4.1. Technological Backgrounds and Levels of Preparedness for ERT
Teachers were asked to indicate their level of familiarity with ICT. As shown in
Table 2, only one teacher rated himself/herself as a beginner. Half of the respondents rated their familiarity level either at the advanced (
n = 26, 41.9%) or at the expert level (
n = 5, 8.1%). At the same time, the other half (
n = 30, 48.4%) considered themselves to be at an intermediate level, which suggests that a sizable proportion of the participants were experienced with technology but lacked relative sophistication.
In a question prompting participants about their attitudes towards the use of new technologies in their daily and/or professional life, more than 40% indicated either that they loved new technologies and were always among the first to experiment with them (n = 7, 11.3%), or that they liked them and tended to use them before most people in their circle would (n = 20, 32.3%). At the same time, more than half noted either that they were cautious towards new technologies and only used them when necessary (n = 10, 16.1%), or that they usually decided to use a new tool when most people they knew of were already using it (n = 24, 38.7%).
All participants indicated having access to the internet at home and owning their own PC/laptop. The majority also owned a smartphone (n = 57, 91.9%) and/or a tablet (n = 44, 71.0%).
Respondents’ technology usage patterns before the COVID-19 pandemic were measured by providing them with a list of technological tools/technologies and asking them to indicate, using a 5-level Likert scale (5 = Daily, 4 = Weekly, 3 = Monthly, 2 = Rarely, 1 = Never), the frequency with which they used each tool either personally or for professional development purposes (not for teaching).
Table 3 shows, in descending order, the number/percentage of teachers that reported using each tool/technology on a daily or weekly basis.
As shown in
Table 3, large majorities of the teachers reported employing in their daily and/or professional lives the following tools on a daily or at least weekly basis: instant messaging (
n = 59, 95.5%), email (
n = 57, 91.1%), smartphones (
n = 55, 88.7%), laptops/PCs (
n = 53, 83.9%), and social media such as Facebook and Instagram (
n = 53, 85.9%). Around half reported regularly using cloud and file sharing platforms such as Dropbox and Google Drive (
n = 30, 48.4%) and tablets (
n = 30, 48.4%). Smaller but sizeable percentages reported making frequent use of media sharing sites such as YouTube and Vimeo (
n = 24, 38.7%), online forums (
n = 21, 33.9%), e-books/e-readers (
n = 18, 29.0%), communication and collaboration tools such as blogs and Google Docs (
n = 16, 25.8%), and supportive technologies such as screen magnifiers (25.8%).
It can therefore be concluded that most of the participating teachers extensively used both mobile devices and laptops/PCs in their daily and/or professional lives, whereas a significant proportion made active use of communication and collaboration tools, as well as e-books/e-readers and supportive technologies. By contrast, the vast majority infrequently or never used technologies such as e-portfolios; massive open online courses (MOOCs); multimedia editing software (e.g., Movie Maker, iMovie, Final Cut, Premiere); or simulations, gaming, or virtual worlds.
Participants were also asked to indicate, again using a 5-level Likert scale
(5 = Daily, 4 = Weekly, 3 = Monthly, 2 = Rarely, 1 = Never), the frequency with which they used each of 23 different technological tools in their teaching. Three of the listed tools referred to software designed specifically for mathematics education: mathematics education applets, dynamic geometry software, and other software designed for mathematics education.
Table 4 shows the percentages of teachers who indicated using each tool on a daily or weekly basis.
Teachers participating in this study indicated that they had been incorporating various technological tools into their teaching prior to the pandemic. PowerPoint presentations were the most popular technological tool, with almost everyone (n = 57, 91.9%) reporting having used PowerPoint presentations on a daily/weekly basis before the pandemic. Videos were also regularly used by a large majority (n = 45, 72.6%). The majority of teachers also frequently used interactive applets (n = 40, 64.5%) and/or other educational software designed for teaching a specific subject (n = 32, 51.6%). In their mathematics lessons, around 70% (n = 44, 71.1%) reported regularly using mathematics education applets, and around 60% (n = 36, 58.1%) reported using other software designed for mathematics education. Software supporting dynamic geometry such as Geometer’s Sketchpad were employed much less frequently—only 29% often used such software.
With the exception of cloud and file sharing platforms and eBooks, which were frequently used for instructional purposes by more than 40% of the respondents, the percentages reporting the daily/weekly use of each of the remaining tools listed in
Table 4 prior to the pandemic were low (9.7%–21.0%). Only a small number of teachers had, prior to the lockdown, been using e-learning tools such as online/electronic quizzes, podcasts/audio files, chats, discussion forums, breakout rooms, and online homework. The vast majority also made low use of interactive tools such as simulations, gaming, virtual worlds, electronic voting systems, programming software, and media manipulation software, which can promote student motivation and active participation in mathematics and other subjects. Special software for better accessibility (e.g., screen magnifiers, screen readers, etc.) were used by around one fifth of the educators (
n = 13, 21.0%).
Most of the teachers had not participated in any distance learning programs as either trainees (
n = 44, 71.0%) or trainers (
n = 58, 93.5%), nor had they participated in any training related to distance education (
n = 52, 83.9%) (see
Table 5).
The most common reason teachers gave for not having participated in any training in distance learning prior to the pandemic was that they had never been given the opportunity to do so (n = 39, 62.9%). Ten participants (16.1%) stated that they had not participated in any training related to distance learning due to a lack of personal interest, and three other participants attributed it to a lack of time (4.8%).
Table 5 also presents results regarding teachers’ responses to the following question: “How prepared do you think you were at the onset of the Spring 2020 lockdown to start offering synchronous online instruction?”. As seen in
Table 5, about 70% (
n = 44, 70.9%) of the respondents stated that they were slightly or not prepared at all to start synchronous ERT. Only eight teachers (12.9%) felt that they were well prepared.
4.2. Transition to ERT and Technologies Used
Public schools in Cyprus closed down in the middle of March of 2020. It took a significant amount of time for the Ministry of Education to react and provide guidelines for teachers on how to start teaching online. However, almost all educators took the initiative to start teaching asynchronously immediately after the schools closed by sending material to their students and by checking on their progress with parental involvement. Some also took the initiative to start synchronous ERT without waiting for the official guidelines from the Ministry of Education. The majority, however, waited for guidelines from the educational authorities to start synchronous ERT (for more details about the timeline of the transition to ERT in Cyprus during spring, 2020, see [
2]).
Similarly to other Cypriot teachers, the primary school teachers participating in our study started with asynchronous ERT, with synchronous ERT following within 2–3 weeks for most of them. All respondents offered asynchronous ERT to their students, whereas three-fourths (n = 48, 77.4%) offered synchronous ERT as well.
Almost all teachers used their own equipment while teaching from home. In some cases, schools provided a laptop or a tablet to teachers to facilitate their online teaching. In rare cases, schools provided a webcam or a digitizer to teachers to make their teaching more efficient.
The most popular platform used by teachers for their synchronous sessions was MS Teams since it was the platform endorsed in the official guidelines and supported by the Ministry of Education. Since the shift to ERT took several weeks to officially start (see [
25]) many teachers also experimented in the meantime with various other platforms (WebEx, Zoom, Jitsu, Skype, etc.).
Teachers also reported using additional tools to communicate asynchronously or synchronously with their students and to facilitate ERT: Viber (n = 14), ClassDojo (n = 4), email (n = 7), the school website (n = 2), phone (n = 2), and Moodle (n = 1).
Participants were asked to indicate the extent of the integration of technology during synchronous ERT, as they had done for the period prior to the onset of COVID-19.
Table 6 shows the number/percentage of teachers incorporating each listed technology/technological tool into their teaching on a daily or weekly basis prior to and during lockdown.
Unsurprisingly, there was a slight increase in the level of use of PowerPoint presentations, lectures/seminars that use screenshots and narrative presentations, asynchronous discussion forums, synchronous chats, breakout rooms, podcasts/audio files, online homework assignments, and online quizzes. Furthermore, many teachers used instant messaging and/or social media to communicate with their students, something which they did not do prior to the pandemic, possibly due to their students’ young ages. On the other hand, there was a decrease in the use of both general-purpose and subject-specific software, open-source instructional material, eTextbooks, and associated online content. The use of constructive technologies such as simulations, gaming, virtual worlds, electronic voting systems, and media manipulation software continued to occur at similarly low levels to those prior to the pandemic.
The participating teachers were using various technological tools in their mathematics instruction prior to COVID-19. Half reported using mathematics education applets daily or weekly and more than 40% reported using other software designed for mathematics education. These numbers dropped during ERT. The numerous challenges that teachers faced during ERT, which are outlined below, were probably the reason behind this drop.
4.3. Challenges during the Transition to ERT
As already noted, the majority of study participants (
n = 48, 77.7%) engaged in both asynchronous and synchronous ERT. They faced various issues during the transition to synchronous ERT (see
Table 7). Three-fourths (
n = 37, 77.1%) felt that students’ discomfort or lack of familiarity with the required technologies was a major challenge, whereas around half (
n = 25, 52.1%) considered their own discomfort and lack of familiarity with the required technologies to be a challenge. A high percentage of teachers also faced challenges related to their limited access to reliable software or communication tools (
n = 23, 47.9%), to reliable internet connection (
n = 21, 43.8%), and/or to a reliable digital device (
n = 17, 35.4%).
Students’ limited access to technology was also a challenge several participants had to face. Although 80% (n = 50, 80.6%) stated that all or almost all their students had access to asynchronous online learning, eight teachers (12.9%) indicated that only about half of their students did, and four teachers (6.4%) indicated that only a few did. Access was even more limited when it came to synchronous online learning. Only two thirds of the participants (n = 39, 62.9%) stated that all or almost all of their students had access to synchronous online learning, whereas around 30% (n = 14, 22.6%) indicated that only a few did.
Another challenge faced by teachers during the transition to synchronous ERT was students’ difficulties in adapting to emergency remote learning (ERL). In a question asking them to indicate, based on their experiences and observations as teachers, how difficult it was for their students to adapt to synchronous ERL (see
Table 8), almost 60% of the teachers who had engaged in synchronous ERT agreed that their students faced several difficulties (
n = 22, 45.8%) or that they found it very difficult to adapt to ERL (
n = 6, 12.5%). On the other hand, one third of the teachers (
n = 16, 33.3%) believed that their students faced only a few difficulties in adapting to ERL.
Teachers’ responses to an open-ended question where they had to describe particular difficulties that arose in relation to online distance teaching and learning were in alignment with the quantitative data. Participants identified students’ and teachers’ lack of familiarity with the required technologies or applications, students’ limited access to reliable internet connection and devices, and technical issues as major challenges:
At the beginning everything was difficult for the students until they got familiarized with the procedure and the tools.
Many children did not have a reliable internet connection and only had 4G which was running out fast and it was not possible to use video or other educational media. Some students had only a telephone and synchronous online teaching was very difficult.
The Teams program was too heavy for ordinary computers so the computer became very slow and got stuck.
No preparation happened beforehand. Students didn’t have usernames, passwords. Very few teachers knew how to use TEAMS.
Students need help from their parents. If their parents could not offer help then it was impossible for students to attend the class remotely.
Unreliable internet access and devices, lack of knowledge and skills from teachers and students were issues we faced.
Applications proposed by the Ministry of Education for use in distance learning did not work or led to websites with advertisements or which required registration.
Teachers were asked to indicate, using a 5-level Likert scale (
5 =
Always, 4 =
Often, 3 =
Sometimes, 2 =
Rarely, 1 =
Never), how often they had experienced each of the difficulties shown in
Table 9 during the Spring 2020 ERT period.
An excessive workload was an issue frequently faced by two thirds of the teachers who engaged in both synchronous and asynchronous ERT (n = 33, 68.8%), and difficulties due to having to simultaneously manage their teaching duties along with their family needs were noted by almost half of them (n = 22, 45.8%). Internet connectivity issues were reported by more than half of these respondents (n = 26, 54.2%), and insufficient knowledge and skills regarding the use of new tools and technology were noted by 40% (n = 19, 39.6%). By contrast, only a small proportion of the teachers faced difficulties due to students’ negative attitudes or classroom management issues during the lessons. Other difficulties noted by several teachers were “noise in children’s homes, delay in children entering the class”, as well as the constraints imposed by the fact that students were not allowed to turn on their cameras (this was an official guideline from the Ministry of Education due to GDPR):
Absence of an image of the children which would help me to identify students who were confused or struggling with something. No active participation by most children and avoidance to ask questions during the lesson.
4.4. Reflection on the ERT Experience
In the last section of the survey, participants were asked to respond to some reflective questions about the implementation of ERT.
Figure 1 shows teachers’ responses to a question where they had to indicate the extent to which they believed the curriculum learning objectives were achieved through ERT.
Only around 40% of the teachers felt that the same or almost the same (n = 5, 8.1%) or that several of the objectives achieved in previous years (n = 21, 33.9%) were achieved through the ERT approach. Half of the respondents (n = 31, 50.0%) felt that only a very small number of learning objectives were achieved compared to previous years, whereas five teachers (8.1%) argued that learning objectives were not achieved at all, because they did not think learning objectives can be met via distance education.
As shown in
Figure 2, the extent to which teachers believed that the curriculum learning objectives were achieved through ERT varied significantly based on whether they engaged in synchronous ERT or not
(U(48, 14) =
205.0, z =
−2.41, p =
0.016 < 0.05).
Although half (50.0%) of the participants from the group of teachers who used synchronous ERT felt that “several learning objectives” or “the same or almost the same learning objectives” were achieved compared to previous years, the corresponding percentage among teachers who engaged only in asynchronous ERT dropped to 14 percent. More than four fifths (85.7%) of the participants from the asynchronous-only group responded that very few learning objectives were achieved compared to previous years, or even that no learning objectives at all could be achieved through distance learning.
The extent to which teachers felt that the curriculum learning objectives were achieved through ERT also varied significantly based on their self-reported levels of preparedness for ERT (U(44, 18) = 244.0, z = −2.58, p = 0.01 < 0.05). Although 72% of the teachers who self-rated their preparedness for ERT as high felt that “several of the learning objectives” or “the same or almost the same” learning objectives were achieved, only 30% of those who rated their preparedness levels as low did. Similarly, although 55% of the teachers who had rated their levels of familiarity with technology at the advanced/expert level felt that “several of the learning objectives” or “the same or almost the same” learning objectives” were achieved, only 29% of those who self-rated their familiarity with technology at the beginner/intermediate level did. However, differences based on self-reported levels of familiarity with technology were not statistically significant ERT (U(31, 31) = 361.0, z = –1.84, p = 0.07 > 0.05).
Regarding mathematics instruction in particular, in their open-ended responses many teachers noted that prior to the pandemic they often used student-centred approaches such as group work, the differentiation of instruction, and the use of applets and other ICT tools to promote active participation in the lesson and to maximize learning outcomes. Shifting to ERT, they had to face several challenges especially in trying to introduce new concepts in a way that would actively engage students in the learning process. For example, one obstacle to student active participation repeatedly pointed out by teachers was the fact that students were not able to turn on their cameras. As a result, teachers were teaching in front of a screen without being able to see their students’ faces. This had a negative impact on the quality of mathematics instruction (see
Table 10).
As shown in
Table 10, two thirds of the teachers (
n = 40, 64.6%) indicated that during ERT they did not use ICT-enhanced inquiry-based mathematics learning at all or only used it to a small extent, whereas the vast majority also indicated making little or no use at all of collaborative learning (
n = 54, 87.1%) and/or the differentiation of learning (
n = 48, 77.4%) in mathematics instruction. As a result, two thirds of the teachers felt that they promoted the construction of new mathematical knowledge/skills by the students themselves only to a small extent or not at all. Four fifths felt that they managed only to a small extent or not at all to meet the needs of children with disabilities and/or additional educational needs.
In an open-ended question where teachers were prompted to describe what they did or could have done differently in mathematics to help their students feel closer to their classmates during ERT, teachers described various actions they took to ensure ongoing communication with their students, as well as among students themselves:
I prepared and sent podcasts to my students on a daily basis.
I talked daily on the phone with students and their parents and gave my feedback on children’s progress.
We had a Viber group with parental supervision, where students uploaded creative work for their classmates to see.
Our daily online chats helped children feel closer to their peers as they shared their experiences.
The platform opened 10 min before the class started, and in that time interval students could talk to me and their classmates about anything they wished to discuss.
Despite the actions taken by individual teachers, several participants noted the need for more active, collaborative learning of mathematics and other subjects: “It would be good to see their classmates during class. Assign group homework.”; “Chats, video presentations, presentations and peer review, participation in games, collaboration in handling tasks.”
When prompted to indicate the most difficult subject to teach during ERT, 40% (n = 25, 40.3%) selected mathematics, noting that “preparation for math lessons took longer than for other subjects” and also that they had difficulties “presenting mathematical concepts during synchronous sessions” due to the symbol-heavy nature of the subject.
Teachers were asked to indicate, based on their experience, how useful different tools and services would have been in supporting more effective ERT and ERL of mathematics and other subjects during the COVID-19 lockdown. Their responses suggest that teachers would have appreciated more opportunities for “ongoing” and “in-depth rather than hasty and superficial” professional development in the use of pedagogically sound strategies for online teaching and learning and in the effective use of new tools and technologies in mathematics and other subjects. Teachers also stressed the need for training parents and students in the use of eLearning and other digital technologies: “Teaching of informatics in primary schools for children to acquire basic ICT skills early on”. Teachers would have also liked the provision of examples/suggestions of good practices for the digital classroom, of “ready-made material”, of lessons that could be delivered via video/virtual conferences, and of digital platforms that provide online material for digitally enhanced teaching and learning. They also noted the need for improved access to the internet and/or to a trusted device for all students, for access to printing services for students, and for the provision of services for sending study materials at home. Tools and services that would have addressed the learning needs of vulnerable groups of learners (students with disabilities, students from a low socioeconomic background, etc.) were also pointed out.
In a related open-ended question where respondents were prompted to indicate tools/technologies that they did not have access to during ERT that would have facilitated their teaching, several noted that they would have liked access to a digital whiteboard, a digital pen, and to “better quality computers and software” for themselves and for children, so as to facilitate the more active learning of mathematics and other subjects. The need for “open cameras during the lesson” to “build a sense of community” was again repeatedly pointed out by many teachers, as well as the need for professional development in the use of e-learning technologies.
In a question where they were asked to judge the Cypriot educatonal system’s level of readiness for the adoption of synchronous long-distance learning methods, all the teachers responded either that it was not ready at all or that it was ready only to a very small extent: “Not particularly ready. Several shortcomings at all levels.”; “Not at all! It was a new unprecedented reality!!! It was caught off guard I would say”. The low level of preparedness of the Ministry of Education in managing the COVID-19 crisis and its lack of prompt and adequate support to teachers and students was a main theme in teachers’ responses:
The Ministry of Education did not do proper planning, neither did it take swift decisions that would benefit children.
Basically, the Ministry was not ready at all…it had not trained teachers. Even to this date, only 2-3 teachers from each school have been formally trained by the Ministry. The rest got familiarized with distance education on their own or with the help of colleagues.
Despite the low level of preparedness of the educational system and the challenges they faced during the transition to ERT, most teachers felt that they did everything they could to offer the best education possible to their students:
I believe that a lot has been achieved despite the challenges. We educated ourselves. We educated each other…much earlier than when the Ministry was ready to offer training to teachers.
The system was not ready but the teachers were ready to respond.
Synchronous and asynchronous remote education succeeded thanks to teachers’ persistence, professionalism, the endless number of hours they dedicated to this, and the use of the technological infrastructure they each had at home.
Figure 3 displays teachers’ responses to a question where they were prompted to indicate, using a 5-level Likert scale (
1 =
Not at all…5 =
Extremely satisfied), their level of satisfaction with their performance during online lessons, and with their ERT practices in general. As shown in the figure, only 15% of the participants felt little or no satisfaction at all with their ERT practices. The remaining 85% felt at least moderately satisfied, with 60% feeling either adequately satisfied or very satisfied.
As shown in
Figure 4, teachers’ levels of satisfaction with their ERT practices varied significantly based on whether they engaged in synchronous ERT or not
(U(48, 14) =
145.5, z =
−3.37, p < 0.01). Sixty-nine percent of the participants who engaged in both synchronous and asynchronous ERT stated that they felt very satisfied (25.0%) or adequately satisfied (43.8%) with their performance during ERT. The corresponding percentage for the asynchronous ERT group was only 29 percent. Additionally, although 43% of the asynchronous ERT group felt little or no satisfaction at all with their ERT performance and practices, only 6% of the group combining synchronous and asynchronous ERT selected this response.
Teachers’ levels of satisfaction also varied significantly based on their technological expertise (U(31, 31) = 325.5, z = −2.29, p = 0.02 < 0.05). Although 71% of the teachers who had rated their technological expertise at the advanced or expert level felt adequately satisfied (41.9%) or very satisfied (29.0%) with their ERT practices, only half (48.4%) of teachers who had rated themselves at the beginner or intermediate level felt this way.
Similarly, teachers’ self-reported levels of preparedness for teaching at a distance also had a statistically significant impact on their level of satisfaction with their ERT practices (U(44, 18) = 278.5, z = −1.91, p = 0.049 < 0.05). Although almost 80% (77.8%) of the teachers who had rated their level of preparedness for teaching at a distance as high felt adequately or very satisfied with their performance as teachers during ERT, only around half (52.2%) of the teachers that had a low level of preparedness for distance education felt this way.
When reflecting on their experiences with the implementation of ERT, teachers highlighted not only the challenges they encountered in the transition to ERT, but also the unique opportunities that the pandemic had provided for the transformation of teaching and learning. Many noted the enhancement of students’ and teachers’ digital literacy skills and their familiarization with innovative e-learning tools and technologies that could be used to enhance the teaching and learning process.
Children became familiar with a new way of teaching and acquired important and useful skills that they will use for life.
Acquisition and cultivation of digital skills by students, exploration of alternative pedagogical approaches by teachers.
A number of participants also pointed out that the lockdown “gave children the opportunity to become more autonomous and to take a more active role in their learning process”. Several others referred to parents, arguing that the lockdown led to “more frequent communication with parents regarding children’s learning and progress” and to “improved relations between teachers and parents”. Finally, a couple of respondents also referred to the enhancement of involved stakeholders’ “crisis management skills”.
Teachers considered the turmoil caused by the pandemic to be an opportunity for fundamental changes to the educational system—the revision of curricula and pedagogical approaches, more effective integration of technology, the improvement of technological infrastructure, and the development of crisis-sensitive educational planning.
Finally, teachers were prompted as to whether they would continue using the tools and technologies that they became familiar with during the ERT period when the normal operation of their school resumed. More than 70% responded positively, stating either that they intended to incorporate the tools and technologies they used during ERT into their courses (n = 33, 53.2%) or that they were already using these tools and technologies prior to COVID-19 and would continue doing so (n = 11, 17.2%).
In the Results section, we presented the results regarding teachers’ self-reported technological backgrounds and levels of preparedness for ERT, the challenges they reported facing during the transition to ERT, the technological tools and didactic strategies they reported utilizing during ERT of mathematics, and their reflections on their ERT experience and the way forward for ICT-enhanced mathematics instruction in the post-COVID-19 era. In the next section, we summarize and interpret our key findings and link them to the relevant international literature.