A Latent Class Analysis of University Lecturers’ Switch to Online Teaching during the First COVID-19 Lockdown: The Role of Educational Technology, Self-Efficacy, and Institutional Support

Abstract

The switch to emergency remote teaching (ERT) due to the first COVID-19 lockdown demanded a lot from university lecturers yet did not pose the same challenge to all of them. This study sought to explain differences among lecturers (n = 796) from universities in France, Germany, Switzerland, and the UK in their use of educational technology for teaching, institutional support, and personal factors. Guided by the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), lecturers’ behavior (educational technology use), environment (institutional support), and personal factors (ERT self-efficacy, continuance intentions, and demographics) were examined. Latent class analysis was employed to identify different types of lecturers in view of educational technology use, while multinomial regression and Wald chi-square test were used to distinguish classes. The largest latent class were Presenters (45.6%), who focused on content delivery, followed by Strivers (22.1%), who strived for social interaction, Routineers (19.6%), who were ready for online teaching, and Evaders (12.7%), who evaded using technology for educational purposes. Both personal factors and perceived institutional support explained class membership significantly. Accordingly, Evaders were older, less experienced, and rarely perceived institutional support as useful. Routineers, the Evaders’ counterparts, felt most self-efficient in ERT and held the highest continuance intentions for educational technology use. This research suggests that universities engage lecturers in evidence-based professional development that seeks shared visions of digital transformation, networks and communities, and design-based research.

Digital competence for emergency remote teaching in higher education: understanding the present and anticipating the future

“…Fifteen empirical articles that examined teachers’ digital competence across the ERT period were included for review in this study. The 15 studies included 9 high-response surveys of teachers (ranging from 50 to 1000 respondents) drawing on interdisciplinary pools of teachers (Bartolic et al, 2021 ; Damşa et al, 2021 ; Kaqinari et al, 2022 ; Mishra et al, 2020 ; Myyry et al, 2022 ; Scherer et al, 2021 ; Shrestha et al, 2022 ; Väljataga et al, 2020 ; Watermeyer et al, 2021 ) and 6 descriptive case studies (Dalipi et al, 2022 ; Gao & Zhang, 2020 ; Moustakas & Robrade, 2022 ; Müller et al, 2021 ; Oliveira et al, 2021 ; Scull et al, 2020 ). Three major themes were constructed through an analysis of the findings presented in the literature reviewed: technologies, preparedness, and experience.…”

“…Teachers' selection of technologies for use during ERT was typically driven by familiarity with available technologies as several studies reported educators refrained from adopting new technologies to support learning and teaching (Bartolic et al, 2021 ; Damşa et al, 2021 ; Müller et al, 2021 ; Väljataga et al, 2020 ). Most teachers relied on their existing digital practices, such as uploading recordings and synchronous messaging, as these had been utilised as part of their day-to-day teaching prior to emergency delivery (Bartolic et al, 2021 ; Dalipi et al, 2022 ; Damşa et al, 2021 ; Kaqinari et al, 2022 ; Oliveira et al, 2021 ). While many also expressed limited experiences with completely online delivery, the connection between existing practices and these technologies helped inform pedagogy during this time (Gao & Zhang, 2020 ; Müller et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Teachers acknowledged the temporality and distinctness of ERT. Multiple studies found that the level of preparedness was not found to be a direct indicator of a simple transition to ERT (Bartolic et al, 2021 ; Kaqinari et al, 2022 ; Müller et al, 2021 ). Several studies found that teachers were explicitly approaching this delivery period as different from typical online delivery with little expectation that this type of delivery would be continue into the future (Bartolic et al, 2021 ; Dalipi et al, 2022 ; Müller et al, 2021 ; Watermeyer et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Teachers assembled digital learning environments to support their intended pedagogical approaches. The impact of the ERT on higher education was profound with stakeholders and systems unprepared for such a sudden shift, leaving teachers to rearrange pedagogical practices in less-than-ideal forms (Dalipi et al, 2022 ; Kaqinari et al, 2022 ; Moustakas & Robrade, 2022 ; Müller et al, 2021 ; Oliveira et al, 2021 ; Watermeyer et al, 2021 ). Primarily these findings support the view that teacher preparedness was developed through the contextual transformations of learning experiences and feedback from their students (Scherer et al, 2021 ; Scull et al, 2020 ; Shrestha et al, 2022 ).…”

“…Teachers relied on formal support networks to develop their digital competence. Three studies detailed teachers feeling sole responsibility for preparing their learning environments because their confidence in supports provided was mixed (Damşa et al, 2021 ; Kaqinari et al, 2022 ; Väljataga et al, 2020 ). Other studies reported that teachers valued institutional supports in the pivot to ERT (Bartolic et al, 2021 ; Watermeyer et al, 2021 ).…”