22 SES 15 C, From Conventional to Online Teaching: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Experiences of University Teachers in the COVID-19 Lockdown (Part I)
The novel COVID-19 demanded sudden migration to digital education. Higher Education Institutions mobilised enormous resources to overcome the COVID-19-related lockdown in spring 2020 and ensure the continuation of education (Crawford et al., 2020). This research examines how lecturers have perceived the switch from conventional to online teaching. We further examine the use of digital tools for online teaching during the lockdown and compare it to the situation before. Experience, attitude, and self-efficacy facilitate the use of educational technology for online teaching (Kagima & Hausafus, 2020; Buchanan, et al., 2013). Due to the first COVID-19 lockdown, online teaching became mandatory for university teachers. This study examined how perceived online teaching self-efficacy, experience in and attitude towards educational technology affect the actual integration of educational technology for emergency remote teaching (ERT). During the first COVID-19-related lockdown in spring 2020 an online survey at five universities in four European countries has been conducted as part of the cross-cultural CRTS-Study (coronavirus-related teaching situation). In total, 810 lecturers participated in this survey. The questionnaire included items relating to use of educational technology before and during the lockdown, a scale assessing online teaching self-efficacy (alpha=.83-.91) with eight modified items from existing scales (Gosselin, 2009; Prieto, 2006), and a one-item measurement of lecturers’ attitude(s) towards use of educational technology. First results show that lecturers at four out of five universities used LMS significantly more often during the COVID-19 lockdown than before. At none of the universities did lecturers integrate educational videos more frequently during lockdown, although some began to produce their own videos for online teaching (at three out of five universities). Finally, lecturers at all participating universities used web-conference tools substantially more often. Further analysis has revealed that experience, attitude, and online teaching self-efficacy were positive predictors of educational technology use. The model explained more variance for asynchronous tools than for synchronous web-conferencing and for the latter, attitude toward digital tools was no longer a significant predictor. This study found that lecturers could successfully integrate new educational technology or extend previous usage of digital tools for ERT. Furthermore, it became apparent that previous experience and a positive attitude towards digital tools as well as their self-efficacy in online teaching facilitated the switch to online teaching. In the ongoing digitalisation process, it is crucial to strengthen the digital maturity of the university by better preparing lecturers for online teaching.
Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1-11. Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Jurgen, R., Malkawi, B. H., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 1-20. doi:10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7 Gosselin, K. P. (2009). Development and psychometric exploration of the online teaching self-efficacy inventory. (Doctor). Texas Tech Univesity, Lubbock. Kagima, L. K., & Hausafus, C. O. (2000). Integration of Electronic Communication in Higher Education: Contributions of Faculty Computer Self-Efficacy. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(4), 221-235. Prieto, L. (2006). College teaching self-efficacy scale (CTSES). Madrid: Unversidad Pontificia Comillas.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.