Typology of Teaching Actions during COVID-19 Lockdown in the Valencian Community (Spain)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. COVID-19 Lockdown: A Key Moment to Study
1.2. The Teacher Situation
2. Goals
- Identify the most appropriate solution for the number of household profiles, described in terms of the composite indicators.
- Describe each of the profiles belonging to the cluster typology in terms of the composite indicators and their association with demographic and other external variables.
- Analyze the inequality profiles in the family, socio-labor and pedagogical conditions of teachers, and their relationship with their performance in SH; analyze their association with demographic variables, the methodologies used and the expectation of student achievement.
- Collect information based on focus groups to have a complementary qualitative approach that helps us to confirm and expand, if necessary, the quantitative results.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Design
3.2. Participants
3.3. Data Gathering: Variables, Indicators and Instruments
3.4. Procedure
3.5. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Characteristics of the Participating Teachers
- Gap 1 (the spatio-temporal conditions at home for them to perform their teaching work) refers to: not having space at home to telework, not enough time and/or not having set working hours to teach over the Internet. In the Valencian Community, only 14.5% have suitable conditions and are not affected by this gap; 30.8% have a level 1 gap and 54.7% have gaps at levels II or III.
- Gap 2 (ICT resources to teach from home) refers to: not having a suitable Internet connection (and/or Wi-Fi), not having suitable computers and/or tablets and/or mobile phones with adequate data. In the Valencian Community, 69.1% have suitable conditions and are not affected by this gap, 14.7% have a level I gap and 16.2% have gaps at levels II or III.
- Gap 3 (lack of home support to telework) includes: not having anyone at home to help them to do other tasks so that they can telework, having elderly or sick (dependent) people to attend to, having to personally maintain their home (clean, shop, meals, healthcare, etc.) and/or having a disease that does not allow them to suitably work 10 (this does not include “having children of school age” because this was considered independently as Gap 4). In the Valencian Community, only 2.2% of teachers have suitable conditions and do not face these problems, 38.2% have a level I gap, 50% have a gap at level II and 9.7% had gaps at levels III or IV.
- Gap 4 (teachers teleworking overlaps with the role of mothers/fathers of children of school age) is a dichotomic gap: does not apply (64.3%); applies (35.1%).
4.2. Profiles of the Obstacles (Gaps) That Teachers Came across to Perform Their Teaching Work from Home
4.3. Cluster-Associated Variables
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | Evaluation and Measurement Group: Education for Social Cohesion, included in the Register of Research Groups of the University of Valencia (GIUV2016-290), Spain. |
2 | In Spain, ECE is organized in two cycles (0–3 and 3–6 years) and is not compulsory, although there is a great demand, given the ever-growing participation of women in the world of work. BE (6 grades) and CSE (4 grades) are compulsory. |
3 | The surveys were carried out without external funding, nor the collaboration of the Valencian, or Spanish governments. However, we did have the support, to disseminate the surveys, from: (a) the teachers' union Federació d'Ensenyament de Comissions Obreres-País Valenciá (FE-CCOO-PV); (b) Union of Valencian Teaching Cooperatives (UCEV); (c) European Forum of Education Administrators (FEAE-Spain), (d) Students of the Pedagogy, Social Education, Teaching and Speech Therapy degrees, and of the Psychopedagogy, Special Needs a Education, Policy, Management and Direction of Educational Organizations, and Educational Social Action masters degrees, all of the University of Valencia; (e) Teachers from Florida Universitaria and the Catholic University of Valencia; (f) Confederation of parents’ associations of Castilla y León (CONFAPACAL) and teachers of early childhood, basic and secondary and university education, who collaborated individually in the dissemination of the survey. Our thanks to all of them. |
4 | In the Spanish educational system, Baccalaureate and Professional Training (Formative Cycles) are part of what we can call upper secondary education and are not compulsory. These groups were not included in our study, given that, due to their age (minimum for the first year between 16 and 18 years old), their dependence on their families is less than in the cases of compulsory education. |
5 | In the population, the strata distribution is: Type (Public: 66.22%; Subsidized/Private: 33.78%) and Level of Education (ECE: 25.59%; BE: 44.68%; CSE: 29.73%). Nor was it possible to establish representativeness in relation to the proportional distribution for provinces in the Valencian Community. |
6 | The Spanish education system contains three types of centers, depending on funding: (a) public (state funding); (b) subsidized (mixed funding: private schools supported by state funding), (c) private (private funding). In this study we grouped types (b) and (c) because they tend to have different socio-economic conditions than public schools and the number of completely private centers is very small in the Valencian Community (around 2%). |
7 | The focus groups held were structured around the questions that are presented in Table 3. |
8 | The phases that this study was done in are found in Table 4. |
9 | Throughout the text, we have left the abbreviations of indicators exactly as they were published in Spanish in Jornet-Meliá et al. (2020). |
10 | This does not include “having children of school age” because this was considered independently as Gap 4. |
11 | The Spanish Ministry of Education ordered teachers to evaluate academic year 2019/20 basically with what they had taught face-to-face. Therefore, the message that it transmitted to the general population, and to teachers in particular, was that what they had managed to teach during the last 3-month period of that academic year “would not be evaluated” so as to avoid those students and families with more difficulties not being disadvantaged. Based on what the teachers in the focus groups state, this meant students that felt significantly less motivation and made much less effort, especially in Secondary Education. |
12 | Teachers in the Spanish public education system can work in two situations: temporary contracts or civil servants. The former often change center and location each academic year. Civil servants also spend several years changing centers until they obtain a fixed post that they are satisfied with. As this aspect, which conditions the working environment in centers, collaboration with colleagues, support networks, etc., was not included in our survey, we are unaware of this situation. |
References
- Jornet-Meliá, J.M.; Sancho-Alvarez, C.; Bakieva-Karimova, M. Analysis of Profiles of Family Educational Situations During COVID-19 Lockdown in the Valencian Community (Spain). Societies 2023, accepted, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Entwisle, D.R.; Alexander, K.L.; Olson, L.S. Children, Schools, and Inequality; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, K.L.; Entwisle, D.R.; Olson, L.S. Schools, achievement, and inequality: A seasonal perspective. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2001, 23, 171–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martínez Rizo, F. ¿Puede la escuela reducir las desigualdades del rendimiento? Páginas Educ. 2009, 2, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Rizo, F. Contextos vulnerables: Las aportaciones de la evaluación. Bordón 2012, 64, 41–50. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Rizo, F. La escuela, ¿gran igualadora o mecanismo de reproducción? La desigualdad social y educativa más de 50 años después de Coleman. Rev. Latinoam. Estud. Educ. 2019, 49, 253–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council of Europe. Concerted Development of Social Cohesion Indicators. Methodological Guide; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2005; Available online: http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/GUIDE_en.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2022).
- CEPAL. Un Sistema de Indicadores Para el Seguimiento de la Cohesión Social en América Latina; CEPAL-EUROsocial: Santiago, Chile, 2007; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11362/2862 (accessed on 17 November 2021).
- Jornet-Meliá, J.M. Dimensiones docentes y Cohesión Social. Rev. Iberoam. Evaluación Educ. 2012, 5, 349–362. [Google Scholar]
- Jornet-Meliá, J.M.; González-Such, J.; Perales-Montolio, M.J.; Sánchez-Delgado, P.; Bakieva, M.; Sancho-Álvarez, C.; Ortega-Gaite, S. Informe Técnico: La Escuela en Casa. Resumen Ejecutivo; Ediciones Palmero: Valencia, Spain, 2020; Available online: https://www.uv.es/gem/CoVid-19.wiki (accessed on 13 November 2022).
- Hernández-Ortega, J.; Álvarez-Herrero, J.-F. Gestión educativa del confinamiento por COVID-19: Percepción del docente en España. Rev. Esp. Educ. Comp. 2021, 38, 129–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beltrán, J.; Venegas, M. Educar en época de confinamiento: La tarea de renovar un mundo común. Rev. Sociol. Educ.-RASE 2020, 13, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tejedor, S.; Cervi, L.; Tusa, F.; Parola, A. Educación en tiempos de pandemia: Reflexiones de alumnos y profesores sobre la enseñanza virtual universitaria en España, Italia y Ecuador. Rev. Lat. Comun. Soc. 2020, 78, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Rodrigo, L. Alumnado que no sigue las actividades educativas: El caso de una escuela de alta complejidad durante el confinamiento por COVID-19. Soc. Infanc. 2020, 4, 195–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hortigüela-Alcalá, D.; Pérez-Pueyo, Á.; López-Aguado, M.; Manso-Ayuso, J.; Fernández-Río, J. Familias y Docentes: Garantes del aprendizaje durante el confinamiento. Rev. Int. Educ. Justicia Soc. 2020, 9, 353–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Such, J.; Perales Montolío, M.J.; Ortega-Gaite, S.; Sánchez-Delgado, P. Ecologías de aprendizaje digital de los docentes: La Escuela en casa durante la COVID-19 en la Comunidad Valenciana. Rev. Publ. 2021, 51, 165–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Delgado, P.; Bakieva-Karimova, M.; Sancho-Álvarez, C.; Jornet-Meliá, J.M. Estudio diferencial del rol familiar en la educación a distancia en confinamiento debido al COVID-19. REDIE 2022, 24, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Gómez, M.C.; Martín-Cilleros, M.V. Implementation of focus group in health research. In Computer Supported Qualitative Research; Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Costa, A., Reis, L., de Sousa, F.N., Moreira, A., Lamas, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 71, pp. 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazeley, P. Integrating Analysis in Mixed Methods Research; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Gómez, M.C.; Rodrigues, A.I.; Costa, A.P. From qualitative methods to mixed models: Current trend in social science research. RISTI-Rev. Ibér. Sist. Tecnol. Inf. 2018, 28, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MEFP EDUCAbase. Enseñanzas no Universitarias. Estadística del Profesorado y Otro Personal. Curso 2019–2020. Resultados Detallados. Available online: https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es2021 (accessed on 17 November 2021).
- Ceriani, L.; Verme, P. The origins of the Gini index: Extracts from Variabilità e Mutabilità (1912) by Corrado Gini. J. Econ. Inequal. 2012, 10, 421–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, L.A. Snowball Sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 1961, 32, 148–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Santamaría, J.; González Such, J.; Perales-Montolío, M.J. Orientaciones. Grupos de Discusión; Internal MAVACO Project Document; Universitat de València: Valencia, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- González Such, J.; Sánchez Delgado, P.; Sancho, C. Técnicas Evaluativas 2. In Investigación Evaluativa. Una Perspectiva Basada en la Complementariedad Metodológica (Cuantitativa-Cualitativa); Jornet, J.M., González Such, J., Perales, M.J., Eds.; CREA: Lima, Peru, 2013; pp. 112–126. [Google Scholar]
- Perales-Montolío, M.J.; Sánchez-Santamaría, J.; González-Such, J. El uso de grupos focales en el proyecto MAVACO. Consideraciones metodológicas y operativas. In La Evaluación de Sistemas Educativos. ¿Qué Informaciones Interesan a los Colectivos Implicados? Jornet, J.M., García García, M., González Such, J., Eds.; PUV: Valencia, Spain, 2012; pp. 47–58. [Google Scholar]
- Syakur, M.A.; Khotimah, B.K.; Rochman, E.M.S.; Satoto, B.D. Integration K-Means Clustering Method and Elbow Method for identification of the best customer profile cluster. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 336, 012017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bozdogan, H. Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 1987, 52, 345–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kodinariya, T.M.; Makwana, P.R. Review on determining number of cluster in k-means clustering. Int. J. 2013, 1, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miles, M.; Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis. A Source Book of New Methods; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Miles, M.; Huberman, A.M. Data Management and Analysis Methods. Handbook of Qualitative Research; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez Sabiote, C.; Lorenzo Quiles, O.; Herrera Torres, L. Teoría y práctica del análisis de datos cualitativos. Proceso general y criterios de calidad. Rev. Int. Cienc. Soc. Humanid. 2005, 15, 133–154. [Google Scholar]
- Stake, R.E. Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Tesch, R. Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools; The Falmer Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García Martín, J.; García Martín, S. Uso de herramientas digitales para la docencia en España durante la pandemia COVID-19. Rev. Española Educ. Comp. 2021, 38, 151–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- INEE Informe TALIS. Estudio Internacional de la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje. Informe Español. Volumen I Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional de España: Secretaría Técnica. 2018. Available online: https://sede.educacion.gob.es/publiventa/descarga.action?f_codigo_agc=19872 (accessed on 17 November 2021).
- INEE Informe TALIS. Estudio Internacional de la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje. Informe español. Volumen II. Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional de España: Secretaría Técnica. 2018. Available online: https://sede.educacion.gob.es/publiventa/descarga.action?f_codigo_agc=21168 (accessed on 17 November 2021).
- Jornet-Meliá, J.M. Reflexiones sobre el futuro de la educación en España. In Proceedings of the VII Conferência Ibérica de Inovação na Educação comTecnologias da Informação e Comunicação, Madrid, Spain, 18–19 February 2021. [Google Scholar]
Sections | Description |
---|---|
Participant profile | Location, type of school, professional position, department, sex, age, professional experience, perception of family social status. |
Home conditions for online work | Home conditions for online education, technological resources used during confinement, digital pre-training, previous experience in technological resources, digital support received. |
Technological adaptation and digital uses at home | Criteria and adaptation of teaching methods, teacher coordination, difficulties in adapting subjects, time spent teaching online, routines and schedules performed in online work. |
Student’s school performance during confinement | Criteria and techniques for monitoring academic performance, resources to prevent early school leaving, level of student participation, perception of the level of achievement, perception of coexistence in the virtual classroom group, learning climate. |
Difficulties and proposals | Problems, overall satisfaction and post-pandemic online proposals. |
Emotions and personal sensations | Self-report of frequent emotions in online school during confinement and aspects that are affected. |
Script of Focus Groups with Teachers |
---|
What conditions did they have at home? and in schools? Who helped you to carry out the SH? Did they carry out their work in a coordinated way with their schools? What teaching methodologies were they able to use? What conditions did you observe in the families? How did it affect performance, motivation, socialization, learning climate...? Do you think it would be convenient to include online activities when face to face schooling recommences? Why? |
Phase | Activities |
---|---|
I | Definition of study goals. |
II | Documentation: (a) similar studies and (b) studies on school absence and its impact on learning. |
III | Survey design: (a) first draft (GemEduco); (b) logical review of overall content and item formulation (reviewers: teachers and families); (c) pilot test (groups of teachers and families, e-mail contact); (d) second draft for online application; (e) pilot test in online format; (f) revision: final design of survey for online application (GemEduco). |
IV | Data collection: (a) contacting people and organizations supporting the dissemination of the survey; (b) dissemination through social networks. |
V | Quantitative data analysis: (a) database debugging and, (b) statistical analysis. |
VI | Technical report: executive summary of the School at Home study. Dissemination through social and academic networks. |
Teachers Indicators | Interpretation Scale |
---|---|
GAP-1 BRECET: spatial-temporal conditions at home for online teaching (ICD1 = Σ[p20.1R, p20.5R, p20.63) | Null (=0); Level 1 (=1) Level 2 (=2); Level 3 (=3) |
GAP-2 BRECTECH: technological conditions for teaching from home (ICD2 = Σ[p20.2R, p20.3R, p20.4R) | Null (=0); Level 1 (=1) Level 2 (=2); Level 3 (=3) |
GAP-3 BRECAH: home support conditions (ICD3 = Σ[p20.7R, p20.9, p20.10, p20.11) | Null (=0); Level 1 (=1) Level 2 (=2); Level 3 (=3) |
GAP-4 BRECSTTEEC: overlap of online work and online teaching (ICD4 = Σ[p20.8]) | Null (=0) Single level (=1) |
GAP-5 NQUINDESIGUAL: global inequality indicator (ICD6 = quintiles of Σ[BRECET, BRECTECH, BRECAH, BRECSTTEEC]) | Level 1 Min. inequality (quintiles bottom 20%); Level 2; Level 3; Level 4; Level 5 Max. inequality (quintiles top 20%) |
Obstacles Observed by the Teachers in the Families to Carry out the SH * | Cluster | Total | Sig. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
They do not have an internet connection | 10.5% | 23.6% | 22.3% | 20.9% | 0.000 |
The internet connection they have is inadequate | 18.7% | 38.7% | 40.2% | 36.0% | 0.000 |
Families do not have adequate computers or tablets | 26.5% | 53.6% | 55.8% | 50.0% | 0.000 |
They can only connect via mobile phone | 21.9% | 40.1% | 46.3% | 39.5% | 0.000 |
They do not have mobile phones for their children to connect to study | 1.4% | 4.8% | 6.5% | 4.9% | 0.013 |
Parents lack knowledge about technology and students do not have the necessary support to use it | 16.4% | 43.5% | 44.6% | 39.5% | 0.000 |
Parents do not have sufficient academic training to help them with content questions | 19.6% | 41.7% | 40.8% | 37.7% | 0.000 |
Parents do not have time to be with their children. | 19.2% | 40.4% | 51.6% | 41.3% | 0.000 |
Parents have not been motivating their children to continue with tasks in a normal way | 11.4% | 21.2% | 21.0% | 19.5% | 0.004 |
Parents have not been willing to have contact with teachers to support them in what they should do at home | 7.8% | 10.0% | 12.4% | 10.6% | 0.147 |
Support received by teachers to carry out the SH * | Cluster | Total | Sig. | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
I have not needed support and I have been able to do it autonomously | 13.6% | 33.6% | 27.5% | 27.9% | 0.000 |
The administration or the institution where I work | 8.6% | 26.6% | 18.4% | 20.4% | 0.000 |
Support from a publisher | 7.3% | 13.5% | 11.0% | 11.5% | 0.042 |
Colleagues who have more training | 23.2% | 51.3% | 50.4% | 46.3% | 0.000 |
I have been self-taught (I have used tutorials, for example, from YouTube or other platforms...) | 23.2% | 54.1% | 63.6% | 52.8% | 0.000 |
No one has supported me and I did not know how to do it online (I have sent tasks by email and they have been returned to me to correct) | 6.4% | 6.1% | 7.4% | 6.6% | 0.666 |
I have not been able to teach online because the situation of the families or the students does not allow it | 0.9% | 2.9% | 3.4% | 2.8% | 0.160 |
Adaptation of teaching to carry out SH ** | Cluster | Total | Sig. | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
To what extent have teachers coordinated to design teaching online? (1, not at all; 2, a little; 3, a lot, 4, a lot) | 2.63 | 2.70 | 2.80 | 2.74 | 0.133 |
How easy has it been for you to adapt the subject for teaching online? (1, very difficult–5, very easy) | 2.62 | 2.88 | 2.61 | 2.74 | 0.000 |
How long did it take you to design, deliver and monitor teaching online? (1, less time; 2, the same time; 3, more time than my usual working day) | 2.70 | 2.71 | 2.85 | 2.77 | 0.000 |
During lockdown, has an online class schedule been maintained, just as in face-to-face teaching? (1 = No, not at all; up to 5 = Yes, with the same duration of classes) | 2.19 | 2.26 | 1.94 | 2.12 | 0.000 |
Methodology used for teaching in the SH * | Cluster | Total | Sig. | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
I have used textbooks and I have outlined the tasks. | 19.1% | 42.3% | 46.6% | 40.2% | 0.000 |
I have held video conferences in real time with the class group to give explanations. | 19.5% | 42.9% | 35.2% | 36.1% | 0.000 |
I have held video conference question and answer sessions in real time. | 12.3% | 33.8% | 34.3% | 30.5% | 0.000 |
I have answered emails to clarify individual doubts. | 40.5% | 81.3% | 84.5% | 75.9% | 0.000 |
I have used question and answer Forums | 7.3% | 18.5% | 18.6% | 16.7% | 0.000 |
I have used instant messaging (WhatsApp, Telegram. etc.) | 17.7% | 47.0% | 41.9% | 40.2% | 0.000 |
I have used YouTube tutorials to support teaching | 17.3% | 38.4% | 44.9% | 37.5% | 0.000 |
I have recorded video tutorials for families | 7.3% | 18.5% | 18.4% | 16.6% | 0.000 |
I have recorded video tutorials for students | 15.5% | 38.6% | 41.1% | 35.8% | 0.000 |
Strategies used by teachers to keep students involved in learning in SH * | Cluster | Total | Sig. | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
Contact the student, through his/her family, to speak with him/her (phone call, WhatsApp...) to see what their difficulties are | 23.7% | 55.7% | 55.6% | 50.4% | 0.000 |
Contact the family (phone call, WhatsApp...) to see what their difficulties are | 28.8% | 64.0% | 63.4% | 58.0% | 0.000 |
In the case of connection problems (internet connection, lack of computer), look for alternatives to facilitate the continuity of learning | 15.5% | 43.1% | 43.3% | 38.6% | 0.000 |
In the case of motivational problems, establish a personalized plan and reinforce the response | 13.7% | 39.9% | 40.8% | 35.9% | 0.000 |
In the case of comprehension problems, personally carry out individual adaptations | 13.2% | 39.2% | 44.4% | 37.0% | 0.000 |
In the case of comprehension problems, my center has auxiliary classrooms and therapeutic pedagogy attention online | 3.7% | 10.7% | 9.1% | 8.9% | 0.008 |
In any case, inform the tutor so that they can deal with the case | 8.7% | 26.9% | 30.7% | 25.4% | 0.000 |
Evaluation criteria, techniques and resources used in the SH * | Cluster | Total | Sig. | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
Practically the same as in face-to-face teaching | 6.8% | 9% | 7% | 7.9% | 0.402 |
Analyze the tasks they perform | 26.0% | 63.3% | 67.4% | 58.8% | 0.000 |
Oral tests over the internet | 5.9% | 9.5% | 9.1% | 8.8% | 0.264 |
Written tests (open questions) online | 6.8% | 16.3% | 15.9% | 14.6% | 0.002 |
E-Portfolios | 3.7% | 10.3% | 7.6% | 8.2% | 0.007 |
Consider their available technology resources | 11.9% | 39.0% | 37.6% | 34.0% | 0.000 |
Analyze the effort they make | 24.7% | 72.6% | 76.7% | 66.4% | 0.000 |
Take into account if they lack family support | 14.6% | 41.9% | 42.3% | 37.6% | 0.000 |
Consider the information provided by the family | 14.6% | 43.2% | 42.7% | 38.3% | 0.000 |
Considering the diversity of students’ situations in terms of ICT resources at home, almost none of the criteria and evaluation techniques have been applied | 7.3% | 9.3% | 13.3% | 10.6% | 0.000 |
Participation. SH learning climate and academic achievement compared to classroom teaching ** | Cluster | Total | Sig. | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
What level of participation have students had compared to face-to-face? (1 = Lower; 2 = Same; 3 = Higher) | 1.45 | 1.55 | 1.47 | 1.51 | 0.098 |
Has the SH detected any negative use by students that affects the coexistence of your class group (eg deterioration of coexistence, cyberbullying, etc.)? (1 = No, no cases; up to 5 = Many new cases) | 1.69 | 1.30 | 1.32 | 1.35 | 0.000 |
How do you rate the learning climate that has been created in the SH compared to the one that occurs in your class groups in face-to-face teaching? (1 = Much worse; 2 = Worse; 3 = Same; 4 = Better; 5 = Much better) | 2.27 | 2.48 | 2.39 | 2.42 | 0.076 |
What percentage of learning do you think will have been achieved in this trimester compared to previous years, due to the difficulties caused by the pandemic? (1 = Less than 5%; 2 = 5–25%; 3 = 25–50%; 4 = 50–75%; 5 = More than 75%; 6 = Almost 100%) | 3.11 | 3.34 | 3.24 | 3.28 | 0.040 |
Would you use online activities when you return to face-to-face teaching? * | Cluster | Total | Sig. | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | |||
Do you consider it beneficial to include any teaching activity online? (Filter for the following questions) | 93.6% | 90.3% | 89.3% | 90.5% | 0.192 |
Yes, for the training of students | 22.9% | 42.7% | 49.0% | 41.8% | 0.000 |
Yes, for more direct participation with families | 16.1% | 30.6% | 28.6% | 27.4% | 0.000 |
Yes, for the better integration of ICT in educational and cultural use | 25.9% | 73.3% | 65.5% | 62.2% | 0.000 |
Quote 1. |
---|
“When we went into lockdown, I found that my computer, which I have not used for 7 years, had no batteries, no mouse, I was using my finger because I only use it for the evaluations and to enter the marks. I usually work at school and if I bring work I bring it on paper, then I found that I didn’t even have a battery for the computer and I didn’t even know how to do it.” (GF2P3. Elementary) |
Quote 2. |
“A lot of group therapy that allowed us to meet many colleagues and that also allowed us to see the weaknesses that we had at that moment and how we could resolve them in future circumstances.” (GF4P5. Special needs education). |
Quote 3. |
“We were a bit lost, and coordination was not wonderful, but many teachers had not worked like that so I can speak of lack of coordination, but even so I would not have liked to be in the shoes of the management team because it was crazy what it supposed because it was very difficult to coordinate, I think.” (GF3P8. High school). |
Quote 4. |
“Each teacher at home with mobile phones recorded themselves in a corner of the house” (GF1P5. Kindergarten). |
Quote 5. |
“We already had these activities before because we had the platform active and I think there are many teachers who have maintained the activities online and who have increased the amount of tasks they do through the platform.” (GF3P3. High school). |
Quote 6. |
“Then I started podcasting the syllabus because I was at MIT and then I did a kind of podcast radio show, and I was uploading it to the classroom with explanations and exercises on that to see the feedback from the students.” (GF3P7. High school). |
Quote 7. |
“There was a lot of debate about what other ways of evaluating there were for assignments or rubrics, for example, myself, in physics and chemistry, instead of setting them a task of solving I asked them to presented me with a problem to solve for them, that way the kid did a different exam.” (GF3P4. High school). |
Quote 8. |
“Although I have collaborated with them, on what they have asked of me, I can say to my colleagues that it was frustrating from the point of view of not being able to contribute or not being able to reach families with those actions that we normally do at school.” GF4P3. Special Needs Education) |
Quote 9. |
“It was very positive, but it is true that we had the feeling that the emotional load of the meetings was so great that it was really difficult to pose it as something purely informative, that is, we saw it more as professional accompaniment, which, also for some of the kids was very positive, programs that nothing is to ask how we are, how we are, how we have done the activities, are we liking them or not, but not an approach that we are going to give a class.” (GF2P4. Elementary) |
Quote 10. |
“This has affected performance, the administration did not help us in that regard, since that message that was given by raising their hand (passing automatically) was demotivating.” (GF3P4. High school). |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Perales-Montolio, M.J.; Ortega-Gaite, S.; González-Such, J.; Sánchez-Delgado, P. Typology of Teaching Actions during COVID-19 Lockdown in the Valencian Community (Spain). Societies 2023, 13, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020026
Perales-Montolio MJ, Ortega-Gaite S, González-Such J, Sánchez-Delgado P. Typology of Teaching Actions during COVID-19 Lockdown in the Valencian Community (Spain). Societies. 2023; 13(2):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020026
Chicago/Turabian StylePerales-Montolio, María Jesús, Sonia Ortega-Gaite, José González-Such, and Purificación Sánchez-Delgado. 2023. "Typology of Teaching Actions during COVID-19 Lockdown in the Valencian Community (Spain)" Societies 13, no. 2: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020026