(Re)considering Motivational Scaffolding: A Mixed- Method Study on Turkish Students’ Perspectives on Online Learning Before and During the Pandemic

Scaffolding to motivate online learners

Azevedo et al. (2003) classified scaffolding into three types, such as cognitive, metacognitive and motivational scaffolding. Cognitive and metacognitive scaffolds are hints, support and assistance given about contents, techniques and tools for problem solving and learning management. Motivational scaffolds are methods to increase motivation, for instance, by attributional feedback. Even a visually-formed planning tool can be a motivational scaffold (Low & Robinson, 2015). However, just as characteristics of scaffolding in online learning settings have evolved (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005), so too motivational scaffolding needs changing in online learning environments (Belland et al., 2013). For example, in online settings, a shared understanding is provided through authentic tasks to motivate learners, whereas, in classrooms, the providers are experts or teachers. Assistance from tools is stable and permanent, while support from classrooms fades eventually. Calling the attention to the importance of scaffolding in computer-assisted learning, Belland et al. (2013) designed a six-goal scaffold for motivation and engagement: (1) “establish task value”, (2) “promote mastery goals”, (3) “promote belonging”, (4) “promote emotion regulation”, (5) “promote expectancy for success”, (6) “promote autonomy” (p. 248). They suggested integrating these goals into teacher scaffolds, by which a teacher gives a prompt and attributional feedback when students do not or cannot accomplish a task. Despite a considerable amount of studies on online motivational scaffolding, some focused on this type of scaffolding in online learning tools where a human teacher is absent. Meri-Yilan’s (2017) study demonstrated that feedback in online learning resources (OLRs) could act as motivational scaffolding as understood from students’ sayings: “I am happy!”, “I am good!” or “Congratulations!” (p. 145) but may not be enough to sustain their motivation.

Pedagogy of care and online teaching

Heidegger (1990) argued that the human existence is connected or “being-with” (p. 136), by which people care for not just their own selves but also others. Noddings (2013) related the notion of caring with “motivational displacement” (p. 16), “motivational shift” (p. 33), or “motivational energy” (p. 50) that transfers from one to another. As discussed by Zygmunt et al. (2018), teachers who received “authentic caring within the space of supportive relationships” (p. 127) could apply caring skills in more authentic ways. Busteed (2019) noted that in all learning environments, student success was proportionate to emotional engagement. Yet, in online settings, learning characteristics change since educational disadvantages increase (Fox, 2018), as some online learners can access to OLRs, others cannot. In Marx’s (2011) study, students in online courses thought that caring was provided through on-time feedback and individual, positive comments. However, Hall (2010) indicated that learning environment did not have an impact on learners’ views on their lecturers’ caring. Furthermore, a study by Kim and Schallert (2011) found that caring relationships through online posts between a teacher and three students were personal, for example, one student mentioned about trusting the teacher first to allow this relationship. Another one stated that just in an online environment she could receive better caring, whereas others found it unnecessary causing misunderstanding. On the other hand, an analysis of Rose and Adams (2014) demonstrated that online teachers did not just emphasise the need for caring students all the time; they also narrated their apprehension about balancing their life while caring them and their own selves. A very recent study conducted by Burke and Larmar (2021) before the pandemic contended that Noddings’s (2010) framework suited online pedagogy of care with its four components, such as modelling, dialogues, practice and confirmation. Based on the caring relations, modelling refers to educators’ behaviours to show that they are caring students but not telling this to them. Dialogue recognises educators’ engagement with their students in discussions but in an understanding manner. Practice allows each student to apply their cared learning in a friendly environment. Confirmation occurs through “a caring relationship cultivated between the teacher and student” (Burke & Larmar, 2021, p. 606). By this, students can engage with their learning cycle positively.

Existing research on motivational scaffolds and pedagogy of care in emergency online teaching

With the outbreak and fast spreading of the pandemic, not only have health departments (Rubin et al., 2020) called for an urgent need of care for people’s physiological and psychological manners, but existing literature in investigating learning and teaching also has focused on reconsideration of a pedagogy of care and further support (Bali, 2020; Bozkurt et al., 2020; Concerned Academics, 2020; Karakaya, 2021; Koseoglu, 2020; Moorhouse & Tiet, 2021; Myers, 2020; Robinson et al., 2020) for a better learning space and experience. Although scholars have linked this issue of caring for learning with the existing literature, they all agreed that learning in the pandemic is different from online learning (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020). Online learning needs a well-planned and organized design and is supported with theoretical frameworks, whereas emergency online learning is a temporarily changed education to sustain learning and teaching at a time of a crisis, such as disasters, wars etc. (Bozkurt et al., 2020; Hodges et al., 2020).

In consistence with hooks (2003), Koseoglu (2020) related the term, pedagogy of care, with feminist pedagogy, which “calls attentive ways of looking into structuring educational services, methods, policies, and legislations that create an inclusive learning space not just for women, but for all students who are disadvantaged in their education” (p. 277). As a matter of fact, the characteristics of pedagogy of care are based on considering each learner as individual (Bali, 2020), so practices and strategies implemented by course lecturers and designers should reflect on facilitating learning experiences. In line with Noddings (2010), a study by Robinson et al. (2020) also found that “a climate of care” (p. 99) can be established through including and responding to all learners’ needs. These needs are, in fact, emotional and psychological during the time of crisis. Indeed, support should be not just one-way, but mutual, not just physiological but affectionate (Bali, 2020; Concerned Academic, 2020; Robinson et al., 2020). Myers (2020) emphasised the role and provision of feedback for a successful pedagogy of care. For example, teachers can discuss with students for useful feedback and make students feel confident with and unbiased towards the provided feedback. Hence, the input from the students can help the teachers contemplate that their students are part of their teaching. Although these practices such as giving feedback are identifiable, students can also recognize unidentifiable ones such as that they are cared (Burke et al., 2022). This way of practice can also ensure each practitioner to focus on student equity (Baice et al., 2021).

Furthermore, Rodés et al. (2021) looked at the design of an online course through an approach of pedagogy of care. Based on this approach, variables can be counted as human interaction, empathy, commitment and simplicity. From the technological aspect, an online learning setting should consider digital and ethical rights. Moorhouse and Tiet (2021) addressed that teachers should maintain this pedagogical praxis of care from the start till the end of their teaching. Meanwhile, they should share their power with students through co-creating solutions and a community of care (Mehrotra, 2021).

Research design

To investigate Turkish students’ experiences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, this research used a mixed-methods research design (Creswell, 2013). It started with a quantitative research design in order to see their views on online learning prior to the pandemic. This design was followed by a qualitative one to deeply understand their learning during the pandemic. With this, a questionnaire was conducted to give a general picture on their online learning before the pandemic and then interviewing took place to address issues raised during the pandemic when learning in an entirely online mode.

The sampling

The sample consisted of twenty-six students who were studying English in a preparatory class in a state university in Turkey. Twenty-one (81%) of them were female and five (19%) were male. Their ages were ranged between 16 and 22. They had been learning English for more than two years and had pre-intermediate level of English language proficiency according to the programme they were taught. Until the pandemic, they had been attending classroom courses and had never taken any online courses. They were using a learning management system (LMS) for language learning but not obligatorily. In other words, doing activities in LMS was optional. Moreover, in classroom learning, they were introduced to some known OLRs to use voluntarily. However, from the outbreak of the pandemic in the country, March, to the end of the academic year, June, they took all of their courses online, as regulated by the country’s higher education institution.

The students were chosen based on a purposive sampling method. The criteria were that they had not been taught entirely online before but introduced some OLRs and that they were taking online courses during the pandemic. The other criterion was that they had filled out a questionnaire about their perspectives of learning online just one month before the pandemic, as part of another study that could not be finalized due to the pandemic.

The researcher of the present study was their lecturer for a Reading and Writing course who had been teaching English for nearly a decade and experienced in online education with her PhD degree abroad. She contacted the participants online to ask them to take part in the study voluntarily. It was, however, ensured that the study was conducted without any bias, by recruiting a second reviewer from an external institution to review the ethics of the study and by making the participation voluntary, by which the trustworthiness of the study was aimed to be realised.

Data collection procedures

The study collected data through qualitative and quantitative research methods (see Table 1). As a quantitative research method, a questionnaire was designed based on the related literature (Land & Bayne, 2011; Stodel et al., 2006) to ask their views on online learning. It was divided into three sections: (1) demographic information (i.e. gender, age and length of English language learning); (2) technology use (possession of a smartphone and other digital devices, and use of and access to the Internet); (3) students’ views on online learning. Each of 13 items in the third section of the questionnaire (see Table 2) was rated according to a 6-Likert scale: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neutral (N), Not Applicable (NA), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD). In addition, one open-ended question was included to enable the participants to further express their perceptions on online learning. The questionnaire was validated through checking the internal consistency. It calculated the Cronbach alpha reliability rating as 0.88. Twenty-six participants filled the questionnaire online in a Google Form in February, just before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of conducting the questionnaire was to see their perceptions on online learning before experiencing it.

As a qualitative research method, interviewing via dialogue journals and essay writing took place. The aim of conducting in this way was to make the participants feel comfortable when expressing ideas on their online learning experiences. After the outbreak of the pandemic, March, in the country, education transited from classroom to online. Besides technical troubles such as digital device and Internet access, psychological burden impacted students, as expressed to the lecturer personally by some students. In order to ensure the continuity of interaction with students, the lecturer had a Zoom meeting informally on the first online teaching day even though Adobe Connect was provided by the institution. The reason for the Zoom meeting was to make them feel comfortable and secure to tell their views and prepared for coming online classes based on Noddings’s (2010) framework. The lecturer asked them to send an email about any worry or perceptions about the new learning type. Except from two male students, twenty-four students sent an email, dialogue journal, to her in March. In this context, modelling was created through the Zoom meeting, dialogue occurred through sending emails back and forth between students and their lecturer. The objective of conducting dialogue journal was to create an online learning environment with students and in turn understand student-teacher interaction during the crisis. After these email exchanges, the lecturer asked them to reply the following interview question: What do you think of student-teacher interaction during the pandemic?

Between March and June, the lecturer continued to teach online. She aimed to implement practice in a cared learning way. To look at their views on support throughout online teaching, the lecturer asked them to answer the following essay question in June: How do you feel about support during the pandemic? All of twenty-six students sent their answers through their essays to her.

Data analysis

Data from the quantitative research were analysed through descriptive statistics (i.e. percentages and frequencies of the participants’ thoughts about each item) done in the Google Form. Data from interviewing (i.e. dialogue journals and essays) were analysed through deductive and inductive approaches (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011). Pre-defined codes derived from the purpose of the research are favour of support, disfavour of support, favour of interaction and disfavour of interaction. Other issues raised in dialogue journals and essays were categorised as eye contact and gestures, student concerns, student problems, and teacher support. Two expert researchers reviewed coded texts and assessed codes. The agreement was found 97%.

Ethical considerations

The participants signed the consent form to part in the study before giving their responses. They were also informed that they could withdraw from the study at any step of data collection. Also, the researcher ensured the security and anonymity of the participants’ responses. Each participant was coded with a number and data was stored in a password-required file. Additionally, the study was approved by the research ethics committee of the Institutional review board.

Participants’ technology uses and perspectives of online learning before the pandemic

Data from the questionnaire show participants’ technology use before taking entirely online courses because of the pandemic. All of them stated that they had a smartphone and mobile Internet access as well as broadband at home, university and/or dormitory. However, eleven of them (42%) always used the Internet, whereas others did on some occasions.

Also, data from the questionnaire demonstrate that their views on online learning differed (see Table 2).

More than half of the participants (62%) found online education useful, whereas less than one-third (27%) chose neutral and not applicable. However, just a few of them (27%) preferred online education rather than classroom learning. Nearly half of them (42%) disagreed with this view. Also, having not experienced online learning before, one-third of them (30%) did not express any thoughts. On the other side, half of them indicated that they frequently did activities online, while approximately half of them (42%) were not involved within online activities. Similarly, they thought they enjoyed doing activities online. This also seems to have affected their belief in English language proficiency because more than half of them (65%) believed they could improve English through online learning, whereas nearly one-third (29%) did not agree with this. Slightly more than half of them (54%) did not find classroom learning enough to improve English, but one-third (35%) did. More than half of them (62%) stated that they knew a number of OLRs to learn English, while others were not aware of these resources. Most of them (88%) rated that they would like to use OLRs to improve their English, but others were neutral. More than half of them (65%) agreed that they could find any suitable online resource to improve their English, but nearly one-fifth (19%) did not. Almost all of them (85%) agreed that they could have improved their English more if they had known OLRs. Half of them indicated that their teachers used OLRs in the classroom, whereas others were neutral and disagreed. More than two-third (69%) preferred their teachers to use OLRs in the classroom. Almost all of them (90%) indicated that they liked OLRs.

All in all, data from the Likert-style items in the questionnaire show that the participants had favour in OLRs on the one hand and required classroom learning on the other. Their responses to the open question at the end of the questionnaire demonstrate that they required classroom teaching because they did not know reliable OLRs and could not access to the support whenever needed.

Student-teacher interaction in the beginning of the pandemic

Data from twenty-four dialogue journals or online letters sent back and forth between students and their teacher demonstrate that students were happy to interact with their teacher in an informal way (i.e. talking with their teacher through Zoom before meeting via Adobe Connect for content learning) and regarded this interaction as “morale booster”. On the other hand, they expressed two issues they were concerned about, one for their own trouble, the other for their friends’ trouble. Twelve of them wrote that their peers might or could not access to the Internet, or any device for the access. Others just looked at the issue of access on their Internet access, clarifying that they could not access to microphone and had slow running Internet, in order to prevent any misunderstanding. In a reply to these statements, their teacher indicated that she could understand them very well and reassured that she would upload all documents and record teaching for them to watch asynchronously. In their emails, all of the participants first expressed their thanks. Eighteen of them (75%) included their anxiety and worry about support in online learning. Some showed their belief and confidence in their teacher’s experience. Student 1 narrated in his email as follows:

Similarly, Student 2 supported his friend’s saying by writing that:

Student 3 believed that the homework and assignments given by their teacher helped them feel engaged in his learning. Furthermore, students expressed their awareness of taking responsibility for their own learning during emergency remote education. Student 4 indicated her feeling by writing “I don’t think there’s anything we can’t handle if we want.”, while another one stated in her email “… while the system is like this, you can help us to some extent, so we have to be patient and study hard for the final exam at the end of the year.”

Participants’ writings about support during emergency remote teaching

Data from twenty-six participants’ essay writings show that all of them required teacher support and engagement with their classmates whilst learning online. Half of them also indicated that they needed eye contact and gestures to sustain learning. Student 5 stated:

Student 6 wrote that she felt “incomplete and insecure” without this kind of interaction as follows:

Student 7 defined this interaction as an “unnatural communication way” and “limited social interaction”. Likewise, one student mentioned that the trust and support of the teacher could not be provided through any internet connection. Furthermore, one student defined this online learning environment without interaction as “an unhealthy platform”.

However, nearly half of them (46%) noted that support from their teachers had benefited their online learning and enabled them to complete their education “in this challenging education process.” Student 8 acknowledged “In this process, even if we encountered a lot of problems as students, our educators were very altruistic for us and tried to find solutions to our problems.” Student 9 stated “My teachers perform everything to make online learning useful.” Overall, teachers’ support was regarded as caring for their learning, giving prompt feedback, providing OLRs and documents and tolerating them. Additionally, just one student, Student 10, related her learning improvement to both teacher support and the benefit of online learning. She indicated that her shy character was a challenge for her in classroom learning, but she did not worry about this in online learning, as she could access to resources anytime, anywhere, as follows: