An International Comparison of Online Learning Transition During COVID-19

The sudden emergence of COVID-19 and its rapid spread transformed work and learning as we knew it, with governments worldwide rapidly mandating remote work and learning in response to this global crisis. The pandemic presents a unique opportunity for the higher education (HE) as well as training and adult education (TAE) sectors to “leapfrog the present and transform their paradigms for learning delivery through accelerated adoption of digital technologies” i.e. digital transformation or digitalization [1].

The abrupt shift to online learning from face-to-face learning can be a difficult process, and sometimes even unrealistic, as the shift requires careful planning, preparation, adaptation and appropriate learning space [2]. Key challenges that were faced during the COVID-19 pandemic include: lack of access to learning technologies, inadequate digital competences and pedagogical skills, financial difficulties, workload and well-being issues, and difficulties in engaging learners online [3, 4].

Singapore is no stranger to online learning. Long before the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Singapore government launched a ‘Master Plan for IT in Education’ in 1997 to enhance teaching and learning through IT and online learning, both at the K-12 and tertiary levels [5]. Adoption of online tools had been widespread and varied in extent but gradual in speed, until the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis in 2003, when the education sector moved to adapt its business continuity plans, installing learning and content management systems and implementing “e-learning weeks” to its curriculum [6]. The use of learning technologies is further promoted with the Innovation Learning 2020 initiatives, which aims to enable a strong adoption of technology in training and adult learning to meet the dynamic learning needs of enterprises and individuals [7]. With the various challenges that have been pointed out in previous literature regarding transitions to online learning, we are interested in investigating whether this transition during COVID-19 has resulted similar or different challenges in Singapore, whose education sector has ventured deeper in the journey of digitalization, as compared to  many other parts of the world. Singapore, as a leader in the use of learning technologies and with its focus on adult learning and skill development, will provide an interesting case of comparison for analyzing the experiences and perceptions of long-term impact of this transition to online learning, teaching, and assessment (LTA) [8].

To understand how the transition to online (LTA) to cope with COVID-19 was impacting post-secondary educators and trainers (hereafter referred to as educators) around the world, an online survey was jointly conducted by the Institute for Adult Learning (IAL) Singapore and the University of Bristol. The purpose of the study is to uncover how prepared the wider educational workforce feels toward offering online learning and training and the impact this has on educators and the educational/training labor market, specifically:

• Their levels of preparedness, confidence, and access.
• Changes in organization’s business, plans to go digital, new ways of using learning technologies, and pedagogical changes.
• Impact on learning, learner wellness, and equity issues.
• Impact on educators’ role, workload, income, TAE labor market and business opportunities.
• Current and long-term impact on education institutions/training providers, HE/TAE sector, and potential changes to the future of education.
• Challenges faced and support needed.

Capturing data of this rapid move is important for chartering the next directions for HE and adult training in preparation for the new order beyond COVID-19, and the lessons learned could provide useful references to the global professional community of online educators.

Methodology

The "Covid-19 Educator Survey" was designed based on an earlier online survey that examined the preparedness of academics in the U.K.’s universities toward the rapid move to LTA online [9]. We expanded the original scope and contextualized the questions to the Singapore context. The two online surveys consist of a series of Likert-scaled items that ask respondents to reflect on their perceptions about moving to online learning, training, and assessment. We aim to address two research questions:

• What are the experiences of adult educators in this transition to online LTA?
• Are there any differences in the perceived impact of the transition due to COVID-19 among the adult educators in Singapore and other parts of the world?

In Singapore, educators working in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnics, autonomous universities as well as the TAE sector participated in this survey, which was conducted from May to June 2020. More details about the "Covid-19 Educator Survey" can be found in Chen et al. [3]. The survey gathered a total of 1,553 responses from adult educators working in Singapore, including:

• academics, teaching and research staff, adjunct lecturers, or educators working in institutes of higher learning, which include ITE, polytechnics, and autonomous universities;
• adult educators working in training organizations, who perform the roles of learning facilitator, assessor, courseware developer, learning technology designer, learning consultant or learning solutionist, curriculum lead, etc.;
• freelance adult educators; and
• training professionals working in an enterprise delivering in-house training.

On the other hand, the international sample was collected from March to April 2020 via an email campaign and a call for participation on the International Association of Universities (IAU) website, as part of the IAU Global Survey to investigate the impact of COVID 19 on HE around the world. The IAU Global Survey drew on the IAU World Higher Education Database, which consisted of 9,670 higher education institutions (HEIs). The survey garnered a total of 1,699 responses from educators working in post-16 further education or HE across 46 country contexts. The majority of participants were from the UK (n=1,377), while the remaining participants came from a mixture of countries such as European Union countries (n=86), the U.S. (n=93), Australia (n=29), et cetera. Notably, the data collection period differs slightly between these two samples.

Table 1 presents the breakdown of the respondents by their job functions in the two sample types. Although the international sample mainly consisted of respondents from institutes of higher learning, the Singapore sample mainly consisted of respondents from the TAE sector; the two samples are comparable when we look at the proportion of each functional role within these samples. While 1,553 respondents participated in the Singapore survey, only those with valid responses on their job functions, i.e., teaching versus nonteaching, were included in this analysis (n=1,514). Hence for the purpose of this article, we will focus our comparative analyses on functional roles.

Table 1. Breakdown of sample by job function and work setting.

^aNote: Non-teaching role refers to researchers or research scientists, learning technologists, and those providing academic or administrative support within the various settings. While they do not perform teaching functions, it is still pertinent to gather their views in order to understand how the wider educational workforce feel about the transition to online LTA as well as its impact on them, the labor market, and the future of HE and TAE.

Findings: Confidence in delivering online LTA

When asked to rate their confidence in their ability to facilitate online LTA, a greater proportion of the educators in Singapore (81%) felt confident compared to their international counterparts (52%), X² (2, N = 2959) = 271.3, p < .01 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Proportion of respondents agreeing with the statement "I feel prepared to deliver online learning, teaching and assessment."

[click to enlarge]

However, when looking at the confidence of these educators by their job function, those with teaching job functions felt differently from those with non-teaching job functions in Singapore, X² (2, N = 1359) = 54.9, p < .01.

There are also differences between the two samples among those with teaching job functions: 84% of the respondents in Singapore felt confident in their ability to facilitate online LTA as compared to only 52% of their international counterparts doing so, X² (2, N = 2699) = 310.8, p < .01.

Findings: Support provided by the institutions

When asked to report the types of support available from their institutions to deliver online learning and teaching activities, the provision of non-interactive online materials is consistently the most common type of support reported by educators across the two samples (see Figure 2), although a significantly higher proportion of those in the international sample (80%) had such support as compared to those in Singapore (55%), X² (2, N = 3222) = 229.9, p < .01. Online support was also more readily available from the international institutions, X² (2, N = 3222) = 41.1, p < .01, likewise for interactive online materials, X² (2, N = 3222) = 23.9, p < .01. On the other hand, a greater proportion of the educators in Singapore (23%) were provided with in-person support by their institutions as compared to their international counterparts (12%), X² (2, N = 3222) = 63.2, p < .01. A significantly higher proportion of educators in Singapore also received no support from their institutions as compared to their international counterparts, X² (2, N = 3222) = 68.1, p < .01.

Figure 2. Proportion of respondents reporting on the types of support available from their institutions to deliver online learning and teaching activities.

[click to enlarge]

Within each sample, there were no significant differences between respondents with or without teaching functions, in terms of support provided by their institutions to deliver online LTA (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Proportion of respondents reporting on the availability of such support from their institutions to deliver online learning and teaching activities, by job function.

[click to enlarge]

However, there were significant differences between the two samples among those with teaching functions, in terms of in-person support,  X² (1, N = 2905) = 53.0, p < .01; non-interactive online materials, X² (1, N = 2905) = 210.8, p < .01; interactive online materials, X² (1, N = 2905) = 22.3, p < .01; online support, X² (1, N = 2905) = 37.6, p < .01; as well as no support, X² (1, N = 2905) = 68.6, p < .01.

There were also significant differences between the two samples among those with non-teaching functions (Figure 3), in terms of in-person support, X² (1, N = 278) = 7.1, p < .01; non-interactive online materials, X² (1, N = 278) = 10.9, p < .01; as well as online support, X² (1, N = 278) = 8.4, p < .01.

Findings: Impact of the transition to online LTA due to COVID-19

Respondents were asked to rate how the transition to online LTA due to COVID-19 would impact various areas of their work such as assessment and the engagement of their students and learners (hereafter referred to as learners), progression of their learners, as well as the health and well-being of their learners or themselves. Each area is rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (negative) to 10 (positive) for the international sample, and 0 (negative) to 100 (positive) for the Singapore sample. For comparability, findings will be reported by three categories: 1. negative impact, 2. no change or impact, and 3. positive impact. 

Impact on engagement of learners. Both surveys looked at engagement from two perspectives: learner engagement with their learning or the course, and learner engagement with the institution.

In terms of assessing the impact on the engagement of their learners with their learning or course, the educators from Singapore seem to be more optimistic as compared to their international counterparts (see Figure 4), X² (2, N = 2820) = 272.6, p < .01. Almost half (46%) of the respondents in Singapore thought the impact was positive, while only 18% of their international counterparts thought the impact was positive and three quarters of them thought the impact was negative.

Within the international sample, a significantly higher proportion of those with non-teaching job junctions have a more positive view than those with teaching job functions, X² (2, N = 1526) = 11.7, p < .01.

Figure 4. Proportion of respondents reporting the impact on the engagement of their learners with their learning or course.

[click to enlarge]

Figure 5. Proportion of respondents reporting the impact on the engagement of their learners with the institution.

[click to enlarge]

When assessing the impact on the engagement of their learners with the institution, majority from both samples reported negative impacts. However, the educators from Singapore tend to be comparatively more optimistic than their international counterparts (see Figure 5), X² (2, N = 2805) = 196.9, p < .01. About a third (36%) of the respondents in Singapore thought the impact was positive, while only 14% of their international counterparts thought the impact was positive, with more than three quarters (76%) of them thinking that the Impact was negative. 

Among the international educators, those with non-teaching job junctions seem to be slightly more optimistic, with about a quarter (24%) thinking that the impact was positive as compared to their counterparts with teaching job functions (13%), X² (2, N = 1511) = 10.5, p < .01.

Impact on assessment. When rating the impact on formative assessment (assessment to support learning and progression, which is typically conducted during the course or program e.g., short quizzes and polls.), the educators from Singapore also tend to be more optimistic as compared to their international counterparts (see Figure 6),  X² (2, N = 2789) = 199.8, p < .01. Almost half (43%) of the respondents in Singapore thought the impact was positive, while only 19% of their international counterparts thought so.

Figure 6. Proportion of respondents reporting the impact on formative assessment.

[click to enlarge]

Figure 7. Proportion of respondents reporting the impact on summative assessment.

[click to enlarge]

Similarly, the educators from Singapore tend to be more optimistic as compared to their international counterparts when rating the impact on summative assessment (assessment to certify the achievement or progress in learning, which is typically conducted at the end of the course or program e.g., project work, tests or examinations), as illustrated in Figure 7, X² (2, N = 2781) = 304.4, p < .01. About 40% of the respondents in Singapore thought the impact was positive, while only 13% of their international counterparts thought so.

There were also significant different between the two samples, among those with teaching job functions, X² (2, N = 2525) = 281.0, p < .01, as well as among those with non-teaching job junctions, X² (2, N = 224) = 17.4, p < .01.

Impact on progression of learners. When assessing the impact on the progression of their learners in education, a higher proportion of the educators from Singapore (49%) felt the impact was positive, as compared with only 12% of their international counterparts feeling so (see Figure 8), X² (2, N = 2782) = 475.3, p < .01. The difference in views between the international and Singapore educators is similar among those with teaching job functions, X² (2, N = 2528) = 424.8, p < .01, as well as among those with non-teaching job junctions, X² (2, N = 222) = 39.8, p < .01.

Figure 8. Proportion of respondents reporting the impact on progression of their learners in education.

[click to enlarge]

Figure 9. Proportion of respondents reporting the impact on progression of their learners into the workforce.

[click to enlarge]

A higher proportion of the educators from Singapore (43%) also felt the impact on the progression of their learners into the workforce was positive, as compared to only 16% of their international counterparts doing do (see Figure 9), X² (2, N = 2769) = 298.7, p < .01. The difference in views between the international and Singapore educators is similar among those with teaching job functions, X² (2, N = 2515) = 278.8, p < .01, as well as among those with non-teaching job junctions, X² (2, N = 222) = 23.0, p < .01.

Among the international educators, those with non-teaching job junctions seem to be slightly more optimistic, with about a quarter (27%) thinking that the impact was positive as compared to their counterparts with teaching job functions (15%), X² (2, N = 1475) = 10.5, p < .01.

Impact on health and well-being. In the survey questionnaire, international respondents were asked to rate the impact on health and well-being (including mental health) as a whole, while those from Singapore were asked to rate the impact on well-being, physical health and mental health (which pertains to stress, motivation etc) separately.

Regarding the impact on the health and well-being of their learners, a higher proportion of the educators from Singapore felt the impact was positive, as compared to their international counterparts (see Figure 10). About half of the respondents from Singapore felt the impact on the mental health (50%) and physical health (45%) of their learners was positive, while about a third (35%) felt the impact on the well-being of their learners was positive. On the other hand, only 8% of the international respondents felt the impact on the health and well-being of their learners was positive. Among the educators from Singapore, those with non-teaching job functions seem to be slightly more optimistic when it comes to impact on the well-being of their learners, with 43% thinking the impact was positive, as compared to only about a third (34%) of their counterparts with teaching job functions. As the questions on health and well-being were dissimilar between the two surveys, we are unable to test the significance of the differences in results.

Figure 10. Proportion of respondents reporting the impact on the health and well-being of their learners.

[click to enlarge]

Figure 11. Proportion of respondents reporting the impact on their own health and well-being.

[click to enlarge]

When it comes to the impact on the health and well-being of themselves, a higher proportion of the educators from Singapore also felt the impact is positive, as compared to their international counterparts (see Figure 11). About half of the respondents from Singapore felt the impact on their own mental health was positive, while more than a third (39%) felt the impact on their well-being was positive. On the other hand, only 10% of the international respondents felt the impact on their health and well-being was positive. As the questions on health and well-being were dissimilar between the two surveys, we are unable to test the significance of the differences in results.

Conclusion

As evident from the data, the respondents from Singapore tended to be more positive when it came to rating the impact of the transition to online LTA due to COVID-19 on their work, progression of their learners, as well as learners’ and their own health and well-being. However, it is possible this is due to the difference in data collection periods between the two samples.

The international survey was conducted from March to April 2020, when there was a sudden rush to switch to fully online learning due to COVID-19, and the educators surveyed may have been scrambling to adjust to the changes. On the other hand, the survey was conducted in Singapore two months later, which may have allowed the respondents to adjust better to the world of online learning, thus explaining their more optimistic views. The perceptions of the international respondents therefore imply that the transition to online LTA was a temporary response to the emergency due to COVID-19, while those of the respondents from Singapore seem to represent a general sentiment towards a more permanent shift to online LTA rather than an emergency response.

In addition, the Singapore government has been promoting online or blended learning in both the HE and TAE sectors, e.g. the iN.LEARN 2020 [10] initiative aimed to push the adoption of learning technologies in the TAE sector and the TAE Skills Framework [11] highlighted the trend for the TAE sector to adopt blended learning. A nationwide survey conducted back in 2018 found the majority of adult educators (77%) had reported using learning technology in their LTA-related work [7]. On the other hand, the shift to online learning seems to be less advanced in the U.K., with many feeling skeptical about the effectiveness and long-term impact of MOOCs on the traditional university model [9]. 

In light of the finding that the perceptions of the educators in Singapore are generally positive, this crisis could be seen as an opportunity for a paradigm change. More funding and support should be provided for pedagogical innovation, and stronger partnerships between the training providers and EdTech companies are envisaged in the future. On average, among the organizations that the respondents in Singapore work in, about a third (35%) of their digital/online programs are currently outsourced, purchased from external companies or partners, or tap on external open-access digital/online programs [1]. The HE and TAE sectors in Singapore are also seeing opportunities in taking advantage of this transition to extend their services to wider audiences globally [1].

The challenges and experiences of converting to online learning during the pandemic felt by adult educators in Singapore and the surveyed countries were also found in other parts of the world. It is therefore hoped that the lessons learned from this current study could provide useful references to a wider community in HE and adult training to emerge strong from the pandemic. For example, there is a need for professional development in the design, development, and assessment of online learning to be a core component for continuing improvement. Our findings in Figures 2 and 3 show that a variety of support, both in-person and online, is needed to help educators cope with the changes. With increased exposure to digital pedagogies and uplift in use of learning technologies, there is also an anticipated increase in popularity for digital learning. This necessitates the review of existing quality assurance framework to fit the online environment. Concerns for learner engagement and assessment in the online environments, also call for discussions among the community on ways to leverage technologies to engage learners meaningfully as well as to create learning activities and experiences in online or blended modes that foster learning outcomes [12].

Regardless of their views on the impact of COVID-19 and the transition to online LTA, it appears online LTA is here to stay. The immediate challenge would be to make appropriate continuing professional development (CPD) arrangements to support educators around the world to cope with this transition. It is also imperative to understand the long-term impact of this transition, as well as to continue collecting comparative data in future studies, for a fuller and deeper analysis. Lastly, as the U.K. data was heavily represented in the international sample, findings of the international survey may be skewed and thus does not truly reflect a global perspective. Follow-up studies with fairer representations from other countries are highly recommended.

References

About the Authors

Dr. Zan Chen is principal researcher and senior lecturer in the Institute for Adult Learning at Singapore University of Social Sciences. She has 20 years of research and teaching experiences in universities in both China and Singapore. Her research focuses on adult education and teacher professional learning, blended learning and training and adult education systems at both national and international levels. Her research seeks to inform both policy and practice to enhance understanding of the impact of continuing education and training and enable its future developments. She has led flagship research, which has had great impact on training and adult education in Singapore. She has published widely in her field and presented regularly at both international and local conferences. She now serves as a member of Research Network 3: Professionalisation of Adult Teachers and Educators in ASEM countries of the ASEM???Education and Research Hub for Lifelong Learning (ASEM LLL Hub). She is also a national expert on projects related to adult education and training in the U.K., Korea, and Australia as well as for the European Commission's Directorate General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture.

Bao Zhen Tan is a researcher in the Institute for Adult Learning at Singapore University of Social Sciences. She conducts local and international large-scale quantitative research relating to skills, adult education, and the future of work. She is currently the national sampling manager of the national team that is implementing the second cycle of the International Survey of Adult Skills in Singapore, under the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), which is an initiative of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).