Video Conference Application in Emergency Remote Learning: Experience, Preference, and Satisfaction

Diterima: 13-11-2021 Disetujui: 13-12-2021 Abstract: The purpose of this study is to look at foreign language faculty members' and students' experiences, preferences, and satisfaction with video conference apps for emergency remote learning. This quantitative study collected data using a multiple-choice and Likert scale questionnaire. Data from the questionnaire were analysed using a single table analysis. The findings indicated that both Zoom, and Google Meet have a generally favourable opinion of video conference apps' instructional substance, efficacy, engagement, and idea-sharing. Nonetheless, Zoom was strongly favoured by most respondents due to its support for collaboration, teaching strategy, motivation, and material sharing. Despite that Google Meet had a lower rating, it can be a viable alternative for teachers to meet learning objectives, stimulate discussion, and be utilized on a variety of devices.

performed a study titled "Zoom Technology as an Effective Tool for Distance Learning in Teaching English to Medical Students" on online meeting apps used by pre-se rvice instructors. This study examines the challenges of integrating successful educational technology into university-level remote learning of a foreign language. According to the study, Zoom allows for virtual meetings and webinars, as well as content exchange. As a result, it facilitates communication and delivery of classes between English teachers and students.
Various additional video conferencing programs may be used, which help foreign language learning throughout the epidemic. Each of them, however, has a distinct benefit and drawback when it comes to online learning. Teachers can choose a video conferencing solution that is appropriate for their foreign language pupils. However, some teachers and students are experiencing trouble shifting to emergency remote learning, particularly with video conference programs. As a result, to identify the most prevalent issues and, perhaps, find a realistic and successful solution, it is essential to learn about their experience, preferences, and satisfaction with the video conferencing program they are using. Additional elements discovered in earlier studies, such as experience, preference, and satisfaction, are investigated in this study. These considerations are critical in providing teachers with suggestions for the best video conferencing program that meets the demands of both professors and students in online classrooms.
The purposes of this study are to learn more about foreign language faculty members' and students' experience of video conference application in emergency remote learning, foreign language faculty members' and students' preference for video conference application in emergency remote learning, and to know how satisfied are foreign language faculty members and students with the video conference application they use in emergency remote learning from the point of view of cognitive, social, and teaching presence.

METHOD
A survey research design that looked at the attitudes, views, behaviours, or characteristics of the population (Creswell, 2012) was utilized in the study. The experience, preference, and satisfaction of foreign language lecturers and students in utilizing a video conferencing program for emergency remote learning are described in this survey investigation. Following data collection, the researcher utilized the information to answer questions on the teachers' and students' experiences, preferences, and satisfaction with utilizing a video conference program for emergency remote learning.
Foreign language faculty members and students at a private university in Malang in the 2020/2021 academic year were the study's respondents. The 55 respondents were chosen utilizing purposive sampling. Because of the pandemic scenario, data were collected using an online questionnaire. The respondents filled out a Google Form questionnaire. Each class's representative disseminated the form's URL. A multiple-choice and a rating scale/Likert scale questionnaire were used in this study. The multiple-choice items presented the respondents with a list of answer options, and they could select only one answer. The rating scale/Likert scale items asked the respondents to provide a value to the rated object on a scale of one to four. The researcher utilized percentages acquired from the multiple-choice questionnaire items to assess the teachers' and students' preferences for emergency remote learning video conference applications.

FINDINGS The Video Conference Application Used by the Respondents
The percentage of use of video conference applications in emergency remote learning is presented in Table 1. First, 28 (51%) students used the Zoom application, while three lectures (5.35%) used the application. Then, the Google Meet application users were 22 students with a percentage of 40%, while two lecturers were the users of the Google Meet application with a percentage of 3.7%. Whereas none of the respondents in the study used Skype in Emergency Remote Learning (ERL). Thus, the Zoom application has the most usage in emergency remote learning. Unfortunately, there was no data recorded on the use of other video conference applications. Experience of Using the Two Video Conference Applications Zoom was the video conferencing tool that delivered the best teaching and learning experience. In general, Google Meet only reached a percentage of 50-66.9% with an average score of 56%. This is far less than its counterpart. Zoom got a higher percentage with 75.8-86.2% and an average of 83% of its users have a high level of satisfaction with the use of video conferencing apps that can support cognitive, social, and teaching presence in remote learning. The most positive aspect for Zoom was the cognitive presence support with an average percentage of 85.5 percent. It was followed by social presence support with an average percentage of 84.7 percent. Teaching presence got fewer positive experiences than the other two presences with a percentage of 79.3 percent. Among the three presences, the aspect that received the most positive response was Collaboration with a percentage value of 86.2 percent. While the lowest aspect compared to other percentage values was Instruction with a percentage value of 75.8 percent.
For Google Meet, the aspect that was considered the most positive was the teaching presence support with an average of 51.8 percent. It was followed by cognitive presence support with an average percentage of 51.3 percent. Meanwhile, social presence had the least positive experience compared to the other two presences with an average percentage of 44.7 percent. From the three presences, the aspect that received the most positive response was Objective with a percentage of 66.9 percent. While the aspect that got the lowest score compared to other percentage values was Collaboration with a percentage of 50.0 percent. From the three presences, Zoom and Google Meet have different strengths and weaknesses. Zoom's strength was in the Collaboration aspect and its weakness was in the Instruction aspect. While Google Meet's strength was in the Objective aspect but has shortcomings in the Collaboration aspect.
The preference for Zoom was most evident from its social presence score of 87.2 percent on average, which is the highest. This figure was closely followed by teaching presence with an average of 86.9 percent. Cognitive presence received slightly less preference than the other two presences with a proportion of 84.1 percent on average. From these three presences, the support for Strategy, with an average percentage of 86.2 percent, earned the most positive feedback. Contextuality, on the other hand, earned the least when compared to the other supports with a percentage value of 79.8 percent.

Preference for the Two Video Conference Applications Used
Zoom was picked as the preferred video conferencing application over Google Meet based on the preferences of the participants. In the cognitive, social, and teaching presences, it earned the scores of 79.8-86.2 percent with an overall preference percentage of 83 percent. Google Meet earned the scores of 52.4-65.3 percent with the average percentage of 52 percent, which was lower than Zoom's. In comparison, Google Meet was the most preferred for supporting cognitive presence with an average proportion of 51.3 percent. It was followed by support for teaching presence, which received an average of 48.5 percent. Social presence received the least preference, with an average of 43.6 percent. Of the three presences, Google Meet was considered the most suitable for the Discussion, Motivation, and Device supports with an average percentage of 65.3 percent. Collaboration, with a percentage of 52.4 percent, receives the lowest score when compared to other supports.
Based on the preferences of the participants, Zoom and Google Meet appeared to have different strong and weak areas. Zoom's strengths lie in the support for Strategy, while its weaknesses lie in the support for Contextuality. While Google Meet had advantages in the areas of Discussion, Motivation, and Device, it fell short in Collaboration.

Satisfaction with the Two Video Conference Applications Used
Zoom, according to the findings, was the most satisfying video conferencing app. In the aspects of cognitive, social, and teaching presences, Zoom had the satisfaction scores of 80.6-85.4 percent with an average satisfaction percentage of 83 percent. In comparison to Zoom, the satisfaction scores for Google Meet were 56.4-66.1 percent with the overall score of 62 percent.
Zoom had strong satisfaction scores in the social presence aspect with an average percentage of 87.7 percent. Cognitive presence came in second, with an average percentage of 85.5 percent. With a score of 83.7 percent, teaching presence obtained less favourable satisfaction than the other two presences. Meanwhile, the support that obtained the most positive satisfaction Permadi, Ivone, Anugerahwati, Video Conference Application… 1880 response were for Motivation and Material Sharing with a percentage score of 85.4 percent. While Objective and Device had the lowest satisfaction scores compared to other supports, with a percentage value of 80.6 percent. On the other hand, Google Meet was best appreciated for its teaching presence support, which received a score of 48,8 percent on average. Appreciation for social presence support follows with an average percentage of 46.6 percent. When compared to the other two presences, cognitive presence had the lowest positive satisfaction response, with an average score of 45.6 percent. Of the three presences, Communication support obtained the highest positive response with a score of 66.1 percent. Collaboration support, with a percentage of 56.4 percent, obtained the lowest satisfaction score.
In terms of satisfaction, Zoom and Google Meet have different qualities. Zoom's strengths were in the areas of Motivation and Material Sharing, while its weaknesses were in the areas of Objective and Device support. Google Meet appeared to be superior in terms of communication support but was deemed unable to meet satisfaction in Collaboration support.

Experience with Video Conference Application in Emergency Remote Learning
According to the study's findings, the overall degree of experience with Zoom and Google Meet in emergency remote learning was high, with an average proportion of 83 percent and 56 percent, respectively. Thus, based on the experience levels of faculty members and students, such apps may meet the demands of cognitive, social, and teaching presence.
In emergency remote learning, cognitive presence is essential. According to Kanuka and Garrison (2004), cognitive presence is a fundamental component of critical thinking and is required for higher levels of thinking and learning. An application that can support cognitive presence is required for emergency remote learning. Based on finding, both Zoom, and Google Meet can improve cognitive presence in the learning and teaching process by facilitating conversation, contextuality, contribution, and enhancing motivation. This is proven by the average positive response value of Zoom which reaches 84.0 percent. This positive response is the highest average value compared to other presences. The finding is comparable to a study by Ratnawati and Nurhasanah (2021) who reported that the Zoom meeting learning platform made the learning process more pleasant. Meanwhile, Google Meet has an average cognitive presence value of 64.3 percent. Google Meet's positive experience response gets a high percentage value on Motivation compared to other aspects. This is in line with Ningsih (2020) that the use of Google Meet in online learning has a positive impact on students. It is because the Google Meet user interface and user experience are simple and easy to use.
A second essential component of emergency remote learning is social presence. Zoom might be used to offer communication, collaboration, and material exchange efficiently. Similarly, Palupi and Raharjo (2020) claimed that Zoom is successful since it offers unique characteristics such as virtual communication, chat, recording, and simple access. It is revealed in this study that Zoom got a higher positive response in Collaboration about 86.2 percent. In addition, it is simple to install not only on a laptop or computer but also on a smartphone. The rate of collaboration using Google Meet, on the other hand, was only 50% in this study. This reveals that when utilizing Google Meet, the degree of collaboration is lower than when using Zoom. This indicates that the respondents' Google Meet collaboration experience was not as easy, effective, or fluid as it was with Zoom. This is in line with the findings in Ratnawati and Nurhasanah's (2021) study in which the respondents encountered disruptions such as instability and loudness when utilizing Google Meet.
Teaching presence is also a key factor in emergency remote learning. While cognitive and social presence are necessary for supporting higher levels of learning, whether or not those two key aspects can be attained is dependent on the instructor or facilitator of the learning activities or the teaching presence Kanuka and Garrison (2004). Zoom and Google Meet both can support various teaching strategies, feedback, media, learning aims, and learning devices. However, on the Instruction aspect, Zoom received less positive response compared to other aspects. In teaching presence support, Zoom's Instruction aspect gets a score of 75.8 percent. Meanwhile, Google Meet garnered a more positive response by its users on the Objective aspect with a score of 66.9 percent. Learning objectives are very important to determine the direction of student development. Therefore, it is critical for attaining emergency remote learning objectives. Presenting images is another strategy used in the teaching and learning process, particularly in writing classes (Irikawati, 2017). Ratnawati and Nurhasanah (2021) agreed that zoom and Google Meet could give good and entirely collaborative feedback while also achieving the learning goal.
In terms of experience, Zoom provided the best support for facilitating cognitive, social, and teaching presence, with Collaboration as the main strength. Zoom got a positive response in the Collaboration aspect compared to Google Meet which received a much less positive response in this aspect. This is because Zoom has a breakout room feature that is easy and free to use compared to breakout rooms in the Google Meet application, which is not free for users (Fathurrahman, 2021). On the other hand, Zoom got less positive response in the Instruction aspect. It shows that the experience of teacher' teaching instruction is not clearly conveyed enough using these apps. On the other hand, Google Meet only provided moderate support, with Objective as its best advantage. The objective aspect of Google Meet earned the most positive feedback. It has been established that Google Meet can support the teacher in achieving the learning objective.

Preferences for Video Conference Application in Emergency Remote Learning
According to the present data, Zoom was favoured by more than half of the respondents (56.3 percent), whereas Google Meet was preferred by less than half of the respondents (43.7 percent). With an average percentage of 83 percent and 62 percent, respectively, the preference level for using Zoom and Google Meet in emergency remote learning was usually high. Those applications were highly favored for emergency remote learning according to the respondents' preference level.
Both Zoom and Google Meet were chosen for emergency remote learning because they provide elements that enhance cognitive presence in the learning and teaching process in terms of conversation, contextuality, contribution, and incentive. However, from several aspects, Zoom got a less positive response on the Contextuality aspect with a value of 79.8 percent. Meanwhile, Google Meet received a more positive preference response in the Discussion and Motivation aspects compared to other aspects. Even though such programs were well-liked, Zoom received a higher rating percentage and was favoured by more people. As a result, Guzacheva (2020) can support the idea that Zoom can improve learning or perhaps give more effective methods to motivate students.
Zoom was highly preferred because it supports communication, collaboration, and material sharing with percentages above 80 percent with average social presence support about 83.8 percent, which is the second most essential factor of emergency remote learning. A previous study by Ogwunte and Ahmadi (2020) reported that Zoom offers a variety of features that make it simple for students to have face-to-face virtual meetings, such as a share screen for sharing visual and audio-visual assets, asking questions via chat capabilities, and so on. Furthermore, Guzacheva (2020) noted that when utilizing Zoom, English teachers may use the breakout rooms to organize learners in pairs, threes, or whatever size group they choose, which is a fantastic method to encourage pair work or group work while allowing medical students to work independently. Google Meet, on the other hand, was less liked in this survey, particularly when it came to cooperation. Only 52.4 percent of people collaborated using Google Meet. As a result, it is demonstrated that the preference level for collaboration is lower than that of others. This is in contrast to past research findings, students chose Google Meet because it is simple to use and meant to be user-friendly (Aswir, Hadi, & Dewi, 2021;Purwanto & Tannady, 2020).