Труды IV Республиканской научно-практической online-конференции «Образование XXI века: проблемы, тенденции и перспективы»
Skills and Personality Characteristics Needed to Manage Change. Asia-pacific Journal of Teacher Education – ASIA-PAC J TEACH EDUC. 2001, No. 29, P. 139—152. 10.1080/13598660120061327.
23. Hashim, Nik Mohd Hazrul & Alam, Syed & Yusoff, Norazlina. Relationship between Teacher’s Personality, Monitoring, Learning Environment, and Students’ EFL Performance. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies. 2014, No. 14. P. 101—116. 10.17576/GEMA-2014-1401-07.
24. Göncz, A., Göncz, L., & Pekić, J. The influence of students’ personality traits on their perception of a good teacher within the five-factor model of personality. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2014, No. 11, P. 65— 86. doi:10.12700/APH.11.03.2014.03.5
25. Göncz, L. Teacher personality: a review of psychological research and guidelines for a more comprehensive theory in educational psychology, Open Review of Educational Research, 2017, No. 4, P. 75—95, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2017.1339572
26. Suplicz, S. What makes a teacher bad? Trait and learnt factors of teachers’ competencies. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 2009, No. 6, P. 125—138.
27. Sánchez, M. M., Pecino, R. M., Rodríguez, Y. T., & Melero, P. T. Student perspectives on the university professor role. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 2011, No. 39, P. 491—496. doi:10. 2224/sbp.2011.39.4.491
28. Brophy, J. Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 1983, No. 18, P. 200—215.
29. Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham
& A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. 1980.
30. McIntyre, D.J., Copenhaver, R.W., Byrd, D.M., & Norris, W.R. A study of engaged student behaviour within classroom activities during mathematics class. Journal of Educational Research, 1983, No. 77 (1), P. 55—59.
31. Astin, A. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development. 1984, No. 25, P.297—308.
32. Kuh, G. D. What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 2003, No. 35 (2)..
33. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 2005, No. 98, P. 184—191.
34. Chapman E. Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2003, No. 8. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13
35. Franklin, E.E. Assessing teaching artists through classroom observation. Teaching Artist Journal, 2005, No. 3, P. 148—157
36. Krause, K.L. and Coates, H. Students’ Engagement in First-Year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2008, No. 33, P. 493—505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
37. Kiefer, S., and Pennington, S. Associations of teacher autonomy support and structure with young adolescents’ motivation, engagement, belonging, and achievement. Middle Grades Res. J. 2017, No. 11, P. 29.
38. Cinches, Ma. Florecilla & Russell, Ruth Love & Chavez, Judith & Ortiz, Rosella. Student engagement: Defining teacher effectiveness and teacher engagement. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia. 2017, No. 15. P. 5—19.
39. Suldo, Shannon & Friedrich, Allison & White, Tiffany & Farmer, Jennie & Minch, Devon & Michalowski, Jessica. Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Subjective Well-Being: A Mixed-Methods Investigation. School Psychology Review. 2009, No. 38, P. 67—85. 10.1080/02796015.2009.12087850.
40. Spilt, Jantine & Hughes, Jan & Wu, Jiun-yu & Kwok, Oi-Man. Dynamics of Teacher—Student Relationships: Stability and Change Across Elementary School and the Influence on Children’s Academic Success. Child development. 2012, No. 83. P. 1180—95.
10.1111/j.1467—8624.2012.01761.x.
41. Zepke, N., L. Leach, & P. Butler. Student engagement: What is it and what influences it? Wellington, Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. 2010. http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9261-Introduction.pdf
42. Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. Students’ perception of instrumental support and
effort in mathematics: The mediating role of subjective task values. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 2014, No. 17 (3), P. 527—540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9264-8
43. Tennant B, Stellefson M, Dodd V, Chaney B, Chaney D, Paige S, Alber J. eHealth Literacy and Web 2.0 Health Information Seeking Behaviors Among Baby Boomers and Older Adults J Med Internet Res. 2015, 17 (3):e70
Karibayeva Lazzat
Challenges in Online Education in the Context of English Language Teaching and Learning
(Master student at Suleyman Demirel University)
Abstract
After sudden and abrupt changes due to the pandemic outburst during 2019—2021, many students and teachers had to experience all the benefits and drawbacks of remote study and work. Flexibility and easy access as opposed to the internet connection and technology failure, unfamiliar technological tools and the lack of personal communication were the issues that caused mixed perceptions towards studying under the conditions of being locked at home. This article seeks to explore the challenges that learners faced over the recent two years. However, apart from evaluating what issues are engendered by the exposure to distance learning, this paper addresses the challenges in learning English remotely by investigating and elaborating on solutions suggested by researchers in this area. The paper concludes by outlining recommendations for English language teachers to make the process of distance learning less challenging.
Keywords: online education, distance learning, student perception, challenges of remote learning, technology, TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language), traditional learning, face-to-face education, distance mode of teaching.
Introduction
Nowadays, various activities can be comfortably implemented via smartphone applications or numerous websites. In addition, reading books, searching for information, as well as socializing with peers, are likely to be readily accessible at any time on the screens of personal electronic gadgets. Not surprisingly, modern technology has impacted teaching practices which, in turn, have undergone significant transformations by relocating to web-assisted environments. In 2012, at a university lecture, professor Andrew Delbanco pointed out that «your French teacher may be a version of Siri on your smartphone». (Romeo, 2012).
Moreover, the years 2019 – 2021 witnessed unprecedented growth in the number of virtual courses and lessons conducted by school teachers and university professors. The sudden increase was directly linked to the compelled transition to the distant mode of teaching. Although online learning seems still to be demanded, some experts, educators, and learners claim that e-learning is not as effective and engaging as brick-and-mortar classrooms (Irfan & Iman, 2020). Therefore, it is important to compare whether more preference is still given to face-to-face education alongside consideration of challenges that learners encounter while studying online. In the light of the recent growth in the demand for online teaching, a great majority of young individuals may have changed their attitudes, shifting positively or negatively, towards remote classes. In particular, learning a foreign language may even be challenged due to the lack of real-time, face-to-face interaction with a person since communicative practice is likely to be affected by the inconveniences of an online learning environment.
The value of this study will be in obtaining empirical data which will help to explore the factors that English language learners found as crucial and beneficial for achieving