Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology-Enhanced Teaching and Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Data Analytics for Internet of Things Infrastructure

Part of the book series: Internet of Things ((ITTCC))

  • 254 Accesses

Abstract

The Coronavirus outbreak has influenced education around the globe. Schools have made an attempt to fully or partially close to contain the pandemic, and students at all levels are required to learn from home by using technological platforms. This unprecedented abrupt remote teaching and learning mode exposes potential challenges hindering social interaction, an integral part of second and foreign language (L2) acquisition, which is hypothesized to develop learners’ L2 development, particularly communication competence. From a psychological view, remote learning may make learners feel that they do not belong to a learning community. This chapter reviews related studies and perspectives on technology-assisted language teaching and learning to make recommendations for administrators, teachers, and learners. It first reviews current perspectives on technology-assisted teaching and learning. Then, it critically examines second language acquisition theories aligning with computer-mediated communication. Also, it reviews recent research on remote language teaching and learning during lockdowns worldwide. Technology Acceptance Model, a conceptual framework for accepting a technology, and Bloom’s digital taxonomy are also discussed. Finally, the chapter makes recommendations for administrators, teachers, and learners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Huber, S. G., & Helm, C. (2020). COVID-19 and schooling: Evaluation, assessment and accountability in times of crises—Reacting quickly to explore key issues for policy, practice and research with the school barometer. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32, 237–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ergulec, F. (2019). Instructional strategies for forming online collaborative teams. International Journal on E-Learning, 18(4), 349–372.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to coronavirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang, X. (2020). Thoughts on large-scale long-distance web-based teaching in colleges and universities under novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic: A case of Chengdu University. In 4th international conference on culture, education and economic development of modern society (ICCESE 2020) (pp. 1222–1225). Atlantis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S.-L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoven, D. (2007). The affordances of technology for student teachers to shape their teacher education experience. In Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers (CALICO monograph series) (Vol. 6, pp. 133–164). Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers: Is one course enough? In Teacher education in CALL (pp. 153–166). John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blake, R. J. (2017). Technologies for teaching and learning L2 speaking. In The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 107–117). Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim, H. Y. (2020). More than tools: Emergence of meaning through technology enriched interactions in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Battro, A. M., & Fischer, K. W. (2012). Mind, brain, and education in the digital era. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(1), 49–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vu, N. N., Hung, B. P., Van, N. T. T., & Lien, N. T. H. (2021). Theoretical and instructional aspects of using multimedia resources in language education: A cognitive view. In Multimedia technologies in the Internet of things environment (Vol. 2, pp. 165–194). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gallardo, E., Marqués, L., & Bullen, M. (2015). Students in higher education: Social and academic uses of digital technology. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(1), 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effects of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zeng, G. (2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29(3), 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, S. D., & Aragon, S. R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 567–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cavana, M. (2009). Closing the circle: From Dewey to web 2.0. In Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 1–13). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Branon, R. F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education: A survey of instructors. Technology Trends, 45, 36–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2003). Designs, management tactics, and strategies in asynchronous learning discussions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 303–315.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rovai, A. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwier, R. A., & Balbar, S. (2002). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson, G. (2008). The relative learning benefits of synchronous and asynchronous text-based discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 166–169.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kuyath, S. (2008). The social presence of instant messaging: Effects on student satisfaction, perceived learning, and performance in distance education [Ph.D. Thesis]. University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moradi, A., & Farvardin, M. T. (2019). Negotiation of meaning by mixed-proficiency dyads in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated communication. TESOL Journal, 11(1).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ligorio, M. B. (2001). Integrating communication formats: Synchronous versus asynchronous and text-based versus visual. Computers & Education, 37, 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hines, R. A., & Pearl, C. E. (2004). Increasing interaction in web-based instruction: Using synchronous chats and asynchronous discussions. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23, 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Tanner, E. J. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dudding, C., & Drulia, T. (2009). Analysis of synchronous and asynchronous discussion forums: A pilot study. In Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2009 (pp. 631–634). AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hrastinski, S. (2006). Introducing an informal synchronous medium in a distance learning course: How is participation affected? Internet and Higher Education, 9, 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2009). The impact of asynchronous and synchronous instruction and discussion on cognitive presence, social presence, teaching presence, and learning [Ph.D. thesis]. Regent University.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learner’s interpretations of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mackey, A., & Silver, R. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ha, X. V., Nguyen, L. T., & Hung, B. P. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7(7), 1–8. [e07550].

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shlowiy, A. A., Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Alharbi, M. (2021). Discrepancy between language learners and teachers’ concerns about emergency remote teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(6), 1528–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mabrur, I. A. M., Suwartono, T., & Lutfiana. (2021). Junior high school students’ readiness to participate in e-learning and online EFL classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Social Science Journal, 71(241–242), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39, 568–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Brown, W. S. (2021). Successful strategies to engage students in a COVID-19 environment. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 641865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hung, B. P. (2019). Impacts of cooperative learning: A qualitative study with EFL students and teachers at Vietnamese colleges. Issues in Educational Research, 29(4), 1223–1240.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hung, B. P., & Nguyen, L. T. (2022). Scaffolding language learning in the online classroom. In Multimedia technologies in the Internet of things environment (Vol. 2, pp. 165–194). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Iglesias-Pradas, S., Hernández-García, A., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Prieto, J. L. (2021). Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Misirli, O., & Ergulec, F. (2021). Emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: Parents experiences and perspectives. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6699–6718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shamir-Inbal, T., & Blau, I. (2021). Facilitating emergency remote K-12 teaching in computing-enhanced virtual learning environments during COVID-19 pandemic - blessing or curse? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1243–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for E-learning (GETAMEL) by analyzing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 2572–2593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83–100.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Dumpit, D. Z., & Fernandez, C. J. (2017). Analysis of the use of social media in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) using the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Whittle, C., Tiwari, S., Yan, S., & Williams, J. (2020). Emergency remote teaching environment: A conceptual framework for responsive online teaching in crises. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5–6), 311–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sneed, O. (2016). Integrating technology with Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved from https://teachonline.asu.edu/

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Funding Source

This work was funded by University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH University), Thanh Hoa University, and Tay Bac University, Vietnam.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH University), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Hung Phu Bui

  2. Hong Duc University, Thanh Hoa University, Vietnam

    Tra Thu Dao & Thuy Thanh Dao

  3. Tay Bac University, Son La, Vietnam

    Van Huong Vi

Authors
  1. Hung Phu Bui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tra Thu Dao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thuy Thanh Dao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Van Huong Vi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hung Phu Bui .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Delhi NCR Campus, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Rohit Sharma

  2. Incheon National University, Incheon, Korea (Republic of)

    Gwanggil Jeon

  3. Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi'An, China

    Yan Zhang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bui, H.P., Dao, T.T., Dao, T.T., Vi, V.H. (2023). Technology-Enhanced Teaching and Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic. In: Sharma, R., Jeon, G., Zhang, Y. (eds) Data Analytics for Internet of Things Infrastructure. Internet of Things. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33808-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33808-3_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-33807-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-33808-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation