Co-authored with Simon Lightfoot and originally published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 24 June 2021. It’s been over 15 months since we’ve had to suddenly move our courses online. A time during which we have learned many new things about synchronous versus asynchronous learning, about the technicalities of Microsoft Teams and Zoom, but also about the difficulties of maintaining a learning community of students and staff in an online setting. The two of us have always had an interest in issues pertaining to teaching and learning. Something that we’ve written about (for instance here and here) and also discussed during several conferences (including the first-ever European Teaching & Learning Conference in Maastricht in 2014). A few months back we were having an online chat about our online teaching and learning experience. We thought that it would be nice to organise a transnational exchange between the University of Leeds’ Faculty of Social Sciences and Maastricht University’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. On 28 May 2021 over 20 colleagues from both faculties, plus a student from each, joint us to reflect on over a year of online teaching and learning. This is what we discussed. Possibilities There was a general feeling that technology should not replace the personal touch but can add a personal touch. Many of the participants noted the increased accessibility and flexibility offered by (a)synchronous online teaching. In both faculties, there was a sense that components of active learning pedagogy particularly made online teaching more effective and enjoyable. Some tools allow for more interaction. Students who might normally be reluctant to ask a question in a large lecture setting, seem to have been more willing to do so in the Zoom chat. Padlet, an online collaboration platform, offers opportunities for students to jointly tackle an assignment or question without the at times awkward setting of the breakout room. In addition, tools such as podcasts and videos allow students to study at their own pace and in their own time, which can be particularly important for those with caring duties or jobs. The way that technology can unlock time for some students does allow flexible learning to suit the increasingly diverse student body. Lastly, colleagues also observed that more than ever before students thanked staff for their lectures, seminars and workshops. This was very much appreciated in these challenging times. Constraints
Participants also noted several challenges pertaining to online teaching and learning. This first and foremost concerned the lack of informal interaction, not just during lectures, seminars and workshops, but also before and after. This can even result in a feeling of isolation that might come with more problems than just a lack of engagement with university. This issue was raised by both academic staff and the two students, Lara and Luke. Staff also noted the issue of workload. Recording a podcast or a video can be time-consuming and is often not compensated in the same way as an on-campus lecture. In addition, while such asynchronous activities certainly can be a contribution, they often require additional lectures, seminars or workshops to go into detail or to have time for Q&A. Finally, while more active learning activities were valued, many felt that they came with a need for more scaffolding to help students make the most of online learning. Keeping the balance between student-centred and teacher-led learning was seen as a challenge. Final thoughts Overall, we found the event very fruitful. And judging from the many positive reactions we received during and after, other participants thought so too. Several important issues were brought to the table, including staff and students’ digital skills, the role of emotions and human interaction, and the issue of workload. One particularly telling observation was that perhaps the online/face2face dimension is less of an issue in some areas than we first thought. For example, some of the reflections were more about engaging versus non-engaging learning activities rather than online versus face2face and that good pedagogy – whatever the platform – requires structure, ground rules and clear instructions. Colleagues had embraced the opportunity to adapt teaching formats and activities to make them more engaging. They did this via enhancing student ownership/co-creation, addressing emergent real-world issues such as the COVID pandemic from an interdisciplinary perspective and experimenting with new forms of assessment. Many of these changes indeed do not depend on online or face2face formats, but some elements were easier to organize online, for example creating opportunities for students to consult with external experts. We are looking into possible follow-up events to address these issues in further detail. Given that both institutions are members of the World University Network, we hope that this is the starting point of a broader discussion, perhaps resulting in a live event in the future. Because, as one of the participants, Alexandra Mihai, has emphasised time and time again in her excellent blog The Educationalist, continuous reflection on teaching and learning is important and something that ideally takes place between colleagues across departmental and even national borders! About the authors Patrick Bijsmans is Associate Professor in Teaching and Learning European Studies at Maastricht University’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Simon Lightfoot is Pro Dean for Student Education and Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds’ Faculty of Social Sciences. In addition to an interest in teaching and learning, Patrick and Simon also share an interest in cycling and a good beer.
34 Comments
Originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 23 April 2021. I was recently asked to test a new touch screen to check its potential contribution to teaching after the Summer. While we’re all hoping to return to on-campus teaching by then, I used the test to get some additional insights about equipment and hybrid teaching. After all, if there’s one thing we’ve learned these past few months, it’s that it’s difficult to predict the development of the pandemic. The new screen is vast, as you can see from the pictures below (and especially so in that relatively small room). It offers all kinds of options, including a decent hand-writing functionality (including a ‘pen’) and opportunities to add additional apps and equipment. This includes, for instance, the use of airplay to connect your Macbook, but also adding dedicated cameras, mics, etc. But did the screen have an added value? I first gave a lecture using the screen. Here its added value was quite apparent to me. I was much less bounded by screen and camera than I would ‘normally’ have been by my (home) office set-up. This is despite the latter coming with a fairly large screen, plus a height-adjustable desk. I could easily move around and use much more body language. And when students’ faces popped up on the screen for questions, I had the feeling that we were less detached from each other due to the life-size images. The only drawback was that the screen was hooked on to an ethernet cable, which meant that I could not wirelessly connect my Macbook. But I’ve been told that this is going to be solved soon. So far, so good. I also organised two hybrid tutorial sessions in one of our first-year undergrad courses, each with 3 students accompanying me in the room, while the rest were online.* Students were informed in advance that this would be a small pilot. I also informed them about some of the possible complications that we might run into, such as those discussed by Chad last June. You should know that in Maastricht we tend to work with student discussion leaders and notetakers. I specifically instructed the discussion leaders to maintain a connection between online and on-campus students. In addition, I arranged to have an online discussion leader with an on-campus notetaker in my first group, whereas in my second group the discussion leader was on-campus and the notetaker online. This would allow me to see if there is a set-up that works best. So, how did it go? I asked students to complete a short survey afterward (20 out of the 24 attending students completed the survey). As expected, they had different views on how the hybrid setting impacted the quality of the discussions as compared to our regular online meetings. Out of six on-campus students, five completed the survey and all thought the experience was better. As one of the students put it, “it was so good to have a class with real people and not through a screen”. All five referred to enjoying the discussions with their fellow students in the actual room. They noticed that not everything went well – some sounds issues, in particular, but also at times a disconnect between on-campus and online students. Yet overall, the on-campus students felt that discussions went better and were more lively, also with the online students. The online students were less impressed. Plus they all virtually gave the same feedback, whether in the group with the online or the on-campus discussion leader. First, quite a few commented on the sound quality. On-campus contributions to the discussions were not always audible. Second, the on-campus group wasn’t always fully visible to the online students, which was party due to the camera angle and partly due to the need to keep a distance. The size of the room also didn’t offer space for a different seating arrangement. And, thirdly, there was the reoccurring disconnect between on-campus and online students. One online student referred to sometimes feeling like a spectator, which, another student wrote, was partly due to “the participants in real-life not looking at the screen all the time”.
None of this really came as a surprise to me. Yet, unfortunately, I was also unable to prevent these issues from occurring. Clearly the fancy screen with lots of trimmings also did not matter here. But, more importantly, this again raises questions about the viability of hybrid teaching. In my opinion, it is probably better to have separate on-campus and online groups – even though, as Arjan and I wrote before, this too comes with its own challenges. But these can be solved. The potential disconnect between on-campus and online students in a hybrid setting to me is more problematic, as it may result in unequal learning opportunities. * A huge thank you goes to the students who attended the sessions: Jill Bartholmy, Emma Begas, Jeanne Brunhes, Adam Ceccato, Noah Chebib, Carl Colonius, Boti Czagány, Jos de Heij, Lilian Giebler, Vincent Halder, Xavier Heck, Sanne Hocks, Julia Hufnagel, Leila Kahnt, Anna La Placa, Carolina Lean Santiago, Liam Lodder, Arianne Michopoulou, Mayanne Pagé, Simone Palladino, Emili Stefanova, Mae Thibaut, Tessa Urban and Victoria Wenninger. |
Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|