Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanz=
a de
Lenguas ISSN
1699-6569<=
o:p> Vol. 17 Núm.=
35
(2023) =
doi: 10.26378/rnlael1735532 Recibido:30/=
08/2023
/ Aprobado: 20/11/2023 Publi=
cado
bajo licencia de Creative Commons
Reconocimiento Sin Obra Derivada 4.0 Internacional
Are we aware that the student=
s’
well-being and feelings are still kicking?
¿Somos
conscientes de que el bienestar y los sentimientos de los alumnos siguen en
juego?
Cristina Pa=
rdo-Ballester
Iowa State University
cpardo@iastate.edu
<= o:p>
ABSTRACT
The majority =
of recent research studies show the emotional
state of language learners at the onset of the Covid-19. Although the langu=
age
students themselves identified issues limiting their learning, such as lack=
of
interaction, lack of motivation and feedback, isolation, problems with the
Internet, language teachers have admitted their concerns about students
learning and confessed to being flexible, tolerant, and more humane. Today,
there is a need to follow up on those student issues regarding their langua=
ge
learning beyond the Spring of 2020. This paper sheds light on the evolution=
of
life, emotions, and wellbeing of the students, and their language learning
beyond the rapid transition in Spring 2020 from forced unplanned teaching to
the planned teaching during the pandemic of Fall 2020 and Spring 2021. This
study explores the perceptions of 68 foreign language students in an Americ=
an
context through a survey. The results report on college language students’
needs, their emotions and wellbeing, and their recommendations to
administrators based on their needs and perceptions.
Keywords: self-efficacy, language anxiety,
COVID-19, students’ needs.
RESUMEN
La mayoría de los estudios recientes =
de
investigación muestran el estado emocional de aprendientes de lengua al
principio de la pandemia Covid-19. A pesar de que este grupo idenficó problemas que limitaban su aprendizaje, como=
la
falta de interacción, la falta de motivación y retroalimentación, aislamien=
to,
problemas con el Internet, los docentes de lengua admitieron sus preocupaci=
ones
sobre el aprendizaje de sus estudiantes y confesaron ser más flexibles,
tolerantes, y más humanos. Actualmente, es necesario saber sobre esos temas
preocupantes sobre el aprendizaje que abarcan más allá de esa transición ve=
loz,
forzada y sin planear de la primavera del 2020 a una enseñanza planeada dur=
ante
el otoño 2020 y la primavera 2021. Este estudio explora las percepciones de=
68
aprendientes de lengua extranjera en un contexto americano mediante un
cuestionario. Los resultados informan sobre las necesidades de estudiantes
universitarios de lengua, sus emociones y bienestar y sus recomendaciones a=
los
administradores basándose en sus necesidades y percepciones.
Palabras claves: autoeficacia, ansied=
ad
lingüística, COVID-19, necesidades de los aprendientes
1. INTRODUCTION
During the COVID-19 era in 2020, students
worldwide were forced to study remotely. As a result, many students felt
isolated, suffered from stress and anxiety, and were generally frustrated w=
ith
the remote learning environment (Sosulski, 2020;
Russell, 2020). Oskoz and Smith (2020) reflecte=
d on
how the pandemic had affected teachers and students, parents, and children =
due
to the problems of online teaching and learning. Research in this area shows
that students suffered from negative feelings due to the COVID-19 pandemic =
and
different aspects of their personal lives, such as the loss of relatives or
friends, lack of environmental resources, and self-regulatory strategies (B=
ack
et al., 2020).
Universities and community colleges have
increased attention to the importance of students’ well-being through multi=
ple
communication channels such as emails, newsletters, workshops, meetings, or
general announcements, but they have failed to address the difficulty that
students have in receiving mental support (Williams & Reetz, 2020). When
students or faculty members sought counseling services near to or within th=
eir
institutions, there were no available appointments for months, and the resu=
lt
was to be put on a waiting list (Skallerup Bessette, 2021).
Interestingly, the numbers to measure
students’ academic distress, depression, and anxiety disorder increased in
2020-2021 compared to previous years (Brown, 2021). High-level administrato=
rs
have highlighted ways faculty and academic advisors can support students’
mental health: academically, by referring students to resources to support
their wellness, and by being aware of students experiencing a crisis. One m=
ust
consider that college campus leaders faced students’ mental-health challeng=
es
even before the pandemic when anxious, scared, or depressed students sought
mental counseling (Williams & Reetz, 2020). Therefore, higher education=
’s
mental-health system has reached a crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic
(Skallerup Bessette, 2021).
Up to now, the majorit=
y of
the research studies about the rapid transition for teaching and learning
during the onset of the pandemic have reported findings with data collected=
in
spring 2020 or fall 2020, referring to the onset of the pandemic situation =
(Harsch et al., 2021; McIntyre et al., 2020; Moser et al., 2021). However, there=
are
few research studies about the impact that the pandemic caused after the fo=
rced
transition. One example of these studies is the one from Hapsari
(2021), who collected data on distance learning anxiety three months after =
the
Corona outbreak and a year later. She found students’ anxiety levels were
higher at the beginning of the pandemic than after a year of experiencing t=
he
distance-learning environment. In the future, there is no doubt that we will
see more studies about teaching and learning in a post-pandemic era.
Bryan Smith and Ana Oskoz, the editors of the academic journal CALI=
CO,
published a reflection a year after the onset of the pandemic. In their
introduction to the volume, they stated, “there has been an opening up of t=
he
blinds to technology, and CALL is there for teachers and administrators as =
we
reflect on what our technology-enhanced pedagogy should look like” (Smith &=
amp;
Oskoz,2021, pii). This reflection doesn't solely
concern teachers and administrators; language students, too, had the
opportunity to contemplate the impact of pedagogies on their learning during
the COVID-19 era. Hence, this study aims to explore students’ perceptions by
investigating their emotions, needs, and well-being through a survey
administered to college language students after the unplanned transition. <=
/span>The study will report on three categories:
1.
Identifying language
students enrolled at a United States institution so that language teachers =
can
understand their needs.
2.
Identifying emotions and
well-being issues that may be affecting language learning and students’
language success at their United States institutions.
3.
Offering general
recommendations to high-level administrators based on language students’
perceptions to help L2 development in language programs.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Teaching onli=
ne
within the COVID-19 pandemic
Scholars differentiated between remote learning and planned online
instruction (Gacs et al., 2020; Moser et al.,=
2021;
Jin et al., 2021). Online educatio=
n and
remote teaching are often used interchangeably but have different implicati=
ons.
Online schooling is characterized by deliberate design and planning, whereas
remote teaching is understood to mean an abrupt shift due to crises. Remote
teaching may include online modes and take-home packets or workbooks for
students with insufficient access to technology. Well-designed online cours=
es
can be as effective as face-to-face courses, especially in postsecondary
settings, suggesting that the mode of instruction itself is not entirely
predictive of learner outcomes (Moser et al., 2021). The literature suggests
that online learners perform as well as in-person learners (Blake et al., 2008; Pardo-Ballester, 2018=
), but
this fails to acknowledge that much of this had to do with the fact that th=
ose
students had the choice and had self-selected to take an online language co=
urse
(Moser et al., 2021).
2.2 Language anxiety surrounding COVID-19
Since the ‘80s, anxiety in foreign language classrooms has been stud=
ied
(Russell, 2020). Still, less attention has been given to learning a language
within an online learning environment and much less to the new unplanned on=
line
learning due to the pandemic. Russell (2020) stated that the pandemic situation caused stress. This
situation draws attention to the existing anxiety experienced by language
learners in traditional classroom settings. Consequently, learners
transitioning to an online format might also encounter heightened anxiety d=
ue
to the new learning environment. Russell (2020) referred to the research of
Horwitz et al., (1986), who described foreign language classroom anxiety with three elements:
communication apprehension, fear of negative social evaluation, and test
anxiety. She recommended language teachers use the Foreign Language Classro=
om
Anxiety Scale (FLCA) at the beginning and end of the course to help learners
reduce their anxiety levels.
Hapsari (2021) investigated the anxiety of 42 English learners within the on=
set
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results indicated that the lack of interaction ca=
used
a lot of isolation for students; students felt that their learning was
monotonous and frustrating. In addition, distance learning demanded a high
level of discipline from students, which caused more anxiety in students’
readiness. Her recommendations were in line with those of Russell (2020) by
using collaborative measures to overcome the confusion and difficulties that
students may experience.
Liu and Yuan (2021) explored foreign language anxiety within the context of Chinese colle=
ge
students learning English during the pandemic. This study found
that during online classes, the Chinese students experienced less anxiousne=
ss
when learning English but experienced more anxiousness when practicing or
trying to remember vocabulary and talk in English because the students were
more focused on the accuracy and correctness of the language. While students
suffered from increased anxiety and deepened depression, often due to isola=
tion
from society, administrators did their best to identify and assist those
students in need. Still, anxiety and worry remained present and real for al=
most
everyone (Sosulski, 2020).
2.3 Self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in crisis learning
According to Bandura (1997), perceived
self-efficacy indicates confidence in one’s capabilities to get a task done,
considering specific contexts. The construct of self-efficacy explains the
feelings, acts, and thoughts about oneself, but it does not refer to the sk=
ills
that the individual has. However, self-concept is a construct that describes
how individuals perceive themselves to explain and predict their actions
through their experiences with the environment. In the study by Bong
and Shaalvik
(2003), self-concept is defined as “one’s general perceptions of the self in
given domains of functioning, while self-efficacy represents individuals’
expectations and convictions of what they can accomplish in given situation=
s”
(p. 5). Consequentl=
y,
self-efficacy and self-concept can predict motivation, emotion, and perform=
ance
(Frank, 2011).
Learning a language within a new environment, dealing with personal circumstances, individual actions, and having different personalities might influence students’ lives, emotions, and learning. The environmental resour= ces or constraints can enable or prevent studying remotely effectively within t= he pandemic. In the research reported here, inefficient Internet, not having a place to study, or have other responsibilities such as the supervision of elders, adults, or children are stressors that could affect students’ lives= to succeed in learning a language. In addition to environmental factors, perso= nal and behavioral factors were included in this research to account for studen= ts’ life, emotions, and well-being. <= o:p>
3. METHODOLOGY
An exploratory mixed-method approach was
adopted in this study (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
3.1 Participants<= o:p>
Eighty-nine students provided consent to participa=
te
in this anonymous research study; however, not all completed all questions =
or
disclosed their identities. Data is reported on 68 students (12 male, 53
female, and three non-binary) who were enrolled in a language course at an
American institution, comprising 63 undergraduate students, four graduate
students, and one unidentified. In Fall 2020, 61 participants reported learning 7
foreign languages: 3 Arabic (4.91%), 1 Chinese (1.63%), 13 French (21.31%),=
3
German (4.91%), 1 Japanese (1.63%), 4 Russian (6.55%), and 36 Spanish
(59.01%). Of those participants, 2=
3.08%
were enrolled in a first-year language class, 23.08% were in a second-year
language class, 36.92% were in a third-year language class, and 16.92% were
enrolled in a fourth-year language class. In Spri=
ng
2021, 66 American students reported studying 8 foreign languages to fulfill
their language requirement, with the breakdown as follows: 2 Arabic (3.03%)=
, 2
Chinese (3.03%), 15 French (22.72%), 4 German (6.06%), 2 Italian (3.03%), 1
Japanese (1.51%), 3 Russian (4.54%), and 37 Spanish (56.06%). Of these
participants, 15.63% were enrolled in a first-year language class, 25% in a
second-year language class, 39.09 % in a third-year language class, and 20.=
31%
in a fourth-year language class.
3.2 Instrument and
data collection
This researcher designed an anonymous
online survey administered via Qualtrics between May 20 and June 16, 2021. =
The
items were designed using published articles that inform about the importan=
ce
of students’ wellbeing in the learning process during the pandemic (Russell,
2020; Hartshorn & McMurry, 2020; Kaisar & Chowdhury, 2020; Hapsari, 2021). The survey
comprised three types of items: A) Multiple-choice items using either a 5-p=
oint
Likert scale (ranging from 1=3DStrongly Disagree or Strongly Ineffective to=
5=3DStrongly
Agree or Strongly Effective) or a 5-point Likert scale for frequency (0=3DN=
ever
to 5=3DEvery day). Each multiple-choice item contained up to 12 sub-items. =
B)
Binary format questions, requiring a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ response. C) One open-en=
ded
question encouraging free-form responses.
Following IRB approval, the researcher reached out to language advis=
ors
across various public and private institutions. These advisors were request=
ed
to distribute an anonymous survey link via email, inviting language student=
s to
participate in the study.
The anonymous onl=
ine
survey consisted of 26 items distributed within four sections: background
information, students' life, emotions and wellbeing, and online language
classes:
1.&n= bsp; Thirteen items were about demographic information, contextual information, and their perceptions of learning a language. This section reported gender, target language, language level, information about their institution, motivation, organization skills, self-efficacy, online communication abilities, and preference for completing a language course. <= o:p>
2.&n=
bsp; Nine items were about students’ life based on environmental factors =
such
as having efficient Internet, locations to attend class, having a place to
study, time spent at different locations, responsibilities such as the supervision of elders, adults, or childr=
en
or perceptions about personal strategies (e.g., studying and separating from
distractions) and environmental strategies (e.g., friends and family expect=
ing
to answer them right away).
3.&n=
bsp; Three items (2 with 7 to 10 statements indicating their level of
agreement or disagreement) about their psychological and mental health with=
in
the pandemic and one open-ended item to provide any additional information
about language students’ strategies, emotions, and well-being.
4.&n=
bsp; One item with twelve statements for participants agreeing or disagre=
eing
about what an online language course should offer according to their needs.=
3.3 Data Analysis=
Data were analyzed both quantitative and qualitatively. Basic descrip=
tive
statistics were employed for the survey response items. Content analysis (L=
une
& Berg, 2017) was used to look for the existence and frequency of conce=
pts,
represented by utterances, in the participant students’ answers to the
open-ended question on the survey. These were coded and used to identify
emergent themes.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Category one examined language participant=
s’
perceptions of their motivation, organization skills, computer self-efficac=
y,
online communication abilities, preferences, environmental factors, and
individual strategies to complete a language course. Overall, 91.93 % (62 o=
ut
of 67) reported being self-motivated to learn a language without considering
the delivery format of the course, and 8.07% (5 out of 67) reported not bei=
ng
self-motivated. 78.12% (50 out of 64) reported having organization skills to
complete a language course without considering the delivery format, and 21.=
87%
(14 out of 64) reported not having those skills. 92.42% (61 out of 66) repo=
rted
having computer self-efficacy and online communication abilities. 7.58 %, (5 out of 66) reported not havi=
ng
those abilities. One of those five participants commented on not being able=
to
complete the course if it was completely asynchronous. Regarding their
preferences to complete a language course, participants were asked to rate
their general agreement or disagreement with different delivery formats on =
a 5-
point Likert scale (1=3D strongly disagree and 5=3D strongly agree). Overal=
l,
participants reported a positive preference for a face-to-face course with
technology involvement for instruction and for assignments to complete at h=
ome
(95.38% agree or strongly agree, M=3D4.35, SD=3D.53). They also reported a =
negative
preference for an online course with asynchronous assignments and without
synchronous meetings with the instructor and peers (73.85% disagree or stro=
ngly
disagree, M=3D1.98, SD=3D1.06; see Table 1). These results support teachers’
perceptions about their teaching preferences (Par=
do-Ballester,2021,
2022), on a 5-point Likert scale. For more insights into Sp=
anish
language teachers’ perceptions regarding teaching preferences or student
learning, refer to the author’s article from 2021, p. 343. Additionally, fo=
r a
comprehensive understanding of language teachers’ health, emotions, teaching
practices, and strategies, see Pardo-Ballester's work from 2022, pp. 275-28=
1.
|
Statements of preference |
M |
SD |
Variance |
|
1. Only F2F
without technology involvement |
=
3.18 |
=
1.16 |
=
1.35 |
|
2. F2F with technology involvement (videos, PPT)
& for assignments to complete at home |
4.35 |
0.57 |
0.32 |
|
3. Online w=
ith
asynchronous assignments & synchronous meetings with instructor and p=
eers |
=
3.29 |
=
1.05 |
=
1.10 |
|
4. Online with asynchronous assignments without
synchronous meetings with instructor and peers |
1.98 |
1.06 |
1.12 |
|
5. Online w=
ith
asynchronous assignments & synchronous meetings with a coach and 3 or=
4
peers at the time I decide |
=
3.12 |
=
1.05 |
=
1.09 |
Table 1. Participants’ preferences to complete a language course (N=
=3D65)
As for environmental factors, 90.91% (60 o=
ut
of 66) reported having efficient Internet to complete their language course,
but six of these students reported that the Internet is always tricky to
predict, and on-campus or in a different location the Internet connection c=
ould
crash. 9.09% (6 out of 66) reported not having efficient Internet. 79.03% (=
49 out
of 62) reported having a home office or a quiet space to study and 20.97% (=
13
out of 62) reported not having a quiet space to study. Participants were as=
ked
to rate their current location work arrangement on a 5- point Likert scale =
(1=3D
extremely ineffective and 5=3D strongly effective) to perform their studies
effectively. From this data, we learned that 20.96% (13 out of 62) of stude=
nts
reported extremely ineffective or ineffective locations to work in their
classes, while 62.90% (39 out of 62) of students rated their new locations
effective or extremely effective. A 16.13% of students reported neither
ineffective nor effective (10 out of 62). An interesting difference between=
the
pandemic and a regular semester is the percentage of time spent at differen=
t locations.
During the pandemic (spring 2021) participants reported attending classes
67.21% (41 out of 61) from their homes or dorms and the rest of the students
32.79% (20 out of 61) reported attending classes from campus, from a coffee
shop or in their friends’ homes. During a typical semester 29.85%, (20 out =
of
67) reported attending classes from their homes or dorms and 68.65% (46 out=
of
67) reported spending class time on campus or at a coffee shop. One partici=
pant
commented on being a new student and therefore did not have a normal semest=
er
yet. A small percentage of students 4.84% (3 out of 62) reported being
responsible for managing care for or supervision of children. One of these
three reported taking care of three children and two of them of six or more
children. In addition, 96.77% (60 out of 62) were not responsible for manag=
ing
care for or supervision of elders or adults. Only 3.23% (2 out of 62) repor=
ted
having this responsibility.
|
=
M |
SD |
Variance |
|
|
1. I check my computer/=
phone/tablet
as soon as I see or hear that a new message has arrived. |
=
3.85 |
=
1.16 |
=
1.34 |
|
2. I keep my camera off during synchronous online meetings. |
2.95 |
1.17 |
1.36 |
|
3. My family members ex=
pect
me to respond to electronic communication immediately during class time.<=
/span> |
=
2.25 |
=
1.15 |
=
1.33 |
|
4. My friends expect me to respond to their messages right away ev=
en
if I am in class. |
1.90 |
0.82 |
0.68 |
|
5. I respond to personal
communication during class time. |
=
3.02 |
=
1.15 |
=
1.33 |
|
6. I don’t like to have to think about family issues when I am in
class. |
4.13 |
0.80 |
0.64 |
|
7. If I study from
home/dorm, I separate myself from any distractions.<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'> |
=
3.08 |
=
1.16 |
=
1.35 |
|
8. Friends see me as highly focused on my classes. |
3.92 |
0.91 |
0.83 |
|
9. Friends see me as hi=
ghly
focused on my family. |
=
3.18 |
=
1.03 |
=
1.07 |
|
10. I change my class schedule as needed for my family or personal
life. |
2.93 |
1.23 |
1.50 |
Table 2. Self-efficacy and self-concept
beliefs (N=3D61)
<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>Results from statements 3 and 4 revealed t=
hat
participants know that their families and friends want them to succeed
academically and these results of disagreements (M=3D2.25, SD=3D1.15, and M=
=3D1.90,
SD=3D.82) support Bandura’s (1997) opportunities for social feedback to inf=
luence
self-efficacy beliefs, which in turn contribute to academic performance over
and above actual ability (Bandura, 1997). Statement 8 ('Friends see me as highly focused on my classes' with
M=3D3.92, SD=3D.91) depicted a mildly positive perception, emphasizing the =
notable
influence of social and evaluative feedback on self-efficacy beliefs.
Conversely, responses to statement 9 ('Friends see me as highly focused on =
my
family' with M=3D3.18, SD=3D1.03) indicated a more neutral stance, suggesti=
ng that
familial influences might not significantly impede students' academic progr=
ess.
In terms of self-concept, the findings from statement 1 ('I check my comput=
er…a
message has arrived' with M=3D3.85, SD=3D1.16) indicate that contemporary
individuals are more susceptible to distractions, likely influenced by fact=
ors
such as the digital era and the ongoing pandemic. Similarly, results from
statement 2 ('I keep my camera off during synchronous online meetings' with
M=3D2.95, SD=3D1.17) align with the challenges associated with online learn=
ing.
These challenges may encompass issues like poor Internet connectivity (Hapsari, 2021) and the absence of a compulsion to present oneself physically
(Kaisar & Chowdhury, 2020). Participants expressed agreement with state=
ment
6 ( “I don’t like to have to think about family =
issues
when I am in class” with M=3D4.13, SD=3D.80), a sentiment crucial in evalua=
ting
one's achievements, especially when influenced by significant others (Bong
& Skaalvik, 2003; Frank, 2011). The finding=
s from
statement 5 ('I respond to personal communication during class time' with
M=3D3.02, SD=3D1.15) and statement 7 (“If I study... I separate myself from=
any
distractions” with M=3D3.08, SD=3D1.16) underscore students' inclination fo=
r social
connectedness (Lomicka, 2020) and their conside=
ration
of self-perception in alignment with others' viewpoints (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Frank, 2011). Participants reported n=
eutral
results for statement 10 ('I change my class schedule as needed for my fami=
ly
or personal life' with M=3D2.93, SD=3D1.23), suggesting that students' achi=
evements
or setbacks may be influenced by causal attributions (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Frank, 2011). <=
b>
For category two, participants were asked =
to
rate their agreement or disagreement on seven statements about their emotio=
ns
and needs within the pandemic on a 5- point Likert scale (1=3D strongly dis=
agree
and 5=3D strongly agree). In Table=
3, we
learned that participants agreed with the need to have time for themselves =
in order to be happy (M=3D4.62, SD=3D0.55). We also le=
arned that
overall language students do not think about quitting their language classes
(M=3D1.85, SD=3D.99) which we could interpret as language teachers do an ex=
cellent
job motivating students to learn a language. Participants reported being ve=
ry
satisfied with the language they chose (M=3D4.54, SD=3D.56). This satisfact=
ion
could be related to the effort teachers put to motivate their students befo=
re and
during the pandemic (Pardo-Ballester, 2022).
However, participants recognized not doing much of an effort to attend even=
ts
related to improving their language (M=3D2.41, SD=3D1.11). The reasons could be a few such as lack=
of
time for extracurricular activities, responsibilities with family or work, =
or
lack of motivation. Furthermore, students perceived that they improved their
language (M=3D2.59, SD=3D1.14). These results were not in line with those t=
hat Hapsari (2021) found with students in Indonesia that =
were
studying English Education in the spring of 2020. 70% of Hapsari’s
students feared that they would not make sufficient language progress. Kaisar and Howdhury
(2020) discovered that 108 Bangladeshi college students, who were learning
English, experienced anxiety and concurred that virtual classrooms yielded
lower language achievement. Results from feeling more connected with
their teachers as they used to be before the pandemic (M=3D2.41, SD=3D1.14)=
were
not positive. These results are similar to those
reported by Hapsari (2021) and Kaisar and Howdhury (2020), who found that learners felt isolate=
d due
to the lack of interaction. Our results also showed a light agreement with
being able to balance the demands of the language classes and family or
personal lives (M=3D3.77, SD=3D1.05). This finding supports learners’ perce=
ptions
that students’ workload levels were higher at the beginning of the pandemic
than after a year of dealing with the pandemic and online teaching (Hapsari, 2021).
|
Statements of needs and emotional reactions |
M |
SD |
Variance |
|
1. I need to
have time for myself for my own happiness. |
=
4.62 |
=
0.55 |
=
0.30 |
|
2. I am very satisfied with the language/s I cho=
se. |
4.54 |
0.56 |
0.31 |
|
3. I freque=
ntly
think of quitting my language studies. |
=
1.85 |
=
0.99 |
=
0.98 |
|
4. I am able to balan=
ce the
demands of my language classes and the demands of my family/personal life=
. |
3.77 |
1.05 |
1.09 |
|
5. I attend=
ed
student events related to languages to learn the language better.<=
/span> |
=
2.41 |
=
1.11 |
=
1.23 |
|
6. During the pandemic, I feel my language perfo=
rmance
is the same as before the pandemic. |
2.59 |
1.14 |
1.29 |
|
7. During t=
he
pandemic, I feel more connected to my language teachers than before the
pandemic. |
=
2.41 |
=
1.14 |
=
1.29 |
Table 3. Students’ perceptions of their
feelings and needs (N=3D61)
<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>Table 4 presents the ratings provided by
participants on a frequency scale for ten statements. These statements, all
beginning with 'During the pandemic...,' prompted participants to express t=
heir
feelings, rating the frequency on a scale of 1. Never, 2. Once a month, 3. A
few times, 4. Once a week, 5. A few times per week, and 6. Every day. The expectations were that after the onset of the pandemic, students =
did
not feel overwhelmed with language courses because previous studies reported
that language teachers were flexible, had compassion, and were patient with
their students (Pardo-Ballester,2022). Results from the
participant students’ frequency of exhaustion indicate that learners did
not feel as exhausted in their language classes (M=3D3.36, SD=3D 1.52) when
compared with the exhausting feelings they felt at work (M=3D3.93, SD=3D1.7=
6) and
in other classes (M=3D4.66, SD=3D1.38). In addition, once a week participan=
ts
reported feeling satisfied when meeting their teachers and peers for their
online meeting (M=3D3.98, SD=3D1.48). These findi=
ngs
disagree with Maican and Cocorada’s research study (2021), which f=
ound
that some students in the humanities had higher negative emotions and anxie=
ty
levels due to a lack of interaction with teachers and peers when compared to
STEM students who are not so used to collaboration and interaction. Our
participants felt exhausted to keep up with their language assignments (M=
=3D3.21,
SD=3D1.65), but their language assignments were not always the cause for fe=
eling
fatigued in the morning (M=3D2.82, SD=3D1.51). Participants were also satis=
fied
with the flexibility, self-paced learning (M=3D3.61, SD=3D1.45), and engage=
ment
(M=3D3.74, SD=3D1.49). These results agree with Hapsar=
i
(2021) reporting students’ satisfaction with their language classes one year
after the onset of the pandemic.
|
Statements of emotions and well-being |
=
M |
=
SD |
=
Variance |
|
1. I feel emotionally
exhausted from my language classes. |
=
3.36 |
=
3.36 |
=
2.30 |
|
2. I feel emotionally exhausted from my other classes. |
4.66 |
4.66 |
1.90 |
|
3. I feel emotionally
exhausted from my work. |
=
3.93 |
=
3.93 |
=
3.10 |
|
4. being with peers and a language teacher is stressful for me. |
2.59 |
2.59 |
2.77 |
|
5. I feel fatigued when=
I
get up in the morning and think about my language classes.<=
/span> |
=
2.82 |
=
1.51 |
=
2.28 |
|
6. I feel satisfied when I meet my language teacher and peers duri=
ng
virtual language classes. |
3.98 |
1.48 |
2.18 |
|
7. my language teacher
informed me that I needed to be better prepared for my virtual meetings.<=
/span> |
=
1.28 |
=
0.73 |
=
0.53 |
|
8. I feel emotionally exhausted when staying on top of my language
assignments. |
3.21 |
1.65 |
2.73 |
|
9. I feel satisfied with
the flexibility of online language assignments for self-paced learning. |
=
3.61 |
=
1.45 |
=
2.11 |
|
10. I feel satisfied with my level of engagement in the second
language. |
3.74 |
1.49 |
2.23 |
Table 4. Frequency of students’ emotions and wellbeing (N=3D61)
The participant students provided additional information on language strategies, emotions, and
well-being. Their comments led to the emergence of three themes that, accor=
ding
to Bandura (1997), individuals use to judge their efficacy beliefs: 1)
Physiological and emotional states, 2) social persuasion, and 3) affective
processes.
Bandura (1997) stated that individuals’
beliefs concerning their efficacy can be developed by the influence of
physiological and emotional states. For example, we can interpret these
students’ comments about stress, anxiety, and negative emotions as altering
efficacy beliefs. According to Redmond (2010),
individuals experiencing reduced anxiety or agitation tend to possess higher
self-efficacy beliefs. Although physiological=
and
emotional states exert relatively minimal influence on self-efficacy assess=
ment,
their consideration remains significant. For
instance, one of the participant students experienced a pervasive lack of
motivation, struggles with focus, resulting in mental health challenges, an=
d a
feeling of inadequate preparation due to the online format of classes:
(1) It was not specifically =
with
language classes, but I felt in general overall lack of motivation to compl=
ete
online lectures or assignments. I found it extremely hard to focus, even in=
a
quiet study environment. I also felt like my workload increased, and that in
combination with my inability to focus makes tasks even more difficult and I
still don’t feel like I learned anything. We faced intense burnout, mental
health problems, harder classes, no social interaction, and a lack of
deeper-level learning that would actually prepare us.
(Student 36).
The comments for social or verbal persuasi=
on
showed both sides, teachers who strengthen individuals’ beliefs by verbal
persuasion and motivate them to succeed, and teachers who undermine learner=
s’
motivation by telling them they are not good enough and they end up giving =
up. We can appreciate the diverse personal experiences a=
nd
perceptions shared by two students regarding their interactions with langua=
ge
teachers and their feelings towards their courses:
(2) I ac=
tually
dropped French because it was too much…I felt discouraged by where I=
was
at compared to other students and decided to quit…But I just felt ashamed a=
nd
not supported. My professor… put us down saying, “you guys just aren’t where
you should be,” “practice more,” “…it’s just going to keep getting harder a=
s we
go on, so if you don’t know these things now, then you’re going to be drown=
ing
after. (Student 15).
(3) …. she really cared for =
her
students by being flexible and understanding of the pandemic while learning
Spanish. (Student 10).
<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>The participant students commented on the quantity of homework and the teaching mode of their
classes. Both stressors represent difficult situations especially when stud=
ents
feel they have no control of their situations. Students’ beliefs in their o=
wn
coping capabilities can seriously affect their level of motivation (Bandura,
1997). As one of the students explained:
(4) I think lowering the num=
ber
of assignments would be very helpful. Both for Arabic and Spanish, the quan=
tity
of homework was exhausting, absolutely exhausting on comparison to my other
classes. It makes an enjoyable activity quite daunting at times. (Student 4=
6).
<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-ansi-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'>Category three investigated participants’ agreement and disagreement about what an
online language course should include, with the idea of addressing the spec=
ific
needs of our students. Students rated the proposed statements on a 5- point
Likert scale. The statements relate to teaching models, individual behavior=
s,
and social persuasion (see Table 5).
|
Statements of what an online language course should have |
=
M |
=
SD |
=
Variance |
|
=
1.
Synchronous peer-to-peer oral interaction with t=
he
entire class & my teacher |
=
4.43 |
=
0.77 |
=
0.59 |
|
=
2.
Synchronous
peer-to-peer oral interaction with the small groups & my teacher or a c=
oach |
4.57 |
0.62 |
0.38 |
|
=
3.
Peer preparedness for synchronous meetings |
=
4.41 |
=
0.67 |
=
0.45 |
|
=
4.
Teacher’s
dedication and positive attitude |
4.81 |
0.39 |
0.15 |
|
=
5.
Weekly reminders from my teacher about assignmen=
ts I
need to complete |
=
4.22 |
=
0.85 |
=
0.73 |
|
=
6.
Low level of
engagement with the course |
1.55 |
0.70 |
0.49 |
|
=
7.
High level of engagement with the course<=
/span> |
=
4.41 |
=
0.70 |
=
0.48 |
|
=
8.
Flexibility with
online tasks & assignments for self-paced learning |
4.14 |
0.88 |
0.77 |
|
=
9.
Feedback from my teacher when needed |
=
4.76 |
=
0.43 |
=
0.18 |
|
=
10.
Asynchronous
activities |
3.86 |
0.90 |
0.81 |
|
=
11.
Staying on top of my assignments |
=
4.52 |
=
0.68 |
=
0.46 |
|
=
12.
Weekly reflecti=
ons
on my learning |
3.17 |
1.18 |
1.38 |
Table 5. Participants’ needs=
for
success when studying online (N=3D58)
Participants rated statements 1 and 2 in
relation to oral interaction as very high (M=3D 4.43, SD=3D.77 and M=3D4.57=
, SD=3D.62).
These findings corroborate research showing that learners perceive that
involvement in real-time conversational activities is overall beneficial to
language acquisition (Petterson, 2021). Statements 3, 6, 7, and 11 relate to
self-efficacy and motivated learning behavior. Participants agreed or stron=
gly
agreed on the importance of strategic planning (M=3D4.41, SD=3D.67), and se=
tting
challenging goals such as being highly involved with the course (M=3D4.41,
SD=3D.70) or staying on top of their assignments (M=3D4.52, SD=3D.68). On t=
he same
token, participants recognized their strong disagreement (M=3D1.55, SD=3D.7=
0) with
being very little involved with the course. Results indicated a strong
relevance of participants’ perceptions of being proactive to be successful.
These results lend support to other research findings on important students’
willingness to assume personal responsibility for their learning and success
(Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 2013; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2021). Participants
also reported a very positive effect on students’ success when teachers hav=
e a
positive attitude and are dedicated to their students (M=3D4.81, SD=3D.39).=
The
same positive effect on their students’ learning was perceived when teachers
provide feedback to learners (M=3D4.76, SD=3D.43), when flexibility is offe=
red to
complete assignments (M=3D4.14, SD=3D.88), and when teachers motivate their
students to complete assignments by sending reminders (M=3D4.22, SD=3D.85).=
These
students’ perceptions are in line with the findings on teachers’ perceptions
about their teaching practices and strategies (Pardo-Ballester, 2022). In
addition, these findings are related to social persuasion, which is importa=
nt
because it suggests a way to strengthen efficacy. When an educator gives
positive feedback and persuades his students about their capabilities to
perform specific tasks well, they will be motivated and work hard to succee=
d.
Similarly, if students receive negative feedback and do not receive the
teacher’s support, their learning and motivation to succeed will be affected
(Bandura, 1997; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2021).
Regarding the statement about having weekly
reflections on one’s learning, results indicated that students were imparti=
al
about including them in a course (M=3D3.17, SD=3D1.18). This finding was ex=
pected
because even though reflective assignments are very effective for language
learning, it is time-consuming for the teacher (Pardo-Ballester, 2022).
5. CONCLUSIONS
COVID-19 made us all reevaluate the way we
have been living. Many of us have been resilient and have changed our views=
on
the world. Students faced challeng=
es
during the 2020 lockdown, including deficits in social skills, motivation, =
and
attention spans (Hartshorn & McMurry, 2020). The quarantine and afterma=
th
exacerbated mental health issues, evident in increased anxiety and depressi=
on
cases, amplified consultations with mental health professionals (Williams &=
amp;
Reetz, 2020), heightened isolation, loneliness, and exacerbated family
conflicts. According to Field (2021), many students tend to use medications,
highlighting the importance of using strategies like managing time effectiv=
ely.
Our study revealed that students feel the need to stay connected socially a=
nd
often get distracted by their devices when they receive notifications. This
distraction affects their focus on work, as indicated by their neutral
responses regarding separating themselves from distractions or responding to
emails.
In alignment with prior studies (Moser et =
al.,
2021; Jin et al., 2021), our research underscores a preference for face-to-=
face
supplemented by technology in language learning. The pandemic, despite its
fears and uncertainties, became a learning ground for both students and
educators. Notably, we found that social and evaluative feedback significan=
tly
influences self-efficacy beliefs. Our participants perceived crucial support
for their learning and education from family and friends, which plays a piv=
otal
role in achieving success. Moreover, it is not just family and friends who
influence participants’ self-efficacy beliefs; teachers also emerged as
influential figures. Participants highlighted teachers’ flexibility and
motivational support as catalysts for their success.
While institutions face substantial losses,
this study reveals that students remain committed to language studies. One =
year
following the pandemic’s onset, students reported an improvement in their
language skills, now adept at managing the demands of language classes
alongside their personal lives. Essential strategies for success encompass
diverse instructional models (online, hybrid, face-to-face), accompanied by
requisite technological support and preparation (Jin et al., 2021;
Pardo-Ballester, 2022).
REFERENCES<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso-fareast-font-fam=
ily:
Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;mso-ansi-langu=
age:
EN-US'>
Back, M., Golembeski, K., Gutiérrez, A., Macko, T., Miller, S., &
Pelletier, D. (2021). “We were told that the content we delivered was not as
important:” disconnect and disparities in world language student teaching
during Covid-19. System, 103,1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102679
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. & Jourden, F.J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms
governing the
impact of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (6), 941-951.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.941
Blake, R.J., Wilson, N., Cetto, M. & Pardo-B=
allester,
C. (2008). Measuring Oral
Proficiency in Distance, Face-to-Face, and Blended Classrooms. Language Learning & Technology,
12(3), 114-127.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). <=
/span>Academic
self-concept and self-efficacy: How
different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 1=
5(1),
1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382
Brown, S. (2021, August 24). Did Covid Break Students’ Mental Health?=
As
the fall semester begins, students are stressed out and burned out. The
Chronicle of Higher Education.https://www.chro=
nicle.com/article/did-covid-break-students-mental-health<=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'>.
Cresswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2021). Teaching and researching
motivation (3rd ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Field, K. (2021, October 25). How Time-Management and Other Tools Can
Help Students with Mental Illnesses Stay Enrolled. The Chronicle Higher
Education. https://www.chro=
nicle.com/article/how-time-management-and-other-tools-can-help-students-wit=
h-mental-illnesses-stay-enrolled.
Frank, M. (2011). The
pillars of the self-concept: Self-esteem and self-efficacy. Excel at Life, LLC. http://www.excel=
atlife.com/articles/selfesteem.htm.
Gacs, A., Goertler, S.
& Spasova, S. (2020). Planned online
language education versus crisis-prompted online language teaching: Lessons=
for
the future. Foreign Language Annals=
,
53(2), 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12460.
Hapsari, C.R. (2021).
Distance Learning in the Time of Covid-19 :
Exploring Students’ Anxiety. ELT Forum, 10 (1), 40-49. <=
span
style=3D'mso-bookmark:_Hlk120094576'>https://journal.unn=
es.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt/article/view/45756.
Harsch, C., Müller-Karabil, A., Buchminskaia, E. (2021). Addressing the
challenges of interaction in online language courses. System,
103,102673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.1026=
73.
Hartshorn, K. J. & McMurry, B.L. (2020). The effects of the COVID=
-19
pandemic on ESL learners and TESOL practitioners in the United States. International Journal of TESOL Studies=
,
2 (2), 140-156. https://doi.org/=
10.46451/ijts.2020.09.11
Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign Language
Classroom Anxiety, The Modern Langu=
age
Journal, 70 (2), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.=
1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x.
Jin, L., Xu Y., Deif=
ell,
E. & Angus K. (2021). Emergency Remote Language Teaching and U.S. – Based College-Level Wor=
ld
Language Educators’ Intention to Adopt Online Teaching in Post-pandemic Tim=
es. The
Modern Language Journal, 105(2),
412-434.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12712
Kaisar, M.T & Chowdhury, S.Y (2020). Foreign language virtual
classroom: Anxiety creator or healer? English
Language Teaching, 13 (11), 130-139. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n119130.
Liu, M & Yuan, R. (2021). Changes in and Effects of Foreign Langu=
age
Classroom
Anxiety and Listening Anxiety on Chinese Undergraduate Students’ Engl=
ish
Proficiency in the COVID-19 Context. Frontiers in Psychology ,12,1-5=
. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670824<=
/span>.
Lomicka, L. (2020).
Creating and sustaining virtual language communities. Foreign Language Annals, 53 (2), 306-313.
https://onlineli=
brary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/flan.12456.
Lune, H. & Berg, B. (2017), Qualitative Research Methods for
Social Sciences. Harlow, England: Pearson.
Maican, M.A. & Cocorada, E. (2021). O=
nline
foreign language learning in higher education and its correlates during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13 (2), 781. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020781
McIntyre, P., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2020). Language teache=
rs’
coping strategies during the Covid-19 to online teaching: Correlations with
stress, wellbeing and negative emotions. System
Moser, K., Wei, T. & Brenner, D. (2021). Remote teaching
during Covid-19: Implications from a national survey of language educators.=
System, 97, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.1024=
31.
Oskoz, A. & Smith=
, B.
(2020). Unprecedented Times. CALICO Journal, 37 (2), i-vii. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.41524 .
Pardo-Ballester, C. (2018). The evaluation of oral skills: A comparis=
on
between courses "hybrid distance" and "face ALAO". Hispania=
, 101 (4), 620-640. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn=
.2018.0182
Pardo-Ballester, C. (2021). El pasado, presente y futuro de la ense=
ñanza
de ELE. Cuadernos de Aldeuu, 35, 335-358.
Pardo-Ballester, C. (2022). Language Teachers’ Health: Emotions
and Wellbeing in the Covid-19 Pandemic. In C.N. Gannik=
as
(Ed.), Language Learning and Teaching from Face-to-Face to Online Settin=
gs
(pp.266-286). IGI Global.
Petterson, J. (2021). Speaking ability progress of language learners =
in
online and face
Russell, V. (2020). Language anxiety and the online learner. Foreign Language Annals,53(2),338-=
352.
https://doi.org/=
10.1111/flan.12461.
Skallerup Bessette, L. (2021, October 7). You Can Ask for Mental-Heal=
th
Help, but Can You Find Any? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chro=
nicle.com/article/you-can-ask-for-mental-health-help-but-can-you-find-any
Smith, B. & Oskoz, A. (2021). One year
Later… CALICO Journal, 38 (2), i-iv. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.42986.
Sosulski, M. (2020).
Responding to COVID-19: A chief academic officer’s perspective. Second Language Research & Practic=
e, 1(1),
139–143. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69845.
Williams, L.B. & Reetz, D. (2020, July 31). How to Prepare for the
Coming Flood of Student Mental-Health Needs. The Chronicle of Higher
Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-prepare-for-the-coming-flood-of-st=
udent-mental-health-needs
Zimmerman, B. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A
social cognitive career. Educational
Psychologist, 48 (3), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.7946=
76