Beyond ‘Digital Poverty’: The Illusion of Teacher Autonomy in the Post-pandemic Era

Ivan Au
DPhil Education, University of Oxford
 
​
In the three years since the COVID-19 pandemic, online synchronous teaching and learning (OSTL) has been regarded by many as more of a necessity than an alternative to traditional modes of study. While some studies examined student satisfaction with this mode of learning in relation to their digital literacy[1], other researchers have hinted on  OSTL’s role in facilitating  language learning[2],[3]. In particular, using breakout rooms is found to be a facilitative approach because of the reassuring effect of a less-public discussion space it entails[4]. Arguably, though, it is also documented that online learning has only been successful in some parts of the world due to the root cause of ‘digital poverty’[5]. The discussion of inequality has then primarily focused on how economic backgrounds of students has an impact on their restricted access to the curriculum due to ‘barriers of e-learning’ (e.g., insufficient or unstable internet connectivity, inadequate computer labs, and lack of computers or laptops)[6]. Whilst this remains a pressing issue, the emerging yet overlooked educational inequalities of the post-pandemic era, seem to lie in the deprivation of teacher autonomy in mode of delivery. 
 
The lack of teacher autonomy in post-pandemic classrooms stems from decision-makers’ overwhelming requests, often unjustified, for a hybrid delivery mode, as a result of their deliberate negligence of pedagogical expectations and enormous cognitive demands the policy may impose on teachers, particularly on those who teach in post-secondary institutes. It has been found that students hold the view and, thus, the expectation that frequent instructor ‘check-ins’ online could increase their productivity[7]. While such a belief raises obvious questions on the practicality and plausibility of teachers’ ‘omnipresence’ via digital or in-person mediums, recent studies[8],[9] have remarked that students and teachers generally differ in the perception of how online learning should be effectively done. On top of overcoming daily pedagogical challenges, teachers are also tasked to take into consideration intertwining factors such as learner attributes and motivation when they attempt to promote interactions in an online environment[10],[11],[12]. Yet, the reality of a classroom today with only a handful of students in the online session poses another practical question: the extent to which the instructors are or should be obliged to maintain the same level of expectations on OSTL outlined above. The discussion here is in no way to imply university teachers’ pedagogical incompetence – it is more of a warning, indicative of a system, in keeping with its associated ‘benchmarks’, that deprives teachers of their autonomy in delivery and, worse still, favours only teachers who are more well-versed in both online and face-to-face teaching in recruitment and promotion practices. In other words, as educators, old and new, face these new obstacles, it is reasonable to predict that some will experience a certain level of job insecurity and instability, depending on their digital competence.
Despite divided views on its pedagogical effectiveness and student perception[13][14][15],  OSTL seems to be inevitable and may have its own potential benefits. The way forward, building on the need to establish constructive conversations with frontline teachers, is to carefully articulate the role hybrid teaching and learning should play in higher education. Decision-makers should note that teachers’ digital competence hinges upon the accessibility of timely and relevant training in digital literacy and pedagogy. Only when instructors are adequately equipped and are autonomous can they genuinely exercise their creativity in delivery. When this criteria is met, schools and universities around the world may then sensibly expect a reasonable level of digital competence in teachers, but should still be cautious not to hold the unrealistic assumption that every teacher and every classroom, in the post-pandemic era, would benefit from hybrid modes of teaching and learning. One should be aware of the prejudice and inequality that come with these expectations. Future educational research should evaluate the effectiveness of the delivery mode specific to subject disciplines to advise on the necessity and practicality of the hybrid modes, which might impose immense pedagogical pressure on educators without consolidating student access to digital learning at all.


REFERENCES:

[1] Purushotham, S. L., & Swathi, C. (2020). Online learning and its effects on English language skills among higher education students amid the Covid-19 lockdown. Language in India, 20(9), 127-143.

[2] Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Facilitating Synchronous Online Language Learning through Zoom. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220937235 

[3] González‐Lloret, M. (2020). Collaborative tasks for online language teaching. Foreign language annals, 53(2), 260-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12466 

[4] Cornelius, S., & Gordon, C. (2013). Facilitating learning with web conferencing recommendations based on learners’ experiences. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9241-9 

[5] Khan, M. A., Kamal, T., Illiyan, A., & Asif, M. (2021). School Students’ Perception and Challenges towards Online Classes during COVID-19 Pandemic in India: An Econometric Analysis. Sustainability, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094786 

[6] Zalat, M. M., Hamed, M. S., & Bolbol, S. A. (2021). The experiences, challenges, and acceptance of e-learning as a tool for teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic among university medical staff. PLoS One, 16(3), e0248758. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248758 

[7] Moster, M., Kokinda, E., Rodeghero, P., & McNeese, N. (2023). Both Sides of the Story: Changing the "Pre-existing Culture of Dread" Surrounding Student Teamwork in Breakout Rooms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579463 

[8] Douglas, S. (2023). Achieving online dialogic learning using breakout rooms. Research in Learning Technology, 31. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v31.2882 

[9] Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P., Gupta, M. S., Yadav, S., & Arora, A. (2020). Opinion of students on online education during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(3), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.240 

[10] Wilkins, S., Butt, M. M., Hazzam, J., & Marder, B. (2023). Collaborative learning in online breakout rooms: the effects of learner attributes on purposeful interpersonal interaction and perceived learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 465-482. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-10-2022-0412

[11] Joia, L. A., & Lorenzo, M. (2021). Zoom In, Zoom Out: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Classroom. Sustainability, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052531 

[12] Joshi, P., & Bodkha, P. (2020). A comparative evaluation of students' insight of face to face classroom lectures and virtual online lectures. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.5455/njppp.2021.10.08225202026082020 

[13] Read, D., M Barnes, S., Hughes, O., Ivanova, I., Sessions, A., & J Wilson, P. (2022). Supporting student collaboration in online breakout rooms through interactive group activities. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences(17). https://doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i17.3946 

[14] Aslan, A. (2021). Problem- based learning in live online classes: Learning achievement, problem-solving skill, communication skill, and interaction. Computers & Education, 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104237 

[15] Sahbaz, A. (2020). Views and Evaluations of University Students about Distance Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Educational Process: International Journal, 9(3), 185-198. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2020.93.5