Original Article
E-Learning and Digital Media
2022, Vol. 0(0) 1–28
Capturing the successes and failures © The Author(s) 2022
during pandemic teaching: An Article reuse guidelines:
investigation of university students sagepub.com/journals-permissions’ DOI: 10.1177/20427530221147112
journals.sagepub.com/home/ldm
perceptions of their faculty’s
emergency remote teaching
approaches
Natalie Nussli
Institute of Primary Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Brugg, Switzerland
Kevin Oh
School of Education, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
Jason P Davis
Department of Early, Middle, and Exceptional Education, Millersville University, Millersville, USA
Abstract
This research investigates teacher candidates’ experiences during two semesters of imposed re-
mote instruction during a pandemic. Through qualitative research interviewing, the perceptions of a
purposeful sample of five preservice teachers were captured to investigate the faculty’s emergency
remote teaching approaches. The theory-based interview guide was developed based on six
concepts, namely, feedback, care, student engagement, choices, collaboration, and autonomous
learning. The results present factors affecting the quality of feedback. Several challenges were
identified in the way and the timing in which content was structured, presented, and released. The
interviewed participants’ engagement levels were determined by regular synchronous interaction,
highly structured learning platforms, and precise communication. The challenges of collaboration, a
lack of social cohesion, and a lack of adaptations made to the digital curriculum affected students’
motivation, engagement, and efficiency levels. Distinct structures, clearly communicated purposes,
and a well-defined organization were considered to be key to ensuring learning autonomy. The
study contributes to refocusing efforts with a view towards post-pandemic teaching.
Corresponding author:
Natalie Nussli, Institute of Primary Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland,
Bahnhofstrasse 6, Brugg, Switzerland.
Email: natalie.nussli@fhnw.ch
2 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
Keywords
Online teaching, emergency remote teaching, post-COVID-19 education, hybrid teaching, mobile
pedagogy, ubiquitous learning
Introduction
In most parts of the world, instruction was moved online literally within the span of a few days in
mid-March 2020. On-campus students and faculty were thrust into a remote learning format due to
COVID-19. Many faculty members were overwhelmed with the challenges of abrupt mass
technology infusion and scrambled to cobble together online courses for their students (Bawa, 2020)
while some students were faced with the challenges arising from the lack of “technical knowledge,
self-discipline, or effective time management to succeed” (Nworie, 2021: 9).
How have students’ expectations for the future of education changed? How can their new
expectations be translated into instructional approaches more effectively? Enabling “inclusive,
personalized, and engaging hybrid learning experiences to bring students together beyond simple
videoconferencing and recording of lectures” (Curtin, 2021, para. 5) will be the next big milestone
with a view to post-COVID-19 education. The authors agree with Curtin’s (2021) assertion that
“while the response of higher education institutions to the pandemic should be applauded, the work
is just beginning” (para. 4). Decisions will need to be made about which components of online
learning should be permanently embedded in post-pandemic teaching (Curtin, 2021).
One key term that has often been used is emergency remote teaching (ERT). ERT has been
defined as shifting face-to-face (f2f) classes to remote delivery modes during a crisis situation with
the intent to restore the previous format as soon as the crisis has abated (Bawa, 2020; Hodges et al.,
2020). The switch to ERT happens quickly without much advance notice, an extremely narrow
preparation window, and varying levels of training and support for faculty. Typically, in ERT, it is
unlikely that faculty will take full advantage of the affordances of the online environment as they are
waiting to return to their usual delivery format.
Online education, in contrast, is purposefully designed for online delivery of instruction. The
design and development of an online learning module requires meticulous and intentional planning,
refinement, and systematic evaluation, typically over a period of six to nine months (Hodges et al.,
2020). This process should be aligned with nine online learning design options, which include
modality (i.e., on-campus, online, hybrid, HyFlex), pacing, student-tutor ratio, pedagogical ap-
proach, tutors’ and students’ roles, synchrony of online communication and interaction, function of
online assessments, and the feedback source and channel (Beatty, 2007, 2019; Espasa et al., 2019).
To respond to students’ expectations for post-pandemic education, digital and physical com-
ponents should be seamlessly integrated (Grajek, 2020). Carefully constructed educational sce-
narios will have to provide a combination of digital, physical, and hybrid elements, while courses
with a single learning modality will become the exception. Rather than returning to pre-pandemic
academic culture, the delivery of instruction is expected to be agile and maximally flexible. Rapanta
et al. (2020) have described the pandemic “as a catalyst that highlighted the need for educational
change towards more flexible models and practices that best respond to the complexity and un-
predictability of today’s fast and interconnected but still fragile society” (p. 941). The next step is to
harness what has worked well during pandemic teaching in order to improve institutional practices
(Nowrie, 2021).
The present study aims to identify what has worked well during two semesters of remote
teaching, what has not worked well from students’ perspectives, and how these insights might help
Nussli et al. 3
to refocus teacher presence and students’ learning in the future of higher education teaching
(Rapanta et al., 2020).
Literature review
The literature review revolves around six key concepts.
Feedback
Feedback can take many forms and definitions. “Feedback can be just the mark; it can be the correct
answers; it can be the correct answers with some comments; or it can take the form of comments and
explanations” (Espasa et al., 2018: 501). The type of feedback depends on the phases of learning.
Whereas beginning learners will benefit from corrective feedback, process feedback is more suitable
for learners as they become more knowledgeable. At the highest proficiency level, students will
benefit most from conceptual feedback (Hattie and Yates, 2014). However, students can only be
responsive to feedback if the learning objectives are known and understood. Objectives should be
expressed as desired outcomes and cross-referenced to a sequence of milestones and subgoals
(Hattie and Yates, 2014). However, if the outcomes fail to be specific or the students do not have a
clear sense of what success looks like (e.g., worked example), tutor feedback might be more
disorienting than helpful.
Feedback can influence the amount of effort that students put into an activity (Hattie and Yates,
2014). If students are aware that supportive, specific, and timely feedback is available for certain
tasks, they are willing to invest more time (Northcraft et al., 2011). They can make the connection
between the availability (and quality) of feedback and the importance of the tasks. Especially when
working toward difficult goals, knowing that relevant and supportive feedback is available increases
students’ commitment to working harder in order to reach these goals, which is not the case when
goals are easy to reach (Hattie and Yates, 2014).
The feedback channel (i.e., audio, video, or written) also plays an important role. In online
learning units described in Robinson and Wizer (2016), feedback to students was not only provided
via scored rubrics, but it was also accompanied by screen-captured videos showing a student’s
completed product and the instructor feedback. Espasa et al. (2019) investigated to which extent the
feedback channel was associated with personalization, clarification, and accessibility. Students
preferred the video channel over the audio and the written channel because it enabled more in-
teraction and dialogue with the tutor and engendered a stronger sense of closeness between students
and faculty (personalization). Video feedback also provided more clarity about the assignment and
promoted reflection regarding students’ learning processes. To create online learning environments
with high levels of dialogic feedback, it is recommended that tutors provide feedback before the task
is completed, integrate opportunities for systematic and substantive peer feedback, and allow
students to resubmit after acting upon the feedback they received (Espasa et al., 2018).
Gikandi andMorrow (2016) investigated the impact and timing of peer feedback. Formative peer
feedback has been shown to promote active learning, create meaningful engagement, and affirm
students’ roles as knowledgeable participants. Immediacy of peer feedback and providing students
with a sufficient amount of time to react upon the feedback are two key factors to create successful
peer-peer learning support (Gikandi and Morrow, 2016).
Wang et al. (2021) identified 11 categories of feedback and classified them into different levels
based on the feedback model by Hattie and Timperley (2007). These 11 types of feedback include
diagnostic feedback, feedback for justification, feedback for improvement, feedback on
4 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
complementary teaching, motivational feedback, feedback as praise, feedback for enhancing time
management, connective feedback, feedback to encourage use of feedback, feedback to foster
communication and help-seeking, and emotional feedback. The effectiveness of feedback also
varies depending on whether it is individual or at a group-level. Group-level feedback is unlikely to
benefit students who have already mastered an objective, while students who have not yet mastered
an objective often tend to ignore feedback (Hattie and Gan, 2011).
Creating effective feedback in online learning environments requires careful planning. To create
online learning environments with high levels of dialogic feedback, tutors should provide feedback
before the task is completed, integrate opportunities for systematic and substantive peer feedback,
and allow students to resubmit after acting upon the feedback they received (Espasa et al., 2018).
Cramp (2015) emphasizes the importance of regular and sufficient interaction as well as consistent
tutor and peer feedback in order to support academic success.
Feedback has also been investigated from the perspective of care and consideration toward
students. Frequent constructive developmental feedback demonstrates that instructors care for their
students and that “they have not given up on them or on their learning” (Bandura and Lyons, 2012:
523).
Care
Care and an instructor’s presence are two factors that may be instrumental in promoting students’
online learning success. An instructor’s presence in an online environment is determined by
“availability, affirmation, and authenticity” (Robinson et al., 2017: 41). Engaging students in
meaningful conversations, creating a setting to encourage peer learning, and infusing human el-
ements to an online class are indicators of pedagogical care (Robinson et al., 2017).
Velasquez et al. (2013) reported on teachers with an exceptional caring approach. Their study
aimed at describing how the construct of ‘care’ manifests itself in an online environment. Seven
themes emerged from their analysis, namely, creating shared experiences, sustaining continuous
dialogue, carefully observing and responding to students’ online activity, creating structured and
organized learning environments, attending to students’ individual academic needs by offering
support and constructive feedback, taking care of students’ well-being, and responding to students’
reactions by giving and obtaining feedback through dialogue (Velasquez et al., 2013). Shared
experience refers to the instructor collaborating synchronously with a student to develop shared
understanding. Continuous dialogue refers to the frequency with which the instructor initiates
dialogue (rather than waiting for students to reach out for support), teacher-student disclosure, the
clarity of the student-teacher communication, and teacher accessibility. Continuous dialogue also
involves promptness of the exchange, which refers to the speed with which teachers react to
students’ requests and how fast they provide support. For example, the students surveyed in
Velasquez et al. (2013) highly appreciated the 24-h response time to get instructor support. They
expressed that the teachers’ availability and receptivity to their individual concerns meant that they
truly cared for them. Care has also been linked to the structure of the online learning environment.
Instructional design choices emphasize flexibility in terms of how and when students complete an
assignment and the provision of multiple options (e.g., retaking quizzes, resubmitting assignments).
These design choices were interpreted as instructor care and consideration toward the students
(Velasquez et al., 2013).
Demonstrating pedagogical care and respect means inviting students’ input on classroom
practices, responding to their suggestions on how to improve these practices, and encouraging
students to “risk their ideas and questions” (Bandura and Lyons, 2012: 525). A caring approach also
Nussli et al. 5
emphasizes “dialogue, modeling, provision of practice, attribution of best motive, and scaffolding
for the student” (Bandura and Lyons, 2012: 523). Behaviors or strategies that students perceive as
demonstrating pedagogical caring and respect include instructor preparation and enthusiasm,
encouragement and a safe environment, recognizing diversity of students’ learning approaches,
involving students and checking on their comprehension (e.g., retracing steps to support all stu-
dents’ understanding), providing constructive developmental feedback, and demonstrating in-
structor availability by answering students’ questions promptly and clearly (Bandura and Lyons,
2012). All of these practices combined will enhance student engagement. Other tools to increase
student engagement will be discussed in the next section.
Student engagement
Student engagement is an essential factor in retaining online learners and in preventing feelings of
isolation (Bolliger and Halupa, 2018). A key concept determining student engagement in online
environments is transactional distance. The geographical distance between students and faculty can
create transactional distance, which may cause learners to feel a cognitive and emotional distance
(Moore, 1993). Bolliger and Halupa (2018) investigated student perceptions of engagement,
outcomes, and transactional distance in online courses. They used the Revised Scale of Trans-
actional Distance (RSTD) (Paul et al., 2015) to capture online students’ perceptions of transactional
distance in three areas, namely, student-teacher, student-content, and student-student distance. Their
findings showed that transactional distance is a valid predictor of student engagement. Teachers can
reduce the transactional distance to students by signaling accessibility, offering support, and giving
prompt feedback on students’ academic performance. The transactional distance between students
and content can be reduced by creating tasks that require synthesizing ideas into new, more complex
understandings; evaluating and assessing information, results, and conclusions; and applying
theoretical concepts to real-world contexts (Paul et al., 2015). Similarly, dialogues between students
to exchange ideas, share peer feedback or negotiate different perspectives can help to reduce the
transactional distance between students.
Bolliger and Martin (2018) explored which strategies are perceived as promoting learner-to-
learner engagement, learner-to-instructor engagement, and learner-to-content engagement in online
learning environments. From the instructors’ perspective, the most valuable strategies include
instructor presence, personal and frequent communication with students, and relevant course
content. Other beneficial strategies include student collaboration on projects (i.e., learner-learner
engagement), instructor feedback (i.e., learner-instructor engagement), and well-structured courses
(i.e., learner-content engagement). The least valuable strategies include “the provision of a lot of
textual information or content, inclusion of discussions or lounges that were used for administrative
reasons (e.g., seat time), and incorporation of inflexible synchronous sessions” (Bolliger andMartin,
2018: 575).
All three types of engagement are critical to ensuring effective online teaching and learning.
Instructors viewed icebreaker discussions, interaction during student presentations, and peer review
as (very) important factors to increase learner-learner engagement. To increase learner-instructor
engagement, the most highly rated strategies included posting regular announcements, email re-
minders, an informal Q & A forum, using student names, sharing grading rubrics, course orien-
tations, and activities promoting reflection. To foster learner-content engagement, the most valuable
strategies included structured discussions, realistic scenarios, and student engagement with content
in multiple media formats (Bolliger and Martin, 2018).
6 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
A meta-analytic review by Woldeab et al. (2020) challenges the widely held belief that student-
faculty interaction in online settings is inferior compared to f2f settings, thereby curbing student
engagement. Their study showed that online students actually tend to interact more with the tutor
through questions than they get involved in peer interaction. One obstacle could be students’
individual pace and progress in asynchronous course formats. Tutors who wish to promote student
engagement in online environments should actively create opportunities and tasks to interact with
their students, for example, by crafting ideas for projects requiring student-teacher partnership or by
engaging students in critical inquiries (Woldeab et al., 2020). Tutors will need to make informed
choices when planning ways to create and sustain student engagement in virtual environments,
including the consideration of learner choices, which will be discussed next.
Choice
Choice is a concept commonly referred to in various pedagogical frameworks. Similar to other
concepts that are critical to effective online instruction, such as, collaboration, feedback, student-
autonomy, self-regulation, tutor and peer support, reflection, and interaction, the notion of ‘choice’
is a key component of culturally responsive pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
UDL is a framework designed to augment equitable learning opportunities for all learners with
differing abilities (Kumar and Widemann, 2014; Rose and Meyer, 2002). It builds on three major
principles encompassing three guidelines each and a total of 31 checkpoints (CAST, 2018). The first
principle requires instructors to provide multiple means of engagement to guarantee learners’ access
to learning. Ginsberg (2005) emphasizes the importance of student choice to increase personal
relevance, which in turn helps to recruit interest, sustain effort, and foster self-regulation, all of
which are guidelines of the first UDL principle of providing multiple means of engagement. The
second UDL principle refers to multiple means and representations of information enabling learners
to access learning content in their preferred ways. The third UDL principle refers to multiple means
of action and expression to provide varied opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning
(CAST, 2018; Kumar andWideman, 2014; Rose and Meyer, 2002). One key premise is that barriers
in the learning context be removed by “proactively and intentionally designing instruction that
provides flexible pathways and choice” (Rao et al., 2020: 219).
Providing choice has been associated with increased engagement. Boothe et al. (2020) in-
vestigated how choice impacts student engagement in an online environment with a focus on the
third principle of UDL (i.e., multiple means of action and expression) as a way to evaluate student
learning. Their students in the teacher education program were free to choose how they wanted to
demonstrate their learning. They created or composed a video, audio, presentation, research paper,
poem, instructional handouts, children’s storybooks or participated in a professional development
opportunity (Boothe et al., 2020). They enjoyed being allowed to make a choice and reported that
they would transfer this experience to their own future classrooms. Giving choices helps to embrace
all the different ways in which students prefer to learn.
Instructors who emphasize personal relevance and choice when creating learning activities help
to create a positive attitude toward the learning experience (Robinson and Wizer, 2016). The
Motivational Framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching by Wlodkowski and Ginsberg (1995)
emphasizes the importance of developing attitude by creating favorable dispositions toward
learning, including the provision of choices regarding content, interaction, ways of demonstrating
learning, assessment, and feedback modality. For example, flexible discussion formats can ac-
commodate students’ preferred choices regarding group size. Similarly, students should be allowed
to choose their preferred communication tools, such as chat, video, audio, or text. Considering
Nussli et al. 7
students’ preferences regarding synchronous or asynchronous interactions is an important com-
ponent of online course design.
There is extensive research available about the implementation of UDL principles in online
instruction. In a study about online instructors’ familiarity with UDL (Westine et al., 2019) and their
implementation of UDL guidelines, the UDL guidelines suggesting options for communication,
expression and comprehension were the most frequently used. In contrast, only a minority of
instructors allowed students to choose in which way or format they wanted to demonstrate their
learning. Similarly, findings by Capp (2020) indicated that while instructors are skilled in providing
differentiated instruction, they are less confident in allowing students to choose how they would like
to show mastery of their learning. Instructors demonstrated higher self-efficacy in applying the first
UDL principle (i.e., multiple means of representation) but reported feeling less confident about how
to implement the second and third UDL principle (i.e., multiple means of expression and action,
multiple means of engagement) (Capp, 2020).
Providing choices also plays an important role in planning collaboration.
Collaboration
Collaborative learning in an online environment requires additional considerations compared to f2f
teaching. The physical isolation of students in online learning environments has been widely
reported. A lack of interaction may result in feelings of alienation, withdrawal, and disconnection
(Phirangee, 2016). Teamwork, relationship, and interaction should be purposefully planned in
online instruction.
Intentionality in the design of collaborative environments can take many different forms and
shapes. Examples include activities that facilitate rich encounters among learners and instructors,
help create a sense of cohesion and belonging, encourage learners to share their knowledge base and
experiences with peers, foster positive student-teacher and peer interactions, and emphasize student-
teacher partnership (Nussli & Oh, 2020). For example, the set-up of an online discussion forum in
terms of group structure, organization, and expected student activity levels may affect the nature and
degree of deep learning (Johnson et al., 2017).
Collaboration also plays a prominent role in ubiquitous learning, which is an offshoot of mobile
pedagogy. Ubiquitous learning encompasses ten dimensions. These include peer interaction, self-
regulated learning, scaffolded learning opportunities in authentic contexts, personalized learning,
positive learning effects, and increased learner motivation (Huang et al., 2011; Hwang et al., 2008,
2010; Peng et al., 2008). Ubiquitous learning enhances the interactivity of the learning process
because it offers a common platform for students and e-tutors to interact with each other. It also
emphasizes the notion of learning community in digital environments as it builds on collaborative
projects designed to engender a sense of cohesion among learners.
Davidson and Katopodis (2020) make five recommendations for successful online collaboration,
namely, structuring group projects around real-world issues, requiring the tutor (rather than the
students) to create an equitable distribution of labor, creating “pods large enough to guard against
ghosting” (para. 12), providing project timelines with clear phases and checkpoints, assigning pre-
work, and eliminating competition for grades within groups by using contract grading in which
roles, tasks, and deadlines are specified. Several of these recommendations will also help to foster
learning autonomy, which is the last of the six concepts framing this study.
8 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
Learning autonomy
Students’ learning autonomy is promoted in an environment that allows and requires them to
actively control their own learning progress. Digitally mediated environments help increase stu-
dents’ learning autonomy by giving them the control over personal choices and empowering them to
make decisions on how to best support their own learning processes (Dell et al., 2015). Similar to the
concepts of self-regulation, reflection, support, collaboration, cooperation, feedback, interaction,
and choices, the concept of learning autonomy is an integral component of multiple pedagogical
paradigms, for example, UDL and mobile pedagogy. Mobile learning offers great potential to
promote learning autonomy (Huang and Chiu, 2015; Lee et al., 2015) by supporting students in
learning in their own pace at their individual level and monitoring their progress, thereby reducing
teacher-dependency incrementally.
Establishing student-teacher partnerships to share responsibilities, decision-making, problem-
solving, and assessment processes with students are effective ways to promote learner autonomy
(Hung et al., 2004). Learner autonomy can be fostered by using online course tools that purposefully
optimize autonomy (Robinson and Wizer, 2016).
The literature review concludes with a short introduction to HyFlex, which is anchored in several
of the concepts reviewed and is expected to be a key driver in the future of hybrid education.
HyFlex
The term HyFlex stands for Hybrid-Flexible, which combines online and f2f learning (hybrid) with
flexibility in allowing students to choose if they wish to attend f2f sessions or online sessions without
incurring a “learning deficit” (Beatty, 2019: 1). Several of the concepts reviewed in this section align
with the four fundamental values of the HyFlex model, namely, learner choice, equivalency, re-
usability, and accessibility, which are grounded in the principles of UDL. Learner choice allows
learners to flexibly choose their participation mode (e.g., synchronous, asynchronous, online,
offline) for any given unit, topic, or week. Equivalency ensures that all participation modes lead to
the same or similar learning outcome, although it is the most difficult value to implement according
to Beatty (2019). Reusability capitalizes the use of artifacts produced both by classroom students
(e.g., pictures of flipchart posters, discussion notes) and online students (e.g., chat logs, asyn-
chronous discussion posts) as valuable learning supports for the entire class, regardless of the
participation mode. Accessibility is meant to ensure that all participation modes provide equitable
access to content, activities, and resources and to equip students with the necessary skills set to
access the technology (Beatty, 2019).
Gap in the literature
Although there is a large body of research evaluating online and hybrid teaching, the research on
ERT is only just starting to grow. While there is ample research about the six key concepts that are
the main focus of this study, there is limited research investigating the connection between ERT and
these six concepts specifically. There also appears to be a lack of research describing undergraduate
students’ perceptions of faculty’s skills in providing ERTwith a focus on these six concepts. These
insights can assist educators and instructional designers in refocusing education. This study can add
to the growing body of research on the teaching effectiveness in hybrid learning environments.
Nussli et al. 9
Methodology
Purpose and research questions
This qualitative research investigates teacher candidates’ experiences during two semesters of
(imposed) remote instruction. The study was framed by the following six questions:What role does
feedback play in online learning, how can instructors demonstrate nurturing and caring, what can
educators do to promote student engagement, what are effective ways to provide choices to their
students so they can demonstrate their learning in multiple ways, how can educators promote
collaboration among students, and how can educators foster autonomous learning?
Participants
A purposeful sample of five undergraduate students studying in a teacher education program in
Switzerland participated in this interview study. There were five criteria for selection. The first
criterion was that all interviewees needed to be third- or fourth-year students enrolled in a Bachelors
program for primary education (i.e., teacher training program) at a university in the German-
speaking area of Switzerland. Second, they had completed two semesters of (imposed) online
learning (i.e., spring and fall of 2020). Third, they had received at least 2 years of f2f instruction
within the same department prior to the migration to online learning. Fourth, they needed to be
rather fluent in English for interviewing purposes. Fifth, they needed to feel comfortable talking
about online learning and technology.
To obtain the sample, the first author presented the research goal of this study in one of her classes
and asked for volunteers. Ten out of 11 students (ten female/one male) would have met all of the
above criteria. Four female students were willing to be interviewed. The male student participating
in the pilot interview was not part of the same cohort and was contacted separately. He also met all
five criteria for selection. Within their three (or four) years of study, these students had attended both
f2f and remote classes with various faculty members from different departments at the Institute for
Primary Education. All five interviewees had taken classes with the first author and all interviewees,
except for one, had previously met the interviewer (second author) either in-person when he hosted
several f2f teaching sessions as a Fulbright Specialist in 2020 or remotely on the occasion of a guest
lecture in 2019.
Interviews
The second author conducted semi-structured one-to-one interviews with each participant between
January 27 and 10 February 2021. The interviews lasted between 35 and 47 min. The total duration
of all interviews was 214 min. The total number of words produced (including interviewer’s
questions and comments) was 43,901 words.
Interview questions. The full interview guide, including the protocol, is attached in the appendix. The
same author conducted all interviews to ensure consistency. The interview questions were peer-
reviewed and pilot-tested. A meticulous audit trail was created in the development and revision of
the interview questions as well as in the coding procedures. All three authors were involved in the
development of the interview questions, although the third author strictly focused on the peer-
review. Automatic audio transcription in ZoomTM was used to generate transcriptions of the in-
terviews. The 29 interview questions were developed in multiple stages (Table 1).
10 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
Table 1. Development of 29 interview questions.
Step Description Responsibilities
1 Identify key concepts based on a literature review. Authors 1 and 2
2 Development of interview questions based on the literature review. Authors 1 and 2
3 For each interview question, the purpose was clearly formulated and tied to the Authors 1 and 2
research questions.
4 In-depth peer-review resulting in the reformulation, clarification, and specification of Author 3
some interview questions. Several follow-up questions were added. Specific
examples were added.
5 Pilot interview with a male student in Switzerland. Author 2
6 Analysis of responses to ensure that the interview questions measured what they were Authors 1 and 2
designed to measure. No changes were necessary.
7 The participant of the pilot-interview had a high level of technology adoption, which is Authors 1 and 2
why it was decided to review the questions again after the second interview.
8 First interview with a female student in Switzerland was conducted. Author 1
9 Immediate review of the responses after the interview. No changes were necessary. Authors 1 and 2
Interview protocol. The interviewees received a brief overview of the research purpose by email in
January 2021, namely, how their experiences during two semesters of imposed online learning
would help to advance instructors’ teaching skills. They were informed that they would be asked to
talk about their online learning experiences based on the previous two semesters (i.e., spring and fall
of 2020) across all of the courses that they had been taking at the Institute for Primary Education,
that the interview would be conducted on ZoomTM, that it would be recorded and that it would last
between 30 and 45 min. The interviewees (located in Switzerland) then picked a suitable date for the
interview with the interviewer (located in the U.S. with a 9 hour time difference). They received a
link to a ZoomTM meeting 2 weeks prior to the interview from the interviewer. Three days prior to
the interview, they received the interview questions (Appendix) from the interviewer by email. The
interviews were purposefully conducted after they had completed the semester and after the first
author had submitted the students’ final grades.
Data analysis
The qualitative data emerged from one source, namely, from the live interviews with five preservice
teachers. The interview transcripts for this study were evaluated to answer the research questions
and better understand the impact of an imposed online learning environment on preservice teachers.
The data analysis approach was both deductive and inductive. The major themes were pre-
determined as the interview guide was purposefully structured around six theoretical concepts,
namely, feedback, care, student engagement, choices, collaboration, and learning autonomy.
The reviewer (third author), having no experience with, or knowledge of the participating
preservice teachers, thoroughly analyzed each participant’s interview data to allow the themes and
categories to emerge, organized by research question. Using the collected and structured data, the
reviewer employed a clarifying approach to eliminate any social commentary and highlighting the
essential and non-essential material based on the purpose of the study and the research questions
(Kvale, 1996). The data were condensed into themes and categories by combining similar responses
and comments. Using this approach, a summary of major ideas was developed for each participant
Nussli et al. 11
under each research question. This was used to examine similarities and differences between and
among the participant responses. The first author then read all transcripts three times, reviewed the
third author’s coding decisions, and discussed the coding decisions with the second author.
Results
The results are organized around the research questions. Table 2 provides an overview of the results.
Table 2. Overview of results.
Concept Themes
Feedback • Factors reducing quality of peer feedback
• Role of feedback in clarifying expectations
• Impact of feedback on students’ motivation
• Timing, frequency, and amount
Care • Availability of instructional supports
• Student-instructor interaction
• Instructor accessibility
Student engagement • Synchronous interaction
• Video tutorials
• Online platforms
• Need for structure
• Need for relevance
Choices • Very limited choices regarding modality
• Very limited choices regarding topic
• No change f2f vs. remote instruction
Collaboration • Challenges of online collaboration
• Creating a sense of social cohesion
• Splitting up group projects
• App-supported collaboration
• Efficiency of group work
Learning autonomy • Individual pacing
• Increased productivity
• Clear instructions and assessment criteria
• Access to content
Feedback
Three interview questions were designed to capture the frequency of feedback, to which extent the
received feedback helped students to understand the course expectations, supported students’
learning, and helped to sustain their motivation throughout the semester. The dominant themes that
emerged included factors reducing the quality of peer feedback; the role of feedback in clarifying
expectations; the impact of feedback on students’ motivation; and the timing, frequency, and
amount of feedback.
12 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
Factors reducing the quality of peer feedback. When students were asked to provide peer feedback on
each others’ work (e.g., oral presentations, written work, or poster presentations), they were guided
by a checklist to help with the peer assessment, a criteria grid showing the descriptors at different
levels of performance, or they received a set of prompts to frame their peer feedback. One student
described the impact of the feedback that she provided to and received from her peers. Not knowing
her peers well and only meeting them for short periods of time online were reasons why she made
less of an effort to formulate solid feedback and why she was less honest about her evaluation of her
peers’ performance. Conversely, the feedback that she received from her peers was at the surface
level and barely supported her learning process.
Sometimes I also caught myself not actually doing it very thoroughly because you don’t know the other
student really well. So you sometimes don’t know how well they’re going to take it, and you know the
communication when it’s just on paper and you have to check a few boxes, it’s really impersonal. And
that sometimes held me back from actually being sincere and writing down what I actually think. And
sometimes I gave feedback that was maybe a bit too good, and I also felt like that’s what I received a lot
of just ‘excellent, excellent, excellent’ that didn’t really help me a lot.
Role of feedback in clarifying expectations. A recurring answer was that the remote instruction caused
insecurities regarding task fulfillment. Students argued that “working online made it hard to know if
you were on track” and that it created an “insecurity of being on track and passing” the course. All
interviewed students mentioned being unsure about the instructors’ expectations in many different
courses, for example, “…there were many times where I was really unsure what they exactly wanted
from me.” This insecurity was further intensified by inconsistent feedback practices and limited
tutor accessibility. A f2f environment was perceived as being easier to stay on track than an online
environment.
Impact of feedback on motivation. In the few courses in which instructors provided regular feedback
throughout the semester, the instructor feedback was perceived as motivating. Feedback also helped
to counteract feelings of isolation. Conversely, in the courses where instructors did not provide
feedback or only provided feedback once at the end of the semester, students’motivation decreased.
Limited instructor accessibility to answer students’ questions about task fulfillment criteria further
aggravated students’ frustration levels.
Timing, frequency and amount of feedback. Students usually received tutor feedback at the end of the
semester. In rare cases did they receive sporadic feedback on assignments or mini-projects. Al-
though the students appreciated receiving summative feedback from their tutors after submitting
their final projects, it would have been more helpful to receive formative feedback earlier in the
semester.
…mostly just in the end of the semester, so when everything is done already. And of course it’s nice to
receive feedback so that your work is valued, but it doesn’t really help you for your learning, right, so it
was a bit too late.
“Even a little bit of feedback helped” as long as it was regular and timely. Students’ appreciation
for tutor feedback was higher when they received it soon after students had turned in (or presented)
the deliverable. Understandably, tutor feedback was perceived as being less helpful when it was
received several weeks later. They all would have preferred more consistency across courses and
Nussli et al. 13
they all would have appreciated receiving timely instructor feedback on a more frequent basis to
better support their learning process. “It needs to be done regularly to really support the learning
process, so you can actually use that [feedback] in other situations.”
Care
Three interview questions were designed to explore instructor behaviors and strategies that were
perceived as nurturing and caring, to inquire about instruction supports (e.g., through frequent
communication, instructor accessibility, open lines of communication), how instructors demon-
strated that they cared for their students’ learning, and to which extent they were available for
support. A great disparity emerged in terms of availability of instruction supports, student-instructor
interaction, and instructor accessibility.
Availability of instructional supports. Even if students did not take advantage of tutor support, they
appreciated if (and when) it was available to them. However, the offer of support was highly
inconsistent. Students’ answers ranged from “I felt like we were left hanging… there wasn’t much
instruction at all, no support” to “some instructors offered feedback sessions via WebexTM or
ZoomTM, which I didn’t use that often, but it was at least it was there, so it felt like we could
approach the instructor if we wanted to.” Some tutors signaled interest in students’ work progress
and regularly reached out to students. “When we had the assignments…where are you? How can I
help? And there were others who didn’t really check in at all.” The need for support was higher when
task descriptions were unclear and required contacting the tutor. However, delayed tutor responses
complicated the process of obtaining instructional support.
I sometimes had to wait one week before I got the answers. And I think that’s especially when they didn’t
… provide enough material or when they were not clear enough, a lot of questions came in so they
needed time to answer all these emails that came in, because… the instruction of the task was not clear
enough.
Student-instructor interaction. In some classes, tutors provided regular synchronous meetings, which
were appreciated for various reasons. For instance, the meetings were perceived as an opportunity
for tutors to show signs of caring and nurturing.
And there again some professors really make the effort just by knowing your names, because we have
quite small classes. We’re only 15 to 25 people in a class and some really made sure to know your name.
They knew what project you were working on, what you were interested in. They sometimes re-
membered just small things and that just showed that they actually will [sic] see you as a person, and not
just one of 200 students. And that and also the feedback just show that they really care. If they also
maybe just provided extra material if you were interested in something or provided tasks that could be
done very individually, regarding your interest, if they just try to make it as fun and as creative as
possible, that really showed that they care about this and want to make it as good of a situation as it could
in those times of online learning.
Instructor accessibility. Some instructors kept open lines of communication, sent out regular emails,
and encouraged students to reach out to them if they had any questions or needed support. Some
instructors were good at responding to students’ emails in a timely manner, even if they had not
explicitly encouraged students to reach out to them. Some instructors, however, were barely
14 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
accessible for questions, were late in responding to questions, or even failed to respond at all. In very
rare cases did tutors communicate right at the beginning of the semester that students should try to
contact their peers if they had any questions and that they should refrain from contacting the tutor.
Not receiving an answer to a question was challenging because it would mean that the students
sometimes had to discontinue working on their assignment until they heard back from the tutor. “…
when you really need an answer and really soon and it comes 1 week later, that’s not very pleasant.”
In some cases, students needed to send follow-up emails to the tutors to get an answer.
Although all students repeatedly mentioned the usefulness of synchronous online check-in
meetings with the instructor and their peers, they also appreciated optional attendance. Students
enjoyed the social contact with their peers during these meetings but also emphasized that these
sessions should be kept short (no more than 1 hour) and that the time should be used for highly
interactive tasks, such as having the opportunity to work in a small group with two or three peers in a
separate breakout room. Using this time for ‘live’ lectures should be discouraged.
Student engagement
Two interview questions were designed to capture what supports or instructions the tutors provided
to help students engage with the course materials and the course activities. Synchronous interaction,
video tutorials, online platforms, the need for structure, and the need for relevance emerged as key
themes.
Synchronous interaction. Live meetings where students could ask questions and have peer discus-
sions were perceived as motivating and beneficial to their learning as long as such discussions were
framed by clear goals and specific prompts. “I liked it when we went to small groups and were able
to exchange [sic] there, but what was very important is that we… had guiding questions. The tutor
made it very clear what we should talk about.”When students knew ahead of time that they needed
to prepare materials (e.g., reading an article) and present it during synchronous class time, it in-
creased their motivation and they experienced increased learning. “The ZoomTM meetings where
you could discuss with your peers or ask them questions and then have a discussion that really also
motivates to read your article, summarize it so you’re prepared and so that you can actually benefit.”
Video tutorials. Having access to video tutorials and audio-recordings (i.e., podcasts) was perceived
as being helpful and engaging. “Some [tutors] provided videos tutorials for some tasks or just the
PDF with the most important steps.” They appreciated being able to download resources from the
online course site. One student indicated that it was difficult to process written and audio-only
instructions and that a video tutorial would have been preferable. “I missed something I had to write
down and forgot to give that to the instructor. So if there was some video or just talking it through
helped me a lot more than just plain written text.”
Online platforms. Different instructors used a large variety of online platforms and programs. The
statement, “When used well, platforms helped” indicates that some platforms were used more
effectively to mediate learning than others. One concern was that “figuring out the technology was
time consuming”. There was an urgent need for clear instructions on how to use online platforms,
the need for clear task descriptions, and the need for immediate, easy and unrestricted access to these
platforms.
Nussli et al. 15
…programs that are accessible so that I don’t have a lot of problems or that I need to switch to a specific
internet browser. I had some programs where I needed to use Chrome instead of Firefox. To figure that
out was time-consuming. If the task is clear, it says ‘hey you need to use Chrome,’ then it’s okay. But if
you don’t know that, when you spend like one hour trying to figure out why the program doesn’t work,
it’s lost time that you cannot get back.
Need for structure. Students appreciated a clear structure to the LMS, the syllabus, the course
calendar, and the task descriptions. Some instructors were perceived as “doing very well with the
online platform”. But it became clear that without structure, students had difficulties scrambling
together the assignments, which also affected their ability to engage with the content and activities.
One student mentioned, “don’t know if it improved engagement but structure was important”,
indicating that structure may have played a role in task engagement. This statement was concurred
by another student who argued that it was “…super difficult to find the information you want. So
actually what helped me the most is this structure.” Several interviewees mentioned that they had
struggled when the material was either unclear or hard to find.
I had one teacher who gave a lot of assignments, but these assignments were all over the place. So we had
the semester plan, we had PowerPoint presentations, and we had something else. And in every one of
those tools, s/he put assignments. But they were not all in one document together, so I had to go to three
places to take what I need instead of just having one, for example, a semester plan, where I see the week, I
see the topic that we will engage in. The homework that I have to do with the assignments and when they
are due. For the teacher it was clear, everything was clear, s/he didn’t understand why I couldn’t find
certain things. Or I didn’t quite know that they had an assignment and extra assignment, but that was
because (s)he put the assignments in three different places.
Need for relevance. More time was committed to a task or an assignment if students perceived it as
meaningful to their skills set as future teachers. One student put it like this, “My first thought, and
always, was like ‘Do I need that to be a teacher?’ and right when my answer was ‘no, that’s not so
much needed,’ then I was not very interested in it, and I did the bare minimum.”
Choices
One interview question was designed to capture if students had choices in demonstrating their
learning, for example regarding the modality. Overall, there was unanimous agreement that few and
limited choices were available. There appeared to be little to no difference compared to previous
semesters delivered f2f.
In some classes, students were able to choose a topic while the modality was imposed on them. In
other classes, students were free to choose the modality while the topic was assigned to them. “You
could contact the tutor and say ‘that’s my idea, I would like to do it like this,’ and then she gave you a
feedback if it’s okay or not, and that’s something I appreciated.” Students were able to decide if they
wanted to present live in ZoomTM‘ ’ or pre-record their presentation and upload the video to the
collaborative SwitchTubeTM channel for peer and tutor feedback. They were free to choose whether
they wanted to write a paper or deliver an oral presentation or what kind of music style they wanted
to pick for their music project. It appears that there was no major change regarding choices when
comparing f2f (i.e., prior to spring 2020) and remote instruction.
16 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
You have that choice, but you did have the choice before we went to online learning so essentially ‘no’
… the course design stays the same, but within the course the smaller tasks that we had to do from week
to week, some instructors actually gave us the choice what we want to do.
Collaboration
Three interview questions were designed to capture the interviewees’ positive and negative ex-
periences of peer collaboration as well as the differences between f2f and remote collaboration. The
key themes that emerged included the challenges of online collaboration, creating a sense of social
cohesion, splitting up group projects, app-supported collaboration, and efficiency of group work.
Challenges of online collaboration. One main reason why collaboration in a remote setting was
challenging was that some students failed to show up for online meetings to discuss the group work
assignment. “You cannot force them, whereas before, when you met them in university or
something different [sic], you know you could approach them and say, ‘you just left us there
hanging. We were waiting for you.” Typical issues with group work appeared to be aggravated by
the remote setting. “Groups are difficult with people who don’t share your ambition or values and it
made [it] harder online, trying to find times to collaborate and do a video call.” F2f environments
were perceived as more effective in mediating group work. “In f2f settings we could just talk every
week before the class or 10 min after and just do it like that, that made it a lot easier.” The remote
collaboration (or lack thereof) also appeared to affect some students’ learning, as one interviewee
mentioned, “When working online, groups cannot check with other groups to compare
understandings.”
Creating a sense of social cohesion. There was consensus that the remote environment was not
conducive to promoting collaboration or creating a sense of cohesion. There were group projects in
which students “never really talked” to each other. They would split up the work as efficiently as
possible and everyone would focus on their individual portion of the project.
For that project, I would have loved to have more face to face contact or classes in a regular sense, so we
could actually talk to each other, have time given [sic] by the teacher where we could speak to each other,
because I think it was kind of a lack of engagement between us. We didn’t really know each other, so we
just made our own thing and we were done with it.
Overall, there was consensus that f2f settings increase social cohesion, with the exception of a
few occasions when students experienced a sense of togetherness despite the remote setting; this
was dependent on group composition and dynamics.
Not only did students talk more to each other in f2f settings than in remote settings; they also
clearly expressed the benefits of f2f meetings. The social aspect in terms of getting to know people
and building up a personal connection was one of the reasons. “I do prefer the f2f group work setting
in that sense, also just [to] get to know the people.” Brainstorming and visualizing ideas together
was another factor. “What I missed sometimes it’s just to sit with other people and talk about
something while we write something down. So if I have an idea, I sometimes like to draw it or to
write it down.”
Some students also mentioned surprisingly positive experiences with online class meetings. “It
was not always mandatory to have the camera on for us [sic]. So in some modules you did not see
any faces, but it went quite well. I was very surprised how much myself [sic] but also my peers were
Nussli et al. 17
engaged.” Mainly, this was observed when students were asked to informally report on their
learning and their projects or when they were engaged in group discussions or mini-tasks in virtual
break-out rooms.
Splitting up group projects. It was emphasized that the collaboration was different in the online setting
than during previous f2f semesters. “Working together was not the same as if you would meet and
work together.” One reason was that it would have been impractical to be online and collaborate in
real-time. “When I had to do group work, we also had the feeling that it’s too complicated to work
[it] through [together].” Instead, students pragmatically decided to split up the work.
…that aspect of being together… got lost in another group project I did where we never really talked.We
had maybe one meeting and there was one meeting with the teacher as well. And we had in the end the
presentation together. So everyone just recorded their own audio and then gave it to the next one, they
recorded their audio andmade their PowerPoint slides and to the next one, and so on. So it wasn’t really a
group project, more a project where everyone kind of in the end put in their own slide.
App-supported collaboration. Using apps for group facilitation was popular for several reasons.
Even though you never met in real life, you kinda started friendships. You made a WhatsappTM group
and then you started to talk about the task you had to do. But then you also started to use this
WhatsappTM group for ‘what do we need to do there’ or ‘what do you need’ or ‘does someone un-
derstand this?’
This may get back to the idea of needing other humans to assist in helping stay on track and
understand expectations.
Efficiency of group work. There was clear consensus that the remote setting saved time, especially in
terms of zero travel time. “Nowadays we use ZoomTM to chit chat with each other, we have
WhatsappTM and other social media that [sic] we can just press a button, you know, and call
everyone from the group and it made it easier to meet online than offline.” The group size was also
mentioned as an important factor. “Because a group of two can easily meet. A group of three and a
group of four, it’s really hard to find a time that works for everybody.” F2f settings were associated
with more time spent on social conversation, whereas the remote setting was rather associated with
efficient group work. But, overall, a real sense of collaboration tended to be lacking.
Learning autonomy
The final three interview questions were designed to capture examples of projects, course formats,
instructional approaches and supports that allowed students to work independently. Four key themes
emerged, namely, individual pacing, increased productivity, clear instructions and assessment
criteria, and access to content.
Individual pacing. Students associated several experiences and observations with ‘independence’.
For example, they reported that being able to re-watch online video tutorials helped them to process
content at their own pace. “…online tutorial videos you could go back and look at multiple times
helped to support independence.” A flexible schedule was also mentioned repeatedly when dis-
cussing the asynchronous ‘offline’ modality. “We could also just do the tasks in our own time, and
18 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
maybe not in those 2 hours that the course would take place usually, so that allowed me to be more
independent.” The availability of online quizzes was appreciated as it accommodated learners’
wishes to work at their own pace. For example, after reaching a pre-defined score (e.g., 80%), they
were able to move on to the next task.
Increased productivity. The flexible schedule was perceived as increasing productivity. “It helped me
to be more productive because I wasn’t forced to work from like nine to five. I could also work in the
nighttime or on the weekend and just be a bit more free in that sense.” However, not everyone was
able to cope well with this new-found freedom. “I was quite disciplined so I can’t really say that I
struggled with that, but I do know from [sic] friends who did struggle not having that structure.”
There were concerns about the synchronous aspect when students were expected to be present
online and in real time for an extended period of time. “I struggled more when I had to attend every
single week for like 4 hours of video calls from eight to 12, then I just yeah that wasn’t really my
thing.” Being ‘unbound by space and time’ was appealing to all interviewees.
We could decide on our own when do we want to do the task, how do we want to do it, where do we want
to do it. You could do it whenever you want it to so you could also like just not do it, and then do like all
the things at the end of the first half of the semester.”
There was great variation in terms of due dates. Some classes required weekly submissions,
whereas other classes required task completions by mid-semester or just one single submission by
the end of the semester.
Clear instructions and assessment criteria. It was emphasized that learning autonomy was highly
dependent on the provision of clear assessment criteria and detailed task descriptions. Students
relied on having access to a “criteria grid so everything needs to be clear, I need to be able to read the
instructions and say ‘Okay,… I can go and do the work’. But if I needed some kind of instruction,
it’s very time-consuming.”
Access to content. Students appreciated having access to all materials at the beginning of the se-
mester. “At the beginning of the semester they [the tutors] prepared all the tasks for every week and
then they gave you a weekly video update, which was always on the top [of the Moodle page].”
Rather than releasing the content on a weekly basis, providing immediate access to all weeks at the
beginning of the academic semester helped to increase autonomy. In order to help students keep
track of activity completion, some tutors used the ‘checklist’ function on the LMS that allows
students to check off completed activities and see a visual progress bar that shows what percentage
of the list they have completed so far. “…and also these files where you could do the check thing…
and then you could like do a tick and you knew, ‘okay it’s done’.”
Discussion
The discussion is organized around the six major concepts, namely, feedback, care, student en-
gagement, choices, collaboration, and learner autonomy and the corresponding research question.
Nussli et al. 19
Feedback
What role does feedback play in online learning? The interviewees wished for more timely and
frequent feedback from their tutors to better support their learning. However, for faculty members
with hundreds of students each semester, it might be impractical to provide frequent 1:1 feedback.
For example, it would be inconceivable to create the type of feedback that Robinson and Wizer
(2016) describe, namely creating a screen-captured video showing the student’s completed product
including the instructor’s feedback. The participants also repeatedly mentioned that they would
have liked to obtain sporadic feedback on their progress throughout the semester in order to know
whether they are on the right track and how to improve their work. This request seems very
reasonable and echoes Espasa et al. (2019) who reported about a significant increase in the quality of
students’ second drafts after incorporating the tutor’s feedback on their first draft.
The participants were more motivated to work on tasks if they received supportive, specific, and
timely feedback, whereas a lack of feedback affected their motivation levels. Some types of
feedback were regarded as more instrumental in sustaining their engagement levels. From among
the 11 categories of feedback identified by Wang et al. (2021), the participants in this study
emphasized the value of motivational feedback, feedback as praise, connective feedback, as well as
feedback to foster communication and help-seeking. Based on the interviewees’ answers, it is
unclear whether the irregularity of feedback affected their academic success, as described in Cramp
(2015). Regular tutor feedback was clearly identified as the instructor caring for them and their
learning success (Bandura and Lyons, 2012).
Care
How can instructors demonstrate nurturing and caring? The interviewees appreciated whenever a tutor
was available to engage students in meaningful conversations, which underscores the importance of
an instructor’s presence in an online learning environment building on “availability, affirmability,
and authenticity” (Robinson et al., 2017: p. 41). It was appreciated when instructors created ‘spaces’
that helped to compensate for the spontaneous student-student and student-teacher interaction
(Rapanta et al., 2020) that would mostly be missing in a remote setting. Several constructs related to
the notion of care were identified in the interviewees’ answers. Continuous dialogue in which the
tutor reaches out to the students (Bandura and Lyons, 2012; Velasquez et al., 2013) assured them that
the tutor cared about their learning. In a similar vein, a structured learning environment and re-
sponding promptly to the students’ queries were frequently mentioned indicators of pedagogical
care, which aligns with Velasquez et al. (2013). Some participants mentioned the instructor’s
preparation and enthusiasm (Bandura and Lyons, 2012). However, constructive developmental
feedback, which is also an indicator of pedagogical care (Velasquez et al., 2013), was barely
mentioned. Pedagogical care is intricately intertwined with student engagement.
Student engagement
What can educators do to promote student engagement? Multiple references were made to the
concept of transactional distance, which has been shown to determine student engagement in
online environments (Paul et al., 2015). Some faculty members were able to reduce the
transactional distance to their students by actively signaling that they were available for
questions and by encouraging students to reach out to them if they needed instructional
20 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
support. However, giving prompt feedback on students’ performance, which is also a critical
strategy to reduce transactional distance (Paul et al., 2015), was mostly absent.
The findings concur with the strategies described in Bolliger and Martin (2018) to increase
engagement. In particular, instructor presence was highly valued, as evidenced by personal and
regular communication between students and the instructor, including feedback, regular
announcements, email reminders, grading rubrics, and activities promoting reflection
(i.e., learner-instructor engagement). Students also appreciated opportunities during syn-
chronous meetings for learner-learner engagement, which is another way to reduce transac-
tional distance. They enjoyed discussing ideas with each other to expand, clarify, and challenge
their thinking (Bolliger and Martin, 2018). Similarly, they valued peer feedback on their first
drafts. Regarding learner-content engagement, the interviewees repeatedly emphasized the
need for well-structured courses as well as content and tasks that are relevant to them (i.e., their
own future teaching in primary school). However, there was also evidence of the least valuable
strategies according to Bolliger and Martin (2018). The interviewees had to sit through many
hours of non-engaging synchronous lectures with a lot of content information that could easily
have been replaced by video-recorded lectures for offline viewing.
Choices
What are effective ways to provide choices to students so that they can demonstrate their learning in
multiple ways? The instructors provided some options for comprehension, expression, and com-
munication. In particular, their responses indicated connections to the second and third UDL
principle (CAST, 2018). Some instructors provided multiple means and representations of in-
formation, which allowed students to access learning content in their preferred way. Specifically,
access to content was provided through reading materials, podcasts, video tutorials, audio-narrated
Powerpoint slides, and synchronous live sessions. Regarding the provision of multiple means of
action and expression, the findings indicate that these options were only offered for activities that
needed to be completed throughout the semester and mid-term assignments. However, the par-
ticipants usually did not have a choice regarding the way they wanted to demonstrate their learning
in the final assignments. The format for the end-of-term assignments was usually prescribed and left
very little room for flexible choices. As opposed to the format (i.e., modality), there was some
flexibility regarding topic choice. Students were allowed to either choose their own topic or choose
from a pre-selected range of topics.
Collaboration
How can educators promote collaboration among students? The participants highlighted collaborative
learning experiences that build on the co-construction of meaning and knowledge, such as, think-
pair-share, buzz groups, peer teaching events, group debriefings, virtual poster sessions, and team
concept maps. The participants repeatedly mentioned the physical isolation in online environments,
which has also been discussed in Phirangee (2016). Opportunities for interaction were highly
appreciated because they helped to create a sense of cohesion to some extent, offered a platform to
exchange ideas, created a space to learn about each other’s work-in-progress, and generated positive
interactions with peers and tutors. The findings also align with the principles of ubiquitous learning
in mobile learning environments (Hwang et al., 2008, 2010; Peng et al., 2008) emphasizing
collaborative projects that engender a sense of cohesion and learning community.
Nussli et al. 21
Compared to a f2f setting, the findings indicate that the remote setting makes it easier for ‘free-
riders’ who are looking for ways to escape their responsibilities in collaborative projects. Some
participants experienced a type of ‘ghosting’ where their text messages, emails, and calls were left
unanswered. This forced the ‘diligent’ students to take responsibility for the full workload. In groups
with three or more students, the rest of the group could still continue moving forward (Davidson and
Katsopodis, 2020) if one group member did not hold up their end of the work.
Learning autonomy
How can educators foster autonomous learning? The majority of statements reflected the idea of being
‘unbound by space and time.’ Learning autonomy can be supported in an online space if a few
prerequisites are in place. For example, full and immediate access to the semester contents rather
than a week-by-week release; clear instructions and full task descriptions; clear assessment criteria;
accessibility to instructor support on an as-needed-basis with a quick turnaround. Any instance of
vagueness, ambiguity or discrepancy prevented students from actively controlling their learning
process and usually resulted in time-consuming investigations to get a clearer sense of the task
requirements and scope. Rather than decreasing teacher-dependency, a lack of clarity regarding
assignment actually increased teacher-dependency.
Learning autonomy is intricately intertwined with personal choices. Indeed, the students reported
having choices as to when, how, and where to do a task. Some participants mentioned the use of
online course tools that allowed them to optimize autonomy and to keep track of their progress
(Robinson and Wizer, 2016), such as online quizzes, checklists and visual progress bars in LMS,
tutors’ weekly video updates, or just-in-time announcements. The findings can also be juxtaposed
with the principles of ubiquitous learning, which emphasizes the ways that personalized curricula
support learners in learning independently “without time and spatial limitations” (Huang et al.,
2011: 2294).
In summary, the findings echo the following recommendations for educators, irrespective of the
instruction delivery mode:
While there is no unique recipe, these activities or tasks should be based on a mix of design approaches
(synchronous, asynchronous, online, offline), be described and communicated in an accurate and clear
manner, have an adequate level of difficulty for students’ capabilities and expectations, be related to
authentic contexts to increase students’ engagement and be accessible to everyone (Rapanta et al., 2020:
937).
Conclusion
The present study was designed to capture the successes and failures during pandemic teaching at a
teachers college in Switzerland. The experiences of five undergraduate students during two se-
mesters of imposed online learning were captured in one-to-one interviews. The study was framed
by six key concepts, namely, feedback, care, student engagement, choice, collaboration, and
learning autonomy. The interviewees’ descriptions of the faculty’s ERT approaches can help ed-
ucators to refocus and advance their teaching approaches.
Several challenges were identified in the way and the timing in which content was structured,
presented, and released. Distinct structures, clearly communicated purposes, and a well-defined
organization are key to ensuring learning autonomy. For example, it should not be the students’
responsibility to have to cross-reference a sequence of milestones and subgoals (Hattie and Yates,
22 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
2014); instead, it is the instructor’s job and must be the result of carefully planned design choices.
The participants repeatedly mentioned that whenever they needed to search for key pieces of
information in different places (rather than in one single place), they were frustrated, their stress
levels increased, and it cost them a lot of unnecessary time.
Challenges were also identified in the discussion of synchronous versus asynchronous sessions.
What was missing, however, was a discussion of equivalency. Did the remote instruction result in
similar learning outcomes for the students? Although the remote setting was associated with in-
creased learning autonomy and, for some students, with an increased sense of efficiency, it is unclear
if their academic outcomes were similar to previous semesters that had been conducted f2f. Beatty
(2019) emphasizes that equivalency is not equality. For example, participation in an asynchronous
discussion forum will most likely be less socially active than a classroom-based discussion.
Similarly, even if students participate synchronously in a live hybrid class, the remote students will
most likely not have the same level (and quality) of peer and tutor interaction as the on-site students.
It may be incumbent on the instructor to adapt resources, customize activities, and train students so
that interaction and flexible participation are possible and ultimately lead to an equivalent learning
experience (Beatty, 2019).
The study also reveals aspects of ERT that made the participants’ experiences more positive, such
as personalized feedback and personalized learning experiences. As pointed out in Espasa et al.
(2019), personalized feedback creates a stronger sense of closeness between students and faculty. In
ubiquitous learning, personalized learning has been associated with increased learner motivation
(Hwang et al., 2008, 2010; Peng et al., 2008). In the future of education, personalized hybrid
learning experiences will become increasingly important to bring students and faculty together
(Curtin, 2021).
This investigation reveals aspects that we may not have learned without the pandemic. Based on
the students’ appreciation of flexibility, which positively impacts their learning experience (Curtin,
2021), it can be predicted that they will expect to be able to join any class remotely in the future.
These expectations align with the values of the HyFlex model that allows students to choose flexibly
from among a synchronous, asynchronous, online or offline option for any given unit, topic, or week
(Beatty, 2019). However, there is no true flexibility unless HyFlex courses provide meaningful
choices; “without flexibility, all you have is a standard hybrid course” (Beatty, 2019: 2).
Many educators may have doubts about their ability to provide engaging, rich, and high-value
teaching in online environments (Curtin, 2021). Given the influence of student engagement on their
sense of community and, in turn, on their academic performance, educators need training in
providing an optimal online learning environment. More universities should offer focused and
specialized faculty training, such as the Certified Online Instructor (COI) program, to be better
prepared for the ubiquitous availability of education that is expected in post-pandemic times.
Limitations
The sample was very small and there was a gender imbalance with four female participants and only
one male participant. However, this gender imbalance is an accurate representation of the teacher
population in Switzerland. The interviews were conducted in English, which is a foreign language
for all five participants. Although their proficiency in spoken English ranged from good to native-
like proficiency, they may not have been able to capture all the finer subtleties and nuances that they
would have been able to convey in their first language.
The research was conducted in a limited socio-cultural and geographic setting in which in-
terviewees had access to state-of-the-art computers and reliable high-speed internet.
Nussli et al. 23
Another limitation is that several questions would have required an introduction into key
concepts or different categorizations. For example, the participants were not introduced to the
different types of feedback. They could have been more specific in their answers if they had been
asked about feedback for improvement, feedback for motivation, emotional feedback, group-level
feedback, etc. This explains why some of their statements were more of a general nature.
Future research
This study has explored teacher candidates’ experiences during two semesters of forced remote
learning. Future studies investigating university professors’ experiences during an imposed period
of online instruction would help to create a more comprehensive understanding of ERT. Also, it
would be imperative to compare teacher candidates’ academic achievements when instruction is
offered in-person, in a hybrid setting, or fully online. One way to do this would be to use a
standardized teacher preparation exam and compare the test scores of candidates from various years
and across several modalities used by universities. In addition, more research is needed to better
understand hybrid and HyFlex (Beatty, 2007, 2019) settings and the nuanced differences between
these two models. Students’ appreciation for the brevity of synchronous online sessions indicates
their interest inmicro-learning as an e-learning modality, which could become increasingly relevant
for the future of education but also requires investments into faculty training and support. Finally,
further investigation of students’ expectations of instructional and assessment flexibility would help
to refocus future e-learning.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Natalie Nussli  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2411-0023
References
Bandura RP and Lyons P (2012) Instructor care and consideration toward students - what accounting students
report: A research note. Accounting Education 21(5): 515–527. DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2011.602511.
Bawa P (2020) Learning in the age of SARS-COV-2: a quantitative study of learners’ performance in the age of
emergency remote teaching. Computers and Education Open 1: 100016. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeo.2020.
100016.
Beatty B (2007) Transitioning to an online world: using HyFlex courses to bridge the gap. In: Montgomerie C
and Seale J (eds) Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007–World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Ed-
ucation (AACE), pp. 2701–2706. Available at: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/25752/
Beatty BJ (2019) Hybrid-Flexible Course Design. 1st edition. EdTech Books. Available at: https://
edtechbooks.org/hyflex
24 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
Bolliger DU and Halupa C (2018) Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and
outcomes. Distance Education 39(3): 299–316. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845.
Bolliger DU and Martin F (2018) Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies.
Distance Education 39(4): 568–583. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041.
Boothe KA, Lohmann MJ and Owiny R (2020) Enhancing student learning in the online instructional en-
vironment through the use of Universal Design for Learning. Trinity International University Networks:
An Online Journal for Teacher Research 22(1): 1310. DOI: 10.4148/2470-6353.1310.
Capp M (2020) Teacher confidence to implement the principles, guidelines, and checkpoints of Universal
Design for Learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education 24(7): 706–720. DOI: 10.1080/
13603116.2018.1482014.
CAST (2018)Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Available at: http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Cramp A (2015) Meaningful dialogue in digitally mediated learning for in-service teacher development.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education 24(1): 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2013.822417.
Curtin R (2021) Reimagining higher education: the post-Covid classroom. Educause Review. Available at: https://
er.educause.edu/articles/2021/4/reimagining-higher-education-the-post-covid-classroom (Accessed 22 De-
cember 2021).
Davidson CN and Katopodis C (2020). In: Higher I (ed), 8 Ways to Improve Group Work Online. Available at:
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/10/28/advice-how-successfully-guide-students-group-
work-online-opinion
Dell CA, Dell TF and Blackwell TL (2015) Applying universal design for learning in online courses: ped-
agogical and practical considerations. The Journal of Educators Online 13(2): 166–192. DOI: 10.9743/
JEO.2015.2.1.
Espasa A, Guasch T, Mayordomo RM, et al. (2018) A dialogic feedback index measuring key aspects of
feedback processes in online learning environments. Higher Education Research & Development 37(3):
499–513. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1430125.
Espasa A, Mayordomo RM, Guasch T, et al. (2019) Does the type of feedback channel used in online learning
environments matter? Students’ perceptions and impact on learning. Active Learning in Higher Education
23: 1–15. DOI: 10.1177/1469787419891307.
Gikandi JWandMorrowD (2016) Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning
environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 25(2): 153–170. DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2015.
1058853.
Ginsberg MB (2005) Cultural diversity, motivation, and differentiation. Theory Into Practice 44: 218–225.
DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4403_6.
Grajek S (2020) Top IT issues, 2021: emerging from the pandemic. Educause Review. Available at: https://er.
educause.edu/articles/2020/11/top-it-issues-2021-emerging-from-the-pandemic (Accessed 22 December
2021).
Hattie JAC and Gan M (2011) Instruction based on feedback. In: Mayer R and Alexander P (eds) Handbook of
Research on Learning and Instruction. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 249–271.
Hattie JAC and Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77(1): 81–112.
DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487.
Hattie JAC and Yates GCR (2014) Using feedback to promote learning. In: Benassi VA, Overson CE and
Hakala CM (eds) Applying Science Of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science Into The
Curriculum. Society for the Teaching of Psychology, pp. 45–58.
Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, et al. (2020) The difference between emergency remote teaching and online
learning. Educause Review. pp. 1-19. Available at: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-
between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (Accessed 22 December 2021).
Nussli et al. 25
Huang Y and Chiu P (2015) The effectiveness of a meaningful learning-based evaluation model for context-
aware mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 46(2): 437–447. Available at: https://
www.learntechlib.org/p/150792/
Huang YM, Chiu PS, Liu TC, et al. (2011) The design and implementation of a meaningful learning-based
evaluation method for ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education 57(4): 2291–2302. DOI: 10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.05.023.
Hung VHK, Keppell M and Jong MSY (2004) Learners as producers: using project based learning to enhance
meaningful learning through digital video production. In: Atkinson M, McBeath C, Jonas-Dwyer D and
Phillips R (eds) Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (Volume 1).
pp. 428–436. Perth: ASCILITE, Available at: https://repository.eduhk.hk/en/publications/learners-as-
producers-using-project-based-learning-to-enhance-mea-5
Hwang GJ, Kuo FR, Yin PZ, et al. (2010) A heuristic algorithm for planning personalized learning paths for
context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education 54(2): 404–415. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.
2009.08.024.
Hwang Y, Tsai CC and Yang SCI (2008) Criteria, strategies, and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous
learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 11(2): 81–91.
Johnson C, Hill L, Lock J, et al. (2017) Using design-based research to develop meaningful online discussions
in undergraduate field experience courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning 18(6): 36–53.
Kumar K andWidemanM (2014) Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first-year undergraduate
course. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 44(1): 125–147. DOI: 10.47678/cjhe.v44i1.183704.
Kvale S (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee E, Pate JA and Cozart D (2015) Autonomy support for online students. TechTrends: Linking Research and
Practice to Improve Learning 59(4): 54–61. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-015-0871-9.
Moore MG (1993) Theory of transactional distance. In: Keegan D (ed) Theoretical Principles of Distance
Education. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 22–38.
Nussli N and Oh K (2020) Intentionality in blended learning design: applying the principles of meaningful
learning, u-Learning, UDL, and CRT. In: Inoue-Smith YandMcVey T (eds)Optimizing Higher Education
Learning Through Activities and Assessments. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 204–231. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-
7998-7638-0.ch008.
Nworie J (2021) Beyond COVID-19: What’s next for online teaching and learning in higher education?
Educause Review. Available at: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/5/beyond-covid-19-whats-next-for-
online-teaching-and-learning-in-higher-education (Accessed 22 December 2021).
Northcraft GB, Schmidt AM and Ashford SJ (2011) Feedback and the rationing of time and effort among
competing tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(5): 1076–1086. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/
doi/10.1037/a0023221
Paul RC, Swart W, Zhang AM, et al. (2015) Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: refinement and
validation using structural equation modeling. Distance Education 36: 364–382. DOI: 10.1080/
01587919.2015.1081741.
Peng H, Chou C and Chang CY (2008) From virtual environments to physical environments: Exploring
interactivity in ubiquitous-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 11(2): 54–66.
DOI: 10.1109/ICICIC.2007.318.
Phirangee K (2016) Students’ perceptions of learner-learner interactions that weaken a sense of community in
an online learning environment. Online Learning 20(4): 13–33. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v20i4.1053.
Rao K, Wook OkM, Smith SJ, et al. (2020) Validation of the UDL reporting criteria with extant UDL research.
Remedial and Special Education 41(4): 219–230. DOI: 10.1177/0741932519847755.
26 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
Rapanta C, Botturi L, Goodyear P, et al. (2020) Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis:
refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science Education 2: 923–945. DOI: 10.
1007/s42438-020-00155-y.
Robinson HA, Kilgore Wand Warren SJ (2017) Care, communication, learner support: Designing meaningful
online collaborative learning. Online Learning Journal 21(4): 29–51. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v21i4.1240.
Robinson DE and Wizer DR (2016) Universal design for learning and the quality matters guidelines for the
design and implementation of online learning events. International Journal of Technology in Teaching
and Learning 12(1): 17–32.
Rose DH and Meyer A (2002) Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD).
Velasquez A, Graham CR and Osguthorpe R (2013) Caring in a technology-mediated online high school
context. Distance Education 34(1): 97–118. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2013.770435.
Wang H, Tlili A, Lehman JD, et al. (2021) Investigating feedback implemented by instructors to support online
competency-based learning (CBL): a multiple case study. International Journal of Educational Tech-
nology in Higher Education 18(5): 1–21. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-021-00241-6.
Westine CD, Oyarzun B, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, et al. (2019) Familiarity, current use, and interest in Universal
Design for Learning among online university instructors. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning 20(5): 20–41. DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4258.
Wlodkowski RJ and Ginsberg MB (1995) Diversity and Motivation: Culturally Responsive Teaching. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Woldeab D, Yawson RM and Osafo E (2020) A systematic meta-analytical review of thinking beyond the
comparison of online versus traditional learning. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of
Teaching 14(1): 1–24.
Author Biographies
Natalie Nussli (EdD) is a graduate from the University of San Francisco and the Middlebury
Institute of International Studies at Monterey. She is an active instructor in the School of Education
at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW). As a researcher
in the field of hybrid education and virtual learning environments, she has a strong interest in all
fields related to mobile pedagogy. Her work is shaped by the belief that there is a need to refocus
instructional efforts to provide students with flexible, seamless and intentionally designed learning
spaces. She is an advocate of the HyFlex model (Beatty, 2019) and is currently exploring the ways in
which HyFlex mediates the physical, virtual and interactional space.
Kevin Oh is a Professor and Chair of the Learning and Instruction Department at the University of
San Francisco. He received his doctorate in Special Education at the University of Virginia.
Professor Oh currently trains in-service teachers in the special education program at USF, where he
emphasizes the importance of teacher training and the critical role of using culturally responsive
teaching for in-service teachers. He also prepares teachers to utilize technology appropriately and
effectively, and trains them to investigate how technology can be integrated into the curriculum for
high-need students with disabilities in urban school settings.
Jason Davis received his Ed.D. from the University of San Francisco in Special Education, a M.Ed.
in Educational Leadership from George Mason University, his M.S. in Special Education from Old
Dominion University, and a B.S. in History from Radford University. A professional educator for
over twenty years, Dr. Davis focused much of his career working with at-risk students and those
identified with special needs. As a teacher and school principal, he devoted his time to finding ways
Nussli et al. 27
to support the needs of diverse populations. In this pursuit, his work at Millersville University has
emphasized the power of highly qualified teachers using evidence-based practices to support student
growth. His research interests include using technology to enhance teacher reflection, overcoming
the transition shock from university to the K-12 classroom, and encouraging teachers to embed
evidence-based practices into their classrooms.
Appendix
Interview
Interview Protocol
· Thank you for participating in this interview.
· This interview will be recorded on ZoomTM and the interview content will be transcribed.
· By participating, you give us permission to use your responses for research purposes.
· Only our research team has access to the transcripts and the video recordings. Your name will not
be disclosed to anyone outside the research team. Your data will be confidential.
· If you wish to stop the interview at any time, please let me know.
· In this interview, we are interested to hear about your online learning experiences across all of
the classes you have been taking in the past two semesters.
· As mentioned in our email to you, we are trying to learn from your experiences (as students) so
that we as educators can improve our teaching skills. We are hoping to learn how and what we
can change to improve our online presence during non-pandemic times.
Interview Questions
Concept # Questions Examples
Feedback 1 To which extent did you receive regular
peer feedback?
2 To which extent did you receive regular
feedback from your instructor?
3 To which extent did this feedback…
3.1 …assist you in understanding the course
expectations?
3.2 …support your learning?
3.3 …keep you motivated?
Care 4 To which degree did your instructors Regular communication between students and
provide learner support? instructor, instructor accessibility, keeping
5 Do you believe your professor made an open lines of communication, instructor
effort to get to know the students? commitment to assist and support students
6 How did the instructors show that they
cared about your learning?
Student 7 What did the instructor do to help you
Engagement engage with the course materials?
8 Did the instructor provide supports or
instructions to engage you in course
activities?
(continued)
28 E-Learning and Digital Media 0(0)
(continued)
Concept # Questions Examples
Choices 9 Please describe if you had choices to UDL-types of assessment for
demonstrate your learning. In other technology-rich environments: e-
words: To which extent were you free portfolio, audio or video recording, blog or
to choose the modality to show your vlog, concept map, data visualization,
knowledge? discussion forum, infographic, panel
discussion, learning log.
Collaboration 10 First, please describe the collaboration
with your peers during your online
experience.
11 Now please compare the collaboration
during your online experience with the
collaboration that you previously had
in a face-to-face setting: What was
different?
12 What went well and what did not go well
regarding collaboration during your
online experience?
Learning 13 Can you give examples of projects or
autonomy course formats that allowed you to
work independently?
14 What instruction or supports helped you
to work independently?
15 How did you go about completing this
task? (i.e., based on prior knowledge or
new content knowledge from course?)