Affiliation

Cape Breton University/Memorial University of Newfoundland, Department of Education

Email

joseph.ticar@gmail.com

Abstract

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, mandated government lockdowns and emergency remote teaching measures required teachers and students to re-orient themselves to environments that were entirely online. In the months to follow, new approaches to teaching and learning were facilitated through learning management systems, collaborative applications and communication platforms. While there were reports of success with this mode of teaching, other educators reported challenges relating to issues of competency. This literature review examines a range of studies that addressed educator technological competencies and instructional design practices. Key themes that emerged were the need to develop a deeper understanding of citizenship and authentic interaction in a digital context, and a call for instructional design practices that take advantage of technological affordances to integrate constructivist pedagogy.

Keywords

Instructional design, technological competencies, emergency remote teaching, COVID-19, digital transformation

Introduction

In 2020, K-12 students around the world experienced a rapid shift in learning that was brought about as a result of government-mandated lockdowns and a transition to emergency remote teaching. The change in learning environment precipitated issues in learning (Iivari et al., 2020) and academic behaviours (Klosky et al., 2022) as educators were required to quickly develop strategies for teaching in a solely digital context. While schools have almost entirely resumed in-person classes, the extended period of online learning highlighted the need for heightened technological competencies and improved approaches to instructional design practices (Montiel & Gomez-Zermeno, 2022). Al-Hunaiyyan et al. (2021) maintained that the events of the past three years offer “an ideal window for assessing all aspects of the online learning experience and refining them for future generations” (p.59). Using Moore’s (1997) theory of transactional distance as a theoretical lens, this literature review will thus focus on emerging themes from recent research that should inform the development of instructional design considerations and technological competencies for educators.

Literature Review

Moore’s Theory of Transactional Distance

Moore (1997) defines transactional distance as “a psychological and communications space to be crossed, a space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of the instructor and those of the learner” (p.22).

The concept of transactional distance can be seen in research that examines the effects of the switch to emergency remote learning. Montiel and Gomez-Zermeño (2022, p.8) and Iivari et al. (2020, p.4) note the different dimensions of instructor competency that had a significant impact on quality of instruction in a distance-learning context, namely technological understanding and communication.

Educator Technological Competencies

This review will utilize the definition of technological competency put forth by Ogodo et al. (2021) which describes it as “the instructional technology skills teachers should possess to implement classroom instruction effectively” (p.18).  As schools transitioned to emergency remote learning, educators were challenged by the lack of preparation that preceded it. A systematic review by Johnson et al. (2022) revealed that 16% of the 251 articles selected for the study “alluded to educators’ limited knowledge and experiences regarding online delivery of K-12 schooling” (p.12).

Facilitating Active Learning in a Digital Context

Kingsbury’s (2021) comparison between physical schools versus online learning found that active learning was a missing component of the online learning experience during the 2019-2020 academic year, with educators taking a largely transmissionist approach that lacked an active component (p.6572). Ogodo et al. (2021) corroborate this finding in their study, with teacher respondents noting lower levels of student engagement despite a reduced workload and instructional time.

Engagement correlates with the ability to use assessment and evaluation practices that are appropriate for a digital context. The transition to fully online teaching highlighted the lack of this skill in educators whose practices revolved around proximate teaching (Singh et al., 2021). Digital tools were used primarily for delivering information, followed by assessment and active engagement (Myyry et al., 2022). While this practice is indicative of content knowledge, it is also indicative of a need for educators to approach technology as a tool for modification or redefinition of a task as opposed to a medium solely for content transmission (Puentedura, 2014). Ogodo et al. (2021) reflect this finding, noting that engagement in online learning is lost in situations where teachers “lack online mastery of the complex and distinctive combinations of technical, pedagogical, and interpersonal skills” (p.15).

Enabling and Facilitating Meaningful Communication

Communication during the period of emergency remote teaching presented a challenge for educators due to the variety of methods used, which included real-time video, recordings, and feedback through learning management systems (Gross and Opalka, 2020). Effective communication results from timely teacher-student and student-student responses, enabling educators to “overcome transactional distance and practical limitations imposed by the absence of face-to-face interaction” (Kingsbury, 2021, p.6576). In the context of a digital environment, communication as an effective domain of teaching practice also extends to communicating with parents, as seen in Johnson et al.’s (2022) systemic review: while parents play a critical role for students in a remote learning context, direct support from teachers is generally not received.

Understanding of Technological Affordances

Understanding how to effectively utilize the affordances provided by technology is key to ensuring engagement from students. The spectrum of effective use thus lies in the ability to create an active teacher presence with the available tools (Singh et al, 2021). While teachers were aware of how to use technology from pre-service training, a great number of them had to prepare for virtual learning on their own (Ogodo et al., 2021). Thus, effective use in a technology-assisted classroom or fully online environment is contingent on consistent and ongoing professional development to realize the full potential of technology as a transformative teaching and learning tool (Rozitis, 2017).

Citizenship

The period of fully online learning during the pandemic underscored the need for citizenship as an educator competency. Specifically, Buchholz et al. (2020) note that “educators must be prepared to play a central role in helping nurture digital citizens who can engage ethically” (p.16). In the same vein, Falloon’s (2020) framework calls for a deeper understanding of technology that goes beyond “didactic application and technically oriented digital literacy-building before entering the classroom,” (p.2458) alluding to the need for digital citizenship in positioning educators and technology as change agents. While citizenship is not regarded as a “primary” competence area, the direct and seamless use of technology is bolstered by “supportive (but by no means less important)” competencies that are described as “awareness of legal and ethical aspects, as well as privacy and security issues and the ability to act prudently in these matters […], and an understanding of the role of ICT in society” (Janssen et al., 2021, p.478).

Instructional Design Practices

Constructivism

Moore (1993) maintains that a highly structured programme with a lack of dialog will result in a higher transactional distance. While studies of teaching in an online context describe several practical considerations for structuring content (Rozitis et al., 2017; Mayer et al., 2021), instructional designers should ensure that attention is paid to materials and course structures that enable communities of inquiry and authentic interactions between learners to facilitate construction of knowledge (Johnson et al., 2022). This is corroborated in Charbonneau-Gowdy et al.’s (2021) study which found that students in an online environment preferred authentic resources that gave them “things to read [and discuss] that were happening in the real world at the time” as opposed to pre-set textbook content (p.650).

The constructivist focus on formative assessment (Arghode et al., 2017) can be supported in a digital context by taking advantage of built-in functions (e.g. annotation tools) on learning platforms that allow students and educators to share synchronous and asynchronous feedback that informs meaning-making (Moorhouse & Wong, 2022).

Personalized Approaches to Teaching

A curated and individualized learning experience in a digital environment is an affordance that predicates meaningful learning and, in the absence of proximate teaching, develops learner autonomy (Chen & Almarode, 2022; Torun, 2019; Yan et al., 2021).

Instructional design practices that facilitate self-paced and individualized learning allows students to engage more deeply with content. Morrison and Anglin (2012) highlight three basic approaches to individualization that include editable study guides that can be customized by instructors or students; self-paced video recordings; and discussion forums where students can further develop their understanding through conversation (p.247). Personalized instructional design approaches also support scaffolding methods that can be used to deliver assessments that account for learner differences, thus enabling greater focus on constructivist pedagogy (Merrill, 2002).

Application

Implications for Teacher Competency Frameworks

There currently exists a range of competency frameworks for educators, however, Falloon (2020) explains that despite focus on skill development, “only TPACK, the UNESCO framework, and to a lesser extent the ISTE standards, explicitly linked these to associated changes in pedagogy and curriculum” (p.2452). Extant frameworks remain relevant, but the period of emergency remote teaching resulting from the lockdowns highlighted the need to account for new challenges and affordances associated with teaching and learning in a digital context.

In addition to delivering teaching content, soft skills such as confidence and adaptability to new roles (Blundell et al., 2020) are also domains that should be considered as integral to theoretical instructional design frameworks.

Implications for Instructional Design

In a post-pandemic classroom, instructional design should be learner-centric and allow learners to shape their learning experience (Torun, 2019) in blended contexts. Given the shift to constructivist approaches, this implies moving beyond behaviourist instructional design methods and focusing more on formative development by implementing authentic, collaborative tasks and activities that develop independent learning skills (Massey et al., 2021; Rice & Ortiz, 2021; Charbonneau-Gowdy et al., 2021).

In terms of assessment, instructional design should provide for the opportunity to consolidate knowledge, including appropriate activation and review activities that inform formative assessment (Mazzucato et al., 2021).

Conclusions

In this literature review, several overarching themes emerged:

• – For pre-service teachers, teacher education must go beyond teaching isolated use of technology and applications and professional development with technology must be prioritized for in-service teachers.
• – Effective instructional design is based on constructivist approaches that foster autonomy and collaboration through student-teacher and student-student interactions.
• – In the absence of proximate learning, educators must possess a deep understanding of the affordances of technology for meaningful learning to take place in a blended or online environment.

The broad proliferation of technology in the classroom has enabled a multitude of affordances for teaching and learning, but the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted emerging domains of practice and gaps in competency that must be addressed. The break from proximate instruction, followed by the period of blended learning as schools slowly re-oriented to physical environments, has necessitated the need to go beyond understanding functions of learning management systems and applications. As new approaches to teaching and learning have been realized with technology, a reconceptualization of what competencies and practices are considered essential is needed to ensure that transformation is lasting and meaningful.

References

Arghode, V., Brieger, E. W., & McLean, G. N. (2017). Adult learning theories: Implications for online instruction. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(7), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-02-2017-0014

Al-Hunaiyyan, A., Al-Sharhan, S., Alhajri, R., & Bimba, A. (2021). An Integrated Implementation Framework for an Efficient Transformation to Online Education. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2021.0120408

Blundell, C., Lee, K.-T., & Nykvist, S. (2020). Moving beyond enhancing pedagogies with digital technologies: Frames of reference, habits of mind and transformative learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(2), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1726235

Buchholz, B. A., DeHart, J., & Moorman, G. (2020). Digital Citizenship During a Global Pandemic: Moving Beyond Digital Literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1076

Charbonneau-Gowdy, P., Pizarro, J., & Salinas, D. (2021). Finally in the spotlight: How contemporary learning theory is saving education online during COVID. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 19(6), pp642-655. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.6.2199

Chen, L. & Almarode, J. (2022). Leveraging Technologies to Promote Clarity in Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study. In P. Sullivan, B. Sullivan, & J. Lantz (Eds.), Cases on Innovative and Successful Uses of Digital Resources for Online Learning (pp. 54-79). IGI Global. https://doi-org.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/10.4018/978-1-7998-9004-1.ch002

Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

Gross, B., & Opalka, A. (2020). Too Many Schools Leave Learning to Chance during the Pandemic. Center on reinventing public education. https://crpe.org/too-many-schools-leave-learning-to-chance-during-the-pandemic/

Iivari, N., Sharma, S., & Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital transformation of everyday life – How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102183

Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Pannekeet, K., & Sloep, P. (2013). Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences. Computers & Education, 68, 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.008

Johnson, C. C., Walton, J. B., Strickler, L., & Elliott, J. B. (2022). Online Teaching in K-12 Education in the United States: A Systematic Review. Review of Educational Research, 003465432211055. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221105550

Klosky, J. V., Gazmararian, J. A., Casimir, O., & Blake, S. C. (2022). Effects of Remote Education During the COVID ‐19 Pandemic on Young Children’s Learning and Academic Behavior in Georgia: Perceptions of Parents and School Administrators. Journal of School Health, 92(7), 656–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13185

Massey, L., Smith, R., Whitaker, E. T., & Wray, R. (2021). Designing Learning Experiences to Encourage Development of Critical Thinking Skills. In R. A. Sottilare & J. Schwarz (Eds.), Adaptive Instructional Systems. Design and Evaluation (pp. 71–87). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77857-6_5

Mazzucato, L., Babaee, N., Kazemi, A., Daeizadeh, Z., Kaur, N., & Sode, O. (Seyy). (2021). Blended Learning for Teaching During the COVID-19 Pandemic. In I. Fayed & J. Cummings (Eds.), Teaching in the PostCOVID-19 Era: World Education Dilemmas, Teaching Innovations and Solutions in the Age of Crisis (pp. 291–303). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74088-7_29

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024

Montiel, H., & Gomez-Zermeño, M. G. (2022). Rock the Boat! Shaken by the COVID-19 Crisis: A Review on Teachers’ Competencies in ICT. Frontiers in Education, 6, 770442. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.770442

Moore, MG. (1993). Theory of Transactional Distance. Keegan, D. (Ed.). (1993). Theoretical principles of distance education (pp.22-38). Taylor & Francis Group.

Moorhouse, B. L., & Wong, K. M. (2022). Blending asynchronous and synchronous digital technologies and instructional approaches to facilitate remote learning. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00195-8

Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2012). An Analysis of Success and Failures: Focusing on Learner–Content Interactions for the Next Generation of Distance Education. In L. Moller & J. B. Huett (Eds.), The Next Generation of Distance Education (pp. 235–250). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_16

Ogodo, J. A., Simon, M., Morris, D., & Akubo, M. (2021). Examining K-12 Teachers’ Digital Competency and Technology Self-Efficacy During COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 21(11).

Rozitis, C. P. (2017). Instructional Design Competencies for Online High School Teachers Modifying their own Courses. TechTrends, 61(5), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0204-2

Torun, E. D. (2019). Online Distance Learning in Higher Education: E-Learning Readiness as a Predictor of Academic Achievement. Open Praxis, 12(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.12.2.1092