A Scrutiny of Preservice English Teachers’ Lived A/Synchronous Distance Education Experiences: Can Distance Education Not Replace Face-to-Face Education in Preservice English Language Teacher Education?

Abstract

This cross-sectional survey research explores 249 preservice English teachers’ (PSETs) conceptions of their lived synchronous and asynchronous distance education (DE) experiences and if their preferences for the mode of education in the program change significantly according to their year of study. The findings revealed the participants did not conceive the initial English language teacher education could be provided effectively through asynchronous DE; instead, they favored either face-to-face education or a combination of synchronous DE and face-to-face education. In addition, participants’ preferences for the type of education in the program did not change significantly in accordance with their year of study.

Keywords

asynchronous DE coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic lived DE experiences PSETs synchronous DE

Introduction

Distance education (DE), defined by Moore and Kearsley (2012) as “teaching and planned learning in which the teaching normally occurs in a different place from learning, requiring communication through technologies, as well as special institutional organization” (p. 2), occupies a prominent place in educational life (Harju et al., 2019) as a tool for surmounting time constraints (Meskill & Anthony, 2005) and space restrictions in teaching and learning. Success in online learning is contended to be influenced by students’ self-regulation of their own learning via using cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Lin et al., 2017).

While there exist teachers and students showing enthusiasm for online teaching and learning (Jesson et al., 2015), some might harbor doubts about complementing face-to-face teaching with DE and about its positive effect on enhancing student learning and the effectiveness of teaching. In view of the growing demand for DE at tertiary education as a result of the COVID-19, institutions are required to afford “well-established infrastructure and practices” (Ravenscroft et al., 2017, p. 356). The development of computing skills is crucial in the 21st century (Tsai, 2013), and in consequence of the outbreak of the pandemic, it has become extremely important to help students, preservice and practicing teachers, and teacher educators (TEs) develop their computing skills.

Notwithstanding the significance of the provision of the suitable infrastructure fulfilling the needs of TEs and preservice students in the process of teaching and learning at a distance, their preparedness for using it effectively and that of TEs for making changes in the course design in view of the feedback to be obtained from preservice teachers are vital for making the most of DE. Therefore, investigations into preservice English teachers’ (PSETs) lived experiences of DE can add to the amelioration of the ways online courses are delivered. Bearing in mind the limited number of research in unveiling PSETs’ conceptions of their lived experiences of a/synchronous DE, this study could broaden the extant knowledge of DE and be referable by any stakeholder involved in DE.

Students’ Views Upon DE

DE could be provided synchronously, meaning the live interaction between students and the teacher, or asynchronously, signifying the separation of students from the teacher not only in regard to their location at the time of teaching but also the time teaching is conducted. Whereas the teaching of a course could be carried out totally in online learning environments, it could be done through accompanying face-to-face teaching with online teaching. Considering the momentum having been gained recently in the incorporation of online teaching into higher education, the need for the training in the design of online courses is evident (Martin et al., 2019). Because teaching and learning are intertwined (Guo et al., 2020), continuous monitoring of student learning and the feedback got from students matter for the successful implementation of online teaching. Furthermore, scaffolding of learning, the time used on the system, and motivation performs a significant role in the success of online learning on the part of language learners (Hromalik & Koszalka, 2018). Establishing an active learning environment (Kleinman, 2005) enables reaping benefit from online teaching. Consistent with this assumption, digital learning playground is depicted to lead to more engagement and more enjoyment for elementary level students (Chen et al., 2013). The research participants in the study by Yang (2011) engaged emotionally and cognitively in an online situated language learning environment, which facilitated the development in their language learning. Online learning environments were demonstrated to bring about an increase in student interest and to ease the process of writing in the study by Pruden et al. (2017).

Drawing the attention to the contribution of online discussions to student learning, Camus et al. (2016) argued that Facebook and university-sponsored learning management system facilitated student learning in different ways. While the former promoted student participation and the dialogue among peers, the latter improved students’ competency to implement course content in diverse contexts. The study by Cho and Shen (2013) revealed that student success in online learning environments was allied with having intrinsic goal orientation enabling coping with challenging tasks and high involvement in the learning process. The active role undertaken by students in collaborative online learning is indicated in the literature, too (Austin et al., 2010; Blau et al., 2018), which was taken one step further by Strasky et al. (2020) positing that distance students assume a teaching role. The research undertaken by Brudermann (2015) yielded that participants’ beliefs concerning entire online English language learning were positive, and in relation to this, the dropout rate was low and satisfaction rate was found to be promising. In addition, participants’ performances on the final exam displayed variations and individualized revision programs were reported to be a means for surmounting divergence in participants’ proficiency in English.

The research by Dyment et al. (2018) investigating tertiary level students’ views on online learning in an outdoor education unit showed the high value placed by the participants on field experience and suggested the necessity of detailed negotiations over the challenges and benefits of online teaching and learning. Most of the tertiary level students in the research by Ginns and Ellis (2007) did not think that online component supported the face-to-face one. A number of studies (e.g., Alhamami, 2018) show that students place more value on face-to-face learning over online learning. Students’ perceptions of the quality of online teaching can impinge impact on their perceptions regarding its effectiveness (Larmuseau et al., 2019). The study by Edwards et al. (2011) examined students’ views on online educators and the findings indicated that they were challengers, affirmers, and persons of influence for them. Another study unraveling the differences in adult learners’ perceptions of online and in-class teaching was carried out by Harris and Parrish (2006), the findings of which showed that even though the participants taking the online courses favored the comfort of studying at home, they put forth the need for more face-to-face support from the instructor, and the technical problems they lived in online courses. The study participants taking in-class courses emphasized that they encountered technical problems viewing the videos in the online learning environment, yet it did not cause trouble for them in that they had the chance to obtain the same information in the classroom. Endorsing students experiencing technical problems is crucial in online classes, as was demonstrated in Rapchak and Behary’s (2013) study.

In addition to the explorations into the integration of technology into foreign language learning (Tudini, 2018), PSETs’ perceptions of digital game-based language learning were examined in Blume’ s (2020) study, reporting that they had positive conceptions of the effect of digital game-based language learning on foreign language learning. The advantages of online foreign language learning indicated in the literature include the availability of learning at one’s own pace (Beltrán, 2018). There exist studies (e.g., Fandino et al., 2019) revealing that though students favored the flexibility offered by online programs, they did not prioritize learning English in a virtual learning environment. Synchronous computer-mediated communication was exhibited to promote the development of tertiary level students’ language learning in Eslami and Kung’s (2016) study. Similarly, the study participants in Hellmich’s (2019) research deemed technology as significant in language learning. Varying the modes of delivery such as using audio and video besides texts in online instruction is likely to foster student learning (Limperos et al., 2014).

Perceptions of University Lecturers as Regards DE

Conducting teaching by online tools could be challenging for lecturers due to having no past experience of online teaching or the insufficiencies in their knowledge repertoire with regard to the integration of technological tools into their teaching (Bennett, 2014). Online courses were demonstrated to be merited less by instructors and students as against the value they put on face-to-face teaching and learning (Guest et al., 2018). While exploring lecturers’ perceptions of DE provides profound insights into its impact on university students’ professional learning on one hand, faculty satisfaction with the quality of DE is also considered to be important (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). The participating teachers having experience of online teaching in the study by Dikkers (2015) stated the increase in their self-confidence in their teaching skills, and moreover, pointed out the necessity of strengthening online communication with face-to-face communication with students and parents. Emphasizing that blended and online teaching was distinct from traditional face-to-face teaching, Pulham and Graham (2018) asserted that preservice teacher education programs did not provide adequate education to preservice teachers for gaining online teaching skills.

Assessment strategies in online teaching used by preservice teachers were examined in McVey’s (2016) study, and the results demonstrated that traditional tools rather than the collaborative ones were preferred by them. The views of the teaching assistants on hybrid approach to language teaching were explored in Drewelow’s (2013) study, which reported that they believed hybrid language teaching was appropriate for the implementation of communicative language tasks and fostered student-centered teaching; nonetheless, they did not think that the online component of the hybrid course mediated learning.

Universities may expect of their lecturers to conduct online teaching despite the fact they do not have enough knowledge of online pedagogy (Sims et al., 2002). Teachers having been experiencing or planning to experience online teaching are in need of training in it. The research carried out by Etzkorn (2020) revealed the change in online instructors’ beliefs about the training in online teaching they received after the training and after conducting online teaching in the light of what was preached in the training, and the change was toward feeling less positive about the effectiveness of the training. In addition, the participants highlighted the need for further training. In contrast, the results of the study by Hathaway and Norton (2012) indicated the positive effect of the training, conducted either online or face-to-face, on preparing teachers for online teaching. The requirement for training academic staff can be explained by the change in their roles from teachers to students as they need to gain and/or develop their online teaching skills (Kilgour et al., 2019).

Jones and Gallen’s (2016) study explored the use of peer observation in synchronous online teaching for online instructors’ development. The results indicated that they found observing other instructors’ teaching synchronously, rather than being observed, more effective in the development of their teaching practices. Another study reporting the positive effect of online learning community on preservice and in-service teachers’ professional development was done by Liu (2012). Discussing teaching videocases in a virtual environment was appreciated by teachers from different contexts as they could develop themselves professionally by virtue of online discussions. The university lecturers taking part in McShane’s (2004) study and accompanying their face-to-face teaching with computer-mediated communication raised their awareness of their own teaching because of the decisions they made in their teaching practices grounded upon both face-to-face and online teaching.

Setting forth the limitations of face-to-face teaching on becoming familiar with individual students, Nacu et al. (2016) reported that online learning environments enabled instructors to get to know individual students. Likewise, the research by Peterson and Slotta (2009) yielded that online teaching provided an avenue for instructors to gain insights into each student’s thinking and for all students to participate fully in the process of learning.

In Tseng et al.’s (2019) study, it was indicated that preservice teachers confronted technical and student-related problems due to students’ short attention span and their prior knowledge in the context of web-conferencing teaching. Rakes and Dunn’s (2015) study investigating preservice and practicing teachers’ concerns over online teaching revealed that the participants did not value it and highlighted the importance of training in preparing teachers for online teaching and in overcoming their resistance to it.

This study aims to find answers to the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are PSETs’ conceptions of synchronous DE?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are PSETs’ conceptions of asynchronous DE?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): Do PSETs’ preferences for the type of education provided in the initial English language teacher education program change according to their year of study?

Method

Research Design and Context of the Study

According to Creswell (2012), “survey research designs are procedures in which investigators administer a survey to sample or to the entire population of people to describe the attitudes, opinions, behaviours, or the characteristics of the population” (p. 376). Survey research design has two types: cross-sectional and longitudinal survey research designs. Creswell (2012) states while the former type investigates sample’s attitudes, opinions, and behaviors at one point in time, the latter functions to do the same over time. The purpose of this research is uncovering PSETs’ perceptions concerning their lived experiences of a/synchronous DE at one point in time, and for this reason, it employs cross-sectional survey research design.

In the context of this study, similar to the cases in other contexts, preservice English language teacher education has started to be offered through DE, which has been provided completely through face-to-face education before. Besides theoretical courses, the ones requiring practice have also been provided at a distance following the outbreak of the pandemic. The first and second academic years of the preservice English language teacher education program form the theoretical part of the training while the third and fourth ones involve both the provision of the theory and transferring it to practice. As of the fifth week of the spring term of the academic year 2019/2020, face-to-face education was terminated and DE was initiated. All students and TEs were informed about how DE was supposed to be conducted through university’s DE system, and about the ways to contact technical staff for any technical problem they might encounter. TEs had the freedom to teach their online lessons synchronously or asynchronously. Apart from one TE, all the other TEs, including the researcher of this study, conducted asynchronous teaching by recording and uploading videos to the system which were supposed to last approximately 30 min, in contrast to 50 min marking the duration of a face-to-face lesson. The PSETs could sign in the DE system and watch the videos or read any document uploaded by TEs any time they wished. The TE teaching synchronously through ZOOM informed his students about the time of lessons beforehand and students were ready in front of their computers or smartphones to take part in them at the specified time. He did not teach sophomores in the spring term, and thus, they did not experience synchronous DE. At the end of the spring term, the questionnaire developed for this study was emailed to all the PSETs enrolled in the program (n = 415).

Participants

This study was carried out with the participation of 249 PSETs studying at a state university. Table 1 illustrates the demographic information about them.

Table 1.

Demographic Information about the Participants.

Year of study	Number of participants	Gender (n)		Mean age
Year of study	Number of participants	Male	Female	Mean age
First	82	35	47	19.6
Second	55	18	37	20.2
Third	73	23	50	21.7
Fourth	39	10	29	22.8

As shown in Table 1, 82 participants were first-year students, 55 of them were second-year students, 73 participants were third-year PSETs, and the remaining 39 were the last-year students. Of a total of 249 participants, 163 participants were female and the rest were male. The mean age of the participants ranged from 19.6 to 22.8. All the participants, the selection of whom was made in accordance with purposive sampling, were informed about the objective of the study and participation was based on voluntariness. The values in the column of number of participants in Table 1 show the number of the participants accepting to take part in the study and emailing back the questionnaires they filled in. Participants’ names will not be mentioned throughout this study to maintain anonymity and confidentiality; instead, they will be numbered and when taking extracts from their statements such expressions as first-year PSET 5 and third-year PSET 71 will be used.

Data Collection Tools and Analysis

A questionnaire comprising two open-ended and five closed-ended questions was developed by the researcher. The review of related literature helped her produce the questions. After producing the questions in the questionnaire, it was emailed to three PSET educators to make sure the questions could cater for finding answers to the research questions and were precise. Following the revisions made in the questions in the light of TEs’ feedback, the questionnaire was emailed to one freshman, one sophomore, one junior, and one senior PSET studying at a different university to ensure the questions were clear for PSETs; thereafter, the questionnaire was finalized.

Descriptive statistics were performed and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run using SPSS to analyze the data gathered from the open-ended questions. The data collected from the close-ended questions were subjected to inductive content analysis. Two coders, one of whom was the researcher, followed the steps proposed by Creswell (2007) in the process of coding. The coders read the participants’ responses to the open-ended questions to get a general sense of them. Then, they chose the questionnaire involving the longest answers and wrote in the margins what was conveyed by them in two or three words. The coders assigned codes to the responses, and afterwards, grouped similar codes to prevent redundancy. Then, themes were developed from the codes. Extracts from participants’ statements will be presented in the findings to confirm the themes emerged from the data (Cope, 2014). Member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was employed by sharing the findings with 10 participants to ensure they and their interpretations mirrored what the participants had in their minds.

Findings

All the PSETs experienced asynchronous DE, yet not all of them experienced synchronous DE; for this reason, figuring out the number of the participants joining a/synchronous online classes could enhance our understanding of participants’ approaches to DE.

Percentage values in Table 2 indicate that senior PSETs were the participants attending to synchronous online classes most (86.9%), followed by first-year (81.7%) and third-year (80.8%) PSETs. None of the second-year PSETs experienced synchronous online teaching for the TE teaching synchronously did not teach them in the spring term when this study was undertaken.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of the PSETs Experiencing A/Synchronous Online Teaching

Year of study	Experiencing synchronous online teaching		Not experiencing synchronous online teaching
Year of study	N	%	N	%
First year	67	81.7	15	18.3
Second year	0	0	55	100
Third year	59	80.8	14	19.2
Fourth year	30	86.9	9	23.1

Note. PSET = preservice English teachers.

The first-, third-, and fourth-year PSETs not joining synchronous online lessons explained the reasons for not being a part of it by their responses to the third question in the questionnaire. The content analysis of their explanations led to the development of the below-stated theme.

Technology-Related Hindrances Prevented PSETs From Joining Synchronous Online Classes

The participants not participating in synchronous online classes stated that they could not attend to them because of not having access to internet and/or a computer. Third-year PSET 42 noted, “I live with my parents and at home in a rural place, and we don’t have internet.” In addition, participants’ explanations as to not experiencing synchronous DE involve the troubles they had with signing in the application used by the teacher. First-year PSET 12 stated, “I couldn’t sign in the application at the beginning and that really demotivated me. Then, I gave up trying it.”

PSETs’ Conceptions of Synchronous DE

The second question in the questionnaire was produced with an eye to learning about PSETs’ perceptions of advantages and disadvantages of synchronous DE. The analysis of participants’ responses pertaining to its advantages developed the theme given below.

It Resembles Face-to-Face Teaching

The PSETs attending to synchronous online lessons emphasized that its key advantage was its similarity to face-to-face teaching. They elucidated their viewpoints through indicating that they had the opportunity to interact with the TE and also their classmates in synchronous online lessons, which is also observed in traditional face-to-face learning environments. Furthermore, it was accentuated by the participants that it was possible to get timely feedback from the TE in synchronous online classes. The statements of one of the PSETs joining synchronous online lessons epitomize those of others:

I could see the lecturer and my friends in synchronous online lessons. I could see their gestures and mimics, too, and this is important for me. The lecturer gave feedback during lessons and we could notice our mistakes. Obviously, I felt like I was in my real class. (Third-year PSET 68)

Seventeen participants taking advantage of synchronous DE maintained that it was not free of disadvantages and their explanations about its disadvantages developed the below-mentioned theme.

Inequality in Taking Advantage of Synchronous DE

The PSETs stating the disadvantages of synchronous DE pointed out that not all PSETs had access to internet and the conditions in their houses might not be suitable for attending to synchronous online classes. In line with that, they stressed the PSETs who could not attend to synchronous online lessons could not ask questions to TEs about the things they did not comprehend or get the chance to be corrected by them when they made mistakes:

Lots of students do not have a computer and internet access. I joined synchronous online lessons, and could clarify unclear topics by asking questions to the TE and also could interact with my classmates. The students with inadequate technical infrastructure could not make use of such lessons’ advantages, but equality in education should matter. (Senior PSET 21)

PSETs’ Conceptions of Asynchronous DE

In addition to PSETs’ views upon synchronous DE, the aim of one of the questions in the questionnaire is finding out their perceptions regarding asynchronous DE. The content analysis of the data on the advantages of asynchronous DE produced the theme stated below.

It Provides Flexibility

The responses of the participants to the question of what conceptions they hold about asynchronous DE demonstrated that the flexibility enabled by asynchronous DE was believed to be its advantage. Second-year PSET 41 stated, “Asynchronous lessons are good for learners missing lessons because they have the chance to watch them again.” Similarly first-year PSET 10 explained the advantage she derived from asynchronous online lessons in the following words: “I may have problems in my life or may not have internet when lecturers teach synchronous online lessons, but I can watch the videos whenever I want to watch them.” Third-year PSET 22 stated the positive effect of asynchronous DE on students’ level of motivation: “Asynchronous DE enhances learning by increasing students’ motivation levels, because they will easily be able to follow lessons wherever they want.” Associated with the flexibility brought by asynchronous online lessons, first-year PSET 74 stated: “I can replay videos whenever I want, and I can watch them how many times I want. This makes taking notes of lessons easier.” The inductive content analysis of the disadvantages of asynchronous DE perceived by the participants led to the emergence of the theme given below.

Its Unnatural Nature Almost Totally Clashes With the Affordances of Face-to-Face Education

The perceptions of the participants in regard to asynchronous DE were substantially negative and as elucidating their views, they grounded them on the differences between what was provided by it, by synchronous DE and face-to-face education. The participants, in a widespread manner, emphasized that they could not ask questions about the topics they had difficulties in comprehending in asynchronous online lessons. Fourth-year PSET 6 stated, “I do not think asynchronous DE is beneficial because I cannot ask questions to the lecturer. Understanding some topics is difficult in face-to-face lessons, but it is much harder in asynchronous online classes.” Another disadvantage indicated by the participants was related to postponing watching videos or reading documents. Second-year PSET 12 wrote, “We are always delaying the videos, always saying to ourselves I am going to watch it tomorrow, but this tomorrow never comes.” In the same vein, fourth-year PSET 25 expressed the poor motivation she had in covering what was uploaded to the DE system in the following words: “I am not in a hurry to read the documents or watch the videos because I know I can do it anytime.”

It was highlighted in the responses that non-existence of the live interaction between the TE and students and among students made the process of learning fruitless. First-year PSET 35 stated,

I cannot see my friends’ mimics and gestures, there is no interaction between me and them while watching the videos. I couldn’t see my lecturers’ mimics, either because they did not open the webcam; instead, they just recorded their voices.

The comments of third-year PSET 31 appear to be the representative of the prevalent view as to the disadvantages of asynchronous DE:

It is impossible to get an instant explanation when something is not clear for me but I would like to ask my questions and get answers right away. It doesn’t offer the opportunity for real time discussions and live collaboration, either; because of that, it causes demotivation. It also requires self-discipline.

Another issue as regards asynchronous DE raised by the participants is TEs’ inability to teach asynchronous online lessons effectively as they asserted that some TEs did not upload their videos on time and when they uploaded them, they uploaded the same ones that lasted just 10 min. Fourth-year PSET stated, “Some lecturers don’t have talent to teach through videos. For example, all of their videos are the same. Also, they don’t teach the subject, just read the text. Unfortunately, it is not teaching.”

PSETs’ Preferences for Face-to-Face, Synchronous and Asynchronous DE in Initial English Language Teacher Education

The analysis revealed that the participants did not have remarkably diverse preferences for the use of a/synchronous DE and face-to-face education in the initial English language teacher education program. The analysis of the data revealed that irrespective of the year of study, none of the participants preferred asynchronous DE. Table 3 displays first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year PSETs’ preferences for face-to-face education and synchronous DE.

Table 3.

PSETs’ Preferences for Face-to-Face Education and Synchronous DE

Year of study	Face-to-face education		A combination of face-to-face education and synchronous DE
Year of study	n	%	n	%
First year	43	52.4	39	47.6
Second year	55	100	0	0
Third year	35	48.6	37	51.4
Fourth year	27	69.2	12	30.8

Note. PSET = preservice English teachers; DE = distance education.

Table 3 shows that the majority of the fourth-year students preferred face-to-face education over a mix of synchronous DE and face-to-face education (69.2%). More than half of the first-year PSETs (52.4%) wanted to receive merely face-to-face education, while almost half of the third-year participants (48.6%) favored solely face-to-face education. Second-year PSETs preferred only face-to-face education. The results with respect to them could be different if they had also been taught synchronously. Consequently, while third-year PSETs preferred a combination of face-to-face education and synchronous DE most, fourth-year PSETs favored it least. One-way ANOVA was run with an eye to finding out whether first-, third-, and fourth-year participants’ preferences for face-to-face education and a combination of synchronous DE and face-to-face education change significantly. Second-year participants’ preferences were not involved into the analysis inasmuch as they preferred merely face-to-face education.

As seen in Table 4, there was no statistically significant difference, F(1.19) = 1.978, p = .161, between the first-, third-, and fourth-year participants’ preferences for the type of education to be offered in the initial English language teacher education program.

Table 4.

ANOVA Results of the First-, Third-, and Fourth-Year Participants’ Preferences for Synchronous DE and a Combination of Face-to-Face Education and Synchronous DE

Group	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between groups	1.142	1	1.142	1.978	.161
Within groups	110.278	191	0.577
Total	111.420	192

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance; DE = distance education.

The PSETs favoring solely face-to-face education claimed that no kind of education other than face-to-face education could be effective in preservice English language teacher education. The ideas of fourth-year PSET 23 can represent those of others:

I prefer to be taught through face-to-face education because I wish to be exposed to real materials and contexts as a student teacher. I need to have a social environment to discuss with other student teachers and TEs, and improve my communicative skills. Everything can be easily comprehended in this way.

The PSETs preferring a combination of synchronous DE and face-to-face education pointed out technology had already dominated almost everyone’s life and would continue to exercise more impact on it day by day, and hence, it would be unreasonable to envision an educational life at any level without technology:

As a pre-service teacher, I do not really mind synchronous DE, and I believe it is a great opportunity both for learners and teachers in this era. However, it is not enough, so I think having a combination of synchronous DE and face-to-face education is more beneficial for me. (Third-year PSET 8)

Discussion

The findings indicated that participants’ conceptions of a/synchronous DE did not show a considerable variation. They prevalently stated the advantage of asynchronous DE was the flexibility it offered in the process of learning as it was highlighted that it overcame time constraints and provided opportunities to PSETs to watch uploaded videos whenever they wished and as much as they wanted. Besides, it was pointed out that taking notes of videos in asynchronous DE was easier, and so, learning at one’s own pace was enabled. These findings are consistent with the existing studies in the literature (Beltrán, 2018; Fandino et al., 2019; Harris and Parrish, 2016; Meskill & Anthony, 2005). Nonetheless, the participants severely criticized asynchronous DE by accentuating the huge gap between how teaching was conducted in face-to-face teaching and what took place in their lived asynchronous DE experiences. The findings in regard to the participants’ preferences for the kind of teaching to be carried out in the preservice English language teacher education program indicate PSETs’ strong resistance to asynchronous DE, originating from not only the absence of the interaction between TEs and student teachers but also TEs’ poor performance on teaching asynchronously. The quality of asynchronous DE is highly likely to affect PSETs’ evaluations of it (Larmuseau et al., 2019). Providing the TEs who taught asynchronously had designed their lessons in a more effective way, not just for the sake of doing it, and uploaded their videos and/or any document regularly, the participants might have stated their positive views about it.

The abrupt emergence of the COVID-19 in the context of this study and the termination of face-to-face education synchronously did not allow TEs to prepare for teaching at a distance and for learning to design online lessons. Even though the importance of offering trainings in conducting effective online teachings is pinpointed in an indispensable number of research (Etzkorn, 2020; Kilgour et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2019), the TEs having provided DE to the PSETs were not given a training in enhancing the quality of asynchronous online lessons. Therefore, it could be conceived that if training had been provided to the TEs, they could have taught asynchronously more effectively, which would have probably brought preservice teacher satisfaction. Keeping in sight the perceptions of PSETs regarding ineffectiveness of the way asynchronous DE was conducted, it would not be implausible to infer that they will design their online classes in the future in such a way that their own students will not find them useless. Moreover, now that today’s PSETs are tomorrow’s practicing English teachers, it is of high significance to train PSETs in how to integrate technology into English language teaching, as was suggested in the research by Rakes and Dunn (2015).

PSETs’ views on their lived synchronous DE experiences were exhibited to be positive in the findings due to its resemblance to face-to-face education. The explanations provided by the participants as to synchronous DE revealed that the PSETs valued the interaction between them and TEs, which shows that they would prefer to be active in online lessons. This parallels the studies (Austin et al., 2010; Kleinman, 2005) reporting the active role students had in online learning. The participants also deemed the feedback and the answers they received synchronously from TEs as valuable. Playing an active role in online lessons and engaging in interaction with TEs and classmates can increase motivation levels of PSETs and because their motivation exerts strong influence on the success of online learning (Hromalik & Koszalka, 2018), conducting DE synchronously can serve as a medium to motivate PSETs more when they cannot get face-to-face education as a result of extraneous factors. Nevertheless, the PSETs argued that establishing equality of opportunities for accessing to internet or a computer/laptop/smartphone among students in synchronous DE was of high significance. Considering the importance of student feedback in enhancing the quality of DE, Faculties of Education should try to ensure all student teachers can join synchronous online classes.

The findings of the study also revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in PSETs’ preferences for the mode of education to be offered in the program as all the participants were against asynchronous DE and favored either face-to-face education or a combination of face-to-face education and synchronous DE. Although the participants were aware of the indispensable place of the integration of technology into preservice teacher education, face to-face education was still substantially valued by them, which is in line with what was yielded in other studies (Alhamami, 2018; Guest et al., 2018). The PSETs in this study were not accustomed to DE, and the TEs weren’t, either. Therefore, the TEs did not have enough time to gain and/or expand their knowledge of how to conduct DE. PSETs’ conceptions of particularly asynchronous DE could be different if it had been offered by well-prepared TEs.

Conclusions and Limitations of the Study

PSETs’ feedback on the effectiveness of any kind of education provided to them should form the basis of the revisions to be made in the extant PSET education so that qualified teachers can be trained. Hence, the findings presented in the present research may be referred by initial English language teacher education programs in their journey of establishing a DE system or improving the quality of the available one. Nonetheless, this study is not free of limitations; for instance, the findings are context-dependent because PSETs from diverse contexts did not take part in the study. For this reason, further research needs to be conducted with the participation of PSETs from different contexts to explore the reasons for diverging experiences gained from the same kind of education. In doing so, the quality of a/synchronous DE provided by preservice English language teacher education programs might be enhanced. Moreover, a follow-up study needs to be carried out with the first-, second-, and third-year participants taking part in this study after they attend to online classes in the next academic year subsequent to the improvements to be made in the current DE system and the training to be provided to TEs in how to teach a/synchronously in an engaging and enjoyable way.

Footnotes

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

Gülten Koşar

References

Alhamami

(2018). Beliefs about and intention to learn a foreign language in face-to-face and online settings. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 90–113.

Austin

Smyth

Richard

Bolt

N. Q.

Metcalfe

(2010). Collaborative digital learning in schools: Teacher perceptions of purpose and effectiveness. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 327–343.

Beltrán

R. C.

(2018). Vocabulary learning strategies outside the classroom context: What adults learn in technology-based learner-centred environment. The Language Learning Journal, 46(5), 583–593.

Bennett

(2014). Putting in more: Emotional work in adopting online tools in teaching and learning practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(8), 919–930.

Blau

Grinberg

Inbal

T. S.

(2018). Pedagogical perspectives and practices reflected in metaphors of learning and digital learning of ICT leaders. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 32–48.

Blume

(2020). Games people (don’t) play: An analysis of pre-service EFL teachers’ behaviors and beliefs regarding digital game-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(1–2), 109–132.

Bolliger

D. U.

Wasilik

(2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116.

Brudermann

C. A.

(2015). Computer-mediated online language learning programmes vs. tailor-made teaching practices at university level: A foul relationship or a perfect match? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30(3), 267–281.

Camus

Hurt

N. E.

Larson

L. R.

Prevost

(2016). Facebook as an online teaching tool: Effects of student participation, learning and overall course performance. College Teaching, 64(2), 84–94.

10.

Chen

G. D.

Nurkhamid Wang

C. Y.

Yang

S. H.

W. Y.

Chang

C. K.

(2013). Digital learning playground: Supporting authentic learning experiences in the classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(2), 172–783.

11.

Cho

M. H.

Shen

(2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301.

12.

Cope

D. G.

(2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(1), 89–91.

13.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.

15.

Dikkers

A. G.

(2015). The intersection of online and face-to-face teaching: Implications for virtual school teacher practice and professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 139–156.

16.

Drewelow

(2013). Exploring graduate teaching assistants’ perspectives on their roles in a foreign language hybrid course. System, 41, 1006–1022.

17.

Dyment

Downing

Hill

Smith

(2018). “I did think it was a bit strange taking outdoor education online”: Exploration of initial teacher education students’ online experiences in a tertiary outdoor education unit. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 18(1), 70–85.

18.

Edwards

Perry

Janzen

(2011). The making of an exemplary online educator. Distance Education, 32(1), 101–118.

19.

Eslami

Z. R.

Kung

W. T.

(2016). Focus-on-form and EFL learners’ development in synchronous computer-mediated communication: Task-based interactions. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 401–417.

20.

Etzkorn

K. E. B.

(2020). The effects of training on instructor beliefs about and attitudes toward online teaching. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(1), 19–35.

21.

Fandino

F. G. E.

Munoz

L. D.

Velandia

A. J. S.

(2019). Motivation and e-learning English as a foreign language: A qualitative study. Heliyon, 5, 1–7.

22.

Ginns

Ellis

(2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 53–64.

23.

Guest

Rohde

Selvanathan

Soesmanto

(2018). Student satisfaction and online teaching. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 437(7), 1084–1093.

24.

Guo

Bussey

Adachi

(2020). Digital learning across cultures. An account of activity theory. Intercultural Education, 31(4), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2020.1747259

25.

Harju

Koskinen

Pehkonen

(2019). An exploration of longitudinal studies of digital learning. Educational Research, 61(4), 388–407.

26.

Harris

D. M.

Parrish

D. E.

(2006). The art of online teaching: Online instruction versus in-class instruction. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24(2–3), 105–117.

27.

Hathaway

Norton

(2012). An exploratory study comparing two modes of preparation for online teaching. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 146–149.

28.

Hellmich

E. A.

(2019). CALL beliefs in context: A study of US high school foreign language learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1643739

29.

Hromalik

C. D.

Koszalka

T. A.

(2018). Self-regulation of the use of digital resources in an online language learning course improves learning outcomes. Distance Education, 39(4), 528–547.

30.

Jesson

McNaughton

Wilson

(2015). Raising literacy levels using digital learning: A design-based approach in New Zealand. Curriculum Journal, 26(2), 198–223.

31.

Jones

M. H.

Gallen

A. M.

(2016). Peer observation, feedback and reflection for development of practice in synchronous online teaching. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(6), 616–626.

32.

Kilgour

Reynaud

Northcote

McLoughlin

Gosselin

K. P.

(2019). Threshold concepts about online pedagogy for novice online teachers in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(7), 1417–1431.

33.

Kleinman

(2005). Strategies for encouraging active learning, interaction, and academic integrity in online courses. Communication Teacher, 19(1), 13–18.

34.

Larmuseau

Desmet

Depaepe

(2019). Perceptions of instructional quality: Impact on acceptance and use of an online learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(7), 953–964.

35.

Limperos

A. M.

Buckner

M. M.

Kaufmann

Frisby

B. N.

(2014). Online teaching and technological affordances: An experimental investigation into the impact of modality and clarity on perceived and actual learning. Computers & Education, 83, 1–9.

36.

Lin

C. H.

Zhang

Zheng

(2017). The roles of learning strategies and motivation in online language learning: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 113, 75–85.

37.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.

38.

Liu

M. H.

(2012). Discussing teaching videocases online: Perspectives of preservice and inservice teachers in Taiwan. Computers & Education, 59, 120–133.

39.

Martin

Ritzhaupt

Kumar

Budhrani

(2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43.

40.

McShane

(2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academic’s role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–16.

41.

McVey

(2016). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of assessment strategies in online teaching. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(4), 119–127.

42.

Meskill

Anthony

(2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: Forms of online instructional discourse in a hybrid Russian class. System, 33, 89–105.

43.

Moore

M. G.

Kearsley

(2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

44.

Nacu

D. C.

Martin

C. K.

Pinkard

Gray

(2016). Analyzing educators’ online interactions: A framework of online learning support roles. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(2), 283–305.

45.

Peterson

S. S.

Slotta

(2009). Saying yes to online learning: A first-time experience teaching an online graduate course in literacy education. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48, 120–136.

46.

Pruden

Kerkhoff

S. N.

Spires

H. A.

Lester

(2017). Enhancing writing achievement through a digital learning environment: Case studies of three struggling adolescent male writers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 33(1), 1–19.

47.

Pulham

Graham

C. R.

(2018). Comparing K-12 online and blended teaching competencies: A literature review. Distance Education, 39(3), 411–432.

48.

Rakes

G. C.

Dunn

K. E.

(2015). Teaching online: Discovering teacher concerns. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(4), 229–241.

49.

Rapchak

Behary

(2013). Digital immigrants, digital learning: Reaching adults through information literacy instruction online. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 7(4), 349–359.

50.

Ravenscroft

Luhanga

King

(2017). Adapting Bangert’s online teaching effectiveness evaluation tool to a Canadian context. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 355–363.

51.

Sims

Dobbs

Hand

(2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning, and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135–148.

52.

Strasky

K. V. L.

Stickler

Winchester

(2020). Flipping the flipped: The concept of flipped learning in online teaching environment. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1769584

53.

Tsai

C. W.

(2013). An effective online teaching method: The combination of collaborative learning with initiation and self-regulation learning with feedback. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(7), 712–723.

54.

Tseng

J. J.

Cheng

Y. S.

Yeh

H. N.

(2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers & Education, 128, 171–182.

55.

Tudini

(2018). Interactivity in the teaching and learning of foreign languages: What it means for resourcing and delivery of online and blended programmes. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 132–145.

56.

Yang

Y. F.

(2011). Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(2), 181–198.