Beginning in the 1970’s, the communicative approach to language instruction became increasingly more prominent. Known as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), it is a method which places greater emphasis on communicative ability and relies more on interaction through the use of group/pair work as a way of improving language skills (Desai, 2015). This inter-learner collaboration can arguably aid them in a number of different ways including: learning from listening to other students, producing a greater amount of language than during a teacher-led activity, increasing motivation, and improving fluency skills (Richards, 2006). CLT became the standard way of approaching EFL and as discussed in Jeon (2009), English classrooms in Korea which were heavily reliant on teacher centered classrooms have made the move to a more collective, communicative one.

In addition to more student-centered classrooms, CLT meant EFL teachers had to adapt and perform different duties in order to fulfill the needs of learners (Phoung & Vang, 2019). Since the introduction of CLT, there have been a number of suggestions on how to describe this new role. Breen and Candlin (1980) suggested that an EFL teacher should be considered as having two main functions. Firstly, as the one who expedites the communicative process in the classroom, and secondly as a supplementary participant in learning. Brown (2001) expanded on this by suggesting the teacher actually has four duties. The first of these is a facilitator to help learners set goals and objectives, provide learning materials, and evaluate progress. Secondly, they will assume the position of needs analyst by responding to learning requirements and preparing future lessons accordingly. Thirdly, they will act as a councilor by demonstrating effective communication by using paraphrasing, confirmation and feedback. Finally, as a group process manager, they will monitor and encourage learners without intentionally filling in any gaps in grammar or lexis (Littlewood, 2011). Instead, they should be noted and used to provide comments or further practice at a later date.

Undoubtedly, the COVID restrictions described above will have greatly affected how the principles of CLT could be effectively applied in the current EFL classroom. Inability to work closely in pairs or groups negates learning via student interaction which in theory is going to limit the options available to teachers in the classroom. Furthermore, impeded communication due to face coverings could lead to lack of understanding on the part of both students and teachers which is ultimately going to restrict the roles an EFL teacher can assume.

Being back in the classroom with COVID restrictions in place is seen as a relatively uncharted territory. With the gradual return to normality, research in this area has only recently become relevant. Outside of the field of education, a number of studies have looked at the general impact of COVID guidelines. Research done in the United Kingdom (Saunders et al., 2020), involving a survey and open-ended questions, reported on the impact of face coverings on hearing and communication. The majority of the 460 participants stated face coverings had negatively affected all aspects of communication and understanding. Face coverings made hearing difficult, but also left people feeling embarrassed and frustrated due to increased anxiety and stress with people losing their willingness to engage in conversations. In a German study (Truong et al., 2021) with native listeners and speakers it demonstrated wearing masks proved problematic. This study showed listeners produced less speech and fewer words when asked to recall sentences from a masked speaker than an unmasked speaker, suggesting face coverings offer fewer cognitive resources to reproduce speech as they conceal visual speech information which degrades the acoustic signal. A different investigation (Marler & Ditton, 2020) in the field of healthcare noted wearing masks jeopardizes the ability of staff to successfully communicate with colleagues and patients which limits efficiency and effectiveness of treatment.

More specific to education, Spitzer (2020) concluded wearing masks greatly inhibits how to communicate, interpret, and mimic the expressions of those we are conversing with. The study also confirmed positive emotions become less recognizable and negative emotions are amplified due to masks covering the lower half of the face, which reduce not only the bonding between teachers and students, but also group cohesion and learning. A case study from Turkey (Güneş, 2021) examined several articles from different countries on the effects on masked education for students when learning a language. This research proved wearing masks had affected students in several ways, not just from verbal communication but also from facial expressions, nonverbal communication and language skills development. The findings from this case study showed students all suffered from hearing problems, understanding pronunciation, and speaking clearly. In addition, they were not able to see facial expressions which contributed to their lack of language skills development. Further to this, a study (Bauza Mas, 2021) from an EFL class at a secondary school in Spain also demonstrated wearing a mask severely affects the auditory and articulatory perception and pronunciation in a negative way. In contrast, an alternative study by Roy (2020) argues that “masks may have a potentially positive academic, emotional and self-awareness developmental impact on students.” (p. 710). In terms of masks being worn by teachers, there appears to be a shortage of data; however, one study by Lee (2021) discussed how face coverings worn by a teacher has the potential to affect voice volume, non-verbal communication, and can also lead to comfort issues when worn for long periods.

In addition to the issues caused by mask wearing, social distancing guidelines also have the potential to disrupt the CLT EFL classrooms. With students and children socially separated, it goes against the natural urge for them to get close and socialize, which in turn could lead to isolation and loneliness. The longer this continues, the higher the risk for feelings of anxiety, stress and depression could occur (Life, 2020). Furthermore, Richards (2006) argues that student performance and attainment can be affected by up to 50% in classrooms with less-than-ideal seating arrangements, and further studies (Byers et al., 2018; Wentzel, 2009) demonstrate the physical environment of a classroom significantly impacts student comfort, classroom behavior and peer interaction. One solution to this could be innovative uses of technologies; students and teachers can work together to create engaging environments that allow students to share ideas and collaborate (Martonrini, 2020). However, this is still going to limit the amount of face-to-face interaction possible and one study from Australia (Kite, et al, 2020) and another completed in Korea (Richards & Jones, 2021), has shown university EFL learners are often reluctant to engage with others within online collaborative tools such as discussion boards.

One more noticeable factor that could impact teaching and learning this semester compared to pre COVID classes, was the number of student absences. Those taking a test were granted 2 days of excused absence until the result was confirmed and those testing positive had to stay at home for 7 days. Consequently, there was a considerable increase in student absences during the spring semester of 2022 semester with five times as many students being absent compared to the pre-COVID semester in the winter of 2019. Several studies (Malcolm et al., 2003; Jing et al., 2021) have noted prolonged student absences not only significantly impact student progress but also increases the amount of work for teachers.

Despite previous research conducted in this field, there appears to be a lack of data which relates to EFL classes, particularly in the South Korean context and there is no clear information on when COVID restrictions will be lifted completely. At the time of writing, the social distancing protocol has been removed; however, the mask mandate and enforced absence rules are still in place. With new COVID infections doubling from just under 10,000 to just under 20,000 in the space of two days as a result of the high contagious BA.5 variant (Kim, 2022) there is every possibility of classes in future semesters being affected by these regulations. In order to ensure the quality and effectiveness of future EFL classes at Korean universities, it is important to understand their pedagogical impact and what teachers are using to try and overcome them. Therefore, this study will attempt to add to the current pool of data in this field by answering the following research questions:

The data for this study was collected between May 12th, 2022 and July 5th, 2022 from colleagues of the authors working in the same department at a university in the greater Seoul area who were asked to voluntarily participate. In total, 17 people completed a survey, 9 (52.9%) were female and 8 (47.1%) were male. In terms of the participants’ age, 2 (11.8%) were between 31 and 35 years old, 3 (17.6%) between 36 and 40, 6 (35.3%) between 41 and 45, 4 (23.5%) between 46 and 50, and the remaining 2 (11.8%) were aged in the 51 to 55 bracket. The vast majority (70.6%) were from Korea with the rest originating from either Great Britain (11.8%), Canada (11.8%), or the USA (5.9%). Ten out of the 17 respondents (58.8%) have been working as English teachers at a Korean university for between 11 and 15 years, 6 (35.3%) for between 6 and 10 years, and 1 (5.9%) for between 1 and 5 years. They indicated they were responsible for teaching classes with a range of primary focus. All of the respondents (100%) had at least one writing based course, 9 (52.9%) also said they had a class based on improved presentation skills, 3 (17.6%) had a speaking class, 2 (11.8%) had a reading-based class, 1 had a listening class and ‘other’ was selected once.

Study data was collected using two different methods. Initially, a Google Form was used to create a survey questionnaire (Appendix A) in early May, 2022. This method of data collection was chosen for a number of reasons which were outlined in (Evans & Mather, 2005). It added flexibility to the project and allowed data collection without any space and time constraints, it also allowed the use of several different question types to get a broad range of answers, and helped with collecting a large sample of data. In addition, since a survey questionnaire is one of the most effective ways to establish perceptions towards certain topics or situations (Young, 2016), the research team decided it would be a suitable data collection method for this project. Prior to the main data collection, the survey was shared with 4 colleagues of the research team who were independent of this project. Their feedback was used to establish validity prior to its distribution via a link which was sent by email. There were 18 questions in total with the first 3 related to demographic information and the following 2 focusing on teaching experience and current teaching context. The remaining questions were a combination of short answer questions, multiple choice, and 10-point Likert scale questions which the research team felt would reveal a wider spectrum of data than a 5-point scale. It was not possible to run a reliability test for every survey item, but a Cronbach Alpha test produced a score of 0.73 indicating good internal consistency. A Yes/No question at the end of the survey was used to gain permission from each participant to use the data as part of this study.

At the end of the data collection period, the automated collation option in Google forms was used to create an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. The final question of the survey asked participants if they would be willing to be contacted to discuss some of their responses in more detail. Those who agreed were asked to leave their email address. During the data analysis phase of this study, any survey responses thought pertinent were explored and discussed via email / online video call.

The concluding section of the survey offered the participants a small token of appreciation for their time in submitting their thoughts. A high number of short answer questions meant completing it could have been quite time consuming; hence, a coffee coupon to the value of 5000 Korean won was provided to those who indicated their interest. 4 out of the 17 respondents did so and left either a phone number or e-mail address to which the coupon could be electronically sent.

As part of the data analysis process, the two researchers arranged and explicated the various responses from the survey participants to a Likert scale and multiple-choice questions and analyzed them using descriptive statistics. Regarding the open-ended questions which gave a more in-depth insight to the participants’ views, the researchers applied a general analysis of qualitative research. Initially, they individually examined the data, noting common trends. Following this, the researchers met several times to compare notes and share ideas to establish patterns and themes. During these meetings, discussions were held to finalize the overall results and clarify any inconsistencies.

The initial research question in this study was to determine which of the MOE imposed restrictions teachers thought had the biggest impact on their classes. As can be seen in the data from question 6 (Figure 1) The participants reported wearing masks had the greatest effect with 12 out of 17 (70.6%) them selecting it. Following this, 11 out of 17 (64.7%) respondents noted social distancing affected the way classes were conducted with students being seated separately from each other. Unsurprisingly, only 4 out of 17 (23.5%) and 3 out of 17 (17.6%) participants stated that students being absent for a PCR or antigen test and prolonged absence due to infection affected how they conducted their classes, respectively. This shows that absences in a class rarely affect how teachers approach their class.

Similarly, question 7 asked the participants which COVID restrictions they felt had the biggest effect on classroom communication. Somewhat expectedly, wearing masks was chosen the most often, with 15 (88.2%) selecting it. This fits with previously mentioned research (Spitzer, 2020; Truong et al., 2021) showing masks proved problematic including hearing difficulties, producing less speech, understanding language and inhibiting communication. Being seated socially distanced was also viewed as having significant effect as 8 out of 17 (47.1%) chose this option.

Survey question 8 asked the respondents which COVID restrictions affected student learning the most. Almost everyone, 15 out of 17 (88.2%), indicated being seated socially distanced had the biggest impact. One possible reason for this is they view this restriction as inhibiting their ability to implement a CLT approach in which student collaboration helps produce more language, increases motivation and improves fluency (Richards, 2006). 9 out 17 (52.9%) participants also mentioned students being absent for prolonged periods due to infection and 6 out 17 (35.5%) noted being absent for a PCR or antigen test affected student learning. A number of participants said class materials were uploaded to the university learning management system (LMS) each week in order to help those who were absent to keep up with course content. Despite this, they still seemed to feel this was not enough to substitute for class attendance. Surprisingly, only 5 participants (29.4%) felt wearing a mask affected student learning although there were no clear reasons for this.

It is clear the social distancing and masks mandates were having the biggest effect on classes; consequently, a more in-depth analysis of the results and detailed discussion of them is included below.

In order to interpret in more detail how their classes were affected, the participants were asked 7 questions (survey questions 9-16) which were included to develop a better understanding of how each specific restriction influenced their lessons.

Research question three attempted to provide insight on how participants tried to overcome these challenges. The most prominent data point from the responses to survey question 17, is that participants tried to incorporate a variety of different technological uses into the classroom. One replied by saying, “I used programs and websites on the internet they could use on their phones. Like Kahoot and the schools’ LMS.” Another mentioned, “I supplemented with more materials - I tried to bring in extra fun activities and used the internet for clips and quizzes in class”

However, there was an underlying theme to these responses, noting technology was used in the classroom but with limited success. One participant stated, “I tried to use discussions and peer feedback on e-learning but it didn’t work well. Students were not interested in communicating with each other.” Another participant added, “Tried e-learning, online, Kakao chatting room for the class…. very little engagement from the students. I tried group /pair work editing on canvas, but it did not work very well. Hardly any students tried and those who did not seem to enjoy it.” Further to this, another participant responded:

I tried using e-learning to foster discussions. Didn’t work…nobody seemed to volunteer, tried google docs to collaborate on screen in the class. Worked ok…but with a lot of technical problems, tried Kahoot….worked well but gets boring quickly and needs to be used sparingly.

Moreover, one participant mentioned they tried to use different technologies to help overcome the restrictions; however, it did not compare to a pre COVID classroom environment, stating, “I tried using e-learning for group work, tried using interactive tools like Kahoot…I don’t think any of them were that successful. I don’t think there is any substitute for having normal classes.” Table 3 shows all the different technologies that were used to help overcome COVID restrictions, albeit with limited success.

Overall, it seemed there was limited success by incorporating technology in the classroom to overcome the restrictions, there is little evidence as to why from this data. However, these findings correspond with previously mentioned studies (Richards & Jones, 2021; Kite, et.al., 2020) Even though students are sat socially distant from one another and they had to wear masks, this should not have an effect on why using technology didn’t help in the classroom, as most of the tasks were individually completed. Possible further research can be taken to look into this in more depth.

A second feature participants mentioned is the need to encourage the students in class. One participant revealed, “I tried to encourage students to participate in classroom activities.” Another participant added, “I encouraged individual participation.” Participants may have sympathized with the students knowing how difficult the situation is with the class restrictions and gave some encouragement to help motivate the students. One participant followed up on this via email explaining how some students struggled to cope during these difficult times.

I have seen and heard stories of the mental health of my students this term. This was the first semester in my years of experience where at least 4 students reached out either in their assignments or in person to share their struggles with mental health issues. I had one student explain how he did not come to class last week as he tried to hang himself in the bathroom on campus. The bruises on his neck were clear; he tried his best. This triggered a message to all my students at the start of class that if they need help or someone to talk to, get it. If I’m that person then I will do my best to listen. But in the meantime, be nice to your classmates as you never know what they are going through. Afterwards even more reached out to me to share their struggles.

Although this response was unrelated to how to overcome COVID restrictions in the classroom, it highlights the need for mental health awareness and education as discussed earlier by Life (2020). Once more, this could be an interesting research topic for the future.

In addition to overcoming the challenges, survey question 18 asked if there were any positive outcomes of teaching classes during COVID related restrictions with the majority indicating there were not that many. Several of these responses can be seen in Table 4.

Adding to this, one participant noted how limited the activities were by replying, “Think I have learned how important having freedom is in the classroom by using a variety of teaching techniques.” Although not specifically mentioned in the comments, it proves that the participants preferred the freedom of a pre-COVID pandemic classroom, whereby the teaching method would have been predominantly a CLT style, which is in line with previously mentioned studies (Desai, 2015, Richards, 2006).