『国際関係研究』（日本大学） 第41巻合併号 令和 3年2月

113

Emergency Remote Teaching– Students’ Expectations and Perceptions of Online Classes –Bradley Irwin
アーウィンブラッドリー．緊急リモートティーチング ― オンライン授業に対する学生の期待と認識 ―International Relations Vol.41, Consolidated Edition. February 2021. pp.113-120.

Studies in

本論文では、2020 年度の春学期に実施した、受講者のオンライン学習環境、希望する授業のスタイル、オンラ

イン学習に対する満足度を調査した 3 つの調査の結果を示す。調査結果によると、学生の大多数はノートパソコン（ラップトップ）でオンライン授業にアクセスしたが、スマートフォンを使用する傾向も高かった。また、学期が進む
につれて、学生はオンデマンド授業と双方向授業の機能を組み合わせた授業（スタイル）を好むようになった。さらなる調査結果によると、学生は一般的にオンライン学習に満足していたが、インターネットの無制限データプランを持っている学生とそうでない学生との間に満足度における（統計的）有意差が見られた。

This paper presents findings from three surveys conducted during emergency remoteteaching and learning in the spring semester of the 2020 academic year. The surveys investigatedstudents’ online learning environments, the style of lessons they preferred, and their levels ofsatisfaction with learning online. The findings indicated that while the majority of students
accessed their online classes using laptops, there was an increasing tendency to use smartphones.
It was also found that as the semester progressed students increasingly preferred lessons
that combined features of on-demand and interactive approaches. Further findings indicatedthat while students were generally satisfied with their online courses, there was a significant
difference in satisfaction levels between students who had unlimited data plans and those who
did not.

Introduction
In early 2020, the education systems of many countries were thrown into disarray because of thecoronavirus outbreak. In Japan, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s February 27 announcement that schools
nation-wide would close ushered in an abrupt end to the academic year and brought confusion toeducators and students alike (“PM Abe Asks All Schools,” 2020). With the subsequent academic year
slated to begin in April, anxiety levels remained high throughout March. However, it wasn’t until
April 7, when Abe declared a state of emergency, that many in the education sector in Japan began
coming to terms with the need to conduct lessons online (“Japan PM Abe Declares,” 2020).
By this point in North America, most schools had been closed since the spring break holiday(typically the second or third week in March) and many educators quickly realized that, in order tocomplete the academic year by June, classes would have to be held online. The changes in education
brought on by the coronavirus pandemic were being described in the media as a “pivot to online
classes” (Ruckstuhl & Jarmanning, 2020). However, this expression completely misrepresented thechaos that educators and students endured as they tried to finish the academic year.

114

国際関係研究Unfortunately, Japan was not spared from a similar upheaval in its education system. In fact,some analysts predicted Japan would have a particularly difficult time adopting online learning
environments because of a lack of educational technology support and red tape (Kittaka, 2020). While
only 5% of local governments planned to approve online lessons for closed public schools (Hata, 2020),
two-thirds of public universities and over one-third of private universities planned to conduct lessons
online (“Over Half of Univ. Students,” 2020).
In many cases, at the university level, this rapid shift to online learning resulted in thecomplete overhaul of syllabi and lesson plans and delayed starts to the school year. While the terms“online learning” and “online teaching” were widely used at first, it became apparent that what
was developing was quite unlike traditional online education. By the end of March 2020, the term
emergency remote teaching (ERT) emerged as a more appropriate expression of the realities ofteaching during a pandemic (Milman, 2020). Hodges et al. (2020) offer an excellent discussion of it:Many active members of the academic community, including some of us, have been hotly debating
the terminology in social media, and "emergency remote teaching" has emerged as a common
alternative term used by online education researchers and professional practitioners to draw aclear contrast with what many of us know as high-quality online education. Some readers may
take issue with the use of the term "teaching" over choices such as "learning" or "instruction."
Rather than debating all of the details of those concepts, we selected "teaching" because of its
simple definitions—"the act, practice, or profession of a teacher" and "the concerted sharingof knowledge and experience,"—along with the fact that the first tasks undertaken during
emergency changes in delivery mode are those of a teacher/ instructor/ professor. (para. 6)

Emergency Remote Teaching
Generally, when online courses are offered at the university level, there are certain technicalrequirements that students must meet such as adequate computers and peripheral devices, sufficient(often unlimited) access to the Internet, and up-to-date computer software. However, with ERT
these could no longer be applied. Instead, instructors were asked to plan lessons that accommodated
students who had devices ranging from personal computers to smartphones and internet accessranging from unlimited data plans to no plans at all. Even faculty found themselves in situations
with inadequate access to technology required for successful online teaching.
A study by Kumar et al. (2019) found that the most effective online courses were thoughtfully
designed and planned. From inception to implementation, university level online courses generally
take six to nine months to plan, prepare and develop (Hodges et al., 2020). In Japan, faculty
were given only a few weeks (or in some cases a few days) to consider how their courses would be
implemented and many instructors were far from comfortable using technology.
Another key difference between online learning and ERT is that students freely choose toparticipate in online learning. Students seek out online courses and find topics, content, or areas ofresearch that match their learning goals. There is no free will with ERT. The pandemic has forced us
all into uncharted territory where the only choice is to make the best of a bad situation.

Emergency Remote Teaching (Bradley Irwin)

115

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to help guide the decision-making process regarding online course designthat best matches students’ desires and expectations. To better understand students’ opinions about
ERT and the types of classes they want, a survey was conducted three times during the springsemester. The purpose of this survey was to shed light on the following aspects of online learning:
1. The conditions under which students are accessing their online classes.
2. Students’ preferences in terms of lesson style and content delivery.
3. The extent to which students are satisfied with their online learning experiences.

ParticipantsFirst and second year students who were taught by the author of this study participated in thesurveys. While the majority of students were enrolled in English courses, one group of respondents(approx. 31) were from a homeroom class ( 自主創造の基礎１) taught mainly in Japanese.
MethodSurveys were conducted three times (early May, late June, and late August) during the springsemester which ran from the beginning of May to the end of August in 2020. The surveys wereconducted using Google Forms and distributed to students as a link posted in the stream of Google
Classroom. To minimize misunderstanding, the surveys were conducted in English and Japanese. In
order to form a basis of comparison between surveys, students were asked to include their student
identification number. Therefore, the surveys were not fully anonymous. However, students were
instructed that the surveys were optional and would not be used in the evaluation of their grades forthe course they were enrolled in.
Survey 1 (S1) responses were initially collected from 103 first year and 38 second year
undergraduate students (N=141) before theTable 1: Response breakdown

beginning of the semester in May 2020. When
Survey 2 (S2) was conducted at the end of June
2020, the number of responses dropped to 113 (83first year, 30 second year). At the end of August
2020, when Survey 3 (S3) was conducted, thetotal number of responses was 102 (73 first year,
29 second year). Table 1 shows the breakdown of
responses for each survey.

SurveyFirst year
students

Total
responses

Survey 1(S1)
Survey 2(S2)
Survey 3(S3)

Secondyear
students

103

38

141

83

30

113

73

29

102

In order to better understand the challenges students faced in this new online learning situation,
S1 asked them to describe such things as their home study environments, device access, internet dataplans, and experience studying online. Students were also asked to describe the type of lessons they’dlike to receive and to share opinions or concerns about studying online. S2 and S3 asked many of thesame questions but also asked them to rate their overall online learning experiences on a scale of 1 to
10 (1 being lowest or extremely unsatisfied and 10 being highest or extremely satisfied).

116

国際関係研究Results
Less than a fifth (16%) of respondents indicated
16%
Yes
No

that they had experience studying online priorto ERT, which will probably not come as asurprise to teachers based in Japan. However,when the surveys of students who had responded

84%

in the affirmative were further analysed, it
became apparent that the number who had

Figure 1 - Percentage of students withexperience studying online

actually studied online was probably lower than
16% because some students listed software
programs such as Excel, Windows 10, and Google

Translate as the programs they had used to take their online lessons, which indicates they may havemisunderstood the meaning of ‘online lessons’.
Table 2 indicates the types of devices that students had available in order to access their online
courses. In all surveys, the majority of students
responded that their primary device for studying
was a laptop computer. It is interesting tonote that by S3, the number of students using
smartphones to access their online lessons rose byalmost 6% over S1.
One of the biggest concerns that educators facewhen trying to decide the best method to deliver
their online lessons has to do with the amount ofinternet data students have access to. Students

Table 2: Devices used for online studying

Device used forstudying
Laptop (portablecomputer)

S1

S2

S3

Smartphone

73.6%(n=103)
4.3%
(n=6)
9.3%
(n=13)
12.9%(n=18)

71.7%(n=81)
4.4%
(n=5)
11.5%
(n=13)
12.4%(n=14)

69.6%(n=71)
4.9%
(n=5)
6.9%
(n=7)
18.6%
(n=19)

Total responses

N=140

N=113

N=102

Desktop
Tabletwith data limitations would be adversely affected

Table 3: Internet databy lessons that depended on a large amount ofdata usage, such as real-time participatory lessons
and activities conducted using video conferencing
software. Table 3 shows the percentage of students
who had access to unlimited data plans comparedto those without. A steady downward trend can beobserved in the case of students who had access toInternet data

S1

S2

S3

Limited86.9%(n=119)13.1%(n=18)

78.8%(n=89)
21.2%(n=24)

71%(n=71)
29%(n=29)

Total responses

N=137

N=113

N=100

Unlimited

unlimited plans.
Students were asked to choose the type of lesson they hoped to receive based on five options: on
demand, live, interactive, combined interactive and on demand, and materials and assignments sentby email. Brief descriptions were provided for each type of lesson. On-demand lessons were described
as asynchronous lessons in which teachers record audio or video files that are made available tostudents online. These lessons can be classroom type recordings (a teacher in front of a blackboard),
single screen recordings (a recorded computer screen, also known as a screencast), and document
synchronization recordings (PowerPoint presentations with synchronized video or audio). Theselessons are usually self-paced but follow a fixed assignment and testing schedule. Live lectures wereEmergency Remote Teaching (Bradley Irwin)

117

described in similar terms to on-demand in that they can be a classroom type, screencast type or
document synchronization type. However, the main difference is that these lessons are synchronousand delivered in real-time using a streaming service like YouTube Live (or possibly Google Meet or
Zoom). Interactive lectures were described as synchronous and participatory lessons which allow
students to interact with teachers or classmates using video conferencing software such as Zoom,
Webex, or Google Meet. Combined interactive and on demand lessons were described as allowing forsome self-paced asynchronous learning and also participatory real-time video conferencing. Finally,materials and assignments sent by email were described as correspondence style lessons that utilized
textbooks or documents to convey knowledge. This type of course could accommodate students withsevere internet data limitations.
Table 4 shows the type of lessons students
wished to receive. It is interesting to note that as
the desire for on-demand only lessons decreased
there was a sharp rise in preference for a
combination of interactive and on-demand.
Students were also asked to rate their generallevel of satisfaction with online learning across allof their classes during S2 and S3. Figure 2 shows
the distribution of the total number of responses
for S2 and S3. The average level of satisfaction in
S2 was reported as 6.88 (SD = 2.03), whereas the

Table 4: Student lesson preference

Lesson Preference
On-demand
lectures (recorded
lectures)
Live lectures(YouTube live)
Interactive lectures(Zoom)
Combination ofinteractive and on
demandAssignments/
materials by email
Total responses

S1

S2

S3

45.0%
(n=63)

31.9%(n=36)

30.7%(n=31)

11.4%(n=16)
6.4%
(n=9)

14.2%
(n=16)
4.4%
(n=5)

7.9%
(n=8)
4%
(n=4)

30.0%
(n=42)

42.5%(n=48)

52.5%(n=53)

7.1%(n=10)
N=140

7.1%
(n=8)
N=113

5%
(n=5)
N=101

average level of satisfaction in S3 was reported as
7.11 (SD = 2.07).
In order to determine if there was a significant
change in the levels of satisfaction between S2and S3, a Dependent T-Test was conducted on
responses from students who had replied in bothsurveys. Therefore, after removing single student
responses a total of 85 responses remained. The
results from S2 (M = 7.11, SD = 2.01) and S3

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

10

9

8

7

6

Survey 2 (N=112)

54Survey 3 (N=101)

3

2

1

Figure 2 - Online learning satisfaction rating(M = 7.13, SD = 2.03) did not indicate that any
significant change had taken place regarding the students’ level of satisfaction with online learning
between surveys, t(84) = 0.14, p = .89.
This data was further analysed using an Independent T-test to compare the levels of satisfaction
between students who had access to unlimited data plans and those who did not. For S2, there wasno significant difference in the levels of satisfaction between the unlimited data group (M = 7.01,
SD = 1.95) and the limited data group (M = 6.42, SD = 2.28), t (111) = 1.28, p = .20. However, for S3,comparing the unlimited data group (M = 7.23, SD = 1.98) and the limited data group (M = 6.38, SD =1.99) a significant difference in satisfaction levels was observed, t(98) = 2.39, p = .02.

118

国際関係研究Discussion
It is interesting to note that over the course of the spring semester, there seemed to be a rise in thenumber of students using smartphones to access their lessons (S1 = 12.9% / S3 = 18.6%). This may
have had to do with a change in the lesson content or the manner of delivery utilized by teachers.
It also may point to the fact that students grew more accustomed to using the mobile app version
of Google Classroom, the learning management system (LMS) being widely used to delivery online
content. Another possibility may be that after the state of emergency was lifted, students spent timeaway from their homes when studying.
The fact that the percentage of students with unlimited data plans decreased by over 15%
between S1 and S3 is a concerning statistic. The reasons for this decline could not be established byanalysing survey responses but it may have had to do with the discontinuation of free data plans thatwere offered by providers at the outset of the pandemic as a gesture of goodwill. While the surveys
did not determine the amount of data that students had access on their limited plans, the implicationof 29% of the student population having data limitations should not be lost on instructors while
designing courses. For example, using video conferencing software such as Zoom to conduct lessons
can use anywhere between 810 MB/hr to 2.4 GB/hr depending on the number of participants andvideo quality (Abbott, 2020). This data usage is approximately equivalent to streaming an HD movie
online. Video playback is not much better in terms of data usage for on-demand lessons posted toYouTube at 260MB/hr to 1.65GB/hr depending on the video quality (Ilumba, 2020). Even under the
lower estimates of data usage it is easy to image that students would be using 2-3 gigabytes per day
in classes that rely heavily on video conferencing. All but the largest smartphone data plans would be
used up by mid-month with this amount of usage.
While students seemed generally satisfied with their online lessons (S2 M = 6.88, S3 M = 7.11),
it should not go unnoticed that S3 showed a significant difference in levels of satisfaction between
students with unlimited data plans and those without. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of thisstudy to rule out any other factors that may have negatively impacted the online learning experiencesof students with limited data plans. However, it is clear that students with limited data plans view
their online lessons in a less favourable manner. Teachers should make attempts to accommodate
students with data limitations when deciding methods for implementing their lessons.
Regarding lesson preference, it is interesting to note that a preference for on-demand only lessons
dropped by almost 15% while a preference for a combination of interactive and on-demand lessons
increased by 22.5%. In order to better understand their preferences, students were asked to elaborateon their opinions regarding lesson type. As for on-demand only lessons, many students responded
that they appreciated the ability to study at their own pace and that these types of lessons increased
opportunities for self-study and autonomy. However, they also lamented the fact that on-demandlessons negated social and communicative aspects of learning, such as the ability to ask questions
to professors and peers and to receive timely feedback. The timeliness of instructor feedback wasalso identified by Sheridan and Kelly (2010) as a key indicator of satisfaction when they examinedthe value students placed on instructor presence in online courses. Interestingly, Sheridan and
Kelly also found that students did not place a high value in synchronous communication with theirinstructors. Based on responses from the present survey, however, it was clear that making friends,

Emergency Remote Teaching (Bradley Irwin)

119communicating with classmates, and being able to ask questions and receive feedback from professors
weighed heavily on students’ minds. This difference can most likely be attributed to the uniquesituation of ERT where all courses are being offered online and students have limited opportunities
to meet any classmates or professors face-to-face.
Finding a good balance between synchronous and asynchronous approaches is certainly a challenge
when considering online course design and implementation. This is particularly true with language
courses where many instructors view real-time and face-to-face communication as essential forlearning. However, while some instructors may seek ways to recreate their face-to-face lessons in
an online environment, it is important to recognize that “students studying online are in a different
learning environment or context than students learning in a classroom, and the design needs totake account of this” (Bates, 2019, chapter 4.2.3). As McCarty (2020) points out, by adopting newtechnologies without first considering our students’ needs, we run the risk of “the medium eclipsing
the message.” McCarty goes on to point out that experienced online instructors tend to rely less on
synchronous methods of content delivery and focus more on the ‘learning’ aspect of e-learning.

Conclusion
After months of merely surviving remote emergency teaching, our focus as educators should beshifting to thriving in high quality online learning environments. This is no small feat to be sure,but by opening lines of communication with our students, we will gain useful insights that can help
guide our decisions when designing and implementing our online lessons. Luckily, software like
Google Forms provides an effective platform for collecting feedback from students. Asking openended questions using Google Forms makes opening lines of communication with students easy
and instructors would be well advised to solicit such feedback as often as possible. While many of
us long for a return to face-to-face lessons, the future of classroom learning in Japan will probably
incorporate more blended approaches as we return armed with a host of new technological skills.

References
Abbott, T. (2020, May 15). How to reduce Zoom data use. Reviews. https://www.reviews.org/internetservice/how-to-reduce-zoom-data-use/Bates, T. (2019). Teaching in a digital age. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/
chapter/6-4-old-wine-in-new-bottles-classroom-type-online-learning/
Hata, A. (2020, April 22). Japan’s students left behind as world embraces online classes. Nikkei Asia.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Education/Japan-s-students-left-behind-as-world-embracesonline-classes
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March). The difference between
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-onlinelearning
Ilumba, A. (2020, May 21). How much data does YouTube use? WhistleOut. https://www.whistleout.
com/CellPhones/Guides/How-Much-Data-Does-YouTube-Use

120

国際関係研究Japan PM Abe declares state of emergency amid widespread virus infections. (2020, April 8). Kyodo
News. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/04/ac4415709921-abe-to-declare-state-ofemergency-amid-widespread-virus-infections.html
Kittaka, L. G. (2020, April 20). Coronavirus crisis offers chance to update Japanese schools. The Japan
Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2020/04/20/issues/coronavirus-crisis-japaneseschools-online/
Kumar, S., Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty online
teaching practices: Elements of award-winning courses. Online Learning, 23(4). doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2077
McCarty, S. (2020, May). The Journal of Online Education (JOE). Special Issue on Teaching Online
during the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic. New York University. Retrieved from https://www.
academia.edu/43227493/Post_Pandemic_Pedagogy?fbclid=IwAR2CEIGf4AWjAtXDCvdtUjJHE9O
ZaUfbhNF-qIs33ZNeI09hTtXnn85jMAI
Milman, N. B. (2020, March 30). This is emergency remote teaching, not just online teaching.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/03/30/this-is-emergency-remoteteaching-not-just.html
Over half of univ. students in Japan positive about online lectures. (2020, April 7). Kyodo News. https://
english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/04/fd697eb678cf-over-half-of-univ-students-in-japan-positiveabout-online-lectures.html
PM Abe asks all schools in Japan to temporarily close over coronavirus. (2020, February 27). Kyodo
News. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/02/c3c57bbce11d-breaking-news-govt-will-ask-allschools-in-japan-to-shut-for-virus-fears-abe.html
Ruckstuhl, L., & Jarmanning, A. (2020, March 10). Harvard, MIT and other schools move to all
remote classes amid coronavirus concerns. WBUR. https://www.wbur.org/edify/2020/03/10/
amherst-college-remote-learning-students-leave
Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M.A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to
students in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4). Retrieved from https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/sheridan_1210.htm