Affective (and Effective) Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Getting Social Again

Authors: Laura Zizka, Gaby Probst

Abstract:

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the way Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have given their courses. From emergency remote where all students and faculty were immediately confined to home teaching and learning, the continuing evolving sanitary situation obliged HEIs to adopt other methods of teaching and learning from blended courses that included both synchronous and asynchronous courses and activities to HyFlex models where some students were on campus while others followed the course simultaneously online. Each semester brought new challenges for HEIs and, subsequently, additional emotional reactions. This paper investigates the affective side of teaching and learning in various online modalities and its toll on students and faculty members over the past three semesters. The findings confirm that students and faculty who have more self-efficacy, flexibility, and resilience reported positive emotions and embraced the opportunities that these past semesters have offered. While HEIs have begun a new semester in an attempt to return to ‘normal’ face-to-face courses, this paper posits that there are lessons to be learned from these past three semesters. The opportunities that arose from the challenge of the pandemic should be considered when moving forward by focusing on a greater emphasis on the affective aspect of teaching and learning in HEIs worldwide. 

Keywords: affective teaching and learning, engagement, interaction, motivation, social presence

References:

[1] D. Schneckenberg, U. Ehlers, and H. Adelsberger, H., “Web 2.0 and Competence-Oriented Design of Learning – Potentials and Implications for Higher Education,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 747-762, 2010. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2020.01092.x
[2] M. B. Horzum, “Interaction, structure, social presence, and satisfaction in online learning.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 505-512, 2015
[3] J. V. Boettcher and R.-M. Conrad, R.-M. The Online Teaching Survival Guide, 2nd ed., San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 2016.
[4] A. E. E. Sobaih, A. M. Hasanein, and A. E. A. Elnasr, “Responses to COVID-19 in higher education: Social media usage for sustaining formal academic communication in developing countries,” Sustainability, vol.12, pp. 1-18, 2020. doi: 10.3390/su12166520
[5] G. Veltsianos, Learning online: The Student Experience, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2020.
[6] www.wortwolken.com. (2021). Last retrieved: 06.12.2021
[7] M. S. Knowles, Self-Directed Learning, New York: Association Press, 1975.
[8] T. M. Abbas, “Predictors of satisfaction among nontraditional students in tourism and hospitality higher education: A Structural Equation Modeling approach,” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, vol. 28, no.3, pp. 113-126, 2016. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2016.1189830
[9] W. Hartmann, and A. Hundertpfund, Digitale Kompetenz: Was die Schule dazu beitragen kann. Bern: hep Verlag, 2015.
[10] G. Salmon, E-tivities: Der Schlüssel zu aktivem Online-Lernen, Zürich: Orell Füssli, 2002.
[11] M. Zembylas, “Adult learners’ emotions in online learning,” Distance Education, vol. 29 no.1, 2008, doi: 10.1080/01587910802004852
[12] F. Oser, and M. Spychiger, M. Lernen ist schmerzhaft: Zur Theorie des Negativen Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur. (Learning is Painful: On the Theory of Negative Knowledge and the Practice of Error Culture) Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Verlag, 2005.
[13] A. G. Green, S. Tanford, and A. Swift, “Determinants of student satisfaction with using instructional technology: The role of active learning,” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, vol. 30 no.1, pp. 1-10, 2018. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2017.1413381
[14] E. Alqurashi, “Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments,” Conference proceedings at ISTE conference, July 25, 2019.
[15] D. U. Bolliger, and T. Martindale, “Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses,” International Journal on E-Learning, pp. 61-67, 2004.
[16] A. M. Nortvig, A. K., Petersen, and S. H. Balle, “A literature review of the factors influencing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction, and engagement,” The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 46-55, 2018.
[17] K. D. Kelsey, and A. D’souza, “Student motivation for learning at a distance: Does interaction matter?” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol. 7 no. 2, pp. 1-10, 2004.
[18] H.-C. Wei, and C. Chou, “Online learning performance and satisfaction: Do perceptions and readiness matter?” Distance Education, pp. 1-22, 2020. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1724768
[19] T. Frawley, E. Goh, and R. Law, “Quality assurance at hotel management tertiary institutions in Australia: An insight into factors behind domestic and international student satisfaction,” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2019. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2018.1480961
[20] Q. Shi, and M. R. Weber, “An Examination of Sense of Community in School Counseling Hybrid Courses,” Journal of Interactive Online Learning, vol. 15 no. 2, pp. 107-122, 2017.
[21] R. C. Plews, “Self-direction in Online-Learning: The Student experience,” International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 37-57, 2017.