Participants

The participants were full- and part-time instructors in higher education institutions around the world. A total of 316 instructors consented to participate in the larger study. Of those 316 participants, 156 were included in the data analysis for the study presented in this chapter since they had completed the open-ended question in the survey.

Instruments and Data Collection

We developed a survey to gather participants’ experiences teaching during ERT. The survey was distributed via a formal email invitation, through social media online communities related to higher education teaching and learning, and to the members of various higher education professional organizations. Faculty members were asked to provide consent before proceeding with the electronic survey. The data used in this study correspond to the answers provided in the open-ended question that asked instructors to tell their stories.

Data Analysis

Analyzing the stories of participants can offer insights into their lived experiences and the meanings that they give to their humanity and relationships in spatial and temporal contexts (Daiute, 2014). In developing an understanding of instructors’ experiences, we conducted an a priori coding using a codebook that summarized 12 tenets of feminist pedagogy informed by the research literature. We created the operational definitions that allowed us to examine the participants’ stories and to capture the richness of their lived experiences—feelings, challenges, perspectives, and actions—as they made sense of the struggling academic conditions that the COVID-19 pandemic posed. Table 11.1 shows the summary of the codebook.

In an iterative and team-based coding approach, we systematically analyzed each of the stories, making sense of the meanings and relating them to each of the tenets pre-established in the codebook. We conducted this analysis in four phases. First, we read the full stories independently. Second, we coded together the first 20 stories using our first version of the codebook and discussed our impressions of the data to ensure that the codebook tenets and operational definitions were clear. Third, we coded individually the next 20 stories, annotating ideas and comments for further discussion. We then met to review our coding, resolve any discrepancies, and consolidate the descriptions of the codes to ensure that they captured all possible responses. We proceeded to divide the remaining stories and coded them independently. Fourth, we met to review each other’s comments and reconcile our coding. Our goal was not to determine whether instructors had a deliberate implementation of feminist pedagogy; our intention was to learn how instructors humanized their teaching during ERT by looking at their experiences through the lens of feminist pedagogy.

Pedagogy of Care

Many of the instructors’ stories revealed instances of genuine care and empathy for others. About a third of the faculty members (37%, n=56) described critical yet challenging actions toward ensuring that “students were [their] primary concern” (Participant 2). Concerns were beyond academic needs: “My other concern was to be able to help my students in terms of dealing with the anxiety related to everything but more so about the pandemic. I sent them emails every other day asking how they were doing and kept flexible digital office hours to help them connect with me if they needed any academic or mental health-related support from my institution” (Participant 8). Some instructors believed that they needed “to lower expectations and demands from them (and from us), treat them (and ourselves) with lots of care and empathy, and help each other the way we can” (Participant 96). Other instructors found it challenging to support student well-being and mental health, as one instructor pointed out: “I saw many students suffering first-hand with it being harder than ever to communicate with them and provide them with resources” (Participant 57).

Respect

Instructors shared experiences in which respect for others and lived experiences were pillars in ERT. Many instructors (29%, n=43) showed their vulnerability while relating to the difficulties of balancing “work and family plus helping my students with different issues such as accessibility” (Participant 32). An important consideration during ERT was being understanding: “Students and colleagues were understanding that we were providing a service at all during the immediate situation. We provided asynchronous lectures and synchronous discussions with students. Establishing shared expectations with colleagues about how to approach online teaching was challenging—e.g., how much synch to offer, in what format, etc.” (Participant 22).

Empowerment

Some instructors (26%, n=39) recognized their positions of power to make decisions that worked for them, with limited institutional support, in efforts to support every student:

“I thought that the spring semester was a ‘watershed moment’ for me, as it seemed like an opportunity to break through traditional practices (between teacher/student; amongst students; with content) and develop the kind of learning environment ‘we’ wanted. I was able to do that for my undergrad and grad courses” (Participant 85). Despite training in using digital tools, an instructor lacked “the techniques for teaching online. I’ve taught myself with webinars, with online classes that I’ve found, and with books.… Six months later and I feel I’m starting to get the hang of what’s important for teaching an online class” (Participant 111).

Intersectional Identity

Some instructors (26%, n=39) discovered their students’ varied identities and how they represented barriers or opportunities to keep learning: “My classes were all via Zoom. I was concerned because it was the first time I was teaching for this university (in Hungary), and I have never seen the students before (they come from different backgrounds, 10+ different countries in all continents, and you have to be really careful to avoid problems regarding cultural differences” (Participant 27). Some instructors pointed to students’ home or work settings that made learning remotely impossible, including not having a computer or internet at home, and they “could only attend asynchronously when breaking quarantine to visit relatives” (Participant 44). Other instructors reported how living in remote areas with poor internet service presented another barrier to access. Instructors also indicated that students could not afford the resources for learning since many of them “complained of not having money to buy [phone] data. Sometimes I will not see anyone at the time scheduled, only to appear later complaining of network unavailability or being sent on an errand at that time” (Participant 56).

Embodiment

Some of the instructors (26%, n=39) considered students as individuals who are more than their physical or visible digital presence. For one instructor, the course content moved down the priority list “as so many of my students were displaced, scared, and several were alone without travel options. I utilized check-in systems via surveys and drop-in office (‘zoffice’) hours via Zoom to capture individual student needs” (Participant 2). Instructors realized that other factors shaped students’ lives and academic presence: “Concerns mostly related to my students, many of them caregivers, health-care workers, minorities, and/or from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Some of them didn’t have access to devices or stable internet connections. Many either lost their jobs or suddenly worked double shifts” (Participant 133).

Instructors recognized the challenges of supporting students while expecting them to engage in academic activities when they “are living through a global pandemic” (Participant 64). Instructors opted for “meeting students one on one to ensure that they were okay and to negotiate a mutually acceptable path for completing the term online” (Participant 69).

Community Building

A few instructors (15%, n=23) described their efforts to build community to ensure that students were connected, felt valued, and developed a sense of belonging. Community building meant making connections as instructors and students navigated a digital space that proved to be alienating: “Moving online only was hard on morale, above and beyond the uncertainty of the epidemic, because it was harder to care for each other as humans. We spent more time in our meetings checking in with each other, and I encouraged them to have more Zoom meetings without me to help build and maintain a sense of community” (Participant 51). For some instructors, having built rapport with students previously was helpful during ERT to “maintain our sense of community.” However, the use of synchronous videoconferencing tools (e.g., Zoom) challenged instructors’ presence, making it hard to be “in the breakout rooms and not being able to listen in on what they were saying, but I solved that with some other tools that allowed me to at least have some insight into what was going on” (Participant 142).

Alternative Histories and Narratives

A few participants (15%, n=23) saw themselves beyond their role as instructors; they were parents, caregivers, trainers, and supporters. The challenges felt more personal: “Child care for me was a real challenge. The kids were ‘guest lecturers’ in more than one class. But also how to find time to prep when I suddenly had a part-time job homeschooling the kids” (Participant 71).

Managing the transition to a remote environment crossed boundaries for instructors and students. One instructor pointed out that it was even more difficult “while my family experienced disruption related to the pandemic, such as my son’s schedule changing, my husband’s work reacting, and my mother’s needs” (Participant 36). Instructors realized that life happens in parallel to academic responsibilities. Some students tried to take classes while being “called into the military and could no longer attend class synchronously, … [or] a teacher with school-aged children found himself overwhelmed teaching remotely … while also homeschooling his children” (Participant 44).

Accountable Collaboration

A few instructors (11%, n=16) approached their teaching as a process of mutual support and collaboration among students and colleagues. Instructors with previous online experience turned to support those who experienced difficulties during the transition:

Since Comp is a required course, there are instructors who already teach it online during the summer session—these instructors were a lot of help in teaching us how to optimize the course for online delivery, especially since we emphasize group work and active learning in this course. I also got some financial aid over summer as part of a fellowship requiring me to help professors in my department to transfer their courses to the online sphere. (Participant 29)

Although many digital tools were becoming available, some instructors did not use them because teaching time was reduced, “and there was fear that students would be negatively affected. Additionally, the fact that everyone was going through a difficult time, we did not want to load students with new features for the course” (Participant 74). Instructors also described how they implemented flexibility by accommodating struggling students who spent “less time working on my class, and I had to make adjustments and increase flexibility and actually cancel one major assignment in order to help them survive this transition” (Participant 124).

Critical View of Power and Authority

Some instructors (10%, n=15) criticized the lack of leadership while moving to ERT and found strategies to counteract it. The pressure to maintain continuity of instruction posed greater expectations to instructors:

I think it would have been wise for senior leadership to hit the pause button for a week to prepare. All of this led to months of fatigue, confusion, and frustration as we continued to provide and maintain some sort of teaching continuity. I sat back in amazement as Zoom was integrated in two weeks, after repeated requests for it for two years, and we were told it couldn’t be supported by the institution. When Zoom was implemented, it was fully supported by the institution, but like any new technology there was a steep learning curve. (Participant 49)

In addition, being told that “‘you start tomorrow in online classes, good luck,’ with no guidance or planning” (Participant 49), posed major challenges for both instructors and students. However, some instructors “used Zoom too since I was using it in the other institution, but for the students it was a mess since different professors used different platforms, and many of them did not know what to do” (Participant 29). Despite having technological support, “the greatest challenge was having knowledge about best practices yet having to adhere to unrealistic expectations from management” (Participant 131). At the same time, restructuring the daily class periods was “not the best use of our time or our students’ time and not a realistic transition to e-learning” (Participant 131).

Learner Agency

The stories shared by a few instructors (10%, n=15) related to their varied experiences observing students’ use of digital technologies and engagement with the course materials that allowed students to be active in making choices about their learning: “I also found that the students were engaging with me more and that planning my time and managing all of the students digitally was not difficult. They were simply home and able to do more work. So project management tools, email drip campaigns, electronic newsletters, and other engagement tools used by marketers have become necessary tools for me in this educational shift” (Participant 92).

Instructors also resorted to a variety of digital tools to compensate for the hands-on activities often used in in-person classes. Despite the availability of videoconferencing tools (e.g., Zoom) for real-time interaction, practical tasks could not be completed. Instead, instructors implemented “interactive activities using web-based whiteboard tools, Zoom chat, and Google Docs/Slides for students to make their input during the class, instead of making them listen to my lecture the whole time” (Participant 136).

Self-Interrogation and Bias

Despite experience and perceived agency in teaching, a small number of instructors (6%, n=9) examined their approaches or deemed them inadequate in the emergency context: “During my career, I have developed a set of skills for teaching in sometimes crowded classrooms. This set of skills is almost useless now that I had to start remote teaching. I realize that, as I have acquired all the training one needs to give good in-person classes, I have to reinvent myself to learn new abilities and competencies to teach remotely” (Participant 10).

The abrupt transition made some instructors “ready to quit.… I am not sure if I am doing the right thing, not sure how to provide all the information I usually offer in class,” while also being unsure about “how to engage the students in a participative way.… There are certainly some that will be engaging with the material, but what about those who don’t?” (Participant 13). Some instructors recognized that “the digital divide is as real for instructors as it is for students” (Participant 38). This is evident in remote areas where, if fortunate enough, they might have “access to satellite internet, which is not great and is limited” (Participant 138).

Social Action

Instructors’ actions to support students served a broader community desperate for help. In remote synchronous classes, fewer instructors (<0%, n=2) helped their students even though their classes were already online prior to the transition to ERT. These instructors scheduled weekly synchronous meetings for about 20–40 students, who then “asked if others outside of the program could attend, so I was able to give out a guest link to the meetings. We ended the semester with about 200 people attending three times a week” (Participant 42).