginning of the chapter ‘Work and the Intersection of Forms of Action’ in his book Continual Permutations of Action:

There is something about constraints that distinguishes work. ... The work part comes in when you have to operate under constraints, apply effort. ... Something you have to make yourself do, even if you love it.

(Leigh Star (personal communication), cited in Strauss 1993, p.81)

For Strauss work is an analytical concept, and the boundaries between work and non-work are fuzzy. Work can be seen in form of tasks, tasks are done over time and different people may do these tasks. Work often entails a division of tasks and work is accomplished by

(8)

activity tasks. Articulating tasks entails ‘articulation work’ (Strauss, 1985), the work of joining together tasks.

2.1 Interactionism

A word on interaction is necessary not to reiterate nor give a general account or historical context of interactionism but rather for clarification on how it is used here to inform my analytical approach. Instead of viewing the society or the social system from a macro perspective, interactionism focuses on the micro or smaller scale interactions. The way we act or interact and how we interpret social situations. We are actors and interpreters and do not simply react to social stimuli. Interactionism is also concerned with the social context because it is considered to play an important role in how actors act. (Atkinson and Housley, 2003)

Several theorists have made many contributions to interactionism including Webber, Mead and Blumer to name a few. The term Chicago School often appears in relation to

interactionism and it is associated with a form of qualitative field research out of Chicago (ibid).

Berenice Fisher and Anselm Strauss (1978a). They point out that the referents of ‘interactionism’ and ‘symbolic interactionism’ are varied:

interactionism, symbolic interactionism, the Chicago School – these terms seem to be used if not interchangeably, then at least imprecisely to cover a variety of related authors and topics. (Atkinson and Housley, 2003,p.18)

Strauss is often considered part of the canon for his methodological contribution to the field and this work he did with Glaser on Grounded theory has stretched beyond sociology. (ibid, p.27). It is with the help of Strauss’ and thus an Interactionists perspective I view work. See below.

2.2 Articulation and Invisible work

Articulation work then, is joining together tasks. It is also the “work that gets things back ‘on track’ in the face of the unexpected, and modifies action to accommodate unanticipated

(9)

contingencies. The important thing about articulation work is that it is invisible to rationalized models of work” (Star and Strauss, 1999).

Articulation stands for the coordination of lines of work accomplished by means of the working out and carrying through of work-related

arrangements. Articulation will vary in degree and duration depending upon the degree to which arrangements are in place and operate (Strauss, 1988 cited in Corbin and Strauss, 1993 p. 72)

Articulation work is described as the linking together of tasks, sequences of tasks and clusters of tasks (Strauss, 1988). The relationship between the visible and the invisible work is a theme discussed by Strauss and colleagues. In what sense is work visible or invisible?

And for whom is it visible or invisible?

Star and Strauss (1999) propose that the visibility and the invisibility of work are as two endpoints along a continuum meaning that work can be more-or-less visible. In teaching, that is teaching physically in the classroom, the teacher is physically present and therefore in Star and Strauss’ meaning, is visible; however, much of the work done to be able to make the work happen in front of a class is not seen by the pupils nor for the matter by the teachers’ superiors in the bureaucratic chain. Work is carried out and acknowledged;

however much of the work performed to get the acknowledged work completed is not

‘seen’ or acknowledged, it is invisible. Articulation work may be seen as a form of invisible work.

Star and Strauss point out how “getting things back ‘on track’ ” is also a form of work (1999).

This is the work of joining tasks together, of correcting a mistake, of readjusting in response to unforeseen events. Such work could of course entail the communication and interaction necessary to manage unanticipated circumstances. The work entailed in communication and interaction activities may not always be seen as work.

2.3 Tacit Knowledge

In the course of any professional work, including teaching, professionals develop a

repertoire of skills that can only be acquired ’on the job’. Such skills may be understood in

(10)

the terms of the ‘tacit knowledge’ acquired by the skilled practitioner over the course of their career.

A dictionary definition of tacit knowledge states that it is: “knowledge that you do not get from being taught, or from books, etc; but get from personal experience,

for example when working in a particular organization” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Harry talks about “knowledge –as-stuff”, according to this metaphor, knowledge can be detached from the person possessing it (Collins, 2010). Tacit knowledge on the other hand, cannot be from the person possessing it. It may only be analysed by studying the process through which a task is completed (Ibid). Tacit knowledge is a culmination of skills, ideas and

experiences that people have inside their minds and is therefore difficult to express (Chugh, 2018)

The nature of such knowledge indicates that the possessor of the knowledge may not be aware that he/she possesses such knowledge. Therefore transfer of tacit knowledge requires personal and regular contact, and trust. Tacit knowledge is the ‘knowing how’ rather than

‘knowing that’ however there is overlap between the two (Chugh, 2018).

Teachers’ ability to transfer knowledge to a pupil is likely contingent on tacit knowledge of how to accomplish this. Since such knowledge is built up during extensive experience in a physical classroom setting, one may assume that the tacit knowledge entailed in teaching are very much linked to such settings, where teachers are in the physical presence of pupils.

The concepts of articulation work, invisible work and tacit knowledge presented here will be used to understand what the teachers in this study are doing and how they are doing it.

2.4 Digital Work

Since the early 1900’s Frederick Taylor’s views on “The Principles of Scientific Management”

in particular his six tenors, see below, continue to affect how work is viewed:

1. The primary goal of labour and thought is efficiency.

2. Technical calculation is superior to human judgment.

3. Human judgment cannot be trusted because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity.

(11)

4. Subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking.

5. What cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value.

6. The affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts.

(Postman, 1993)

The six points above present a view of the labour force from the early 1900s in America. In point 5 “What cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value ” this traditional Tayloristic understanding informs much of the digital work done online. And since measuring work done online is difficult, it thus, according to this view, does not exist or is of no value.

Under point 4 “Subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking” reflects the ever-persistent dichotomy between Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Markie, 2017).

Part of the thinking process entails the embodiment of the technology used in digital work.

Technology viewed as an extension of the human, not just an avatar of the human [teacher], but also the teacher’s video presence as being her/his online embodiment (Bolldén, 2015).

The body, furthermore, is described as distributed, extended and

augmented by artefacts or prostheses, which are more or less seamless.

However, the body is also described as multiplied, where the interface holds the bodies together but also separates them (ibid, 14)

Such an extension of the body online into the digital world can be viewed as digital work, whether or not it is difficult to measure. This embodiment informs the approach to the interpretation of digital work in this paper. The embodiment includes the articulation work presented above.

(12)

3. Methods

3.1 Statement of Purpose

The purpose of the study is to gain insight into the work performed by teachers when teaching online. The approach of this qualitative study is to examine teachers’

experiences in the processes of creating online lessons, conducting them and reflecting upon them afterwards. The study involved conducting qualitative interviews with four teachers who teach various subjects. Each respondent if quoted in the Findings Chapter will be called R1 referring to Respondent 1, R2 referring to Respondent 2, and so forth.

A qualitative approach is beneficial when the aim of the study is to gain insight from respondents’ perceptions of, and reasoning about, how they do certain things (Trost, 1997), in this case, teaching online. To gain deeper insight into teachers’ perceptions of teaching online, the qualitative method of semi-structured interviews was chosen.

Below is a detailed description of the data collection, data analysis, research ethics and a discussion of the validity of the study and of the reliability of the information provided by the respondents.

3.2 Sampling

A single school was chosen to conduct this study. The study was conducted in one Swedish high school in the middle of Sweden. The school has 11 national programmes with several electives and more than 750 pupils. Furthermore it is considered one of the district’s most digitalised high schools, with all pupils receiving chrome-books or PCs in thier first year at the school. Choosing the respondent teachers from the same school had some advantages, they had access to the same school infrastructure in the form of information technology, IT help and training.

Four teachers were interviewed. Two taught the theoretical subjects of English and Swedish. One teacher taught vocational subjects such as commerce and entrepreneurship and the fourth teacher taught physical education. The reason for choosing these

respondents with differing subjects was to make it possible to identify more generic

(13)

aspects of working online, common to teaching, and not linked to any specific subjects and the reason for choosing one school was to make sure that all the respondents had the same teaching conditions.

The respondents had varying degrees of teaching experience, from a few years to more than several decades; however, none of the teachers had taught online courses

previously. All the respondents were interviewed in English and answered in English.

English was not their first language and for a few of the respondents Swedish was not their first language either so it was deemed the most advantageous was to have English for all, to which none of the respondents objected.

3.3 Semi-Structured interviews

An interview guide (see appendix 2) was created and used as the basis for all of the interviews. The interview guide had three main segments. The interview guide opens with questions to gain more insight into the respondent’s familiarity with the tools available to conduct online teaching and how they prepare before a lesson. The next segment of the interview guide consists of questions prompting the respondent to describe activities during lesson time. The last segment focused on after-lesson reflection.

Besides the prepared questions, potential follow-up questions were also written in the interview guide. These anticipated follow-up questions were asked depending on how the respondent answered the main questions. However, room was built into the framework of the interview guide for impromptu follow-up questions to allow the interviewer to follow an unanticipated direction taken by the respondent.

The interviews took about one hour each and were recorded using an audio recording device. Meticulous notes were taken by hand during the interview and later written up.

The audio recording was later transcribed using qualitative data analysis software. The same software was use to perform coding of the transcriptions. This systematic approach ensured that respondents’ stated experiences and opinions were all collected and

recorded. The data were then analysed using thematic content analysis method (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

(14)

The advantage of using this interview method was that it allowed respondents to open up, tell their story and share their experiences and perspectives, which is the key to gaining deeper insights into work processes. Face-to-face interviews of the type described here can help in building the trust needed for a respondent to open up. Cohen and

Crabtree (2006) contend that such interviews empower respondents to voice their thoughts in their own words.

A clear advantage of this interview method compared to using a written survey is the possibility of asking follow-up questions. Following-up with unplanned questions can serve the purpose of checking understanding, as well as, encouraging the respondent to develop responses and elaborate with further examples.

As with all data gathering methods there are disadvantages too. One such is the time required to conduct the interviews. One respondent expressed dismay about the amount of time the interview was going to take; however, once the respondent was talking and sharing her views, she expressed surprise at the end of the interview and remarked how the hour had “flown by”. Time is also a factor in writing up notes and coding them for analytical understanding. Transcribing was particularly time consuming with a need to rewind and replay many sections to get an accurate documentation. The transcription process, while arduous, did aid in analysis of the data.

The semi-structured interview data generated insights relevant to the research questions and allowed respondents to provide a good range of data.

3.4 Thematic Content Analysis

Finding the central meaningful aspects of quantitative data has long been the standard starting point when analysing quantitatively; likewise searching for central tendencies also applies to qualitative data. In that sense data is data whether it be qualitative or quantitative.

Thematic Content Analysis, TCA, as the name suggests, aids in identifying themes in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Braun and Clarke argue that the theoretical freedom

(15)

afforded by applying the lens of thematic analysis allows the researcher to gain ‘a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data’ (ibid).

Uncovering themes within each respondent’s response as well as common themes across respondents was helped through the use of the semi-structured questionnaire. The TCA method was flexible, and allowed for a wide range of detailed and complex data to be analysed.

3.5 Data analysis

After the data were transcribed, the transcriptions were compared with the researcher’s notes and key phrases were highlighted. A new document was created for each respondent;

this document functioned to collect all the key phrases, including in vivo phrases and coded phrases. Any memos relating to the respondent were transferred to this “collection

document”. This document for each respondent became the main document used for analysis.

Analysis of data requires making active choices about what is important in relation to the questions being researched and what is not. Taylor and Ussher (2001) argue that passivity is not a choice for the researcher and that an active role is taken in the uncovering of themes.

Choosing what is of interest to the reader and what is not, as well as choice of vocabulary in reporting to the reader, make the researcher an active participant in the research process (Taylor and Ussher, 2001).

3.6 Ethical considerations

The Swedish Research Council suggests the following:

Research ethics – which consider both the interests of the respondents and the

importance of the research in a given project entail an appropriate balance between the legitimate quest for knowledge and the integrity and protection of all respondents in the project (Swedish Research Council, 2019).

In this research each respondent was informed of the aim of the study, which was to increase knowledge and understanding of Swedish high school teachers’ experiences of

(16)

working online. Each respondent was informed that the data being collected would be anonymous and that their integrity would be protected. They were also informed that it was completely voluntary to participate. They were asked to give consent that their data could be included in the study, albeit anonymously. Lastly, respondents were informed that they could opt out and cancel their participation at any time.

3.7 Method discussion

Striving to produce valid, reliable and repeatable studies is the hallmark of best practice in research and this study is no different. The interviews were documented verbatim, allowing in-depth analysis. The interview guide was not adjusted between interviews;

however the follow-up questions varied between respondents.

The quality of the data acquired from the interviews is important for the quality of the research. There are many ways to measure quality. In this research project an effort was consciously made to conduct high quality interviews, which consisted of, as Lincoln and Guba put it, “Credibility, Neutrality or Confirmability, Consistency or Dependability and Applicability or Transferability are to be the essential criteria for quality” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, cited in Golafshani, 2003, p.601). In this study the respondents were credible because they were teachers who were thrown into teaching online, which meant

information from them was applicable to the research aims and questions. And though neutrality may be something researchers strive towards it is also understood here that researchers bring to the project their own experiences and that interpretations may therefore vary.

Of course such variation in interpretation may also be seen as biases. In this study the interviewer and author of this report is also a teacher in the school where this study was conducted. This may well have coloured the nature of the follow-up questions asked. This can been seen as a double-edged sword. Maybe familiarity with the context of the school represents not so much a bias, as affording analytical insights.

“Theory is abstract, a generalization that explains relationships between concepts and phenomena” (Cohen, et al; 2018, p. 70). The aim of this study is not to generalise to the whole population of Swedish high school teachers, but rather to generalise to theoretical

(17)

concepts and insights. The richness of the data, although drawn from a limited group of respondents, should enable such generalisation.

(18)

4. Analysis

The aim of this study was to analyse the work engaged in Swedish high school teachers’

when teaching online. This chapter analyses the interview data with the help of the theoretical concepts discussed in the previous chapter. The chapter follows the sections:

Tools, Preparation and Lessons. Presenting the analysis this way follows a chronological order of events. Where I have taken in quotes from the interviews I: refers to Interviewer R: refers to Respondent/s

4.1 Tools

At the beginning of the interview each teacher was asked about his or her familiarity with the applications at their disposal within the digital educational platform. None of them felt that they had received adequate training with the software applications.

I: What sort of training did you get with Google Meet?

R1: Not much training; it was more like peer learning… yes some other teachers showed me when we see some new icons [to be able to choose different] options …we share this information. [But] It's not like we had the whole day where we could like try everything

I: What sort of training were you given with these tools before you started using them?

R2: Yeah I don't know not much

Despite stating that they had no formal training on how to use the software applications, they knew enough to open the Google Meet, a video conferencing application inside the Google Education suite of applications. They were able post a link to the chat room in Google Classroom the learning management system in the Google Education suite, where their pupils could find the link, click on it, and enter the live online video lesson. These

(19)

communications and interactions albethey digital show the first sings of articulation work because they are linking together tasks, sequences of tasks and clusters of tasks (Strauss, 1988). Here the relationship between the visible and the invisible work may lay in what is attributed to teaching online. Regardless of the attributes of the teaching online, this was base knowledge teachers required to be able to prepare for a lesson online.

The teachers however, felt a degree of reluctance before their first meeting online.

I: ok go back in your mind and think how did you feel when you found out you were going to teach online?

R3: yeah well oh that's scary actually I would say because even though I used the computer a lot before we started I wasn't really you know.. I was still.. everything was still spinning around in my mind.. how I'm gonna do this how it's gonna go .. will that work and I was thinking and lots of things … I wasn't really comfortable the first week

4.2 Preparation

Teachers observed several factors as key during the preparation process for online work, which were in addition to the normal preparation (normal work) for a lesson in a physical classroom. Preparing for online lessons required instructional texts to explain to the pupils the tasks that they were being asked to complete. In a classroom setting the respondents did not write instructional texts for the pupils in the same way because the respondents simply spoke to their pupils.

One respondent recounts:

I: Does anything else come to mind in the preparation work at all? Do you have to “over articulate” when you're writing your instructions?

R3: Oh yes, writing instructions is very hard and I realized…I guess I don't know… How long have we done this now? Like two months…

[I:Yeah] Yeah, so I would say that in the beginning I thought my

(20)

instructions were perfect, there was nothing you could

misunderstand [Big smile and gesturing]. Yes, written instructions because some students of course they don't listen and they contact you afterwards… Or they haven't done… “oh no you never said” “I didn't know what to do” [her pupils would say] …. You realize that they were doing something else [not paying attention]….I got much better at writing instructions, yes, and through people's feedback

…Yes I think so, and also a lot of thinking of course that I'm not maybe 100% aware of… but… also ….like writing: number 1 – do this, number 2 do this So short instructions and split them no long

sentences blah blah blah

In the above quote the teacher describes how initially it was clear in her mind that her instructions were clear. But when the teacher’s pupils were not doing what needed to be done and were asking for clarification. She states: “I got much better at writing instructions yes…” getting better and re-wording instructional texts is part of articulation work (Star and Strauss, 1999). The re-working and re-wording of the instructional texts, until the pupils understood was the explicit extra work needed so the primary work was effective. After a couple of months of teaching online she notices that she is “not maybe 100% aware of” here she is not completely aware that she is writing in a way that pupils are understanding more, because they are asking less for clarification.

The teaching skills developed in a classroom setting, are not automatically transferring to serve her well in an online teaching setting. This was also apparent with the other

respondents who indicated that preparing for online teaching was more of an effort and work. Many of the things they had to do to prepare for online lessons would not have been necessary if they were conducting the lesson in a classroom setting.

I: So can you tell me a little bit more about the preparation process?

What else did you do to prepare for that?

R1: So grammar presentations, I prepare when they have time so I plan and I always try to like summarize, show them why. We work

(21)

particularly with this, for example, we worked with “ing” [form] like how to shorten a sentence using “ing” [form]. … So I've at first I've summarized everything when we are using this “ing” [form] endings like gerund…

I: So tell me little bit more about if you were to prepare the same lesson for the physical classroom…

R1: I wouldn't write all instructions before hand [on the whiteboard], I think, because sometimes you can just tell them, you can just speak.

You don't have to prepare everything … I have to prepare that they can really work … When students are in the classroom there is more interaction, and I can easily understand if they understand the topic or not. But when they work online I have to like, go in turns, and ask them according to the order. It takes time and I feel that I give more energy on these lessons.

When the teacher communicated with pupils in the physical classroom she “wouldn't write all instructions before hand [on the whiteboard]”. This form of communication or work comes more natural to the teacher and she can simply explain to her pupils verbally and draw from her reservoir of tacit knowledge (Collins, 2010) to “easily understand if they understand the topic or not”. This ad hoc nature of explanations and understandings appears to be fluid within a physical classroom. But transferring these skills into the online teaching environment does not seem to be possible, at least not in the way that teachers are communicating with pupils in the physical classroom setting.

4.3 During the Lesson

A theme that runs through all of the interviews is how the teacher does not feel adequately connected with their pupils. This adequate connection is crucial for success with online teaching and in this sense; it is showing how the embodiment (Bolldén, 2015) of teachers online is not working in the desired way. The connection, the respondent is describing, is the

(22)

communication and interaction between the respondents and their pupils and is a form of work that is invisible to rationalized models of work, as suggested by Star and Strauss (1999).

Furthermore, the respondents state that they do not have the same type of connection with the pupil/s online, as they do in a classroom; something is missing. The above-mentioned, connection, is part of the communication and interaction process, which is pivotal in the teaching process. It is; in fact, work, albeit articulation work (Star and Strauss, 1999). It may not be explicit or clearly defined as work and therefore falls under the “… getting things back ‘on track’ (ibid).

One teacher explains:

I: So can you elaborate on that what's different about it, with the way you can help and interact with them?

R2: It feels like now it's a bit harder, because [of] the distance between us… How can I tell this in a good way? It feels like … when they are here in the school is much easier, they can just come to me, knock on the door, I can help them.

“It feels like now it's a bit harder because [of] the distance between us”. This distance I clarified with the respondent to be both the physical and an abstract notion of distant understanding. The distance also makes it more difficult to communicate and thus creating more work explicitly for the teacher. In the online environment the teacher is not able to pick up on subtle cues from the pupils that he may be aware of in the classroom. These cues are not readily noticeable in an online environment. Part of the teacher’s work however, is to notice these cues no matter how subtle they may be.

Picking up cues is part of the communication process, which is part of teacher’s articulation work. The knowledge underpinning this work and the ability to detect a pupil needs is tacit in nature, because it entails the teacher drawing from his/her learning experiences rather than a task being accomplished (Collins, 2010). This is tacit knowledge and is required to perform the articulation work of communicating and interacting and noticing cues, with the pupil, is easier offline in the classroom setting. Not noticing the cues from pupils online is a

(23)

returning theme in the data. Teachers’ experience, derived from classroom work is not immediately transferable to the online environment.

Missing these cues when to help individual pupils during online lessons creates more work for teachers and teachers themselves do not always recognise the extra work required for the work online as work. Respondents were asked about the difference between working in a classroom and online.

I: What's different about it, or is it exactly the same as if you were in a [physical] class?

R1: Of course not, it's not the same as in a class [physical classroom].

You create presentations [Google Slides/PowerPoints] where you explain grammar rules with examples, but in most cases use just Google Meet…

The changes required for online working are often subtle, so that the teachers do not think of them as extra work, because it is just something that they have to do to get things done, or to make the lessons happen. As another respondent says:

I: So they [online lessons] are exactly the same?

R3: No [no there is no extra work involved in the online lesson]…

Maybe if we were in the classroom, but not lately, actually before this change came [to online teaching], maybe I would have handed out the paper [photocopied stencils] with the instructions, but now I wrote it down with my…. I wouldn't say it's too much work, no I would probably have done it anyway. So it's exactly the same. Maybe the difference in a classroom would be that, the students, I know the students that are a bit shy or have a problem getting started. I would have gone around talking to them [asking the pupil]. What's

happening here? Have you started? Have you some idea?

(24)

Here she states, “I wouldn't say it's too much work” as if she was not acknowledging the effort required in online teaching as work. The work necessary to replace the subtle ‘cues’

normally picked up may be seen as articulation work, the work that needs to be done to make the visible lesson work happen. At the time of the interview the respondent did not appear to be aware that this “extra” work that she was doing was indeed work. If she were not teaching online, then the need for the extra work would not have arisen. The extra work consisted of having to remake instructions, in other words re-communicating with her pupils. Having to make new power points or Google slides, because the slide did not make the point clearly the first time so she made a new one. Therefore it is defined as extra work.

The original lessons that the respondents were working with were initially not designed nor created for online teaching. This had several knock on effects. The preparation work for the online lessons required a different thinking process. Written, standardized instructions needed to be created. The teachers not only need t adhere to the Swedish Curriculum but also now had to think about how to explain what to do in the lesson, rather than just actually explaining what to do in a classroom lesson.

By definition, the standardization of written instructions precludes the ad hoc nature of giving instructions to one pupil, then saying the same thing to another pupil but in a slightly different way, then turning to a different group of pupils and saying the same thing but again in a slightly different way. This “craftwork” is something the teacher has learned during their career, a combination of explicit and tacit knowledge; the craftwork of noticing that a pupil in a classroom requires help. In the online setting the teacher waits for the pupil looking for clarity and direction to take the initiative and contact the teacher.

I: Would that be different in the [physical] classroom, or the same?

R: In the classroom it's more creative. I didn't have to think about, that beforehand, because if they are here I know what they talked about I can see I can feel their mood I know what to do because I'm their teacher. If I have a few minutes spare, I can create groups… I can create debates… anything…. but when you are online it has to be like written, even if you see… say these instructions, not understood

(25)

by all students … This situation takes you maybe 10 minutes just to re-explain the written instructions… And if you have only 20 minutes left and then 10 minutes for the instructions, what is left? Everything has to be written in this online form somehow…

This teacher describes how lessons in the classroom environment are characterised by ad hoc creativity. The need to be prepared in a certain way beforehand is a necessary feature of online work, which does not feature so clearly in classroom work. The tacit knowledge necessary for classroom teaching has little or no role in online teaching. The teacher cited above experiences classroom work as more creative than online work. In addition online work entails writing formal and standardised explanations, which are not required to the same extent in classroom teaching. These standardised explanations replace the creative work of “reading the cues” from pupils who need individual explanations. The very aspect of the classroom situation, which accounts for successful teaching, the ability to, in the

moment, respond to pupils’ individual needs, is not available to the online teacher.

Another respondent touches on this issue:

I: What sort of differences are [online compared to the physical classroom]

R3: Yes, if I, well when you meet [physically] the class for, like when we started in August, you do some tests and you see how the students are… Or you notice this was strange…. And when they get their first exercises and they don't hand in in time…. or you see that they don't write so much…. and you notice students with dyslexia, or they tell you themselves that they have problems with reading, and they are working a bit slow….

In the classroom the teacher can be hands-on and respond spontaneously as and when necessary. Lessons have always been conducted in this manner. As a consequence the tacit knowledge built up over time, communication with pupils in traditional classroom settings was not particularly challenging for any of the respondent teachers.

(26)

I: Teaching in a classroom and teaching distance what are the things that different?

R4: My physical contact is obviously they're not here I: But why is it different?

R4: It gives me not know everything… I know but I can’t explain… It’s a kind of feeling… A feeling that [when] they are here and I can see them… They see me, so I look at them and I have eye connection you now eye contact with them and it is not the same online… I can see their eyes but it’s not the same

Here the respondent states clearly that her experience is that looking at pupils in the eyes, having a physical presence with them provides her with a bond and connection in which she can not precisely explain or why it is a better connection physically opposed to online teaching. Her not being able to explicitly explain the reasons why she felt it is better in the classroom adds to the notion that this type of teaching has a strong tacit nature (Collins, 2010) to the knowledge required to teach pupils.

This chapter has shown that preparation work and lesson work differ between classroom and online environments. Preparation work for online teaching involves spending time on working out how to communicate to pupils and therefore working on work where

communication is a form of work. In the classroom, such communications, for example instructions is spontaneous and often tacit and such is the teachers’ craftwork. Preparation work for online teaching also involves preparing written, standardised instructions with no guarantee that pupils will understand the instructions. In the classroom teachers pick up cues from pupils, which enables teachers to spontaneously provide individual help and clarification. In the online setting the teacher must often wait until the pupil takes the initiative and contacts the teacher looking to clarify or for direction. Lesson time in the classroom is very much characterised by a two-way communication process. The same cannot be said for online lesson time.

(27)

5. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to explore how teachers experience teaching, that is

conducting lessons, online. A central part of conducting lessons is communicating with the pupils. How does communicating with pupils online differ from communicating with them in a classroom? Communication with pupils serves more than one function. It serves to identify when pupils need assistance. Pupils need assistance when they have not understood

something the teacher is communicating to them. Communication also serves to transfer knowledge from the teacher to the pupil, and this happens during the lesson.

1. How do teachers manage the classroom situation, when the classroom is online?

Effective communication in the classroom is enabled by cues from the pupil. In the classroom, this detection work is very much contingent on cues picked up in the here and now. This is, as Strauss contends, articulation work (1985). In the online setting these cues cannot be picked up by the teacher as he or she would be in the classroom. The teacher’s ability detect if a pupil needs help, or the teacher’s ability to take the pulse of the class is thus compromised in the online environment. This is a form of Tacit

Knowledge (Collins, 2010) but in this case it is not about making the teacher’s knowledge available to transfer to his or her pupils but rather to accept input from the pupils to be able to know how to best help the pupil.

Teachers’ ability to creatively solve communicative problems is tacit (ibid) in nature because the teacher draws from experience in the classroom setting. The online setting makes it difficult when conducting a lesson and to be able to “read” the class and adjust the lesson as the teacher is conducting it. If the teachers just turned on a video camera, connect to the video conferencing platform such as Google Meet, and stood in front of it;

in other words, attempting to use classical classroom teaching methods whilst online they were frustrated when this didn’t yield the same effects as would be expected in a physical classroom.

(28)

Part of the teaching experience online was that the teachers had to wait for the pupils to contact them. The pupil needed to ask the teacher for help before the teacher knew if the pupil needed help. This loss of pro-activeness by the teacher was a loss of a cornerstone in being able to take the pulse of the class or an individual pupil. Being able to be pro- active is a key asset in the teachers’ professional repertoire. Part of this repertoire is to know when to slow their work down by extending a lesson if needed, for example if pupils needed more time to grasp a concept, and/or when to speed up their work and advance a lesson because for example pupils grasping the topic at hand quicker than anticipated.

2. How do teachers experience teaching online?

Extra work was required to ensure the online lessons functioned. One type of work that was required to be performed, so that the online lessons would function as intended, was that of creating written instructions. These written instructions were intended to explain to the pupils ‘how’ to do aspects in the lesson. Often the teacher would assume these written instructions were clear. Only after feedback from the pupils looking for clarity, did the teacher realise that the instructions were not clear enough for the pupils. Here Strauss’

notion that “…little is obvious in any general sense about what exactly counts as work”

(1988) is rather fitting because the teachers are only just re-writing instructions, creating more work for themselves.

The extra work that was created reflects the difficulty of creating explicit (written)

knowledge from tacit knowledge, or ‘know how’ (Chugh, 2018). In a classroom setting, the teacher could just say the instructions, and, if needed, restate them again, but in a slightly different way to help other pupils understand. Without consciously recognising it, teachers attempted to make the tacit classroom knowledge explicit in a written format. And once in the written format the instructions became more formal or standardised and lost any fluidity they might have otherwise had.

(29)

Therefore standardized written instructions are at odds with the situated nature of the teacher’s craft. This craft is what the teacher does when he / she notices a pupil needs help in a classroom setting or when the teacher notices a lesson needs adjusting in mid-flow of the lesson. These written instructions are quite arduous to produce; it is work that comes in addition to the work of creating the lesson, and is therefore extra work. This extra work is multi-faceted because not only is it extra work the first time when the instructions where created but it led to more work again by having to clarify the instruction both through re- writing the instructions but also having to deal with the individual pupil’s questions regarding clarification of the instructions. It is fitting to close by suggesting that further research is required into online teaching methods.

5.1 Reflections

In my own reflections as a teacher also teaching in this environment I was unaware of the extra work I was doing in the quest to make online teaching effective and efficient. Before this study I took for granted the tacit nature of teaching in the physical classroom. I could not put my finger on exactly why it was more difficult to convey a message or an

instruction to pupils online. And that the spontaneity and creativity afforded to me as a teacher in the physical classroom was not afforded in the same way online. Maybe higher resolution video connection may solve the issue of missing communication cues from the pupils. Further research is required and possible a good place to start could be the

connection between technology and embodiment for the purpose of developing didactics and pedagogy.

(30)

6. References

Atkinson, P. and Housley, W. 2003. Interactionism an essay in sociological amnesia.

Thousand Oaks, Calif. ;: Sage.

Bolldén, K. 2015. Online teaching practices : sociomaterial matters in higher education settings . Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp. 77-101. ISSN1478.

Cambridge Dictionary, s.w. “tacit knowledge,” accessed May 19, 2020, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tacit-knowledge

Chugh Ritesh 2018. Tacit Knowledge Transfer in Australian Universities: Exploring the Barriers and Enablers. MATEC Web of Conferences. 210.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. 2018. Research methods in education. London:

Routledge.

Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A.L. 1993. The Articulation of Work Through Interaction. The Sociological Quarterly. 34(1), pp.71–83.

Collins, H. 2010. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. University of Chicago Press.

Golafshani, N. 2003. Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The QualitativeReport,8(4),597–607.Retrieved from 10 May 2020.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51087041.pdf

Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “work,” retrieved May 18, 2020, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/work.

Markie, P. 2017. Rationalism vs. Empiricism, First published Thu Aug 19, 2004; substantive revision Thu Jul 6, 2017, retrieved 1 June 2020 ,

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ - Aca

(31)

Postman, N. 1993. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York, NY, Vintage.

Star, S., & Strauss, A. 1999. Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(1), 9–30.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008651105359

Strauss, A 1993, Continual Permutations of Action, pp 81 Aldine Transaction A division of Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK).

Strauss, A. 1985. Work and the Division of Labor. The Sociological Quarterly. 26(1), pp.1–19.

Strauss, A. 1988. The Articulation of Project Work: An Organizational Process. The Sociological Quarterly. 29(2), pp.163–178.

Swedish Research Council 2017. Good Research Practice. Retrieved from

https://www.vr.se/download/18.5639980c162791bbfe697882/1555334908942/Good- Research-PracticeVR2017.pdf

Retried on 2020-04-01

Swedish Research Council (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.vr.se/english/mandates/ethics/ethics-in-research.html Retried on 2020-05-01

Trost, J. 1997. Kvalitativa Intervjuer. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Taylor, G. W. & Ussher, J. M. 2001. Making sense of S&M: A discourse analytic account.

Sexualities, 4(3), 293-314.

"What is Work? - Sociological Definition & Analysis." Study.com. November 9, 2017.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-work-sociological-definition-analysis.html.

Retried on 2020-05-24

(32)

7. Appendix 1

Cover letter to participants

Dear Participant, 1^st May 2020

Thank you for agreeing to take part in my study about teachers’ experience and perceptions of invisible work in relation to online teaching. As a participant in this study, I, Patrick

Dooley, will interview you. The interview is expected to take around 60 minutes and an audio device will record it. Later I will transcribe it.

All your responses will be confidential and you will remain anonymous in any published report. After the study is completed it will be published on the DiVA database. Upon being published all recordings and transcripts will be destroyed. Participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time.

The aim of this study is to increase knowledge and understanding about Swedish high school teachers’ experience regarding the unseen work involved in distance teaching.

If you have any questions concerning this study, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards, Patrick Dooley

Patrick.Dooley@utb.solleftea.se

(33)

8. Appendix 2

Interview Guide

Purpose statement

The purpose of this research is to explore how teachers are experiencing the work involved teaching via distance with the help of the internet.

I want to understand how you teach pupils with this medium, how you transfer your knowledge to pupils and how you cope with the new demands of teaching online during this Corona Pandemic.

---

What tools do you use for distance teaching?

Tell me a little bit about how you use them

What kind of training were you given in these tools?

Could you say more about the form of this training?

How adequate was it?

How did you feel when you found out you were going to have to teach via distance?

Tell me more about that

(34)

---

If you think back to Tuesday’s lesson, what was that lesson?

Could you please say a little about this lesson?

Think of the work that went into preparing for that specific lesson How did you prepare for it?

What was the lesson plan like? What activities were included?

Does anything else come to mind in terms of preparation work?

What kind of differences were there between this preparation and how you’d normally prepare?

Did you collaborate at any point with colleagues relating to this lesson?

Tell me about this. What technology did you use to communicate with colleagues?

How effective was this?

---

The following questions are all to get the respondents to talk in detail about all the “communication work” entailed during the actual “classroom” session.

(35)

So if you think back to that particular lesson, How did you communicate with your pupils during the lesson? For example during klassgenomgång

And how did the communication work from the pupils to you during that session?

Did they they write in the chat or speak?

Was this easy to manage?

What kind of things were they communicating about?

What types of help were they asking for?

How did you manage to engage the whole class in this communication process?

Which groups were more active than others?

Which groups were not so active?

Can you say more about this?

What was your approach in relation to those pupils with learning issues?

Can you say more about this?

How did you gauge when a particular pupil had learnt something?

Tell me more about that

---

(36)

These questions are mostly about the post-lesson work related to that particular session

How did you do the post lesson information assessment?

How did registering attendance work?

How was the homework organized? Could you say more about this?

How about marking, how did you do this?`

Can you tell me a little about how you evaluated that particular session?

How would you say that session went?

---

To round off, How would you describe the differences between teaching in the classroom to teaching distance?

Can you elaborate?

Can you identify similarities?

Teaching online in a Global Pandemic: A Look at the Work involved