Students’ Interaction in Breakout Rooms

Abstract

Interaction between students is widely regarded as being beneficial and even influential towards learning and creating opportunities for learning. Many previous studies have highlighted the importance of student-student interaction in the traditional face-to-face classroom. However, since the onset of COVID-19, there has been a shift to synchronous online learning (SOL): a context in which little is yet known about the role of interaction. Student-student interaction has become more difficult to promote, given the constraints of working through VLEs such as Zoom. The aim of this research is to investigate whether students and teachers believe that students’ interaction during SOL is beneficial or not, the challenges faced by teachers in creating space for students’ interaction, why these challenges arise and how it could be solved by exploring the appropriate use of affordance and how can teachers make use of existing affordances to create space for effective learners’ interaction. This study uses a qualitative methodology, adopting a focus group with 20 university students and teachers as well as an individual interview with the teachers and students to gain rich and in-depth data. The findings show that teachers and students have experienced many challenges during the emergency remote learning. The findings suggest that teachers require training to develop their teacher technological competence and their e-CIC to encourage effective learners’ interaction in SOL.

1. Introduction

The current study is guided by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory [1], which explains that learning occurs during social interaction. The zone proximal development (ZPD) Vygotsky’s work notes the difference in what learners achieve alone and what they achieve cooperatively with other learners, which emphasise the importance of peer interaction as it develops learners’ skills and lead to greater performance than learners working alone. Gass [2] emphasised the importance of social interaction and noted that as it is a tool for providing input for language learners.

In addition, social interaction has been said to develop learners learning by developing their reflective thinking, which may lead to higher levels of cognitive, social, moral development and critical thinking. These are all skills that are important for university level students. The most important skill for university student is critical thinking as it enables them to question and reflect their knowledge, which promotes higher order thinking skills. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the UK states that students should be able to make critical judgements and evaluations [3]. for students to achieve critical thinking, it has been highlighted from previous studies that this can be successfully achieved by promoting more student-student interaction [4], which as noted by Moore [5] learners’ interaction is a valuable resource for learning.

Many researchers have looked at the connection between interaction and learning [6, 7, 8, 9]. Although there have been many studies on interaction and learning, the research on interaction in SOL remains limited. Considering the recent global pandemic learning has shifted to online learning, for this reason it is important to explore the online interaction.

As this study aims to examine how teachers can create space for learners’ interaction in breakout rooms, it is very important to discuss the notion of classroom interactional competence (CIC). The main idea behind CIC is that interaction is closely connected with learning, so teachers gaining interactional knowledge will provide better learning opportunities for their learners [9]. As mentioned previously according to Vygotsky’s theory of learning, social interaction supports learning. One main features of CIC that will be discussed here is that CIC “creates space for learning” [10]. One of the ways CIC accomplishes this is by allowing more planning time, which could be achieved online by giving more effective time for learner-learner interaction in breakout rooms [11]. This will be looked at in more detail later in the literature review.

This research sought to investigate the challenges faced by teachers in creating space for students’ interaction. Why these challenges arise and how could teachers overcome these issues by exploring the appropriate use of affordance of Zoom. As well as how teachers can make use of existing affordances of Zoom to create space for effective learners’ interaction. This study uses a qualitative methodology, adopting a focus group with 12 university Applied linguistics and TESOL international students and teachers. Followed by an individual teacher and student interview to gain rich and in-depth data. As well as an observation video recording of a breakout room on ZOOM.

2. Overview of the study

This study is divided into six chapters. Chapter one briefly considers learning in sociocultural theory, explores the aims and objectives of the study, and provides an overview of the study. Chapter two critically reviews the relevant literature on learners’ interaction, synchronous online learning and learners’ interaction in breakout rooms on the Zoom platform. Chapter three discuss the methodology taken for this research. Chapter four presents the findings of this research. Chapter five discusses the findings in more detail and in relation too previous research. Chapter 6 will give a conclusion of this research.

3. Motivation for the study

This study has its roots in my personal experience, I have been studying and teaching during the global pandemic using the Zoom online conference to deliver and attend lessons; therefore, I understand what learners and teachers feel and the challenges that may face during SOL. Doing this research fulfils my desire to increase my understanding and awareness of why such challenges arise and how can teachers overcome these challenges to create space for learner’s interaction. It should also serve to improve my teaching abilities during SOL, once I complete my university degree and take on the role of a lecturer of Applied linguistics and TESOL at a university.

3.1 Interactional competence

Interactional competence has gained attention by many authors [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Chomsky defines the idea of competence as the native speaker’s knowledge of his language. His definition neglects the importance of studying language in its social context, which goes against the view of sociolinguists. Chomsky’s idea has been criticised by many authors, Hymes [20], opposed that competence does not only refer to an individual knowledge but also how an individual uses the language in social contexts. Interactional competence has influenced the development of language learning and teaching, in terms of pedagogical and socio-political development. One of those influences is the language learning and teaching focus is going beyond the grammatical competence by integrating a conversational component in language testing. This influence has been caused by the placement of the direct method and the reform movement that was used alongside the grammar translation method in 1880s. The direct method had a focus on oral fluency whereas the reform movement had a focus on pronunciation.

In light of the influence and Hymes idea of interactional competence. Interactional competence can be defined as the speaker’s ability of expressing their ideas and achieving understanding. Walsh [21] suggests that some learners both ether native or non-native speakers face difficulties in conveying the simplest meaning. This is caused due to the great emphasise on the accuracy, fluency and appropriate linguistics forms of learners produced speech by teachers.

3.2 Classroom interactional competence

Conceptualisation of classroom interactional competence (CIC) “is the ability for teachers and learners to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning” [9]. This means the CIC method places interaction at the centre of learning. The main aim of CIC is to help both teachers and learners to enhance CIC. Also, to produce classrooms which are more dialogic [9], Walsh [9, 21] believes that teachers have different levels of CIC and he emphasis that the different level of CIC is not determined by the language level of the speaker. CIC is measured by looking at how good teachers can manage interaction to maximise students’ learners learning opportunity. In fact a research by Walsh and Li [10] show that teachers can create space for learning by shaping their language and using strategies such as scaffolding, clarifying and summarising.

Previous studies have shown an effect on learners’ participation from teachers talk [22]. Walsh [22] analysed transcripts, which showed the ways teachers can construct and obstruct learners’ participation by their use of language. For example, using strategies such as scaffolding and seeking for clarification are ways that can construct learning. Meanwhile, filling in the gaps for learners’ participation without using the strategy of wait time, can obstruct learning. In fact, the use of wait time has shown a great advantage on learners’ learning opportunities. Yaqubi and Rokni [23] have explored the effect of using wait time on learners’ participation, the results showed that limited wait time affects negatively as the results show that teachers end up filling in the gaps and from Walsh [22] it can be seen as a strategy that obstruct learning opportunities for learners.

Shaping learners’ contribution influences learners’ participation in different ways. Firstly, when teachers shape learners’ participation to make it more meaningful and understandable has an effect on other learners. By making sure they understand what other learners are trying to say, which makes them exposed to meaningful input and they have the opportunity to interact and reply to other learners’ participation. Secondly, teachers shaping learners’ participation helps learners to use appropriate interactional strategies to say what they are trying to say [9, 21].

CIC is not only seen to be use by teachers but also learners in class and in small group discussion [24, 25]. Sert and Walsh [25] research explored learners’ development of CIC in the language classroom. Their findings suggest that learners’ use “I don’t know” to express insufficient knowledge in the classroom. But the question is while teachers are monitoring small groups do they use CIC and what effect does it have on small group work. As this research is looking at small groups in SOL, it is worth looking at how CIC look like in breakout rooms, especially when teachers enter the breakout room to monitor.

3.3 Interaction and collaboration between learners

The role of learners’ interaction Collaboration has been greatly researched in language learning. Most research has demonstrated the benefits of cooperating learners’ interaction and collaboration in the classroom. The findings of this research also suggest that such collaboration between learners achieves in deeper learning, better grades, longer retention of information, greater communication and teamwork skills, and a better understanding of the professional environment in which students will work [26]. However, Others have observed that students in online classroom context, often have difficulties coordinating their interactions and achieving the benefits of peer collaborative learning [27, 28]. Hence, to achieve the benefits of peer collaborative learning, instructors must create an effective classroom structure for teamwork. This challenge, of how to design synchronous video-based breakout room student interaction, is especially acute since, in this type of breakout room environment, the instructor may not be able to actively monitor all the breakout rooms at the same time. In the face-to-face classroom, an instructor can more easily observe, at least at a high level, all the team interactions at once.

Moreover, the proficiency of learners’ language can influence student’s interaction. As this study is focusing on international university students and their interaction during small groups, international non-native students will be interacting with native students. This could be an overwhelming experience for international students, which could also cause language anxiety. Pervious research has looked at non-native speakers (NNS) and native speakers (NS) interaction during small groups. One key finding suggests that due to NNS language proficiency, NNS do not feel comfortable contributing to group work discussion. As one student mentioned in Martine [29] research.

“Language ability is important for overseas students. Sometimes I cannot talk all of my ideas because of limited vocabulary or something. Even though we want to join the group, but cannot talk all opinions, just some of them. Understand yes but the language is the big problem.” (Cited from [29], p. 14).

There are other factors that have an influence on NNS low contribution, such as how other culture’s view silence in discussions. According to Martine [29] silence in some NNS students’ cultures is valued. In addition, for some Asian students’ disagreement in discussion is not acceptable [29, 30, 31]. However according to Martine [29] findings NS regard disagreements is regarded as part of discussions in the western classroom.

Subject knowledge is also an aspect that has an influence on NNS contribution. As Martine [29] claims NNS think that they are less knowledgeable about teaching English than NS do. However, the findings suggest that NS that have participated in the research only know one language, which is their native language therefore they have not been through the second language learning process. This had had an influence on NS participation in the discussion, as some of the questions were about second language learning context [29].

But the results of this research may not be entirely reliable as the questions used in the individual interview included guided questions such as “At CELS did you ever feel uncomfortable working in groups that were a combination of non-native English speaking teacher/learners and native English speaking teacher/learners?” here in this question the participant will feel the need agreeing to the question but if the question was reformatted into “how did you feel at CELS when working In a group of NS and NNS? ” the participants will not only share their true feelings but also respond with a longer response giving the researcher quality data to work with, which could also generate new findings.

3.4 Synchronous online learning

This section reviews the literature related to synchronous online learning. As due to COVID-19 learning has been shifted to full Synchronous online learning. This had many advantages, such as the ability for learners to study at universities abroad at Face-to-face courses, without the need to travel to the country. This has helped not only international students but also home students to save on travel expenses. Another advantage for teachers, it offered more teaching job roles at different countries. On the other hand, there is also literature that reported challenges of synchronous online learning, which will be reviewed later in this chapter.

3.4.1 The ZOOM video conference system

Before looking at the challenges of SOL, a background information on the Zoom video conference system will be discussed here. Zoom includes many features, which makes it more appealing to education organisations and teachers. It in fact has been widely used by teachers and many education organisations during the emergency global pandemic. These features will be looked at in more detail below.

Screen share and annotation tools are one of the features that zoom provide. This feature makes it easy for teachers to share websites, videos or documents such as PowerPoint slides and be able to highlight or write on the slides using the annotation tools. It also includes a whiteboard. Other features such as polling system that can be created before the lesson or during the lesson is also included. Teachers can use this feature to test students understanding or to use it as a voting system. Zoom also includes a chat box feature, where participants can send text, files or pictures to each other either privately or to the whole group. In terms of location privacy, Zoom includes a feature to hide participants background by using a virtual background. In addition, Zoom includes features to record lessons for teachers to upload or send to students for future reference [32].

A main feature of Zoom that this research will specifically explore in depth is breakout rooms. This feature allows teachers to divide students into small groups, which is similar to the traditional PiP Small group work. Teachers give students a task to complete or a discussion to discuss in their small groups in their breakout rooms. The teacher can their set a time earlier for the breakout room or ends it when she wants with a 60 second notice to students that they will be send back after the 60 seconds. During the breakout room students can call their teacher into their breakout room if they need help. All of these features make Zoom a popular choice for educational organisation and teachers. However, recent research on Zoom and education during Covid-19 mainly focus on English language learning. But not much research looked at university level international student. However, the findings of previous research can apply to this research context, as both contexts include non-native speakers of English that have or is experienced language learning.

3.4.2 The challenges of synchronous online learning

Multiple recent studies have explored the online environment of the emergency remote learning due to the global pandemic. In Nambiar [33] study reports that more than 60% of the student beliefs that there is lack of interaction in Online classes. Their overall perception of online perception is negative. 87.1% of the students prefer traditional classroom over the online classroom. Previous research also supports this claim of lack of interaction in SOL [34, 35, 36, 37], which they believe results in lack of community. To develop and enhance interaction in SOL, it is important to first study the relationship between SOL and learners experience. Exploring students’ and teachers’ perspectives, the challenges and learners’ achievement and engagements during SOL. Previous studies explored this relationship and have concluded with both positive and negative effects [38, 39, 40, 41].

The challenges that were reported were issues related to technical problems, internet connection, time, monitoring, task type and facilitating learners’ interaction in SOL [40, 42]. Moorhouse et al. [40] looked at teachers challenges during SOL, one of the teachers in the research raised the issue of connectivity for Chinese students as not all Chinese students have access to VPN (virtual private networks) and that causes the issue of suddenly signing them off Zoom, which could interrupt the lesson [40]. This problem could also affect the learners’ interaction in breakout rooms, because usually in breakout rooms usually it is a small group consists of 2 or 3 students and if only one student has good connectivity, then this could prevent effective interaction among learners. This is supported by one of the responses from McBrien et al. [42] research, describing the interaction in breakout rooms as constrained because of the issue of getting “kicked off” as well as microphone troubles.

Kohnke and Moorhouse [43] findings suggests that learners’ interaction during Zoom progress slower and tend to be difficult for teachers to monitor as they can only monitor one group at once. Teachers cannot solve this issue by extending class time, because teachers need to be aware of screen time for learners, as extensive period in front of the screen can be tiring for learners [40]. In fact, previous researchers have introduced the term “Zoom fatigue” to describe the experience of tiredness or anxiety that extended SOL results in ([44], p. 437). To overcome this issue teachers should give breaks in between for learners. Because findings from Zhang [45] research suggests that learners face challenges to focus on lessons, Zhang [45] suggests that there is many possible justifications for this; firstly the extensive hours spent in front of the screen, secondly the technical problems learners face that may distract them as well as the awkward new experience there are encountering by speaking to students through a screens [45]. In addition, sometimes students are forced to speak to blank screens as some learners have their cameras off. Learners may have also never met their classmates, which makes it more difficult for them to visualise their classmate and interact with them.

3.5 Facilitating learners’ interaction in SOL

Synchronous online lessons are mostly concerned with the relationship between the learner and the material to be learned. However well-designed effective learners’ interactions should be focused on. As an early research that was conducted by Soo and Bonk [46] on distance education suggests that learner-learner interaction is the more prominent type of interaction in distance education. The research asked three questions to eight experts in distance education. The questions were focused on the types of interaction, the first question asked which type of interaction is necessary for learning online. The second question asked the experts to order the type of interaction from important to least and the last question was asking for their justification behind their ranking. The findings suggest that learner-learner interaction is important, however the experts believed that asynchronous learner-learner interaction is more important than synchronous. Their reason is that learners chose distance learning because of their busy schedule therefore interacting asynchronously is more continent for distance education learners. However, this may not apply to learners who originally applied for present in person (PIP) courses, but due to the global pandemic they were forced to move online. But for students in different countries who experience issues of inconvenient class times due to the different time zones, than asynchronous interaction could be more convenient.

However, some studies argued that synchronous online lessons discussions have more benefits [47] as they provide a sense of immediacy, where learners can share their opinions and get feedback from each other in real time. Rinekso and Muslim [48] findings suggest that one of the reasons that learners preferred synchronous live discussions, is because they felt more as part of a community, and they were able to share emotional expressions and support to each other. In addition, learners agreed that synchronous discussions made them more active and motivated to follow the discussions. But they did have issues regarding internet connections and misunderstanding of instructions and tasks.

Furthermore Sutherland-Smith [49] suggested that online interactions elevate students’ cognitive skills, and it encourages higher order critical thinking skills. This is an important skill for university level students, which could be difficult for second language learners to be critical thinkers in another language.

3.6 Breakout rooms

Teachers has used breakout rooms as a way for creating space for learners’ interaction. As opportunities for learners ‘interaction seems to be missing from most SOL. As well as this sense of community, which is often taken for granted in face-to-face classes.

The use of online breakout rooms is a new and recent feature teacher were forced into using due to the online shift. Therefore, research specifically focusing on this is still limited. However, a student who have experienced the use of breakout rooms during COVID-19 has shared her perception of breakout rooms in a blog. Whear [50] mentioned that the task given to them to complete in breakout rooms were a set of question that they had to complete in groups, which for her and her classmates seemed a “boring” task that did not help enhance their interaction in the breakout rooms. This suggests that the type of task has an influence on learners’ interaction. The question here is what type of task helps in enhancing their interaction in breakout rooms. Also is interaction only affected by the task type or are there other aspects affects this. An issue that has been mentioned by Whear [50] that could also have influenced learners’ interaction, is that most students that are studying during the global pandemic did not have the chance to meet their classmates face to face. Therefore, it was difficult for them to speak to each other.

Previous research has reported positive effect of the use of breakout rooms in encouraging learners’ interaction and cooperation. Mohamed [51] conducted a research in Emirates on the context of English language learning. Mohamed’s researchers highlight the extensive responsibilities that teacher have in online classroom. They need to be aware of the difficulties they will face by monitoring group work, as they will need to move around all breakout rooms. They also need to think of ways to provide feedback to learners. Students review in Mohamed [51] research were in favour of the use breakout rooms. They believed that it improves small group work activities gives opportunity for peer interaction.

However, Mohamed [51] highlights that it is important for teachers to be aware of the challenges they may face during SOL. He advices teachers to familiarise themselves with zoom affordances and be prepared for any technical issues that may arise. He suggests to teachers some tips to improve their practice of breakout rooms during SOL (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Tips for breakout rooms.

There have also been other studies in different contexts other than English language teaching, that have looked at the use of breakout rooms.

For example, Greyling and Ahmad [52] highlight the importance of providing sufficient structure and monitoring of breakout room activities. Cavinato et al. [53] indicate that although breakout rooms have many advantages, it can be difficult for students to share answers to questions together, and conversations may progress more slowly in comparison to traditional classroom activities. Another limitation noted is that the instructor can only assist one group at a time, which can be problematic for struggling students or those who are not staying on task. Instructors must ensure that students are adequately prepared for activities once they go into the breakout room since the instructor is limited to posting short Zoom announcements to further clarify or explain assignments.

During the global pandemic universities have shared an online guide on how to use Zoom for SOL for both teachers and students that included the use of breakout rooms. Newcastle University [54] the guide emphasised for teachers to give and present to learner’s clear instructions. As well as presenting them with what they expect from students. They advised teachers to assign roles for learners for breakout rooms. They have highlighted the importance of adopting an active learning type of lessons to ensure learners participate in classroom and gain similar results as in PIP lessons.

Learners’ participation in small group discussion is important, especially in an online environment, where learners are put in breakout rooms and teacher monitors only one breakout room at a time. Whereas in a PIP classroom teacher can monitor all the groups from far at the same time. Lee [55] explored learners’ perceptions on their experience of using breakout rooms during COVID-19. Students recommended the need of a software update, which enables teachers to view all breakout rooms at the same time. Another recommendation from students is the need of teachers to assign roles and to encourage students to participate. As some students reported that sometimes students do not engage in the task and participate in the interaction [55].

4. Research aims and questions

The main purpose of this study is to explore teachers’ perspectives on the use of breakout rooms to create space for learners’ interaction in zoom. There have been many studies exploring students and teachers’ perspectives on the use of SOL, but most of the studies were questionnaires not many studies used a focus group or interviews to gain deeper understanding of their thoughts and challenges to solve them. For this reason, the following research questions have been formed.

1. What challenges do teachers face in creating space for learner-learner interaction in breakout rooms?

2. what are students’ thoughts on the use of breakout rooms?

3. How can teachers create space for effective learner’s interaction in breakout rooms?

The research questions that have been formed, led the researcher into following an interpretive approach. The underlying idea of interpretive approach is that the research does not need to begin with a hypothesis to disprove or prove that theory. However, it lets the results to develop naturally. The priority of interpretivist approach is people views and interpretation of their experiences, which this research is interested in. Unlike positivism approach, which aims to prove or disprove a theory or the researcher’s hypothesis. A crucial social actor points for the researcher to keep on mind while following an interpretive epistemology is the importance of appreciating the differences between people.

4.1 Data collection

This study adheres a qualitative methodology, the data for this study were obtained from three different sources: (i) focus group (ii) individual interview (iii) observation recording. The methods used to collect the data were carefully chosen to meet the study’s aim.

The combination of two qualitative research methods allows the researcher not to only have been favoured by many authors [56, 57, 58]. As it does not only enrich the data but also allows the researcher to look at the research issue from more than one angle [56]. In order to uncover the real practice of learners’ interaction in breakout rooms. One breakout room of international applied linguistics and TESOL interaction was video recorded. The use of qualitative research methodology enables the researcher to expand on the knowledge of the issue addressed. However, this is not the case for quantitative research method as it aims to proof or disproof a theory [56, 57].

4.1.1 Sampling techniques

An important point to consider when conducting a qualitative research is the participants recruitment methodology, as it ensures the quality of the research [59]. The researcher will adhere a homogeneous sampling technique, which is selecting participants according to their experience. This means participants experience need to match the study, in terms of this study the participants need to have experienced the use of breakout rooms either as teachers or students.

It has been advised in research methods literature that 6–10 participants for focus groups is an appropriate number [57]. Therefore, for both focus groups the researcher has decided on 10 participants, however because of students’ busy schedules only 6 students and teachers were involved in the focus group. Considering teachers' and students' busy schedules. In terms of group composition, it is important for the members of the group to have one similar characteristic. Therefore, the cohort was divided into two groups according to their role (teacher or student) for the first focus group participants are all representatives of teachers from a postgraduate applied linguistics and TESOL course at either UK or Saudi universities. It was made sure to include two different contexts, as this will generate different ideas and experiences. The second focus group are all international students from the masters applied linguistics and TESOL course at Newcastle university, that were selected randomly according to their availability.

The sample of the second focus group included international students’ representatives from the masters applied linguistic and TESOL course at Newcastle university. It is true that this research aims to look at the challenges faced by teachers and their perceptions; however, it is important to gain students views too. According to Barbour [56] this knowledge of community groups is important as it gives insight into the diversity involved. Moreover Krueger & Casey [60] names this as a double layer design, which is involving two different participants types either by role or geographic area. This enables the researcher to compare and contrasts between the participants type or region.

4.1.2 Focus groups

One great advantage that focus groups allows the researcher to study is attitude formation. This could help the researcher to see to how strong participants belief in their views, which can be studied by the discussion that happens between participants. Moreover, attitude formation also helps to give insight into the reasons behind participants views. For example, previous experiences can affect the way they view interaction in breakout rooms [56]. This advantage is not apparent in individual interviews. Therefore, having focus groups as the first stage of this research is important, as it will also help in choosing participants in regard to interesting comments that have shared that needs a follow up. with strong views for in-depth individual interviews.

Teacher and student focus groups was the first data collection collected, an email was sent to all international postgraduate Applied linguistics and TESOL students. 6 students were randomly chosen regarding their matching schedule. The questions used for the focus group were made in relation to the research questions.

The students focus group discussion was based on questions that were sent to students before the meeting as a task to be completed. Similarly, the teacher’s focus group discussion followed a similar procedure as the student’s focus group. However, the preparation questions were different. Table 1 includes the questions used in the focus group.

Students focus group	Teachers’ focus group
What challenges have you faced when using breakout rooms? How did you overcome these challenges?	What challenges have you faced when using breakout rooms? How did you overcome these challenges?
Do you think breakout rooms are helpful and why?	What strategies or ways have worked for you in creating space for effective learners’ interaction in breakout rooms?
What are the positives and negatives of breakout rooms?

Table 1.

Questions used in the focus group.

4.1.3 Individual interview

Following a focus group with an individual interview is useful, as it enables the researcher to good preparation plays an essential role in the success of an interview. In this study, some interview questions were brainstormed with the aim of guiding the researcher’s conversation with the interviewees. As stated by Smith [61], brainstorming a series of questions linked to the research question is the first step in preparing for semi-structured interviews. A semi-structured interview was adopted with three teachers and students from the focus group to gain in depth data. The semi-structured interviews included the use of springboard (See appendix 2) that included six comments either from students or teachers focus groups. The comments that were chosen to be included in the springboard, were chosen in terms of the themes that were identified. Six themes were identified from each focus group and one comment from each theme was included in the springboard. The interviewee asked the participants to share their opinions on each of the comments and to expand on them if needed. This gave the opportunity for the research to follow up on interesting areas addressed by the interviewee. It also gives the opportunity for the interviewee to give detailed responses.

4.1.4 Observation

The researcher undertook one breakout room observation, this sought to provide in-depth exploration of the actual practice. As noted by Clark et al. [62] observation as data collection method is useful for the researcher as it illustrates what happened in the classroom and provides evidence. The breakout room that was recorded for observation is from a master’s module, teaching English for academic purpose. On Zoom it was not possible to record breakout rooms, however as the researcher is a student attending the same module, it was possible for her to screen record the breakout room she was participating in by using the computer system. It was made sure by the researcher to take students consent in advance. All of the students in the breakout room were students of applied linguistics and TESOL, two were native speakers of English and three students were non-native speakers from China. The researcher will conduct a conversation analysis on the recording.

4.1.5 Pilot study

To ensure that the study was executed correctly, a pilot test was conducted before the research focus group interview was scheduled. The tests were done with six applied linguistics and TESOL students who would not be participating in the main research. This helped to determine any needed changes to the focus group by identifying and analysing potential issues. For example, it is the researcher first time conducting a focus group. Therefore, the researcher had to test and understand the role of a moderator in a focus group. As the behaviour of the moderator can highly affect the validity and reliability of the study. Also, the researcher needed to make sure that only including 6 participants in the focus group will be enough to reach an effective focus group discussion.

4.2 Data analysis

Focus group and individual interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis, which is regarded as one of the most common data analysis methodology [63]. Bryman [63] suggest that the best type of data analysis method for researchers that has no, or little research experience is thematic analysis. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to facilitate the identification of repeated themes which are remarkable in the participants experience ([64]cited by Kaypak and Ortactepe, [65]). According to Dornyei [66] The first stage of thematic analysis was transcribing the recordings, which the Zoom software automatically conducts, the researcher re-read the transcripts to check for any mistakes in the transcriptions. Secondly, the researcher coded the transcription by colour coordination. Finally presenting, analysing and drawing conclusions from the data.

In regard to the coding stage, Braun and Clarke [67] breaks down into six sub- stages: “Familiarisation, initial coding, identifying themes, reviewing themes, defining themes and evidencing themes” (p.280). The researcher made sure to follows the six stages in both the focus group data as well as each individual interview. The next chapter will present the themes identified and the findings.

For the observation data the breakout room was video recorded then a conversation analysis (CA) following Seedhouse's [8] principle of CA was applied to the recording. After the researcher have applied CA on the transcript it was shared with other master students at Newcastle university, who were students of Applied linguistics and TESOL. This was done to make sure that CA was done as accurate as possible. This research does not apply Seedhouse's [8] aspect of pure CA, which is having a theoretical hypothesis before viewing the video recording. But it follows an applied CA, which is setting aims before observation. This research aims to observe interaction in breakout rooms and any challenges that arise.

4.3 Validity and reliability

To ensure the validity of the research, the researcher conducted three different data collection methods. In addition to including participants from two different contexts. This method is referred to triangulation. Some researchers believe that he validity of the research is enhanced if a researcher follows the approach of triangulation [68, 69].

In addition, the strategy used in individual interview, which as stated previously is presenting participants with comments from the focus group discussion is regarded as another method to enhance the validity [69]. Creswell et al. [69] refer to this strategy as member checking, they suggest that it is best if the researcher conducts a follow up individual interview with participants. However due to busy student and teacher’s schedule the researcher was only able to conduct six individual interviews (three individual interviews with teachers and three individual interviews with students) due to teacher’s and student’s busy schedule. Member checking strategy is used to determine the accuracy of the focus group findings.

To ensure the reliability of the research, the researcher conducted a pilot test to test the questions being used in the focus group. As well as brainstorming a series of questions linked to the research question. As according to Smith [61] is the first step in preparing for semi-structured interviews.

4.4 Research ethics

The researcher follows the Newcastle University’s ‘Code of Good Practice in Research’. Interviewees have the right to refuse to continue or cancel at any time they wish. Interviewees are informed that the recordings will be deleted as soon as the researcher dissertation have been marked. The recordings will not be shared with anyone, only the researcher will listen to the recordings. It will be made sure that the researcher keeps full contact details of participants, in case of any changes that need to be made.

The research study was approved by Newcastle university. The ethical form included aims, research question, process of data collection and data analysis methods. Ethics approval forms are attached in the appendices with the researcher’s supervisor signature (see appendix 1). All participants data were saved in a folder in the researcher’s personal computer, where it cannot be accessed by anyone other than the researcher. Participants personal details were strictly confidential in this study. Participants have been provided with a research information sheet that included detailed information on the research as well as a consent form, as it was important to collect participants signed informed consents prior to the research.

4.5 Cameras off

The first theme identified was teachers challenge in getting learners to switch their cameras on. Teachers from Newcastle university believe that it is crucial for all students to have their cameras on. It has also been a rule that has been introduced during the global pandemic that learners will be marked absent if their cameras were off during SOL. From the dialogue it can be understood that teachers from Newcastle University rely on facial expression to have a complete interaction with their learners.

Looking at the data from the student’s datasets, it can be seen that they had mixed views. Some learners felt strongly about having cameras on for them to be able to have a complete interaction. However, others felt that it was against students’ rights for teachers to force and insist on learners to have their cameras on. Their justification for not having their cameras on relates to privacy, some learners not comfortable to share their location information. As most students at Newcastle university live at students’ accommodations their location can be easily figured out by their background or from their window view. However, this can be easily by using the background filter feature on Zoom that can cover the background by adding a different background. But not all students may be aware of this feature, and some may be aware of it, but not know how to switch it on. Therefore, some students may still be refusing to switch their camera on due to the worry about revealing their location. Some learners have reported that they turn off their cameras due to their appearance.

Extract 1.

Student: On zoom the lecturers are sometimes more than 1 hour and its hard to stay still for that long especially at home I feel comfortable when to wear whatever I like and not play attention on how I look on camera.

However, learners need to be aware that if classes were present in person (PiP) they would need to attend classes for the whole class and also need to be dressed appropriately for the class. Therefore, they should make the same effort in an online environment too. Meanwhile the majority of the students have confessed that they sometimes do not have their cameras on because they are not ready for the discussion. This highlights the importance of preparing learners before class, which relates to the preparation task theme that was identified for the data.

Extract 2.

Student: I used to turn off my camera and my microphone just because I did not finish my preparation, I did not review for that class so. I did not have anything to say so, I would turn on turn off my camera and microphone.

It has been observed from the recording of the breakout rom that one student had her camera off and she did not participate at all during the breakout room. The observation data shows when the teacher entered the breakout room, she did not ask the learner to switch the camera on and did not try to interact with the learner. In these situations, teachers should try and encourage learners to turn their cameras on and participate. A justification behind learner having her camera off can be relating to her choice of privacy or appearance as mentioned earlier. or it can be related to the content of the discussion. She might not be ready for the discussion, as there was no preparation work assigned for this lesson. Another possible factor could be related to the fact that the context was about UK educational system and the learner is from China, therefore the learner might feel less knowledgeable about the context, which makes her demotivated to participate in the discussion. In this situation preparation work before the online classroom is crucial, we will look at this further later in this chapter.

Looking back at the Saudi teacher’s context, they are forced to deal with cameras being off for learners as well as teachers because of the cultural privacy morals. Therefore, they mostly feel it is acceptable for learners as well as themselves to have their cameras off in online teaching situations. As they feel they do not specifically need facial expression to have an interaction with learners. However, what the researcher found surprising from the data is that one of the teachers who experienced teaching online at both contexts (UK and Saudi) agreed with teachers from UK as teaching online becomes challenging when students have their cameras off.

Extract 3.

Teacher “imagine you’re teaching this group and there’s no cameras on and there’s no microphones on how would it affect you how would you feel as a teacher because we rely as teachers on feedback, the most important thing. Without feedback that we can’t do our job”.

Teacher D: “I don’t think in our situation in Saudi Arabia, because especially if you’re teaching girls section. That it’s normal over there, that they don’t even open anything so sometimes you talk and you not sure that they’re actually there is somebody, so this is a real issue that I faced in the past in like in the last term You just find you know, a muted class.”

From this dialogue it can be seen that cameras being off has become normalised for Saudi teachers. As according to the cultural morals of Saudi Arabia, most women cover their faces in front of men, for this reason male teachers are used to interact to people without looking at their facial expression. However, for UK teachers this is not normal as for them facial expression is a part of interaction, therefore facial expressions are perceived to be necessary to reach a complete meaningful interaction. Having the privacy and cultural issue of cameras in Saudi Arabia sets the tone that no teachers or organisation may enforce students to have their cameras on. Therefore, teachers were forced to find ways of dealing with this by using different strategies.

Extract 4.

“I believe there are other ways to substitute that, for example, I always ask them questions and I choose the students myself to answer this is a way to check if they are there or not, so they know from the beginning of the class that there is at any point that they will be called off to participants so that keeps them on their toes all the time.”

From extract 4 we can see that teachers have been starting to find different ways to deal with the issue of cameras being off as well as encouraging learners to participate. I believe that this strategy suggested would be a good solution that would help with the issue of making sure students attend the class fully concentrated. As teacher do not have to check if each student is attending because in an online situation when learners are having cameras off teachers are not able to know if students are attending especially in breakout rooms when learners are working alone. if students are warned that teachers will ask questions directly to students spontaneously students will pay more attention. This strategy helps to motivate learners to make use of breakout rooms, as any students can be asked by the teacher to about the breakout room task at any time. This takes us to another challenge teachers have been experiencing, which is motivating learners to participate in breakout room interaction.

4.6 Participation

As seen in the previous section some students turn their cameras off to prevent participating in the discussion. This has been mentioned by teachers as a challenge they encounter, the lack of learners’ participation. To be able to solve this challenge, teachers need to understand the reasons behind leaners low participation. According to learners focus group possible factors were mentioned that might be one of the reasons behind learners’ lack of participation. Those factors are learners’ knowledge, language anxiety. When teachers were asked about their perspective, they only mentioned that learners might not be prepared or not motivated, they were not quite aware of non-native learners’ language anxiety. This shows the importance of the need for teacher to include learners as part of their reflective practice process. Teachers need to interact to learners to find out their perspectives and point of view of certain matters.

Extract 5.

Researcher: “why do you think some students don’t engage in breakout rooms?”

Teacher: “some students are not really motivated, as it is quite hard to motivate and encourage learners to take part especially in an online situation.

Researcher: what do you think helps encourage learners to take part in breakout rooms?”

Teacher: “sometimes when students are given preparational task to do, so when they prepare for the class topic, they often more encouraged to take part and discuss.”

In this dialogue form the teacher individual interview, it can be seen that teachers are facing challenges in motivating learners to take part in interactions during VLE. The teacher in the dialogue has also mentioned preparational tasks, which will be looked at in this section.

Preparational task that is given to students for some classes for preparation for breakout rooms discussion, UK teachers had a strong opinion towards the importance of preparation task to enhance learner’s interaction in breakout rooms as well as the international students from Newcastle university that were involved in this research. However, a teacher from Saudi Arabia claims that this point could also be a cultural difference, as preparation task in Saudi do not seem to be effective. This is because learners in Saudi Arabia do not seem to complete the preparational task set. However, this does not seem to be the case as teachers from Newcastle university also state that learners do not often complete the pre task, especially if it was reading a chapter prior to the class. Therefore, one of the reasons behind learners not engaging in preparation task could be because of task type of the class preparation.

Extract 6.

Teacher A: space to explore the information that they have learned as prep and I do think it yields better breakout room responses, or better teaching in general, better learning online in general and so yeah, I would agree with assigning preparational task.

Teacher B: I just wanted to comment on this specific comment about the prep work, I would say it does not work with these for my students maybe it’s a cultural difference, which I think could be usually. I am not really sure what are the reasons behind this.

Teacher c: well for my students they usually do complete the tasks I ask them to do before the class but some time when its pre-reading chapters or watching pre-recorded videos that are quite long, they do not complete it.

Teacher A: Yeh I feel it could be according to the type of task given to them.

Learners’ views on the preparation task are similar to what UK teacher have suspected. They have stated that when preparation takes a long time, they often not complete it, however they complete tasks if it was monitored by the teacher and had a deadline. They gave an example of quizzes, which teachers can utilise the zoom affordances to create these tasks for learners to ensure the completion of these preparation tasks. Using the quiz option teachers are able to design quizzes prior to class time and give few minutes at the beginning of class for learners to complete the task and be able to discuss their answers at breakout rooms.

The breakout room from the observation data did not include a preparation task before the class. For this reason, students spent two minutes to read and familiarise themselves with the task on hand. If students were prepared prior to the class, they would likely have had time to generate more ideas for discussion which will have resulted in more effective interaction. As well as complete their discussion, which they did not have a chance to do so. As said earlier task type has an effect on student’s completion of the pre-task, for this reason teachers need to develop their technological competence for them to be able to provide task that suits the online classroom environment, because materials used in the traditional classroom cannot be used directly in a VLE. One task most students agreed that it was difficult to complete at breakout room is reading comprehension. Students were asked to read a chapter during breakout room time and answer comprehension questions. The issue with this task is the overload, learners have limited time in the breakout room therefore reading a chapter with their classmates and answering 4–5 questions is a lot for breakout room time. This task can be adapted to the online environment by assigning pre-reading for learners with the questions. During the breakout rooms learners could discuss their answers together.

An interesting point addressed by learners in relation to the software that was used for the reading task mentioned earlier, is that learners was asked to use a shared document to answer the questions. Students were able to see other groups working, which encouraged and motivated learners to work together as group to complete the task before other groups. It also allows learners to access the document later and look at other groups answers and ideas.

4.7 Language anxiety

Students’ participation in breakout rooms discussion is also affected by learner’s language anxiety, as the participants of this research are non-native speakers of English studying in an English university, that has both native and non-native speakers of English.

Extract 7.

Student B: Yeh I agree with this comment, some students maybe their English is not good enough, and if you if you have a person who is a native speaker of English in the breakout room That kind of doubles up.

The observation data shows that two non-native learners were not participating at all in the breakout room discussion [70]. This could be because learners are pressured in terms of their English language level, as student in this course will be or are English language teachers. In addition, from the focus group data it has been stated by international students is that in their countries they look at how native their accents sound like. Rather than looking at how well they can interact and use language to get their message across. As it has been mentioned in the previous section that the task given was on English for academic purpose (EAP) and the learners who have participated have had more experience in working as EAP teachers, so they had more to say. This could possibly intimidate other learners from participating.

However, we cannot say for sure that the reason behind this is due language anxiety. Because in the same breakout room there was a native student that also did not participate and a non-native student that have participated. However, another possible explanation not related to language anxiety that could have had an effect, is that learners do not want to disturb the structural organisation of turn-taking. Therefore, learners tend to stay quiet until the speaker mutes their microphone. Especially if learners had their cameras off learners will not be able to know if they are done with their turn until their microphones are switched off. These are all assumptions; it would have been best if the researcher was able to conduct post-observation interview with learners to find out why the three learners did not participate in that class.

Teachers need to be aware of the pressure that many international students go through to speak up and interact with other students, due to their language proficiency level. This is essential in particular when they are setting up breakout rooms to think and plan a head which students goes to which breakout room. A suggestion by one student was raised that teachers should include one confident student in each group to encourage shy students to speak up.

Extract 8.

“teachers should assign A person that will be in charge of calling other people to talk, maybe that could encourage the communication in the breakout rooms.”

However, from the observation data it can be clear that assigning roles automatically happens by students themselves, in the recording the native student took the role of being in charge. This can be good or bad, if the student in charge is able to encourage other learners to share their views by using CIC, this could be a good way to create effective learners’ interaction. However, if native learners take charge and answers all the questions by themselves or with only one confident speaker, as it has been observed in the recording, then this could be an issue. As if this occurs it would be hard for non-native students to participate and hence to learn.

Extract 9.

Student B the first one, match the pre sessional course. °i thought °.

Student A: it might be foundational because it says undergrad.

Student B: But I noticed that there is entry requirements if a student’s fail to meet the entry requirements, which means he should attend the pre sessional course.

Student A: I thought pre sessional course is for masters though,

Student B: oh, yeah, for masters.

It is apparent from the extract above that student A, who is a native student was able to clarify a point for student B who is non-native student. But student B disagrees learners starts negotiating for meaning, which not only encourages participation but also active learning this is a theme that have been identified and will be looked at later.

4.8 Monitoring

Another challenge that the datasets have revealed is related to monitoring, teachers are experiencing challenges to monitor learner’s interaction in breakout rooms. They have mentioned the challenges they face while monitoring. One of those challenges is that learners stop talking when the teachers enter the breakout room. Secondly, the challenge of getting around all the breakout rooms. One point that have been raised by a teacher in the focus group is that in a real face to face classroom teachers can monitor from far and monitor close to groups that seem that they need help however this is not the case in SOL as teachers do not have the ability to monitor from far. However, this could be a point that the zoom system develops in the software. Which is add the feature of “CCTV”. As one student suggested. Not to only help teachers monitor all groups but also to not interrupt learner’s interaction as learners have stated that teachers going in and out of breakout rooms can be distracting for them. However, potential complication may arise for example some students may not feel comfortable being observed in this way. It may require written consent from the students, for example, to be ethically viable.

Extract 10.

Student D: If they had like a CCTV they could see With the cameras on who what group is struggling and what group will be working like I do not think the audio will be a problem, but yeah I think that that could.”

One of the points raised is the use of shared document such as one drive or Google doc to help with monitoring. Some teachers have mentioned that this is something they normally use to help with the monitoring. But not all teachers felt confident in using technical software during breakout rooms. To avoid technical issues, which will be discussed in further detail later in this chapter.

4.9 Classroom interactional competence

Walsh and Li [10] highlights the strategies teachers can create space for learning through interaction in traditional PiP classroom, which could also be applied to SOL. The qualitative datasets revealed that teachers were aware of the importance of interaction in creating effective learners’ interaction. One of the responses have said that they believe that teacher’s interaction is important as they feel it effects learners’ engagement in breakout rooms. They have stated that it is crucial for teachers to be trained on how to interact with learners that it would encourage their interaction in breakout rooms. This finding is similar to Walsh’s [71] research findings where he emphasised on the importance of teacher online interactional competence.

Extract 11.

“I think we need if we are going to have breakout groups and if staff are going to join them, then, how do we interact effectively within them is important. Because the way we interact and have a really big impacts on what the students do and they’re learning outcomes, you know, and so I think it’s really important that stuff kind of made aware of effective interaction practices for breakout groups. How to encourage students effectively.”

In the observation data Student B was able to create space for learning by using one of the features of CIC, which is using and talking about their experience in relation to the task they are completing. From the observation it is also apparent that when teachers enter breakout rooms to monitor learners’ interaction it discouraged learners form continuing their interaction. However, student A wanted to discuss and share his thoughts on student A response but decided not. A possible justification could be because of the presence of the teacher. It is believed by teachers that at these times being able to interact to learners in a way that encourages them to speak and take part, will be helpful. According to Walsh and Li [10] strategies such as extended wait time, scaffolding and shaping learner responses and so on are all strategies that could help in achieving effective learners’ interaction. From the observation it is apparent that the teacher spent 2 minutes talking and sharing her opinion on the point the learner addressed. This means learners only had 4 minutes in the breakout room for discussion and to complete the task.

Extract 12.

16. Student B: I heard heard ((teachers comes in)) ((student A turned his microphone on to talk but decided not as soon as the teacher entered)) from some of the some of my classmates that they were they were taking the class of 12 weeks before before the master degree. So that could be pre sessional. (0.6) And which may last for up to a year. That could happen. Some of my friends who study in Germany have this experience that they normally have in that language course lasting for a year or even two.=.

17. Teacher: =It’s I mean, it’s happening more and more as universities are wanting to get more students in, there’ll be lowering the entry requirements. So instead of saying, you know, come and do a six-week course, and work on your IELTS before, there’ll be finding different ways to let in students who do not have the English will come for a whole year that way we can charge you extortionate fees for a whole extra year. And we can take you with a heart, a lower entry requirement, which means we are accessible to more people. And not that I’m cynical at all, it’s a business move.

In terms of the teacher role in breakout room, she could have taken this opportunity to promote effective learner interaction by using interactional strategies. However, in her first turn she only agreed to the learner’s response and in her next two turns she interreacted with the learners. The breakout room included a learner with a muted microphone and camera was switched off, the teacher did not interact with the learner to attempt learner participation [72]. Another interactional strategy that could have promoted learner interaction, is not to interrupt learners turn (see line 19 and 20) but to allow learner extended turn, which will able the teacher to make full and useful response afterwards [9].

However, during the breakout room confident learners took the role of the teacher and used interactional strategies to help each other, which promoted in effective learners’ interaction. The interactional strategies learners have used included error correction, seeking for clarification and scaffolding, shaping responses and error correction.

Extract 13.

Student A: pathway might be pathway.=.

Student B: =Actually, I do not quite understand what’s what’s the pathway.

Student A: Like it. It’s very, it’s kind of like a British thing because I know people that have done this before they went to undergrad degree. They had to do this course because they did not have Like a levels which are our high school exams, they had to go into a different course. And when they pass that course then they could go and do the undergraduate degree. So the course I guess it was called like a pathway.

Student B: (0.2) Okay, I thought that that was GCSE or something.

Student A: No GCSE is not for uni. GCSE is for a levels and a levels is for uni. But it’s kind of like that you have to do the GCSE. So you can do the A levels, you have to do the a level. So you can go to uni it’s like a pathway.

In this extract, Student B had trouble to understand the terminologies, therefore he was asking for clarification. Student A, who is native defined both of terms Student B found difficulties with. This shows how including both a mix of native and non-native students in the same breakout rooms has a positive effect. Native students can help with explaining topics that are related to the British context, for example, in this extract the topic was British education system. The second extract shows an example of shaping learner response, which is also between a non-native student and a native student.

Extract 14.

Student B: Some of the next one ((teacher leaves breakout room)) ° normally may last for up to a year ° one after individual session where students can take [workshop.] normally may last for up to a year °.

StudentA: [Writing support workshops].

Student B: Writing support workshop.

However, in the focus group students have not mentioned the importance for them to have native students in the breakout room. But learners have reported that they feel encouraged when they are in a breakout room with confident and active students. As shown in extract 14 student did not specify the background or level of the student but the student, they have mentioned was an international non-native student. Assigning groups for breakout rooms is also an aspect that has an effect on learners’ interaction. As including learners that are active as students have suggested as being encouraging for us to participate. Teachers should consider different strategies of grouping learners that could encourage learners’ interaction as well as active learning, which is the next theme that was identified.

4.10 Active learning

Both students and teachers believe that it is important for teachers to use more of breakout rooms. As it enables learning to be active learning more than passive learning, which according to some teachers does not help with achieving deeper learning.

Extract 15.

Teacher: moving away from a kind of monologue. You know and getting students to engage more, and I think having breakout groups. is a really good way of having Students engage with these ideas and hopefully that for getting a deeper learning, then you get from just listening.

In fact, some students have also stated that they preferred parts of lessons when they get to discuss with their classmates as they learn more from talking to each other. Some mentioned that the time they get in the breakout rooms is very limited and they can only discuss together for few minutes and they would prefer it to be longer.

Extract 16.

Student E: I feel the use of breakout room is an advantage at class as it makes us do something rather than just listen to the teacher for one or 2 hours. But we never have enough time to interact and finish the work.

But the issue is how teachers are able to encourage learners to participate in breakout rooms to achieve active learning. Because simply using breakout rooms does not ensure active learning as it is apparent in the observation data recording. It shows that students only have 6 minutes to discuss and complete task. This is not enough time for learners to discuss and interact, teachers need to make sure to give extra time for learners. Because some learners may encounter connection problems that could takes them longer to enter breakout room or unstable connection in the middle of their conversation. In addition, monitoring during breakout rooms take time from learners’ discussion.

Extract 17.

lStudent B: (0.4) So now the question falls on your foundation, Graduate Diploma pathway.=.

Student A: = I think the first one is foundation.

Student B: Yeah. Yes.

Student A: Because in (0.1) oh never mind (Breakout room time has ended).

The extract above from the observation data, shows that students were going to use CIC and clarify their reason behind their answers (see line 43), which not only create space for learning but learners would also achieve higher order thinking skills and deeper thinking. Therefore, teachers should take this into consideration, because the extract shows the importance of active learning in attaining deeper learning. As this issue is not apparent in traditional face to face classrooms. For this reason, teachers should apply different timings and strategies for small group from traditional face to face classroom small group work. This also relates to the task type, and how they can design or use tasks that are easier to complete in the time given. This issue of task type relates to syllabus design and using different technological systems and features of zoom to help achieve active learning in breakout rooms. This will be looked at in more detail in the following theme.

4.11 Teachers’ technological competence

In terms of the affordances of Zoom, some teachers have stated that they avoid trying different features on zoom because they are too afraid. They normally send questions in the chat box for learners to answer or ask learners to take a screenshot of the PowerPoint slide that has the questions or an activity for them to complete. But they are aware of the importance of using these different types of features to motivate and boost learner’s interaction.

Extract 18.

Researcher: And I can I ask what would be the reason behind not using these features?

Teacher F: probably a bit scared because you know, sometimes we are scared that technology might go wrong, and then you know and. Yeah I think that’s one thing and because zoom is all quite new. You know, for me, it’s the first time to teach like this. I guess I am taking fewer risks.

The dialogue above is from an individual interview, whereas during the focus group discussion not many teachers mentioned their technological competence being a challenge. One explanation for this could be because of there were different teachers from different universities, therefore they did not know each other’s well, which made them uncomfortable in sharing their weaknesses to others. Some teacher s in the individual interview, believed that they did not have the technological competence to not only use different online platforms to help mediate learners’ interaction, but also the zoom features itself.

However, some teachers were more confident in trying to use different features. For example, the countdown notification. One teacher mentioned another way of taking advantage of this feature by using it to send questions for the task at a certain time. This shows that even without workshops, the more the teachers use the zoom system the more effective they get with this teaching system. Students’ datasets report that some teachers do not allow participants to use all the features of zoom. Students in traditional face to face classroom can point and look at the same paper however in an online situation it is more difficult, as learners are not looking at the same screen. They have their websites and documents at different views, therefore its important for teachers to allow the “screen share” feature for students.

Extract 19.

Student B: Yes, I agree with share screen we can easily highlight on the document and everyone can see.

Student C: Yeh in terms of technology, I feel teachers need to be creative because for task they give us a number of questions to answer on a word document. Which we most of the time one person answers by themselves so they should use technology and websites to make tasks more interesting.

Researcher: Can anyone give me an example of an activity from a module that was effective?

Student B: for example, we had to rate different online EFL tasks, so the teacher asked to work in group and each student rates on of the task and share our opinion in our breakout rooms.

Students in extract 19 have given two different tasks that they felt engaged with the most. The first task asked learners to rate tasks in online websites, this is not just easy to access but also very relevant to the situation learners are studying in. This could be a reason why universities need to develop their syllabus and course modules to suit the environment learners’ studying in and to make it relevant to the situation. The second task students favoured was based on watching a video and sharing their perceptions. Some issues can arise from using videos as activities in breakout rooms. First of all, it is time consuming, learners should be given the link to video prior to the class as a preparation task to prevent any time wasting. In addition, internet connectivity can disturb learners’ completion of the task. Learners have also added that some teachers either forget or do not allow screen share which could be an issue when using videos in breakout rooms. As learners will not be able to play the video at the same and due to different internet connectivity strength among learners.

In terms of teacher technological competence, most of the teachers in this research belief that it important for the teacher to be very skilful in using technology to deliver classes online. As well as being aware of the different software’s and apps that can be used in line with Zoom to deliver professional quality classes to students. As it is shown from the findings some teachers were able to adapt through the shift of the online environment, whereas other has not been able to grasp the basics of online teaching, therefore another mode of reflective practice that joins teachers together to share their experience is needed. As teachers that have been able to overcome online teaching challenges can share their strategies to other teachers.

Teachers in this research both from Saudi and UK universities feel strongly about the need of workshops and technological interventions for teachers to help them with the shift of online teaching to deliver quality lessons. As most teachers when asked about their level of technological competence stated that they do not feel or did not feel ready to teach online, one teacher commented that they felt interacting to each other and sharing their experience similar to the focus group that was conducted for this research helps them find different strategies that could work to solve their challenges.

5. Teachers’ and learners’ perception of breakout rooms

In the SOL environment, it is inevitable that there will be a lack of learner’s interaction, but the use of breakout rooms has shown a great advantage in creating effective learners’ interaction as well as creating active learning. This study has shown that learners have favoured the use of breakout rooms and belief that it indeed encourages effective space for learner’s interaction. However, Nambiar [33] research suggest differently, which students in that study perception of interaction in SOL were negative, their responses suggests that they felt in a traditional classroom there were more opportunities for learners’ interaction. In this study students were in favour of SOL they also felt the use of breakout room did help with their learning. However, as seen in the previous chapter, students have reported some issues that have occurred during breakout rooms. These issues will be looked in more detail in relation to previous literature in this chapter.

The first question in this study sought to explore the challenges teachers encounter during their use of breakout rooms in their lessons. The second research question looked at students’ perceptions, as this will give insight into the diversity involved. It enables the researcher to compare and contrast between the participants involved. Therefore, combining both research questions, result in rich data.

All participants of this research students and teachers (UK and Saudi universities) agreed that challenges occur during the process of monitoring breakout rooms. Teachers (UK and Saudi universities) stated that it is difficult for them to monitor every group. This has also been mentioned in previous research as challenge teacher faced during SOL. As seen from the findings some teachers felt the use of shared documents was an advantage as they used this to monitor learner’s participation. But others were not confident with technology to be able to use these features. In addition, monitoring through shared document misses some aspects of teacher monitoring. As through shared documents teachers are only able to monitor that learners are on task, but they cannot promote effective learner interaction.

It has been suggested by Lee [55] that teachers should use graduate school assistants to help with breakout rooms monitoring. This could be a good strategy to test out, in addition to following a structure for monitoring as Greyling and Ahmad [52] suggests. This has also been mentioned by a teacher during a focus group he stated that following a structure to monitoring breakout rooms helps make the monitoring process more organised. Students also believe monitoring during breakout room sessions is a challenge, they suggest that there is a need of a zoom system update to allow teachers to monitor all breakout rooms at the same time. Students believe that this could also help with participation as if learners know their monitored, they will be encouraged to participate. These findings are consistent with those to Cavinato et al. [53], their findings suggest updating Zoom to allow teachers to view rooms similar to a CCTV view is important.

In regard to the time of breakout rooms, which has also been reported as an issue by leaner. Previous research also supports this [40, 45, 53]. Cavinato et al. [53] states that learners may take longer in the online environment to complete activities and their discussions may also take longer. A possible justification for this is that some learners as seen in the results encounter technical and connectivity difficulties which could interrupt their interaction. A possible strategy to overcome this challenge is to extend class times and give more breaks for learners, to prevent “Zoom fatigue”. Another strategy suggested by Robinson et al. [73] is limiting tasks into only one or two questions for learners to be able to complete the task in the allotted time.

Students in the focus group and individual interview reported issues regarding student’s participation. This finding is consistent with that of Martine [29]. A possible explanation for low learners’ participation may be related to the NNS student’s assumption of thinking they are less knowledgeable in that context. As from the observation recording obtained in this study, the breakout room context was on UK education system, which is not similar to Chinese education system. Another possible justification could be related to cultural beliefs. The international students in the observation recording were Asians, according to Martine [29] in Asian cultures silence is valued and disagreeing with others is regarded unappropriated. It has also been stated by learners in focus group and individual interview that they sometimes are discouraged from participating when there are native speakers in the breakout room due to language anxiety. This issue has not been mentioned by teachers, which shows the importance of students feedback. Khan et al. [74] findings report that student feedback in teachers’ evaluation system improves on the quality of teaching.

The analysis of the datasets show that learners’ participation is closely related to learners’ cameras being off. This is consistent with the findings of Palmerin [75] and Gherhes et al. [76], their findings suggest that learners do not turn their cameras on when they are not prepared for the lesson. This highlights the importance of including preparational task for students prior to Zoom classes to achieve learners’ engagement and participation. Palmerin [75] add that teachers creating strong trust relationship with learners results in learner’s participation during SOL.

Teachers as well as students from Newcastle university reported that when some learners had their cameras off, they felt it was difficult for them to interact to “black screens”. This finding is consistent with Castelli et al. [77] their findings suggest that teachers find it awkward to interact with learners when they turned off their cameras, they described their feelings as “talking to yourself”. However, by taking a student-centred approach, teachers need to make decisions based on what is best for learners. As it has been stated by one of the Saudi teachers, that this is concerned with students right of choice, Therefore, teachers should not force learners to turn their cameras on, but they can offer information and alternatives. First of all, as suggested by Castelli et al. [77] teachers can ask learners to add the preferred name on display in Zoom instead of their university name or initial. This will help teachers and other students to call each other with their names as it will build rapport between the participants.

Findings of previous research report that most students turn their cameras on during breakout rooms session. A possible explanation for this, is because in breakout rooms students are in smaller group and breakout sessions are only for limited time. This is not consistent with findings of this research as students from the focus group reported that in breakout rooms there are times that other students do not turn their cameras on. However, Castelli et al. [77] suggest an alternative solution for cameras off issue, which is recommending learners to add their photos on their profile display in zoom. This will help learners and teachers to build a complete picture of other learners in the class. This will also help in creating a community and a strong relationship between students. Castelli et al. [77], Mottet [78] and Falloon [79] all highlight the importance of creating this community between students, especially in online education as learners can feel lonely. In this research context students are studying online during a global pandemic which alone is a challenge for students as they can be isolated, and this could affect their health. The findings of Irawan et al. [80] report that learners mental health has highly been affected by the shift of face-to-face classroom to SOL. The findings show students dealing with anxiety problems especially learners with low income, as they had to deal with expenses as well as being isolated alone and the new experience of studying online.

Task type also affects learner’s participation, students’ datasets report similar views to those Whear [50] reports in her blog. Learners’ perceptions on the tasks used by teachers were not creative and engaging enough. Both students from this research and in Whear [50] blog have mentioned the example of questions and answers task as a “boring task”. Teachers are also aware of the importance of using more creative type of task to achieve more effective learners’ interaction in breakout rooms. Teachers from this research have reported that the task used in traditional face-to-face classroom cannot be used in online environment. This is consistent with the findings of Chan et al. [81], which suggests that teachers should use digital enhanced learning model to adapt face to face materials to suit online teaching environment. The DEL model includes four different frameworks (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The digitally enhanced learning (DEL) model cited from Chan et al. [81].

The DEL framework combines four frameworks that is used to evaluate the online tasks used in the VLE. The first framework in the model is Dial-e which consists of ten task design ideologies for teachers to follow to achieve the pedagogical aims of the class. The second model is TPCK, which includes a self-assessment tool for teachers to assess their technological competences This will help with teachers overcome the challenges they reported (see chapter 4) in regard to their technological competence. The third model is BRDT, which is based on blooms taxonomy model (1956). This model is concerned with learners critical thinking, which is especially important for students of higher education as stated in chapter 1. The BRDT model aims to answer the question of what type of activities would engage learners thinking skills in VLE. Finally, the fourth model is SAMR, includes different levels of the integration of technology from no tech to redefinition, which is the highest level that refers to using tech to create new tasks that is inconceivable in PiP classroom [81]. The combination of these framework in one model, enables teachers to develop their task design to suit the VLE and to achieve effective learners’ interaction during breakout rooms that will achieve the lesson pedagogical goals.

5.1 Creating space for learners’ interaction

This section will mainly answer the third question of this study, which is how teachers can create space for learners’ interaction in SOL. The findings of this study reported the factors that have worked for teachers in this study during Covid-19, which has also been seen in previous literature. The main strategy that has been mentioned by both teachers and students in this research is the importance of breakout rooms in creating space for learner’s interaction. Teachers and students believe that creating breakout rooms help encourage learners to interact and discuss effectively together on the task set. But to achieve effective use of breakout room there is number of aspects that teachers and education organisation need to take into consideration.

5.1.1 Groups and assigning roles

The observation data findings revealed that combining native and non-native students in the same breakout room results in effective learners’ interaction. As native learners take the role of the teacher and use interactional feature to help create opportunities for effective interaction. There is no research that support these findings, However, previous research in online small group work report findings that confident students take the lead, the findings are consistent with those in this research as their findings report that learners with good English proficiency often take the role of being a group leader [55]. The students in Lee [55] research have highlighted the importance of assigning roles as their believed that it gets tiring for outgoing students. Lee [55] findings also suggest the positive effect of grouping learners with similar language level together. This could be indeed a good strategy as it could give the courage and confidence for shy and quite students to talk, without worrying about their language level. The analysis of the data set reports that learners are asked to report back to the main room, without being assigned. But Robinson et al. [73] highlight the importance of assigning roles such as a recorder and a reporter, as it encourages productivity in the breakout rooms. To prevent responses from the same students every class, teachers can use this strategy and give those roles to different students at every class.

5.1.2 Preparation tasks

A second suggestion to create space for effective interaction is setting preparation task, that not many previous research studied the impact and the importance of using preparation tasks on learner’s participation. But it has been favoured by both teacher and students from this study. In addition, the observation recording shows the importance, as learners spent the beginning of the breakout room reading and familiarise themselves with the task. This could have been done before class to make use of breakout room time for learners’ interaction [40]. According to [40] if students complete preparational task they make better use of breakout room time. Previous research that was based on traditional face to face teaching looked at preparation task before class, the study reported that assigning preparation task for students lead to 90% of student’s active participation [82]. These findings are also consistent with those of Bassett et al. [83] where they explored the effect of assigning preparational task on learners’ engagement during flipped classroom. Their findings suggest that preparational had a great impact on learners’ participation as well as exam scores.

5.1.3 Reflective practice and workshops

The results revealed that teachers are in need for workshops to develop teacher’s technological competence. This is consistent with the findings of Elsayary [84] research. It is believed that the use of videoconference will be still be included in higher education courses even after the global pandemic. For this reason, teacher training courses should include in their curriculum, a teacher technological competence development as well as e-classroom interactional competence. As the findings of this study suggest that teachers do not behave in breakout room in a way that would encourage learner’s participation. According to Moorhouse et al. [40] teachers are in need of specific interactional competence to madidate and assist learners learning in VLE, as well as to facilitate learners interaction online.

In regard to teacher’s technological competence, previous research shows that teachers were not ready for the online teaching shift [85]. The use department of education emphasise on the importance of teachers developing their technological competence “fluent users of technology; creative and collaborative problem solvers; and adaptive, socially aware experts throughout their careers” ([86], p. 34). This study supports these findings and show that teachers are in need of workshops and training on using the specific affordances of Zoom and other platforms to provide effective learners’ interaction in breakout rooms. Findings of previous literature also support these findings and [43] highlight the importance of offering training for teachers to help them provide multiple modes of interaction for learners on Zoom [40, 43, 87].

6. Conclusion

This research aimed to identify the challenges faced by teachers in using breakout rooms and how they can create space for learner’s interaction in breakout rooms. As well as looking at learners’ perspectives on the use of breakout rooms. The research methods that were adopted included two focus groups (teachers and students) followed by an individual interview and one breakout room observation. After data collection the researcher have conducted a thematic analysis on the focus group and individual interviews. For the observation data the researcher conducted a conversation analysis following Seedhouse [8].

Based on the qualitative analysis, it can be concluded that learners feel positive about the use of breakout rooms. But there are many challenges that may arise for teachers during their use of breakout rooms. The First challenge and most importantly is regarding teachers’ technological competence, which this research and previous research report that teachers were not ready for the shift to VLE. Another challenge was regarding teachers’ interactional competence. As it has been reported in the literature review teachers’ interactional competence is important in creating space for learning by encouraging learners’ interaction. The data from the datasets suggests that teachers are not using CIC effectively to encourage participation in breakout rooms. Other challenges that were reported in this research that was in line with previous literature findings are; monitoring, task type, learners’ cameras off. The results indicate that teachers can create effective learners’ interaction by setting preparational task before SOL and modifying their teaching materials such as task types. As well as developing their use of technological and interactional competence. Based on these conclusions’ education organisations should arrange workshops for teachers to develop their use of Zoom for teaching. Teachers should also consider adopting reflective practices with other teachers to share strategies that have or have not worked for them. As well as listening to learners’ point of view as part of their reflective practice process. The implications of findings of this study could be useful for future research, as they contribute to the literature by exploring learners’ interaction in breakout rooms during SOL. Walsh [9] highlights the importance of reflective practice for teachers, which the findings of this research also do.

7. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research

There are few limitations of this study. The students’ sample that has participated in this study were only from applied linguistics and TESOL course at Newcastle university, therefore the results of this study are not generalised on all international students studying their postgraduate on Zoom. The observation data obtained was only from one SOL, therefore other factors could have occurred in other breakout rooms from different SOL and different teachers. Future research could obtain more than one breakout room observation data from different SOL that s taught by different teachers to compare between different teachers practices effect and different teaching contexts.

Another limitation that could have affected the results of this study, is that learners in the breakout room were aware of being recorded. This could be an explanation of why some international students have not participated and turned their camera off during breakout rooms. Further research is needed to explore the effective task type for encouraging learners’ interaction in SOL. This research has shown that groups in breakout rooms has an effect on learners’ participation. Therefore, future research should explore in which ways should teachers group international students for breakout rooms interaction. As the previous literature on grouping learners are all related to PiP classroom, which could give different results in VLE.

A. Appendices