Crisis-Based Remote Education: A Comprehensive Model

Conceptual Papers

Conceptual papers, which are instrumental in theory building, propose novel relationships as well as logical and comprehensive arguments about how different components and processes of a system relate and interact (Hirschheim, 2008; Jaakkola, 2020; Prinsloo et al., 2022). We present our conceptual analysis using Hirscheim’s (2008) heuristic of (a) claims (explicit statements that readers are being asked to accept as true), (b) grounds (the evidence and reasoning supporting the claims), and (c) warrants (underlying assumptions connecting grounds and claims). Ultimately, conceptual papers not only critically examine existing knowledge but push its boundaries (Whetten, 1989). Additionally, we draw upon two relevant conceptual frameworks to structure our analysis and model. First, we draw on Stewart et al.’s (2023) contextual model of Sustained Remote Teaching (SRT), which examines assumptions and characteristics about ERT, and second, we refer to Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership theory (SLT) since it proposes prescriptions for improving performance in relation to a particular stage of experience and/or expertise (Daniëls et al., 2019; Thompson & Glasø, 2015).

Sustained Remote Teaching (SRT)

Stewart et al. (2023) suggested that given the shifting conditions of the pandemic, the initial concept of ERT was limited. This is principally because Hodges et al.’s (2020) discussion of ERT did not consider (and understandably so) that COVID-19 would endure as a mid- or even long-term crisis spanning several years. For example, in the second semester of 2020 and onwards into 2021 and 2022, institutions, educators, and students could draw on experience to plan for remote delivery and predetermine various course tools, practices, materials, etc. (Jandrić et al., 2021); this contrasts with ERT as a sudden, unplanned, temporary practice (see Hodges et al., 2020). This led Stewart and colleagues (2023) to suggest that SRT was actually the dominant mode of remote practice rather than ERT since shifting contexts (e.g., having no prior experience and having ERT-based experience) created distinctly different stages underpinning practice. Further, since ERT evolved with changing conditions (Stewart et al., 2023), a crisis-based remote education model could similarly be structured in the form of progressive stages with corresponding interventions as prescribed in SLT.

Situational Leadership Theory (SLT)

SLT was first introduced in the late 1960s in the form of a life cycle of leadership practices and is a theory that has since been empirically investigated and developed for decades (Blanchard, 2010; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; Thompson & Glasø, 2015). While SLT originates in the fields of organizational management and leadership, SLT has also been applied in education. Grow (1991) adapted SLT by creating a staged model of self-directed learning (SSDL), providing prescriptive interventions for educators to instruct students more effectively at different stages of learning ranging from novice to advanced. That is, the level of maturity needed to accomplish a particular task serves as the primary determinant of how an instructor should lead an individual learner (Graeff, 1983). For example, novice learners usually benefit more from direct interventions in which instructors provide direct instruction and feedback and act as a coach. By contrast, more experienced learners typically benefit from instructors serving as facilitators of learning through seminars, group projects, etc. However, SLT, and by extension other derivations such as SSDL, are not without limitations. Developing competency in a domain or role is not necessarily a linear, long/short, or predictable process; competency development is influenced by numerous external and internal variables, which can be unrelated to any specific intervention strategies (Thompson & Glasø, 2015). For example, a new employee may be an expert in their domain and not require direct interventions the way a new employee who is a novice would. Nevertheless, when the information required to complete even simple tasks or the number of tasks themselves becomes overwhelming, even direct instruction for basic knowledge/skills transfer can be ineffective (Meier, 2016).

In the context of COVID-19, the information and skills required to teach remotely overloaded institutions, educators, students, and caregivers (Alves et al., 2022; Lindner et al., 2021; Moore et al., 2021; Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2021). This was partially due to the initial lack of crisis-based remote teaching plans, institutional and personal experience, requisite technology skills, and competency to educate both effectively and remotely under duress (Holzmann-Littig et al., 2022; Moore et al., 2021; Shattuck, 2021; Stewart, Lowenthal et al., 2022; Tulaskar & Turunen, 2022). Thus, a staged, crisis-based remote education model has not only scholarly value but practical purpose (Cicha et al., 2022; Crutchfield & Eugene, 2022; Holzmann-Littig et al., 2022; Nikolopoulou & Kousloglou, 2022; Shiratori et al., 2022; Stewart, Lowenthal et al., 2022; Stewart et al., 2023). In order to develop our model, we examine COVID-19 literature over the short- (single learning terms), mid- (two sequential learning terms), and long-term (three + sequential learning terms).

Short-Term Studies: Single Learning Terms

Studies conducted on ERT are overwhelmingly short-term in nature, having been conducted predominantly during Spring 2020 (and to a lesser degree in Fall 2020). Many of these studies are discussed in one or more of the multiple literature reviews conducted on online learning and COVID-19 (see Adedoyin & Soykan, 2023; Bond, 2021; Bond et al., 2021; Dalpati et al., 2022; Dhawan, 2020; Laato et al., 2022; Stewart, 2021; Su et al., 2022). There are far too many of these studies (i.e., in the hundreds) to reference them individually. There are some studies (e.g., Alves et al., 2022; Obermeier et al., 2022; Olurinola & Adelana, 2022; Washburn, 2021), however, that were described as “longitudinal” by technically having multiple pieces of data collected throughout a single semester. There are also single-semester studies (e.g., Kotchetkov & Dockeray, 2022; Venaruzzo et al., 2022) that were conducted in the second year of the pandemic, offering a slightly different perspective on ERT yet too are limited in scope timewise. For this paper and model development, we classified all of these studies as short-term. Based on these studies, we present the following claims, grounds, and warrants.

Warrants

While the ERT experiences of this first remote learning term of the COVID-19 pandemic have been characterized as chaotic and frantic, a key underlying assumption is that there is a lack of preparation or relevant experience in terms of both remote teaching/technology and crisis response. As noted in the literature, this is not necessarily the case (see Sangster et al., 2020; Van Heuvelen et al., 2020). Experience in this sense is limited rather than completely absent. Moreover, institutions outside of East Asia had advanced warning of what the COVID-19 epidemic in East Asia not only looked like but also of their initial responses thus the transitions to some degree could be planned for. Additionally, there was a general characterization that ERT experiences and outcomes are inherently negative and while this is accurate to an overwhelming degree (Bond, 2021; Stewart, 2021), it is possible to have positive ERT experiences in terms of skill development or improved learning outcomes (see Abdulrahim & Mabrouk, 2020; Alqurshi, 2020; Amin & Sundari, 2020; Crick et al., 2020, Choi et al., 2020, Sepulveda-Escobar & Morrison, 2020). ERT, ultimately, is the first stage of crisis-based remote education, given the necessity to transition delivery methods on short notice. It is also an experience and practice that is heterogeneous (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Mid-Term Studies: Two Sequential Learning Terms

There have been substantially fewer studies that took a longitudinal/comparative approach despite COVID-19 still being pervasive globally through Fall 2020. We identified 21 studies that covered two consecutive terms (i.e., one traditional academic year) that investigated differences over time. We categorized these papers as mid-term though some of these studies (e.g., Kraft et al., 2021; Olofsson et al., 2021; Sánchez-Cabrero et al., 2021; Wladis et al., 2021; Yee et al., 2022) coincidentally overlapped with the pandemic or were routine annual data collection points (e.g., Lindner et al., 2021; Shiratori et al., 2022) and were able to compare pre-COVID data with COVID data. For our analysis, we classified mid-term studies as having at least two data collection points during two sequential pandemic learning terms (i.e., Aparicio-Chueca et al., 2023; Azorín, 2020; Cobo-Rendon et al., 2021; Holzmann-Littig et al., 2022; Jandrić et al., 2021; Lobos et al., 2022; Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2021; Nabe-Nielsen, 2022; Nikolopoulou & Kousloglou, 2022; Oliveira et al., 2022; Tulaskar & Turunen, 2022; Stewart, Baek et al., 2022; Yagmur & Koksal, 2022). There were four “long-term” studies that ultimately had one pre-COVID and two COVID data points (see Garcia et al., 2021; Reuter et al., 2021; Sevimli, 2023; Whittaker & Pearson, 2021) that we ultimately considered as mid-term studies given our focus on longitudinal data only during COVID. Based on these studies, we present the following claims, grounds, and warrants.

Warrants

The absence of clear goals is likely a significant obstacle to performance change (Stewart, Baek et al., 2022). Based on the extended nature of remote teaching, Stewart et al. (2023) suggested that the dominant mode of remote delivery was, in fact, SRT rather than ERT. However, given the findings of studies showing a rebounding effect (i.e., several transitions in a single term based on worsening COVID conditions) during Fall 2020, a paradox emerges not only with an implicit assumption that ERT performance will improve over time but also that ERT will stabilize over time. During the second term of the pandemic, remote teaching ironically became more chaotic (see Aparicio-Chueca et al., 2023; Lindner et al., 2021; Lobos et al., 2022; Nabe-Nielsen, 2022; Oliveira et al., 2022; Stewart, Baek et al., 2022; Tulaskar & Turunen, 2022). Further, this is not to say that improvement is unable to occur (e.g., Alves et al., 2022), but that improvement was generally not the case. Moreover, the assumption that unplanned, limited prior relevant experience is still the default state of affairs is flawed since ERT now serves as the new baseline of experience compared to the initial transition in Spring 2020. These different contexts are illustrated in Figure 2. While S-ERT can be the second stage in sequence, it is not necessarily so.

Figure 2

Long-Term Studies: Three or More Sequential Learning Terms

There are significantly fewer studies that occur over three or more learning terms (i.e., three consecutive semesters or 1.5 years or longer). This is due, in part, to the fact that residential face-to-face education had broadly resumed in many parts of the world as of early 2023. While we identified 14 studies that were long-term in nature collecting data over three or more semesters, four of these were comparing pre-COVID data with COVID data (see Garcia et al., 2021; Reuter et al., 2021; Sevimli, 2023; Whittaker & Pearson, 2021), leaving 10 long-term studies (e.g., Berger et al., 2021; Bettencourt et al., 2022; Cicha et al., 2022; Kavvadas et al., 2022; Myhre & Dewaele, 2022; Rogowska et al., 2021; Senior, 2022; Shiratori et al., 2022; Stracke et al., 2022) that spanned at least three consecutive semesters and in one case, four (see Stewart, Lowenthal et al., 2022). All of these studies documented little to no meaningful change over the long-term despite educators and students having experience with and the ability to plan for remote teaching, and institutions committing to the practice for consistency and stability. Based on these studies, we present the following claims, grounds, and warrants.

Warrants

Long-term remote teaching often had negative effects on work/school life balance (Bettencourt et al., 2022). Thus, while maturity and stability in remote education can occur, this will not necessarily improve learning (or result in more “normal” learning outcomes) nor will it necessarily address the other negative effects (isolation, lack of social interactions) associated with ERT. Thus, there is a potential paradox where stability and maturity in practice can address some educational issues, yet exacerbates others more closely related to the specific crisis context(s). While process stability can be achieved over the mid and/or long term, other inherently negative effects still require structure and support mechanisms (Berger et al., 2021). For example, student depression doubled over two years which was thought to be attributed to sleep loss for some (Shiratori et al., 2022). As noted by Rogowska et al. (2021), the continual waves of the pandemic acted like another negative feedback loop that exacerbated stress and other negative mental health factors, as well as difficulties adapting to repeated lockdowns (Whittaker & Pearson, 2021). Certain student demographics (e.g., female students, international students) were documented to be more vulnerable and more negatively affected than others (Ardissone et al., 2023; Kavvadas et al., 2022). Nevertheless, this more stable stage of remote teaching is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Characteristics and Logical Implications of Multiple Stages

In addition to our claims of multiple phases and specific stages (ERT, S-ERT, and SRT) of crisis-based remote education, we also posit the following claims based on the characteristics of these stages as well as the logical implications therein.

Comprehensive Model Structure and Corresponding Strategies for Best Practice

Given our analysis and numerous claims, grounds, and warrants, we present our comprehensive model of crisis-based remote education in Figure 4. Not only are three key phases identifiable as differentiated by length (i.e., unplanned versus multiple possible plannable terms), but four key stages (ERT, S-ERT, SRT, Post RT) of remote teaching in addition to four possible pathways between them depending on which stages actually occur.

Figure 4

Further, given that our model proposes different stages, there are also different strategies that can be employed when planning for and implementing remote education under crisis circumstances as outlined in SLT/SSDL (Grow, 1991). While by no means exhaustive, we present several salient strategies for evidence-based best practices corresponding with each respective stage in Table 2.

We argue, ultimately, that institutional plans should be established for remote education which target a stabilizing path (i.e., ERT → SRT → Post RT) over the mid- or long-term as planning and consistency should yield better experiences and outcomes (Senior, 2022) compared to the experiences largely had throughout the pandemic. Of course, analogous protocols do exist such as fire, tornado, earthquake drills, etc., though such events are usually singular and short. Integrating crisis-based remote education plans and protocols with contingencies for short-, mid-, and long-term events should also enable and develop institutional familiarity, experience, and resiliency. These latter characteristics were fundamentally absent at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic for the overwhelming majority of educational institutions worldwide. In short, remote education can serve as a strategic response to crises given appropriate planning and forethought. For example, educational institutions can plan in advance for a unified course delivery method as prescribed in the ERT Stage for low stakes emergencies (i.e., weather events) building a foundation of experience and skill. Further, longer-term SRT policies, standardized delivery tools, technology training, modified assessment practices, response leadership and team structures, etc. can be developed and introduced into current and ongoing professional development so that educators are much better prepared and equipped for longer term emergencies. This would enable a strategic response at the onset of a crisis rather than building one from scratch under pressure and duress. Our proposed model can also be used as an assessment tool in terms of the duration of an emergency and how to respond in kind, or similarly make multiple contingency plans should a theoretically short crisis event transform into one that is significantly longer than anticipated as was the case with COVID-19.