Ecuadorian university English teachers' reflections on emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 struck at the beginning of 2020, affecting, among others, the education industry. As a result, a lock-down quarantine was declared, and on-campus classes were suspended. Accordingly, emergency remote teaching (ERT) was set into motion to solve the education issue. This research aimed to obtain the reflections of 20 Ecuadorian polytechnic university English teachers on their experiences using ERT during two semesters. This paper is based on an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design that used a Likert-scale survey and interviews to respond to the established research questions. The findings show that, in a general sense, teachers were not ready for the sudden shift to ERT, which generated feelings of anxiety. The most significant disadvantage reported was the extra workload caused by adapting materials and giving feedback to students. The study suggests that changing classes from on-campus to ERT was not easy to carry out at the beginning of the pandemic. There are practical implications for language department managers as it gives them light to prepare for the continuing pandemic and any other crisis that might require ERT to be in practice again.

Introduction

The first case of COVID-19 in Ecuador was identified on February 29, 2020, on a seventy-one-year-old woman who had traveled to the country from Spain. More than nine thousand confirmed cases and four hundred seventy-four deaths had been reported by April 2020 (Ortiz-Prado et al. 2021). Given the difficult situation, the Ecuadorian President declared a state of emergency to avoid spreading the disease. One of the dispositions was the closure of all schools, high schools, and universities in the country (Santillan Haro 2020), as it had been declared worldwide (Shahzad et al. 2020).

The Minister of Education presented on March 16 the Educational Plan COVID-19 containing regulations for the educational community to continue with the pedagogical activities (Bonilla-Guachamín 2020). However, the plan did not consider the socio-economic level of Ecuadorian families, nor did it consider the low levels of Internet coverage and access or the lack of technological resources (Almazán Gómez 2020). According to Vivanco-Saraguro (2020), closing the Ecuadorian educational system affected more than four million students registered in the Ecuadorian educational system.

Emergency remote teaching (ERT) became the primary tool used to continue education (Valero-Cedeño et al. 2020). The main aim of ERT is to keep the learning processes sustainable, and it is based on the use of videoconference platforms. Several studies reported in the literature look at how teachers feel about the introduction of ERT during the COVID-19 crisis. Tomczyk and Walker (2021) performed research in Poland, while Juárez-Díaz and Perales (2021) researched 26 English teachers and 32 pre-service English teachers in Mexico. Salayo et al. (2020) investigated 147 high school teachers in the Philippines. Rahayu and Wirza (2020) employed a descriptive design with a qualitative approach in Indonesia. Finally, Lapada et al. (2020) performed a quantitative investigation in the Philippines.

Despite the above, research carried out in Ecuador or other Latin American countries is scarce. Thus, this research was set into motion to bridge this gap in the literature. It aimed to identify the feelings of an Ecuadorian polytechnic university English teachers about their use of ERT during two semesters. The following research questions were devised to attain this goal.

RQ1

How ready do English teachers think they were to make the shift from on-campus teaching to ERT?

RQ2

What has been the teachers’ experience of teaching online during the COVID-19 pandemic?

RQ3 states

What are teachers’ perceptions over the positive and negative effects of using ERT to teach their English classes?

Literature review

E-learning

Distance learning explained, Castro and Tumibay (2019) is not new in education. It has existed for more than a century, beginning in European correspondence courses. However, it has evolved through the years and turned to e-learning. According to Simon et al. (2003), e-learning is an environment where students and teachers use IT to overcome distance. Meanwhile, for Potts (2018), e-learning is also known as virtual learning environments or learning management software systems that synthesize computer-mediated communications software and forms of delivering a course online. Finally, E-learning is an interactive process involving teachers and students, aided by electronic media focused on the teaching process. At the same time, media are the tools used to complete the process (Perić 2019).

Common features of e-learning are announcement boards, in-system e-mail service, conferencing tools, calendars, a navigable interface, and multimedia resources (Potts 2018; Martin et al. 2019; Shahzad et al. 2020). E-learning depends on asynchronous technology. That way, students can look at their preferred content and learn at their pace. Other characteristics of e-learning include two or more geographically dispersed bodies of learners and teachers. The contents are available in a combination of media.

The delivery of e-learning is usually conducted through videoconferences or virtual learning environments (Simon et al. 2003; Ahmad et al. 2019). Cisco Webex or Zoom provides simultaneous communications and live interactions. In addition, they supply auxiliary functions that facilitate learning in e-learning environments (Rojhani-Shirazi et al. 2018).

Moving to e-learning requires making changes in the presential organization. Furthermore, with the presence of COVID-19, such changes have been accelerated but challenging, especially considering the maturity of digital transformation at which the educational institutions and their faculty are (García-Peñalvo 2021). Therefore, the author maintains that e-learning ought to follow the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) model in which teachers must know technical, pedagogical, and information and communication technologies. Finally, Castro and Tumibay (2019) explain that the objective of instructional design in e-learning aids teachers to design their online courses better, ease students’ focus on their instruction, and promote an active teaching–learning process.

ERT

Educational institutions worldwide shut down their classes in an attempt to stop the rapid spread of the COVID-19 and to protect their students, faculty, and staff (Dong et al. 2020). This closure meant unprecedented difficulties for the Ecuadorian educational system. Course contents were moved into digital platforms to regain some normality and minimize the effects of the pandemic on the education system (Equipo Técnico de la Dirección Nacional de Currículo 2020).

Hodges et al. (2020) defined ERT as the temporary access to online teaching with the intention of returning to the original teaching mode once the crisis is over. The scholars explain that during these times of pandemic, teachers must play a critical role in providing quality learning to students. Therefore, the primary goal of ERT is not to recreate a robust educational environment but to provide temporary access to education online in a quick and reliable form during a time of crisis (Barbour et al. 2020). Furthermore, the authors assert that teachers must work in a highly stressful environment as there is no indication when the pandemic crisis will be over. Finally, the scholars distinguish that ERT should be in place until everything goes back to normal.

Teachers’ reflections on the use of ERT

Tomczyk and Walker (2021) utilized a closed Facebook group devoted to Polish education topics in a qualitative study. Teachers exchanged their experiences, tips, and cases related to handling the COVID-19 crisis in their educational institutions. The researchers identified seven different categories of challenges and problems Polish teachers faced during their ERT experience. They explained that teachers were not prepared for the shift to cyber-education. Teachers also confided in their statements on Facebook that the crisis highlighted the importance of digital competencies, knowledge, and skills required to deal with ERT.

In another qualitative study in Mexico, Juárez-Díaz and Perales (2021) researched 26 English teachers and 32 pre-service English teachers and obtained their experiences and emotions regarding ERT. They gathered data through an online opened-ended questionnaire which was later analyzed using semi-directed content analysis. Their results reported that most teachers and student teachers expressed negative feelings associated with delivering the course content without good interaction and a lot of poor Internet access. However, the researchers explained that those teachers who had experience teaching online had better experiences in the overall course.

Salayo et al. (2020) investigated 147 high school teachers in the Philippines utilizing quantitative methods to evaluate their readiness, attitude, and competence in their engagement with ERT. The scholars applied a survey that used a Likert scale to identify the level of agreement to the statements. The results of this investigation proved that participants could address the challenges that ERT presented them. Their readiness was supported by their positive approach towards online teaching during the pandemic. Results also established that teachers were flexible, resilient, and prepared for the challenges of ERT, which included technological constraints, poor Internet connection, and lack of access to electronic devices.

In another investigation, Rahayu and Wirza (2020) employed a descriptive design with a qualitative approach. They used questionnaires and interviews to elicit responses from 102 junior high school English teachers in Indonesia. All the participating teachers had used a platform like Zoom or Google Classroom for online teaching from March to July 2020. The researchers concluded that teachers had a positive perception of the usefulness of the online platforms they had used. However, participants also disclosed that they believed ERT was ineffective because of the lack of communication and the quality of interactions achieved.

Lapada et al. (2020) performed a quantitative investigation in the Philippines. The researchers probed teachers’ awareness of the pandemic, their thoughts on the school’s readiness, and their challenges while teaching online. Data were collected using the “Questionnaires on Teachers Awareness, Readiness and Online Learning Experience During COVID-19 ECQ,” developed by the researchers. The survey was sent to teachers by e-mail, and 2300 responses were received. As a result, the scholars concluded that teachers were ready to move to ERT; although, they lacked facilities, equipment, and capacity to shift their courses from on-campus to online.

Theoretical assumptions

The researcher’s theoretical assumptions are the set of beliefs that will guide a study (Doyle et al. 2009; Guba et al. 2018). They encompass the paradigm which is central for the investigation and under which lie the ontological and epistemological positioning and the methodology to be used in the inquiry.

Several specific elements define the world view or paradigms. This study will be guided by the constructivist paradigm from the different options described in the literature. This decision was taken after reviewing the available options. Its justification is detailed as follows. First, in constructivism, the participants of the investigation form meaning of the phenomena under the scope. Second, participants talk about their experiences built from social interaction and their own stories (Creswell and Plano-Clark 2018). Third, for Doyle et al. (2009), constructivism argues the existence of multiple realities. Thus, the results of this research will vary depending on the constructions of the realities experienced by the participants of the study and the researcher’s attempt to explain the reality described by such experiences.

Once the paradigm has been established, it departs the researcher’s ontological and epistemological positioning. Ontology concerns reality and how things are and work (Scotland 2012). Reality exists only through the experiences lived by humans (Denzin and Lincoln 2018). The constructivist ontology looks at how the person is constructed in a social context concerning recognition, motivating the search for identity (Packer and Goicoechea 2000). Learning involves the construction of identities. Thus, the ontological positioning of this researcher in front of the issue at hand is to identify such realities as experienced by the teachers at the languages department of the university.

Then there is the epistemological stance, which deals with the nature of knowledge, its creation, and communication (Creswell and Plano-Clark 2018). For Denzin and Lincoln (2018), epistemology looks at the relationship existing between knowledge and the person who knows it and tries to explain the world through that knowledge. Finally, Levers (2013) explains that epistemology is how the researcher makes sense of the world and that the ontological beliefs will restrict the epistemological ones. With these definitions in mind, it is safe to say that the knowledge will be created by analyzing the data obtained using the collection tools selected.

Finally, a mixed-methods research design has been chosen for this investigation. The approach selected for this mixed-methods study has been the explanatory sequential design (see Fig. 1). Thus, the researcher will start with the quantitative stage of the research. This stage will use the survey adapted from Salayo et al. (2020). Then, the qualitative stage will be implemented in a subsequent phase using a seven open-ended question protocol. Finally, this stage will explain the initial results in more depth (Creswell and Plano-Clark 2018).

Fig. 1

The explanatory sequential design

Integrating data in this exploratory sequential study involves connecting the results obtained from the quantitative stage to plan the subsequent qualitative data collection phase. The integration will be done during the interpretation stage of the data collected after the analysis of the quantitative and the qualitative sections has been done, in the results and discussion section of this paper. Fetters et al. (2013) explain that there are three levels of integration at the interpretation and reporting level: (i) integrating through narrative, (ii) integrating through data transformation, and iii) integrating through joint displays. This form of integration is also known as the triangulation protocol (Creswell and Plano-Clark 2018; O’Cathain et al. 2010). Using triangulation, researchers try to secure an in-depth understanding of the issue at hand. It is an alternative to validity (Denzin 2012). By combining data at this level using triangulation, the interpretation of data acquires rigor, breadth complexity, richness, and depth (Flick 2007).

Methods

Participants

The participants of this study were twenty English teachers of the languages department at a polytechnic university in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Table 1 contains the participants’ demographic information. This group comprises 85% female teachers and 15% male teachers. Most of them (40%) are aged in the range of over 45, while 35% are aged between 36 and 45 years of age. The last 25% of the teachers are aged in the range of 31 to 35 years. The highest professional training degree obtained by 85% of the participants is a Masters’ in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, and the other 15% of the teachers hold a Ph.D. Most participants (55%) have been teaching English in different institutions for more than 20 years. Meanwhile, 20% of the teachers surveyed said they have experience of 11 to 15 years working for educational institutions in Ecuador. Regarding their English language qualifications, 50% of them disclosed a B2 level according to the Common European Framework of Reference, and 35% hold a C1 qualification.

Table 1

Participants’ demographics

Demographics	Categories	N = 20	%
Sex	Female	17	85
	Male	3	15
Age	< 30	0	0
	31–35	5	25
	36–40	4	20
	41–45	3	15
	46+	8	40
Higher education	Master	17	85
	PhD	3	15
Marital status	Single	4	20
	Married	10	50
	Divorced	6	30
English level qualification	B2	10	50
	C1	7	35
	C2	3	15

Sampling strategy

Since this is a mixed-methods research design, the researcher has followed Creswell and Plano-Clark (2018), who suggest choosing the study participants using the purposeful sampling approach. In this non-probability sampling technique, the researcher confides in his judgment to select the study participants (Creswell and Poth 2018). The participants ought to supply in-depth information about the phenomenon under investigation. That is why the researcher considered using colleagues from the languages department for this study, but only those who teach English, as this is the scope of the investigation. The criteria to include participants for this study comprise teachers of English, male or female, working at the university during the second semester of the 2020 academic year, who have taught using ERT since the beginning of the pandemic. The criteria led to the twenty participants that were depicted above.

Data collection tools

This study used two main data collection tools. One to obtain information for the quantitative stage of the investigation and another to attain data for the qualitative section of the research. The qualitative stage will serve to triangulate data and assist in making better conclusions.

Survey

The first tool used was a survey adapted from Salayo et al. (2020). The survey was divided into four different sections. Section one deals with demographics questions; the answers from this section were used for the discussion on the participants heading. The second section is the readiness section which included three propositions with a 4-point Likert scale where 1 was completely disagree, and 4 was completely agree. This section looks at how ready teachers were to make the abrupt shift to ERT. The third section used a 4-point Likert scale where 1 was completely disagree, and 4 was completely agree. These propositions aimed to identify how easy it was for the teachers to use digital platforms for teaching their English subjects. The last section of the survey was the overall experience section, where participants had four propositions to rate on a 4-point Likert scale, where 1 was completely disagree and 4 was completely agree.

The survey was first piloted with teachers of other languages to check that the questions were written straightforwardly and there would be no chance of misunderstanding any of the questions. As a result of the pilot test, three of the questions were deemed difficult to understand and re-worded. Then, to measure the internal consistency of the survey, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. The result of the alpha came to be 0.85505, which according to the literature, reflects a good internal consistency (Tavakol and Dennick 2011a; George and Mallery 2012; Vaske et al. 2016).

A second measure was to test the survey for content validity by assessing the degree to which the survey measures the construct targeted (Creswell and Miller 2000; Almanasreh et al. 2019). Again, Lawshe’s content validity ratio with an augmentation proposed by Ayre and Scally (2014) was used. For these ends, the researcher counted with the help of five experts from the university’s writing center who read the questionnaire and made a dichotomous decision of “essential” or “not essential” for each query. The authors proposed that a level of 50% agreement assures a degree of content validity. In the end, the content validity ratio came to 0.854, which according to (Almanasreh et al. 2019), can be considered a good ratio, making the survey valid.

Interviews

This study used an interview protocol to obtain teachers’ feelings on several issues concerning the ERT modality. The interview protocol included seven open-ended questions, allowing deeper probing when necessary. Before the interviews were carried out, a series of measures were taken to assure for validity and reliability of the tool to be used.

Two colleagues at the university’s Academic Writing Center helped read and check the protocol to account for face validity. According to Kennedy et al. (2019), face validity tests if the questionnaire’s content is relevant to the participants, evaluating the feasibility, readability, consistency of style, and clarity of the language of the questionnaire (Creswell and Miller 2000).

The researcher then performed the Cohen’s Kappa Index (CKI) test on the questions after the professors had assessed them. This test results in a statistical coefficient representing the questionnaire’s degree of accuracy and reliability. The agreement index reached was 85.714%, and the kappa was 0.58823, which is a moderate agreement according to Landis and Koch (1977). Thus, the questionnaire used accounts for face validity.

Finally, the researcher aimed to assess the content validity of the protocol used in the interviews. Gunning’s Fog Index was used to evaluate the readability of the questions following the recommendations from Bolarinwa (2015). The calculation result was 7.18, which accounts for good content validity of the questionnaire.

Because of the virtuality experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the interviews could not be conducted face-to-face but were done using individual Zoom meetings. It is necessary to note that the researcher told respondents what the study was about and their role in it. Next, the researcher stressed they signed the informed consent form, but they were free not to participate in the interview. Finally, the researcher made sure that every participant understood that their names would not be displayed in any manner when reporting their comments but that a number would identify them.

Analysis

The data obtained through the survey was analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics Package V.20. The first test carried out was a one-way right-tailed ANOVA using an F distribution df 10.132, a significance level of α = 0.05, and an effect size value of 0.25. This test was used as the researcher wanted to identify any statistically significant differences between the means of the populations in the test. Table 2 contains the data obtained from the ANOVA test.

Table 2

ANOVA results

Source	DF	Sum of squares	Mean square	F statistic	P value
Groups (between groups)	10	9.888116	0.988812	2.452023	0.0101801
Error (within groups)	132	53.230791	0.403264
Total	142	63.118908	0.444499

The first thing that caught the researcher’s attention was that p value equals 0.0101801. This result means that observing such an extreme test statistic is unlikely. In other words, since the p value 0.0101801 [p (x ≤ F) = 0.989820] is less than α = 0.05, the chance of a type 1 error, which means rejecting a correct H0 is small, 0.01018 (1.02%). Additionally, it can be said that some of the group’s averages are considered to be not equal, meaning that the difference between the averages of some groups is big enough to be statistically significant.

Next, the researcher ran Cohen’s F statistics in ANOVA to identify whether the means between the populations were significantly different. The test statistic F equals 2.452023, which is not in the 95% critical value accepted range: [−∞: 1.9031]. Then, the observed effect size f is large, 0.43. This result shows that the magnitude of the difference between the averages is large. The η2 = 0.16 means that the group explains 15.7% of the variance from the average, similar to R2 in the linear regression.

Several tests were carried out to validate the results of ANOVA. First, the SPSS did the test power, which is low, standing at 0.4544. Thus, it can be said that the H0 is rejected. Therefore, the results from ANOVA are confirmed as valid. Then the tool used Levene’s test to assess the equality of variances. The population’s variances are considered to be equal with a p value of 0.968. Levene’s test power resulted in 0.45, regarded as a weak result. However, the group’s size is similar since the ratio between the bigger and smaller groups is 1.00. Therefore, the ANOVA test is considered robust to the homogeneity of variances assumption when the group’s sizes are similar. Also, the normality assumption was checked based on the Shapiro–Wilk test, which resulted in α = 0.05. Therefore, it is assumed that all the groups distribute normally.

Finally, the Kruskal–Wallis’ test using Chi-square (df = 1) and a right-tailed distribution was used to validate ANOVA results further. Since the p value < α, then the H0 is rejected. Some of the groups’ mean ranks are considered to be not equal. In other words, the difference between the mean ranks of some groups is big enough to be statistically significant. When selecting a value from each group, some groups have a probability of containing higher values than others. The p value equals 0.04473, (p(x ≤ 4.0287) = 0.9553). The chance of type I error rejecting a correct H0 is small: 0.04473 or 4.47%. The smaller the p value, the more it supports H1. The test statistic H equals 4.0287, which is not in the 95% acceptance region [0: 3.8415]. The observed effect size η2 is small, standing at 0.021. This result shows that the magnitude of the difference between the averages is small.

As expressed before, the qualitative data serve as supplementary for the information obtained through the quantitative stage of the research. The data were obtained using a semi-structured interview, analyzed following a general inductive approach as suggested by Creswell (2012) and Thomas (2006). The data analysis was done following the recommendations from Thomas (2006), Fontana and Frey (2011), and Creswell and Poth (2018). The scholars explain that qualitative data require coding, categorizing, and interpreting to respond to the research questions. Thus, the researcher started reading the transcribed data. After a few reading rounds, ten themes were identified and organized. Some could be merged to reduce the overlap and redundancy among the initial categories identified, reaching the final four themes presented in the following subheadings.

Readiness

Two questions addressed the issue of readiness for the shift from on-campus to online teaching. The majority of teachers explained that they were not ready. Respondent seventeen asserted that “even though he manages computers very well, the change to online education was not something he was prepared for when everything happened. Being faced with a curriculum designed to be taught in a class and suddenly shifting it to an online course was challenging. Mainly because of the investment in a reliable Internet provider, which is not cheap, and dealing with students’ issues was also a big challenge.” Respondent five said that making the shift was not as difficult as she thought. She had to get used to the new environments quickly and adapt the materials accordingly. Teacher nine explained “I was not ready for the change initially. However, I was getting used to all the changes implemented with the pass of time, and my classes were getting along fine.” She also explained that there was an added trouble for her as she has two children who also started online classes, so she had to teach and help her kids simultaneously. Respondent thirteen expressed she had no trouble whatsoever with changing the course to online. She says that using the platform was straightforward, and no problem arose.

Teaching strategies used

Teachers used several strategies throughout their experiences with the new teaching form; however, there were many similarities. For example, using games is one of the common strategies among the answers teachers gave.

Respondent eight explained she had used Kahoot a lot. She confided that she turns any discussion, quiz, or survey into an engaging and fun game for the class. For example, she continues to practice the grammar point explained in the previous lesson. Doing these kinds of activities online challenges her students. One of the activities she continually does is to have her students put words or phrases in a particular order, which requires more focus on their part.

Meanwhile, respondent sixteen asserted that he is a fan of collaborative work, and he has made the change to online collaborative work using Flipgrid. He explained that he creates the tasks in the platform, and the students record themselves responding to them. Then their peers are required to give feedback to each other using a short video on the same website, and in the end, they have to evaluate each other in the university LMS based on the criteria given in the rubric.

In the same vein, teacher eleven explains that she has her students work online creating puzzles with the vocabulary words from the textbook. They share the links with the puzzles they made so the whole class practices the vocabulary. She also said she created groups using the separate sessions tool in Zoom and had learners create posters or mind maps with key information about the grammar they reviewed in class. She also said that she has her students anonymously express their feelings or provide suggestions about teachers’ strategies.

Advantages and disadvantages of ERT

A few of the questions posed related to the issue of the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges they had identified during their experiences with ERT. The following are the most common answers.

Respondent one explained that the biggest advantage he perceived was that he had to stay at home. Not having to commute to the university has meant economic savings, both from the point of view of car use, including gas and maintenances expenses which have lowered considerably, to spending money on clothes, as he confided. He also asserted that there is no need to print worksheets for students during class, which is a big help for the environment.

Also, respondent thirteen put herself in the students’ shoes. She said learners had had many advantages with ERT because they do not have to spend time on the bus going to and from the university to use that time for other activities. She also said that having the class recordings is a great advantage for her students as they can access them throughout the entire semester. Finally, she assures that ERT has helped students greatly because it has brought down location walls. Now, students anywhere in the country can attend classes in the university without having to move from their homes.

When asked about the disadvantages that ERT presents, respondent twenty identified several drawbacks. First of all, she said, there is a dependency on a good Internet connection and having suitable devices to carry out a good session on Zoom or Teams. Even though the teacher counts with the above, there is always the problem created by the number of connected people simultaneously. She considers that it is not only she who has to be connected to the Internet all morning to teach her class but also her children. This overcrowding of the connection creates problems, and sometimes they get a slow connection or get disconnected. Or maybe the Internet provider is having internal issues, and the connection is lost, which means a class needs to be recovered at another moment.

Respondent eighteen added to the above by saying that one of the main issues with ERT is that distractors stop students from paying attention to the class. For example, their relatives walk by the location they use to connect to the style and start talking to them, so they lose track of what the teacher says. There is also a feeling of loneliness which students have commented. Since they are not sharing a classroom with the teacher or their peers, they do not have the opportunity to socialize with them; hence, they report such feelings.

Feelings about ERT

Of such feelings reported by the participants, the most common is that making the sudden change and keep teaching online has made them feel anxious. Respondent eight explains that she was not ready for making drastic swift to the digital realm. She believes that she made her best effort, but she is conscious that the classes at the very beginning did not go smoothly. Not knowing, explained respondent six, how classes would function and the new meeting platform they had to use were just many issues that added to the already stressful pandemic scenario. In addition, all the technological tools that needed to be implemented were novel, and there was no training other than click here and then and all of that made her feel anxious, at least the first few weeks, she added.

On the other hand, respondent two said that everything was kind of weird and hectic at the beginning. However, after getting to know the platforms, settings, and other web-based applications, she explains that the experience has been enriching. Nonetheless, she feels that teaching a language involves face-to-face teamwork, feedback, and support. Therefore, doing ERT is fine and hybrid classes seem like the future of teaching.

Respondent five says that he had a hard time teaching online initially, mainly because of not knowing what he had to do to deliver a good class. Although, with the pass of time, it is getting easier to use and administer the platform. It is not bad; he admits to feeling great now that a year has gone by. However, he wishes classes were smaller to ensure all students had the necessary resources and the chance to practice the language.

Results and discussion

The results obtained and the discussion will be done based on the research questions stated above.

RQ1 aimed to find how ready English teachers thought they were to make the shift from on-campus teaching to ERT. The propositions from the first section of the survey dealt with teachers’ perceptions of their readiness to take on ERT. Looking at the means, we can interpret them in the following way: from 0 to 1 means totally disagree, 1.1 to 2 equals disagree, 2.1 to 3 means agree, and 3.1 to 4 means totally agree.

It can be seen in Table 3 that the lowest mean, 2.00, which can be interpreted as “Disagree,” obtained from the descriptive statistics is from the statement “I showed familiarity with meeting/video conferencing platforms like Zoom/Teams.” This result is logical as nobody was familiar with using the meeting platforms used to teach. This result could also be confirmed by the responses obtained from the interviews. Respondent seventeen, for example, said, “I handle myself well in a computer. However, changing the classes to online was something I was not ready to do in such a rush as we had to. Moreover, I had no idea what Zoom was, how to use it, or what tools I could use in class.”

Table 3

Descriptive results for readiness section

	Mean	SD	Variance	Interpretation
I showed familiarity with meeting/video conferencing platforms like Zoom/Teams	2.00	0.973	0.947	Disagree
I could integrate technology in executing the suggested competencies and skills to manage successful learning	2.25	0.910	0.829	Agree
I managed my time using technology-driven instruction with ease	3.15	0.745	0.555	Totally agree
I easily designed online assessments to measure learning	3.80	0.410	0.168	Totally agree
I used online discussion forums on Canvas as part of the lessons	3.40	0.821	0.674	Totally agree
I showed comfort in communicating online through speaking and writing	3.66	0.489	0.239	Totally agree
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84

On the other hand, the highest mean, 3.80, was obtained by the statement, “I easily designed online assessments to measure learning.” This result can be interpreted as “totally agree.” This result is also logical as all the language department teachers are used to designing their unit progress tests, so it was not an issue they could not deal with. The next highest mean, standing at 3.66, corresponds to the statement “I showed comfort in communicating online through speaking and writing.” This proposition shows the confidence expressed by the teaching body on their communication skills with their students. This result can also be interpreted as “totally agree.”

The last issue was dealt with the statement that said, “I used online discussion forums on Canvas as part of the lessons.” This proposition obtained a mean of 3.40 that can be interpreted as “totally agree.” During the interviews, teachers were asked about the tools they used in their English classes, and one the most mentioned was the use of forums in the Canvas environment. For example, teacher three said, “I always use the forum tool on Canvas. I think it allows students to give their opinions on different issues. I usually do class, and the reading or listening topics allow me to post a discussion on the forum so they can be engaged with the topic of the lesson even after class.”

Therefore, teachers at the polytechnic university in Ecuador were not 100% ready to take on ERT at the beginning of the crisis. However, they felt more skilful with the tools, and the meeting platforms became easier to use after some time. Additionally, they were all trained on effectively assessing students on the Canvas platform. In summary, they were ready, and they could integrate technology in the teaching–learning process during ERT.

RQ2’s objective was to identify teachers’ experiences with teaching online during the COVID-19 pandemic. The fourth section of the quantitative survey, which looked at teachers’ overall experience during ERT, sheds some light on this query. There are both positive and negative experiences that teachers have related during the interviews and by answering the survey.

As shown in Table 4, the highest mean obtained was 3.65, which can be interpreted as totally agree and was attained by statement three, “I could interact enough with my students.” This proposition can be cataloged as an advantage. This information was corroborated with the answers respondents gave during the interviews. Respondent nineteen explained that he had had an excellent rapport with the students assigned during ERT. Furthermore, he asserts, “The classes assigned to me, have been great, and I was able to work with them nicely. Of course, I had two small classes, so I gave very personalized feedback to them on the essay, especially. I met on individual sessions with each of them, and we reviewed their work one by one, and I explained their errors to them and how to correct them. Then, they applied what we talked about and handed in really good essays.”

Table 4

Descriptive results for the overall experience section

	Mean	SD	Variance	Interpretation
I could teach just as well as I would when on-campus	3.00	0.649	0.421	Agree
I could organize exercises just as well as I would when on-campus	3.25	0.786	0.618	Totally agree
I could interact enough with my students	3.65	0.489	0.239	Totally agree
Online teaching tools used in courses were easy to operate	2.90	0.788	0.621	Agree
Teaching online made me anxious	3.30	0.733	0.537	Totally agree
I think students get easily distracted during my class	3.30	0.923	0.853	Totally agree
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76

The second highest mean is 3.30, which propositions five and six share. Statement five was “teaching online makes me anxious.” This statement can be cataloged as a disadvantage. This issue was corroborated during the interviews where respondent eight said she felt anxious the first time she had to do her classes online, “I didn’t really know what I was doing, most of the times, I had to go by trial and error, that’s how I learned. Now, I manage the tools rather well, but the first 2 weeks of class, it was a nightmare, and that made me feel very anxious.”

The lowest mean was 2.90, which is statement four, “the online teaching tools used in courses were easy to operate.” This statement can be cataloged as a disadvantage. During the interviews, some of the teachers did mention it as an issue they had to deal with during the first few weeks after classes had started. Take respondent two, for example; she said, “It is not that I am not very computer savvy. I can use it, and I can access the Internet, but there are some tools that my colleagues use that are a little higher than my level of expertise, so I tend to avoid them.” Another teacher, respondent sixteen, said, “I try not to deviate much from the program and use the tools that are included in the language management system we use in the university. It is there, so I use it; I don’t see why I have to use other tools from the Internet. Besides, I don’t understand how to use some of them. So, I rather use what I do know how to use.”

Therefore, it is clear that teachers have had a good experience with ERT, in a general sense. They have been able to interact with their students mainly because of the tools offered by the meeting platforms available for them to use. Also, they believe that after getting used to this new modality, they have been able to adapt their teaching strategies leading them to teach as well as when they were on-campus. On the other hand, not every experience has been positive. Teachers also have related feelings of anxiety, especially by the beginning of ERT. Finally, the one thing that most respondents complained about was that students get distracted easily during the class and the problems they have experienced with learners not keeping their cameras on. This issue has made their work more complicated.

Finally, RQ3 enquired the teachers’ perceptions of the positive and negative effects of using ERT to teach their English classes. The quantitative answers for this question lie in section two of the survey and the interviews carried out.

Table 5 depicts the descriptive results of the said section. The highest mean, 3.55, which can be interpreted as “Totally Aree,” goes to the statement, “I think the workload is higher in these online courses than on-campus.” This statement can be construed as a disadvantage of ERT. The accounts from the interviews support it. Take respondent three’s response “One of the things I don’t like is that there is so much more work to do. Preparing for the class takes me longer because now I have to look for online activities that are engaging for my students and are at the same level as my classes.”

Table 5

Descriptive results for advantages and disadvantages section

	Mean	SD	Variance	Interpretation
I think that teaching remotely has saved me time and money	3.25	0.716	0.513	Totally agree
I think the workload is higher in these online courses than in on-campus	3.55	0.510	0.261	Totally agree
I think I can provide feedback to all my students as I did when on-campus	2.50	0.688	0.474	Disagree
I think the Internet gets really busy when I have to teach	3.40	0.681	0.463	Totally agree
I think I can avoid contagion if I am at teaching at home	3.45	0.686	0.471	Totally agree
I think one of the biggest challenges with teaching remotely is students get distracted easily	3.50	0.657	0.432	Totally agree
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.565

The next item is the statement, “I think one of the biggest challenges with teaching remotely is students get distracted easily.” This statement was ranked with a mean score of 3.50, which can be deemed as “strongly agree.” Therefore, this statement can be considered as a disadvantage of ERT. Respondent ten said, “The thing that I consider the biggest disadvantage of using this type of teaching is that I cannot be certain enough whether or not my students are really involved in the class.” Supporting this view, respondent one explained, “One of the worst things with the virtuality is that we cannot tell students to turn their cameras on during class, it is the university’s policy, so they do not feel invaded. So, that way, they get distracted easily. For example, we are doing an exercise, and when I call on the answers, students sometimes take time to answer, you know, like they are just then looking for an answer. Or they say, please teacher, repeat what question?”

Then item “I think I can avoid contagion if I am teaching at home.” obtained a mean score of 3.45, and it is considered as an advantage. The support received from the interviews comes from respondent seven, who confided, “The very best thing of doing classes remotely is that we have got to stay at home throughout the whole pandemic. I even get nervous every time I hear people talking about going to face-to-classes again. So if I can stay at home, I can be certain that I will not get the virus.” On this issue, participant twelve said, “I really think that virtual classes have helped us very much. I mean, we are not in contact with our students. Physical contact, I mean. And, considering the pandemic, that is a great advantage for us teachers as in the end, it means that we are less likely to get the virus. So, the longer we can stay teaching remotely, the better for our health.”

There are both advantages and disadvantages to ERT. The most significant advantage identified is that teachers feel safer doing their classes remotely than being on-campus as the possibility for contagion is drastically reduced. In addition, they think it might be easier to catch the virus because of the high number of students there in a live classroom. However, the quantitative analysis determined that ERT has more disadvantages than advantages as the highest mean scores were obtained by those statements that reflected the disadvantages.

Conclusion

The advent of COVID-19 and all the effects it brought along, such as the closing of educational institutions to care for the health of students, teachers, and staff, has required education to move to the digital realm. Teaching is now done remotely using different meeting platforms, such as Zoom, MS Teams, Google Meets, or WebEx. This investigation aimed to obtain English teachers’ reflections over their experiences during the first two semesters of the year 2020.

Three research questions were devised to guide this investigation, and they were answered using the mean scores from a survey and the answers from individual interviews. Changing classes from on-campus to ERT was not easy to carry out at the pandemic’s beginning. Teachers were not ready, and most of them required training to use the meeting platforms to take advantage of all the features they offer (Mukhtar et al. 2020). This challenging issue has brought most teachers feelings of anxiety, mainly because of not having enough information about what was going on and how to solve conflicts within this new type of class. Lapada et al. (2020) and Salayo et al. (2020) have also reported this issue. However, after the first semester doing ERT, teachers feel more confident about their experience with the platforms and the different web applications they are using as extra tools to make their classes more engaging.

This research has identified that, in general, teachers’ experience with ERT has been a good one. They have expressed that they have had good interactions with their students thanks to the platform’s tools and the strategies they have adapted from their experience teaching on-campus. These findings have also been reported by Rahayu and Wirza (2020), and Juárez-Díaz and Perales (2021). Nonetheless, teachers also reported having trouble with students not maintaining their cameras on during the class, so they cannot be sure of their involvement in the class. Also, they disclosed problems with the Internet connection, both their own and their students, results that are supported by Juárez-Díaz and Perales (2021) and Tomczyk and Walker (2021). On the other hand, not every experience has been positive. Teachers also have related feelings of anxiety, especially at the beginning of ERT (Salayo et al. 2020). Finally, the one thing that most respondents complained about was that students get distracted easily during the class and the problems they have experienced with learners not keeping their cameras on (Mukhtar et al. 2020; Tomczyk and Walker 2021). This issue has made their work more complicated.

There is a gap in the literature that this investigation is trying to bridge: data coming from South America, especially Ecuador, which looks at the experience teachers have had during the first 6 months of the pandemic and the instauration of ERT to continue with the teaching–learning process.

This research has dealt with some implications. The results provided by this paper will come in handy for language department managers as it gives them light to be prepared for the continuing pandemic and for any other crisis that might require ERT to be in practice again. The recommendation is to have ready support for teachers, not only in the IT department but also in emotional support, to deal with anxiety issues. Consequently, stress management should be considered an issue to be treated with teachers as institutional support while ERT is in place. Also, managers can use the information gathered on this paper to develop training sessions for teachers so that the shift to ERT becomes smoother and less stressful. This paper also presents information that can be helpful for English teachers who will be immersed in ERT. They can use it as a guide to know and understand what ERT implies in terms of teaching and the challenges, advantages, and disadvantages it means. That way, they can be prepared to manage the situations that come with the abrupt establishment of remote teaching.

The results provided in this paper also have societal implications. First, it adds quantitative and qualitative data on how teachers feel about using ERT during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research has clearly defined teachers who think they were not ready to jump into remote teaching without training on how to make their courses from face-to-face to remote, and neither did students. Also, it was identified that entering the electronic domain has resulted in feelings of anxiety in many teachers. Finally, the main advantages and disadvantages teachers perceive from ERT were highlighted, as teaching remote assures for their health, or students getting distracted by different issues around them, which means they do not pay the proper attention to their classes. Thus, it is clear that with the results presented in this paper society can benefit with the knowledge described which can be sued for any future crisis in which ERT has to be put again into practice.

There are also limitations to report. First and foremost is the sample taken for this research. It was only twenty English teachers at a public polytechnic university in Guayaquil. Thus, the findings reported here apply only to similar contexts. So, for further research, another study should be conducted utilizing teachers from the whole university or even from different universities so that generalization of results can be achieved. Another significant limitation is that this paper presents the teaching–learning process from the teachers’ perspectives; thus, only their experiences, concerns, and feelings are reflected here. Students’ problems and issues are only dealt with from the teachers’ point of view. Consequently, it is suggested that future research conduct an investigation where the students are also considered informants.