Teaching and Learning of English in Higher Education before, during, and after Pandemic: What differs?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v8i2.25743Keywords:
English, teaching, learning, before, during, afterAbstract
The COVID-19 pandemic led to the worldwide closure of educational institutions, forcing a shift from face-to-face to fully online learning. As the pandemic subsided, traditional teaching resumed. This study aimed to explore English teaching and learning in higher education across three phases—before, during, and after the pandemic—by examining differences in activities and technology used. A phenomenological approach was employed, with semi-structured interviews for data collection. Purposive sampling selected eight participants—three lecturers and five students—from the English Education Department of Sriwijaya University. The findings revealed that while learning activities were largely similar across the three phases, the technology and media used varied. Before the pandemic, participants had limited exposure to online platforms, but the pandemic introduced them to new digital tools and methods. In the post-pandemic phase, participants embraced more flexibility, adopting face-to-face, online, hybrid, or blended learning models using suitable platforms. This shift has led to a general preference for the post-pandemic approach to English teaching and learning.
References
Atmojo, A. E. P., & Nugroho, A. (2020). EFL classes must go online! Teaching activities and challenges during COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Register Journal, 13(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v13i1.49-76
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Boyd, R., & Holton, R. J. (2018). Technology, innovation, employment and power: Does robotics and artificial intelligence really mean social transformation?. Journal of Sociology, 54(3), 331-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317726591
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Campbell-Watson, M., & Thompson-Smith, D. (2018). Meeting challenges: management and teaching in the post-pandemic landscape. Advance Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(4), 142-155. https://aspjournals.org/ajahss/index.php/ajahss/article/view/90
Clark, L., Burkett, T., Doughty, M., & Barnett, J. (2021). From face-to-face to fully online learning: The impact of COVID-19 on education systems. International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 33–48.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing? Bloomsbury Academic.
Firmansyah, R., Putri, D., Wicaksono, M., Putri, S., Widianto, A., & Palil, M. (2021). Educational transformation: An evaluation of online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(7), 61-76. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/220042/
Feng, X., Ioan, N., & Li, Y. (2021). Comparison of the effect of online teaching during COVID-19 and pre-pandemic traditional teaching in compulsory education. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(4), 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1930986
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020). COVID-19 and Student Performance, Equity, and US Education Policy: Lessons from Pre-Pandemic Research to Inform Relief, Recovery, and Rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute.
Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., Esen, M., & Gumus, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659296
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological science in the public interest, 19(2), 59-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
Hamilton, A. B., & Finley, E. P. (2019). Qualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction. Psychiatry research, 280, 112516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112516
Huang, T. C., Chen, M. Y., & Hsu, W. P. (2019). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(1), 70-81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48647034
Hydari, M. A., Abid, G., Asif, M. F., Butt, T. H., & Lassi, Z. S. (2019). The effects of COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019) pandemic: An exploratory study of Pakistan. Int. J. Dis. Rec. Bus. Cont, 12(1), 1431-1449.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2018). Environmental responsibility in hospital care: findings from a qualitative study. Journal of Hospital Administration, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.5430/jha.v7n5p56
Kumar Basak, S., Wotto, M., & Bélanger, P. (2018). E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018785180
Kuswantoro, A., Kharismaputra, A. P., Rahim, L., & Susanti, A. (2024). Utilization of mindmeister for the creation of learning objective pathways in the implementation of the merdeka curriculum. Indonesian Journal of Devotion and Empowerment, 6(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.15294/gvkx5r43
Mustakim, M., Miahara, N., & Nurmaida, D. K. (2021). Learning in Madrasah based Pesantren during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(3), 2180-2187. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i3.949
Ndlovu, S. (2023). Preparedness and response to COVID-19 disruptions and learning challenges for students with disabilities in South Africa: A systematic review. Sustainability, 15(2), 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021420
Pan, S. C., Cooke, J., Little, J. L., McDaniel, M. A., Foster, E. R., Connor, L. T., & Rickard, T. C. (2019). Online and clicker quizzing on jargon terms enhances definition-focused but not conceptually focused biology exam performance. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar54. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0248
Ramli, S. (2019). The Effective Use of Full Online Learning to Replace Classroom Learning During the Covid-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Current Research and Review. https://repository.unja.ac.id/46868/
Serrano, D. R., Dea‐Ayuela, M. A., Gonzalez‐Burgos, E., Serrano‐Gil, A., & Lalatsa, A. (2019). Technology‐enhanced learning in higher education: How to enhance student engagement through blended learning. European Journal of Education, 54(2), 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12330
Stein, J., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Essentials of blended learning: A standards-based guide. Routledge.
Tamah, S. M., Triwidayati, K. R., & Utami, T. S. D. (2020). Secondary school language teachers’ online learning engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 803-832. https://doi.org/10.28945/4626
Van-Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003228073
Wang, Y., Shi, L., Que, J., Lu, Q., Liu, L., Lu, Z., ... & Shi, J. (2021). The impact of quarantine on mental health status among general population in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Molecular psychiatry, 26(9), 4813-4822. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01019-y
Washington, G. Y. (2019). The learning management system matters in face-to-face higher education courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 48(2), 255-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519874037
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Fanny Tifano, Ismail Petrus, Sary Silvhiany
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with the VELES Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
VELES Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
