Abstract

Recently, during the current situation of pandemic COVID-19, human interaction has been restricted. Due to moment control order (MCO) enforcement, pedagogy had to undergo the phenomenon of posthumanist and digital blended mode. The present research is aimed to measure the traumatic impact of online teaching on university students during COVID019. The students’ responses were measured through a questionnaire. The major theoretical insights have been taken from Bayley (2018)’s Post Human Pedagogies in Practice: Arts-Based Approaches for Developing Participatory Futures. It has been found that students had to undergo distressful experiences due to a lack of technological knowledge and insufficient resources. In the light of the analyzed data, it is suggested that there is a dire need the academic institutions should develop a digital support system. The findings of the current study establish that our non-preparedness of digital for digital space in classrooms would be traumatic by affecting teaching, which is considered as the essential element of progress in social theory.

Key Words

Online Teaching, MCO, COVID-19, Traumatic Impact, English Language Teaching,             The Post Humanist Paradigm

Introduction

COVID-19 has affected every spectrum of life worldwide, including social- life, economy, health, and education. Keeping in view the proliferation rate of the virus, the restrictions of social distancing was imposed. In this way, the world has to undergo double trouble, i.e., medical challenges and social isolation. Social distancing was proposed to stop the proliferation of the virus in crowded places such as schools and universities as well. The transition from on-campus teaching to online mode was a great challenge for teachers, educational institutions and students (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust & Bond, 2020). The major reasons were the unpreparedness of the faculty members. The universities were not having any online support mechanisms and facilitation. The diverse and remote geographical factors were also serious challenges for the students to get access to the online resources. 

Universities under the direction of the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan, decided to continue their ongoing semesters, and later one continued for another semester as well. But it was unfortunate that universities and higher education could not develop the online resources to facilitate the process of educational deliverance. Higher Education Commission could not provide an alternative solution to her paradoxical decision. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan announced that we are not going to compromise on the quality of education, and at the same time, universities without any financial support for developing online support for the students went on for online teaching. We make it clear that the students with resources and economic prosperity continued their studies. While the worst impact has to bear to the students who were not economically sound. It is a fact that this outbreak has forced instructors of all subjects to change their teaching procedures; nevertheless, the present study majorly focuses on the teaching of English classrooms in the universities of south Punjab, Pakistan. The polarity and technology gaps made this online teaching as traumatic for the students. Due to the integration of technology in classrooms in the Western world is marked as a posthumanist world. With minimum challenges, the western world easily moved on online mode of teaching while the underdeveloped world like Pakistan could not manage the above-mentioned disparity. Now, we discuss the posthumanist perspective of pedagogy. 

Posthumanism as a movement and critical canon in literary theory is the recent one.  The core of posthumanist theory focuses on the decentering of humans from the analysis of social phenomena. Theories of posthumanism differ in their line of action. The critics of humanism take post humanism against the essence of social assemblage (DeLanda, 2019). While the critics of socio constructivism take it as an essential element of change in social action and persisting social realities. With the emergence of globalization and the expansion of technology, the world has turned more on posthumanism mode. In the 21st century, the human society of Pre Westphalia is not possible as a world order. The complexities of the 21st century have compelled the modern man towards posthumanist dimensions. Recently the phenomenon of COVID-19 as a pandemic has shaken the conventional modes of communication. Initially, the world responded in the form of xenophobia. But with the expansion of the pandemic of COVID-19, every society was bound to re-structure its social assemblage. A major shift that took place during the COVID-19 was heavily relying on technology. The world was bound to shift from conventional modes to online modes-reliance on technology proved the last and safe option to the world. During COVID-19, from marketing to pedagogical practices, the world was bound to rely on technology. We can project that the increased role of technology during the pandemic of COVID-19 is irreversible. So, in post-COVID-19, we can expect a more Post Humanist world. This situation, no doubt, can be named as a posthumanist manifestation in pedagogical practices. 

The posthuman perspective of pedagogy provides interesting and promising new approaches to move towards the real social transformation of learning based on technology. Imperiale (2016) considers that Traditional approaches of learning shifted from Aristotelian paradigms to posthumanist paradigms. (Bayley 2018,p. 41) While going to the online mode of teaching, it was required to measure and address the challenges faced by the universities. Consequently, our experience online teaching turned into a very distressful experience for the students. The present study is aimed at tracing out the impact of online teaching on university students. Furthermore, it is focused to trace out to what extent we were prepared for a posthumanist pedagogy. As we were not prepared for posthumanist pedagogical practices, our online teaching had been a distressful experience for our teachers and students.

Literature Review

Contemporary theories of educational relations prioritize human relations and agency; thus, they are anthropocentric. Learners are not separate subjects with inherent qualities

Who learn about objects with inherent qualities. Humans, furniture, animals, books, and technology are parts of educational relationality. While Post-anthropocentrism refers to a decentering critique of the human as the centre of the world, a lens through which other aspects of the world and knowledge are seen as being created for human use. Braidotti (2013) states that posthumanism relies on two foundations: a critique of humanism and a post-anthropocentric critique. 




Deterritorialising Pedagogy

The phenomenon of COVID-19 threatened the concept of territorialization. The restriction of social distancing shaken social territorialization in which conversation takes place face to face in a particular place (street-corner, a pub, church) while organizations usually operate in particular buildings. Disrupting, re-ordering, and re-imagining structures is no easy business. Effectively speaking, it can cause anxiety, pain and biting-back the more we feel we are losing our feet on terra firma. As earth-bound creatures, taking flight is always terrifying for the first time. It is as if we are changing our natures, relying on navigating a set of unknowns to hold us up and prevent us from plummeting to our demise. Taking flight requires that we become creative actors, constantly changing and being open to working with different, unfamiliar factors and complex multiplicities. Several authors have described e-learning as a useful methodology to encompass knowledge, curriculum, and ICTs. Indeed, Oye, Mazleena & Iahad stated that “soon a higher demand of technology support is expected... software tools supporting the critical task of instruction design should provide automated support for the analysis, design, documentation, implementation, and deployment of instruction via Web” (2012: 48). Within online learning, there are many modalities reported by the literature, notwithstanding.




Synchronous and Asynchronous Interactions

Synchronous interaction arranges learners to participate in the lesson at the same moment by using online tools like video conferencing, audio conferencing, text-based chat systems or instant messaging systems, and text-based virtual learning environments (Oye et al. 2012; Obasa, Eludire & Ajao 2013; Francis 2017). This type of encounter is likely to lead students to high levels of motivation towards completing online activities since there is evident presence from peers and instructors (Yamagata-Lynch as cited in Perveen 2016). Referring to Asynchronous learning spaces, they provide freedom for both the teacher and the students to interact since the material or information is available to be studied, discussed, and solved at different paces. Examples of some resources concerning this type of e-learning include e-mail, discussion forums, audio, and video streaming. Educators working online are intended to be acquainted with certain competencies. According to Queiroz and Mustaro (2003), "They should be able to use technology; to have skills to design and implement courses…; to moderate, organize and archive asynchronous discussions; [and] to establish ground rules". Moreover, teachers need to "guide and animate synchronous discussions; to integrate different teaching and learning styles to the course; to interact actively with students and give them constant feedback; to make students aware of cultural differences… among others". The present study is an attempt to explore the gap between the needs and resources required for online classes. Our understanding of traumatic impact is based on the belief that the wider is the gap between the resources and the needs, the more would be a risk of traumatic impact in our online teaching. As already we have hinted opinion of Bayley (2018) in Posthuman Pedagogies in Practice that sufficient care attention should be paid towards the development of skills of the students particularly in the time of social crisis. 

Research Design

Sample and Population

In order to measure the responses of the students, a questionnaire was administered online in the form of ‘Google form’. The questionnaire was distributed to 300 students, out of which 260 students responded—friend a friend technique was used for the selection and distribution of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed among the following undergraduate and postgraduate students of the following universities.

• Department of English, Bahadur Sub Campus Layyah 

• Department of English, Ghazi University Dera Ghazi Khan

• Department of English, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan

• Department of English, Institute of Southern Punjab 

• Department of English, Islamia University Bahawalpur 




Tools of Data Collection

A questionnaire with seventeen questions was distributed. The questions were designed carefully to know the responses of the students based on their experience of online teaching during the pandemic of Covid-19.   




Data Analysis 

In this section, the responses collected from students through questionnaire has been represented statistically in the form of the pie chart.




80 % of the population considers that online teaching during the pandemic was a very distressful experience for them. While 20% population considers that it was not distressful for them. By these statistics, we see, as whole online teaching during COVID-19 was a distressful experience for the students. 




Even the home, which is considered as the safest place for any individual, including students, was not considered as a face place for academic activities. In response to the question that teaching-learning activity during the prevalent situation of COVID-19 was very distressful for the students. 78.5 % population of students responded that it was distressful and depressing for them to study at home. While 21.5% of pollution did not take it distressful. This also points out that we are more conditioned to learning in physical and in-person mode of the teaching-learning environment. 




Here it was an interesting question to measure the impact of external factors which were domestic in nature but were a source of a hindrance for the students. It was the responsibility of the parents to provide a conducive and academic friendly environment to the students. We see that not only the lack of technological resources were a problem for students, but the environment in which they were living during lockdown was a source of anxiety for the students. Students were bound to manage household activities and studies at the same time. 50.8 % population responded that it was extremely difficult for them to manage their studies along with household activities. While 36.9% responded to a lesser extend, it was difficult for them to carry out their academic activities. 12.3% population responded that it was not difficult for them to maintain their academic activities along with other household activities. As we have already pointed out that for the students with privileged backgrounds, it was not more difficult to manage their academic activities. At the same time, the students with unprivileged backgrounds were the worst victims of stress during online teaching due to lack of technological resources and unfriendly academic environment.     

57% population responded that they did not have the sufficient technological knowledge and gadgets which were required for online teaching. While 43% population responded that they had the knowledge and technological gadgets. It points out that even in the twenty-first century – in the age of technology- 57% of the population of our students is without technological access and is unable to use technology for academic purposes. This disparity of resources and need is the direct cause of traumatic impacts.  







While responding to the time of the provision of online lectures, students 39.2% responded that lecturers which they received were untimely, and it distressed them to a greater extent. For 39.2 %, it was distressful to some extent. For 9.6%, it was distressful to some extent, and for 11.9%, it was not distressful at all.  As a whole, it points that the untimely provision of lecturers disturbed the students at large. It was the fault of the faculty that they did not respond seriously in a time of crisis when they were required to take more care of the students.  




Lack of professional coordination between the students and teachers has been observed. 36.9% population had said that any proper schedule of the lectures was not observed by the teachers. For this reason, they have had to remain online and in a state of constant waiting. 67.7% population responded it distressful 15% remained neutral 13.5% population disagreed. It points out that a serious source of anxiety is untimely teaching by the faculty. There is a dire need to check the punctuality of the faculty if such a situation of online teaching happens in future.




As academic institutions provide the students with an opportunity of discussing their academic hurdles openly. This opportunity was missing during online teaching. It is the duty of teachers to provide sufficient space for the students to discuss their academic inquiries. The teachers should have to arrange some online student hours to address the questions posed by students.   




Academic institutions provide opportunities for skill development in the form of presentation and participation, which were missing in the online teaching during the pandemic of COVID-19. 57.7% population was very much worried about the missing of such skills in online teaching. 29.2% population was worried to some extent. The academic institutions should devise such a mechanism that if they have to continue in future, the development skills of the students should not harm in future.




Similarly, recreational activities were missing, which decreased the confidence and enthusiasm of the students. 46.5% population agreed that it affected their confidence level to a greater extent. 36.2% population considers it distressful and demotivating to some extent. 9.2% responded to it to some extent, and 8.1 % consider it distressful not at all.




Highlighting and making short note which is considered as an essential strategy of the learning process of the students. 48.6% of students considered that highlighting the soft material was panic for them to a greater extent while 28.2% students responded that it was distressful for them 




to some extent, and for 13.9%, it was distressful to a lesser extent while for 9.3% population it was not distressful at all. We can see that for 91% population; it was distressful in some way or the other.

Regarding the issues of internet connectivity for the online classes, 67.1% population faced issues to a greater extent, while 21.7% population responded that they had to face the challenges of internet connectivity to some extent. While there was a very insignificant population that did not face the issues of internet connectivity. Here we are able to establish that 98.8% population faced the distressing issue of internet connectivity.

The unrestricted material was also very distressful for students. For 39% population, it was distressful to a greater extent, while for 44% population it was distressful to some extent and for 9.3% population, it was distressful to a lesser extent, while for the 7.7 % population, it was not distressful at all. For 92.3% population, it was distressful at all.




56.2% population Responded that learning from computers and mobile was distressful for them to a greater extent. While for 28.1 % population, it was distressful to some extent. For the 7.3% population, it was not distressful at all. 

45.3% population responded that online teaching had traumatized them to a greater extent as their social life had got disturbed, while 34.9 % responded that they became traumatized to some extent, 9.3% of the population was traumatized to a lesser extent. 10.5 % population did not feel the distressful impact of online teaching.




26.9% population responded that during the current online teaching process, they were treated as if they were not human. 23.1% population responded to it to some extent, and 18.5% population responded to it to a lesser extent. While 31.5% population responded that it did not happen to them. 







55.6% population responded that they had to face more social and academic challenges as compared to the rest of the society. 27.4% responded that they faced it to some extent, while 11.2 % responded to it to a lesser extent. While the population which responded that they did not feel distressful at all was insignificant.

Discussion

In the light of the survey conducted through a questionnaire. We see in Pakistani universities of the South Punjab the experience of online teaching was very distressful for the students.

It has been found that students felt distressful at home as parents did not spare students from household activities. As the educational process takes place successfully in the mutually resonating trajectory of parents, students and teachers. It is the responsibility of the parents to spare them for learning at home and provide technological gadgets. It is the responsibility of the teachers to deliver their lectures according to their schedules and should put their full professional efforts. 

Our data point out that the teachers did not follow the proper schedule of online teaching. Our teachers are required to be professionally trained in technology as well. Academic institutions should monitor what is coming to students in the name of educational material. Students did not have technological knowledge, due to which they had to face distress. It is the responsibility of the academic institution to train their students as well. If the online teaching had been properly managed, the results could have been much better. Due to the sudden happening of the pandemic of COVID-19, the world was not ready for the online mode of teaching. But we should train our students and teachers on posthumanist mode of teaching so that we should again undergo the disastrous experience of online teaching in future.

Conclusion

In the light of the analyzed data, we are able to establish that online teaching during the pandemic of COVID -19 was a distressful experience for the students of English language teaching. The usage of technology in education is established, but our students and teachers are not trained to use it for academic purposes. So, our students and teachers should be trained in technology and blended modes of teaching. Our educational institutions should incorporate technological usage in educational practices. The educational modes of teaching since centuries- a teacher standing behind the podium addressing the audiences are not possible in the twentieth-first century. Our academic institutions, students and teachers should involve themselves with the ‘new non-human’ form of technology (mine emphasis). It is suggested that our students should be trained in their technological knowledge. The technological gadgets should be provided to students by their academic institutions and parents. There should be the proper training of students. The academic institutions should devise a proper system of counselling in case of a similar situation of COVID-19 in case of future. It is suggested that our academic institutions should devise such mechanism for pedagogy where parents, students and academic institutions may use equally coordinate.     

References

• Bayley, A. (2018). Posthuman Pedagogies in Practice: Arts Based Approaches for Developing Participatory Futures. Springer.
• Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Malden: Polity Press.
• Cannon, M. (2018). Digital media in education: Teaching, learning and literacy practices with young learners. Springer.
• Chien, T. C. (2008). Factors Influencing Computer Anxiety and Its Impact on E-Learning Effectiveness: A Review of Literature. Online Submission.
• DeLanda, M. (2019). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27.
• Imperiale, A. J., & Vanclay, F. (2016). Experiencing local community resilience in action: Learning from post-disaster communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 204-219.
• Kuama, S. (2016). Is Online Learning Suitable for All English Language Students? PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 52, 53-82.
• Obasa, A. I., Eludire, A. A., & Ajao, T. A. (2013). A Comparative Study of Synchronous and Asynchronous E-learning Resources. International Journal of Innovative Research Science Engineering and Technology 2(11), 5938-5946.
• Oye, N. D., Mazleena, S., & Iahad, N. A. (2012). E- learning Methodologies and Tools. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 3(2), 48-52.
• Perveen, A. (2016). Synchronous and Asynchronous E-Language Learning: A Case Study of Virtual University of Pakistan. Open Praxis, 8(1), 21-39.
• Queiroz, V., & Mustaro, P. N. (2003). Roles and competencies of online teachers. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(7).