Abstract

This chapter explores the experience of Online Distance Learning (ODL) implementation in higher education (HE) in Palestine during the COVID- 19 pandemic from the perspectives of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instructors and learners. The study aimed to provide a holistic description of the current situation of ODL in HE in Palestine in terms of the perceived usefulness of technology use, activities implemented via ODL, university support for ODL implementation, effectiveness and quality of ODL, assessment practices, and academic fraud in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also aimed to provide participants’ evaluation of the ODL experience to benefit from for future action.  For these purposes, a mixed-methods approach was employed. Seventeen instructors from five different universities participated in filling in the questionnaire, five of them took part in semi-structured in-depth interviews, and 74 learners responded to the learners’ questionnaire. The results showed that instructors viewed the ODL experience positively and recommended its accreditation in the future. The results also showed that learners’ perspectives regarding ODL usefulness, effectiveness and easiness of use of ODL ranged from moderate to high, however, they were in favor of face-to-face instruction as the qualitative section revealed. Both instructors and learners encountered different types of problems which were classified into technical, instructional, personal, and ethical problems. Assessment and academic dishonesty were among the challenging issues resulting from ODL implementation in Palestinian universities that require serious intervention.

Keywords
academic fraud, assessment factors, ODL challenges, ODL quality, perceived usefulness.

Introduction

The COVID-19 epidemic has already had a significant influence on many facets of life on Earth, and cautious shutdowns have led to a state of near-total paralysis (Giannini, 2020). The COVID-19. According to Shraim (2018), Palestine has 52 approved higher education institutions for the academic year 2015–2016. More than 216,028 learners have been impacted by the closure, and these institutions provide education and training to them (Jawabreh, 2020). As a result, and following the Palestinian government’s declaration of a state of emergency in March 2020, all Palestinian colleges were required to pursue ODL to assure the continuity of the educational process as part of the solution to the COVID-19 pandemic spread. Although this obligation was enforced as a must for the sake of safety, it was not planned, necessitating a thorough analysis of the ODL experience to provide insights for educationalists and decision-makers in planning the stage beyond COVID-19. According to research, ODL is a cutting-edge learning method (Jaschick & Lederman, 2019; Singh & Thurman, 2019) whose cost-effectiveness is widely valued by higher education institutions (Kara, Erdodu, Kokoç, & Cagiltay, 2019; Vymetalkova & Milkova, 2019). This is due to its adaptability (Daneji, Ayub, & Khambari, 2019; Kara et al., 2019) and the function it plays in shifting learning from “know-how” to “know-where” (Dai, Teo, Rappa, and Huang, 2020, p.1). Singh and Thurman (2019) define ODL in higher education as courses that are entirely delivered online using physical separation to bridge the instructional gap, assuming that distance learning is the same as ODL. Kintu and Wanami (2019) suggest that the phrases distance education, e-learning, web-based training, and ODL are frequently used interchangeably, which supports this premise. The United States Remote Learning Association (USDLA) defines ODL as “the acquisition of information and skills through mediated teaching, which includes all technologies and other types of distance learning”.

Since 2005, Palestinian universities have had a lot of experience with ODL learning (Shraim, 2018). However, this is the first time that instructional activities have been given totally online, both synchronously and asynchronously, in all Palestinian higher education institutions. Such a rare occurrence has sparked a flurry of debate among Palestinian intellectuals, who see e-learning as a kind of revolution that will revolutionize education in the future due to its varied characteristics (Jarbawi, 2020). As a result, colleges have scrambled to implement ODL (Jawabreh, 2020) without prior preparation or assessment of their readiness. Importantly, in Dede’s (2002) vision for the future success of technologies in 2020, planning has been highlighted in order to avoid being “depleted by its demands” (p.72). Through the use of pre-determined course content, questionnaire s, and follow-up interviews with course designers, teachers, and support personnel, as well as observation of course interactions and evaluation, planning could be an indicator of the success of ODL programs (White, 2014). Since ODL has proven to be the only globally applicable solution to COVID-19 closure, applying this knowledge in a developing occupied country like Palestine with limited resources and no prior planning raises the question of educational institutions’ readiness to execute ODL efficiently. As a result, a thorough analysis of the ODL experience is required in order to shed light on these experiences from the perspectives of two key stakeholders in the process: instructors and learners. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to learn about the opinions of EFL teachers and learners in Palestine on ODL application in higher education. It also tries to find out how the ODL experience was perceived by the participants. This will give educationalists in higher education and other stakeholders in Palestine information and consequences for planning the stage beyond COVID-19, as well as the prospect of future ODL accreditation. In order to achieve these aims, the study tried to answer the following questions:

• RQ1: What are the perspectives of EFL instructors toward ODL experience in terms of perceived usefulness of technology use, activities implemented via ODL, university support for ODL implementation, assessment practices, quality of ODL, and academic fraud in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic?
• RQ2: What are the perspectives of EFL learners of ODL experience in terms of perceived usefulness, effectiveness, easiness in using ODL, and academic fraud in light of COVID-19 pandemic?
• RQ3: How do EFL instructors and learners evaluate their ODL experience in light of COVID-19 pandemic?

Literature Review

ODL in Foreign Language Education

Teaching foreign languages through distance learning or online classes is a relatively new topic. It has sparked complaints about the lack of oral practice when learning languages through ODL versus face-to-face learning (Zhihai, 2010). Nonetheless, ODL as an educational medium makes a substantial contribution to the L2 curriculum by emphasizing collaborative interchange and co-construction of learning languages as a major avenue of investigation in language instruction (White, 2014). Agustina and Cahyono (2017) demonstrated the importance of EFL teachers’ use of technology for English learning, such as PowerPoint, Videos, Electronic dictionaries, Blogs, Edmodo, and Facebook, by demonstrating the positive benefits of their use. These impacts included significant gains in speaking abilities as well as other language skills and components, particularly pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar. Kamnoetsin (2014) discovered that using Facebook helped learners improve their English writing skills, grammar, and vocabulary while breaking down space-time barriers. Positive attitudes and views about the efficiency of online learning were influenced by such learning experiences (Daneji et al., 2019). Through Quipper School, Agustina and Cahyono (2017) investigated the viewpoints of EFL teachers and learners on the teaching of EFL. Its use was seen positively by EFL teachers as a way to deal with the limited time available for language teaching while also enhancing learners’ EFL development. Contrary to these views, Zheng, Lin, and Kwon (2020) found that, of all subject areas, languages posed the greatest obstacle in online education, with learners experiencing negative effects and feelings when compared to identical face-to-face courses.

Perceived Usefulness, Easiness, and Effectiveness of ODL

The perceived usefulness of ODL was defined by Daneji et al. (2019) as the degree to which a person believes that utilizing a certain system will improve his or her job performance. Its cost-effectiveness is demonstrated by its ability to address and reach a large number of independent learners without regard to time or location, and deliver customized information based on learners’ needs and capabilities. It also allows educators to interact directly with study materials, eliminating the need for photocopies or time spent correcting assignments and providing feedback (Kara et al., 2019; Vymetalkova & Milkova, 2019). Kara et al. (2019) emphasized the learner-centered nature of instructional design models in ODL programs, as well as the importance of instructors having a thorough understanding of the relationship between adult learners’ characteristics and the suitability of online environments for individualized instruction. 

Challenges to ODL

According to research, HE professors were hesitant to teach online at a distance. According to McGee, Windes, and Torres (2017), these included a lack of institutional support, increased workload, and technical competency demands, as well as a lack of incentives, a threat to job security, questionable quality of online course design or teaching, missing or ill-defined performance standards, the requirement of rigid or advanced technological ability, excessive time requirements, and vague or inflexible training requirements. Based on his investigation of faculty members’ opinions of a certain web-based training tool, Erguvan (2014) discovered a range of issues. Grading, technical issues, plagiarism, openness to manipulating themes or types of articles utilized, the role of teachers, and course management were among them. For Gold (2001), high implementation costs, a lack of high-quality curriculum materials, and insufficient professional training are all issues that could lead to ODL’s failure.

Quality of ODL

Mumford and Dikilitas (2020) used a constructivist perspective to argue that, while constructivist learning is not inherent in technology, online tools have the potential to provide constructivist learning environments because the instructor and the tasks provided play a key role in quality learning. This is because what works in a typical classroom with a steady cohort of learners speaking synchronously and face-to-face is qualitatively different from what works in an online asynchronous situation if educational transformation or reform is to be ensured (Gold, 2001). Only if they are effectively constructed, with excellent pedagogy as the determining element that leads to improved learning outcomes (Arrosagaray, González-Peiteado, Pino-Juste, and Rodrguez-López, 2019), can they be as effective. Ward, Peters, and Shelley (2010) compared instructors’ and learners’ perceptions of the quality of Synchronous Interactive Online Instruction (SIOI) with the quality of face-to-face and asynchronous ODL learning. Learners evaluated the dimensions of instructional quality for SIOI and face-to-face course formats the same, with the exception of the ease of access to the course dimension for SIOI and asynchronous online forms. 

Assessment and Plagiarism in ODL

Assessment is one of the key elements of online course design and pedagogy. It is mainly about the process of producing specific outcomes whose products are assessed within the contexts they are produced (Reju & Jita, 2020). Doubtfully, Gold (2001) illustrated that the evaluation of learners’ performance through traditional testing methods could be automated online. Therefore, Rovai (2003) emphasized that online instructors need to incorporate different authentic assessment measures to gauge a deep understanding of concepts among learners in simulated non-threatening environments. This could be done through authentic knowledge applications, portfolios, projects, and performances to allow learners to transfer skills they learned. Reju and Jita (2020) claimed that the assessment of online courses still progresses at a slow pace and is subject to plagiarism or cheating due to a lack of ethical principles and legal implications (Lindahl & Grace, 2018). Plagiarism occurs because of learners’ lack of awareness of plagiarism, low probability of being detected, and pressure derived from the level of demand (Torres-Diaz, Duart, & Hinojosa-Becerra, 2018).

Methodology

Participants

Participants in the present study consisted of 17 EFL professors and 74 learners from five universities in Palestine. Namely, Hebron University, Birzeit University, Al- Quds Open University, An- Najah National University, and Palestine Polytechnic University. The participants were purposefully chosen because they were reachable to one of the researchers and accepted voluntarily to take part in the study. Five university instructors participated voluntarily in semi-structured interviews, 2 males and 3 females. Both written and oral informed consents were maintained for the quantitative and qualitative phases. Particularly, anonymity and confidentiality of the participant’s responses and their right to withdraw were assured by making an explicit statement as such at the beginning of the questionnaires and interview.

Data Collection Instruments

A mixed methods approach was employed in this study “to better understand a research problem and question than either method by itself” (Creswell, 2012, p. 535). Quantitatively, the study applied two questionnaires: one for the instructors which was adopted from the eighth validated questionnaire of the Inside Higher Ed’s in collaboration with Gallup firm to understand professors’ views of ODL and other aspects of online technology to reach an attempted census of digital learning leaders (Jaschick & Lederman, 2019); the adopted sections asked about instructors’ general information and their perspectives in terms of reasons for supporting and not supporting technology use, activities conducted online, institutional support for ODL implementation, assessment factors, academic fraud, and quality of ODL; the second was for learners and was adapted from Ullah, Khan & Khan (2017). Minor modifications were made to the questionnaire and a section of academic fraud was adopted from the GALLUP questionnaire (Jaschick & Lederman, 2019). It was piloted to 20 learners outside the study population for the sake of reliability. The Cronbach alpha was calculated and found to be 0.735, which is considered “satisfactory” (Creswell, 2012, p. 606). Instructors were interviewed in semi-structured interviews, and three open-ended questions were included in the learners’ questionnaire. The nine questions in the semi-structured interviews were designed to delve deeper into the EFL instructors’ ODL experiences in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic. Learners were asked open questions about the assessment tasks they completed during their ODL experience, the challenges they faced, and their opinions about the experience and future accreditation. Learners’ open questions asked them about the assessment tasks they performed during the ODL experience, challenges encountered, their opinions regarding the experience, and future accreditation. Both the instructors’ and learners’ open questions were discussed and approved by three educational experts.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

The questionnaires were distributed to the participants online via Google forms. Three of the teachers’ interviews were conducted online via messenger and recorded with the approval of the instructors, while the other two preferred to respond by filling out Google forms. For quantitative data analysis, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25 was utilized. The responses on Google forms were downloaded as Excel sheets, coded, and integrated into SPSS. To address the study questions, descriptive statistics including frequencies and percentages were generated. In reporting quantitative data, the Lickert scale categories were grouped into three categories (Strongly Disagree and Disagree representing negative perceptions; Strongly Agree or agree representing positive perceptions). To evaluate qualitative data, thematic analysis was used (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Qualitative data were transcribed word for word and mixed with data from Google forms, followed by theme categorization.

Findings and Discussion

This section presents the findings of the study questions and their discussion quantitatively and qualitatively.

Findings of RQ1

What are the perspectives of EFL instructors toward ODL experience in terms of the perceived usefulness of technology use, activities implemented via ODL, university support for ODL implementation, assessment practices, quality of ODL, and academic fraud in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Instructors’ perspectives of perceived usefulness of technology use were investigated by exploring their reasons for supporting and/ or not supporting ODL implementation as presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Instructors’ Perspectives on Supporting Reasons for the Increased Use of ODL

Table 1 shows that instructors endorsed greater usage of ODL because of its easiness, flexibility, and perceived usefulness. They perceived university reinforcement negatively with no rewards given to innovators, which is in line with other research findings (Jaschik & Lederman, 2019; Vymetalkova & Milkova, 2019).

Table 2: Instructors’ Reasons for not Supporting the Use of ODL Technologies

Table 2 demonstrates that the loss of too much control over the course when using technology was the most compelling argument for teachers to reject extended use of ODL, followed by poor technology quality and expensive supplies. Unlike Jaschik and Lederman (2019), who discovered that 65 percent of instructors prefer traditional teaching without technology, just 23.5 percent of instructors believe that training done without technology is the most effective.

Activities Implemented via ODL

Table 3: Instructors’ Perspectives of ODL (ODL) Practices

N: Never; R: Rarely; S: Sometimes; U: Usually; A: Always

Table 3 depicts teachers’ positive ODL practices as a tool for communicating with learners. The least positively perceived ODL practice was the use of ODL as a diagnostic tool to identify learners who required additional help. It is worth mentioning that despite the fact that this study was conducted during the second semester which was run online because of COVID-19, and which necessitated utilizing all the practices mentioned in Table 3, responses revealed varied uses and practices of ODL. This, in turn, calls into question instructors’ technology expertise and skills, especially given that the future of education under pandemic conditions is unclear.

University Support for ODL Implementation

Table 4: Instructors’ Perspectives of University Support for ODL

 SD: Strongly Disagree; D: Disagree; N: Neutral; A: Agree; SA: Strongly Agree

Table 4 displays that colleges greatly encouraged instructors to try out novel teaching methods, with all of them either agreeing or strongly agreeing on this topic. However, nearly half of the university instructors claimed that they were not adequately rewarded for their creativity similar to Jaschik and Lederman’s (2019) results.

Assessment Practices

Table 5: Instructors’ Perspectives of ODL Assessment Practices

SD: Strongly Disagree; D: Disagree; N: Neutral; A: Agree; SA: Strongly Agree

Table 5 depicts the critical function of assessment in online learning. The majority of responses demonstrated positive attitudes among instructors toward attempts to improve teaching and learning quality, program effectiveness, assessment styles, and decision-making (Amin & Mohammadkarimi, 2019; Reju & Jita, 2020).

Quality of ODL

Table 6: Instructors’ Perspectives of ODL Quality Compared to In-Person Courses

Table 6 reveals that instructors thought ODL courses were equivalent to in-person courses except for outside-of-class engagement, with 41.2 percent of them believing that ODL was of lower quality. Whereas 41.2 percent of them thought ODL was of higher quality in terms of its ability to teach at-risk learners in accordance with Ward et al.’s (2010) findings.

Academic Fraud

Table 7: Instructors’ and Learners’ Perspectives of Identity Verification Method

[1] Students can be viewed or monitored in the real time while taking exams.

[2] Detailed timing information which describes exactly when each key was pressed and when it was released as a person is typing at a computer keyboard.

Table 7 demonstrates that the most common way used for identity identification is logging in with a username and password followed by voice recognition. Still, some instructors and learners indicated that they did not use any. Such findings provoke the issue of cheating during exams since this method was applied before in Palestinian universities.

Table 8: Instructors’ and Learners’ Perspectives of the Plagiarism Issue

Table 8 shows how participants feel about identity verification procedures, plagiarism knowledge, and ways for avoiding and detecting plagiarism. Although the majority of learners stated that they had a sufficient understanding of plagiarism and nearly two-thirds of professors ask learners to submit their papers through plagiarism-detection software, the results revealed that there is a lack of confidence in the university’s identity verification methods. The results disclosed that there is a lack of confidence in the identity verification methods used by the university as responses to item one show although the majority of learners stated that they had sufficient understanding of plagiarism and almost two-thirds of the professors ask learners to submit their papers through plagiarism-detection software.

Findings of RQ2

What are the perspectives of EFL learners of ODL experience in terms of perceived usefulness, effectiveness, easiness in using ODL, and academic fraud in light of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Learners’ Perspectives Of ODL Usefulness

Table 9: Learners’ Perspectives for Supporting/ non- Supporting ODL Adoption

SD: Strongly Disagree; D: Disagree; N: Neutral; A: Agree; SA: Strongly Agree

Table 9 reflects that learners were mainly non- supporters of ODL adoption as shown in their responses. Approximately two thirds of them agreed or strongly agreed that technical issues such as inadequate equipments and slow internet connections, lack of interaction, promotion of social isolation, and the need for guidance on its usage discouraged them from using ODL. Only one third of them perceived learning through ODL interesting. Still, around two thirds perceived ODL a useful learning platform among peers. Whereas, They differed in their assessments of whether ODL encourages them to enroll in advanced courses or not.

Learners’ Perspectives of ODL Effectiveness

Table 10: Learners’ Perspectives of ODL Effectiveness

SD: Strongly Disagree; D: Disagree; N: Neutral; A: Agree; SA: Strongly Agree

Table 10 displays that learners rated ODL favorably in terms of usability and computer expertise, dealing with missed lessons, and time-efficiency with approximately 60% of their responses  to these items fell under the catergories agreed or strongly agreed. On the other hand, around 40% of learners rated the criteria related to ODL quality, student participation, access to education, and time as somewhat effective. Still, learners considered that ODL creates problems rather addressing them with  59.4% of them agreed or strongly agreed to this item.

Learners’ Perspectives of ODL Easiness of Use

Table 11: Learners’ Perspectives of ODL Easiness

SD: Strongly Disagree; D: Disagree; N: Neutral; A: Agree; SA: Strongly Agree

Table 11 demonstrates learners’ perceptions of the easiness of learning via ODL. Approximately 60% of them either agreed or strongly agreed that the web offers a friendly-user search environment for  information. Additionally, 54% of the learners either agreed or strongly that it is easy to read materials from these sources online compared to reading from print materials. In contrast, despite the ease with which learners expressed being skilled at using ODL systems with only 14.9% of them either disagreed or strongly disagreed to this item, they viewed using these systems or platforms for expressing their thoughts in writing, doing assignments, or interacting with their teachers to be difficult.

Findings of RQ3

How do EFL instructors and learners describe their ODL experience in the light of COVID-19 pandemic? To get an in-depth understanding of the ODL experience in terms of the pedagogical practices, assessment practices, challenges encountered, evaluation of the experiences, and implications for future use, qualitative data were used to answer this question (See Table 12).

Table12: Summary of Qualitative Findings

Pedagogical Practices

Several systems, including ZOOM, MOODLE, MOOC, Google Classroom, Google Meet, online discussion forums, and social media, have been used to deploy ODL in Palestinian universities. Various instructional techniques, including lectures, group projects, presentations, peer tutoring, closed Facebook groups, ZOOM meetings, theater, and independent learner-centered approaches, were disclosed by the instructors. Because we use instructional video exercises to build learners’ listening, understanding, and critical thinking abilities, EFL instructors believe that online learning is appropriate for a variety of courses, especially languages. A student further explained, “Instructors ask for several exercises like story analysis, summarizing a book, and creating video presentations or audio recordings displayed via zoom”

Assessment Practices

Both EFL instructors and learners made note of the various methods of assessment utilized to gauge the performance of the learners in ODL instruction. Some assignments were authentic. These included online presentations, book summaries, writing 1000 sentences for grammar, reflective papers, role play, pantomiming, evaluating a story presented on YouTube, writing essays, critical analysis of various articles, translation of literary works, online exams via Google form, take-home exams, reports, research, exams, and project creation. Instructors have no reservations about the validity and reliability of these methods of evaluation, believing that “…learners’ answers reflect their perspectives and their ways of thinking and thus, they are valid and reliable”, one instructor elaborated.

Challenges to ODL

Numerous problems have arisen as a result of imposing ODL on a temporary basis in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Both instructors and learners identified four major types of challenges or problems which were divided into technical, instructional, ethical, and personal problems. Technical problems included: poor infrastructure; poor internet connection; instructional problems such as the number of assignments given compared to the time allowed; and clash with assignments of other courses in terms of deadlines; lack of communication between learners and instructors; poor understanding of the material delivered online; ethical problems such as cheating, plagiarism, lack of commitment by learners and some instructors ‘or in instructors’ follow up for learners’ work; personal problems such as stress, health problems, and family issues.

EFL Instructors’ and Learners’ Evaluation of ODL Experience

The opinions of EFL instructors regarding their ODL experience differed. Some people had a lot of good things to say about ODL because of its adaptability, the part it plays in fostering learners’ critical thinking, autonomy, and holding learners accountable for their learning. As one instructor put it, ODL has been successful in creating a competitive environment among learners and even instructors. ODL saved time, effort, and money while allowing for experimenting, writing, and research. Some were moderate, as this instructor explained, “It is fairly decent since even though I have experience in blended online learning, moving entirely online is really challenging and I do not encourage it.” Others had negative opinions, as one instructor demonstrated: “It was a physically and mentally draining event that took a lot of time and effort. Both teachers and learners are unfamiliar with this system. Assignments were inflated by teachers, and learners were dedicated to engaging in dishonest practices including lying and bullying.

The majority of the learners, with the exception of eight, out of the seventy-four participants, had negative opinions of the experience and expressed a dislike for repeating the ODL experience, either because it is more difficult or because they are more dedicated to face-to-face instruction, better at studying paper work, etc. Learners set requirements in both situations for the use of ODL. A senior student, for instance, bemoaned that “the shortcomings of the E-learning were considerably more than its successes… Unless our teachers are given training on how to cope with ODL in terms of quantity, quality, and evaluation methodologies, I am adamantly opposed to e-learning. The main justification given for favorable opinions was financial: “I don’t need to drive two vehicles to get to the university, thus I save money,” a student said. This student’s statement, “I am with ODL if each teacher offers me with a clear overview from the beginning of the course along with assessment criteria and deadlines for each project…”, revealed an ODL conditional favor.

In conclusion, the findings of this study provided a thorough and realistic summary of the ODL experience in higher education in Palestine under the COVID-19 circumstances from the perspectives of EFL teachers and learners. The responses provided by participants to the quantitative and qualitative questions provided insight into their opinions on the usefulness of technology use, ODL-enabled activities, university support for ODL implementation, assessment procedures, the caliber of ODL, and academic fraud. Their in-depth analysis of their ODL experience revealed both their successes and their struggles, shedding light on an important subject that needs to be taken more seriously moving forward specifically, academic dishonesty and plagiarism.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Implications

ODL has been viewed as a special remedy for the COVID-19 pandemic and the closures of educational facilities that resulted from it. Because of ODL’s versatility and ease of usage, both EFL instructors and learners thought it was cost-effective (Kara et al., 2019; Vymetalkova & Milkova, 2019). Additionally, instructors and learners saw ODL as a chance to advance their technological and virtual abilities (Dai et al., 2020) while also allowing for the participation in personalised training (Daneji et al., 2019; Dai et al., 2020; Zhihai, 2010). During the COVID-19 epidemic, EFL study participants saw ODL as a step toward authentic assessment. However, this change has highlighted the serious issue of academic dishonesty that instructors faced and that was widespread (Reju & Jita, 2020). A significant ethical issue is raised by the disparate quantitative responses from instructors and learners about learners’ comprehension of plagiarism. 76.5% of teachers either were certain that their learners didn not know what plagiarism was or were hesitant to ask them. While only 74.3% of learners said they understood plagiarism sufficiently. This suggests that colleges should educate instructors and learners more about plagiarism prevention, especially purposeful plagiarism (Lindahl & Grace, 2018). An in-depth investigation is needed to determine why learners plagiarized despite knowing what it is and how it may be prevented. Despite having intermediate to high perspectives on online education as a partial remedy to the COVID-19 epidemic closures, both the EFL instructors and learners were more in favor of face-to-face or blended learning. Contrary to what Kara et al. (2019) claimed, they were against a total switch to ODL because of the absence of contact and communication between learners and teachers. Therefore, more study that examines student participation in ODL from the viewpoints of both instructors and learners is needed. The findings demonstrated that instructors and learners both agreed that more effort should be put into the planning process of ODL specifically due to the restricted infrastructure and nature of the educational system in Palestine if ODL is to be certified in the future in HE in that country. As a result, cooperation between HE stakeholders and telecom providers, adequate training, and infrastructural facility improvements should be prioritized as requirements for the deployment of ODL (Arrosagaray, et al., 2019; Dede, 2000; Erguvan, 2014; Gold, 2001). Additionally, numerous e-learning implementation initiatives in their various forms were carried out independently in a few Palestinian universities (Shraim, 2018) which restricts the advantages of those initiatives to the targeted institution only. In order to achieve this, HE institutions should work together to develop a more comprehensive strategy that aims for quality revolutionary education while maintaining the unique characteristics of each university (Dai et al., 2020; Jarbawi, 2020). Systemic needs analysis research of HE institutions in Palestine may be necessary for future ODL research. The purposeful sample used in this study, which limited included EFL teachers or learners attending certain West Bank-based universities, is one of its limitations. Accordingly, an examination of the ODL experience which targets HE institutions in Gaza Strip, whose technological resources are much more constrained than those in the West Bank due to the political siege, and addresses leaders and other stakeholders in HE institutions is suggested to find out how they can support the accreditation of ODL based on the results of the current study.

Competing Interests: Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding: This study received no funding from any source.