Covid-19 Response: Evidence of How Higher Ed Can Be Completely Restructured?

[dr_codex]

IHE essay:
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/end-college-we-knew-it

This is, of course, a laundry list familiar to anybody in higher ed during the last five years:

A site-bound coming-of-age experience will persist but will be supplemented by various online offerings, including MOOCs, a wide array of certificate and certification programs, boot camps and other "last-mile" skills programs, and various alternatives to the traditional course- and credits-based model: competency-based, blended, modularized and gamified; stackable credentials; noncredit-to-credit pathways; co-op and other earn-learn models; badges and microcredentials; accelerated degree programs; structured, career-aligned pathways; work-to-learn models; prior learning assessment; and applied bachelor's, among others.

I'd say that all of these have had at least some traction at my place. In some cases, there was pushback (E.g., if we give almost the entire degree's credits for prior skills, what value does the degree have? Isn't it just a "BA/BS equivalency" at that point; all fine, but not something earned at this college). The singular exception is MOOCs, which were always either a philanthropic enterprise (that's the O as in "Open"), or a boondoggle once they started trying to earn revenue. The list certainly encapsulates the hobby horses of state systems over that time.

In some ways, those calls for change have laid some groundwork for more substantial change. For instance, we made up CMS shells for all courses, and populated them, even if they were never used. Possibly a waste of resources, although in some ways it's easier just to do it for everybody rather than trying to track who needs what every semester. It certainly made the emergency pivot to distance learning easier, even if it was not easy. The constant calls to blow everything up -- well represented on this forum -- have at least forced people to more clearly articulate their defenses of the old, even if the revolution was not yet at hand.

And maybe the revolution is at hand. But it isn't just the schools that are going to suffer during a time of disruptive innovation. Many students are poorly prepared for distance learning.

The golden age for Academic Coaches and Consultants has arrived.

[marshwiggle]

It certainly made the emergency pivot to distance learning easier, even if it was not easy. The constant calls to blow everything up -- well represented on this forum -- have at least forced people to more clearly articulate their defenses of the old, even if the revolution was not yet at hand.

The question everyone has been dealing with for weeks now is "How can we make the remote experience as meaningful as possible?" The longer this distancing is enforced, the more the question when the end is in sight will become "How can we make the in-person experience as meaningful as possible?"

Let's face it: with huge lectures, tutorials delivered by TAs, and so on, there are lots of situations where the "face-to-face" description of classes is barely relevant. 

With the technology that exists now, it's vastly cheaper to get people together virtually than physically, so it's definitely time to deliberately consider what experiences can't be easily created virtually so that face-to-face learning is actually worth the cost.

Thinking about how to be deliberate about making in-person interaction most effective is a very good thing.

[dr_codex]

It certainly made the emergency pivot to distance learning easier, even if it was not easy. The constant calls to blow everything up -- well represented on this forum -- have at least forced people to more clearly articulate their defenses of the old, even if the revolution was not yet at hand.

The question everyone has been dealing with for weeks now is "How can we make the remote experience as meaningful as possible?" The longer this distancing is enforced, the more the question when the end is in sight will become "How can we make the in-person experience as meaningful as possible?"

Let's face it: with huge lectures, tutorials delivered by TAs, and so on, there are lots of situations where the "face-to-face" description of classes is barely relevant. 

With the technology that exists now, it's vastly cheaper to get people together virtually than physically, so it's definitely time to deliberately consider what experiences can't be easily created virtually so that face-to-face learning is actually worth the cost.

Thinking about how to be deliberate about making in-person interaction most effective is a very good thing.

Absolutely agree with the bolded paragraph. It's hard to justify the lecture theatre model, which is probably the easiest thing to move online.

[marshwiggle]

It certainly made the emergency pivot to distance learning easier, even if it was not easy. The constant calls to blow everything up -- well represented on this forum -- have at least forced people to more clearly articulate their defenses of the old, even if the revolution was not yet at hand.

The question everyone has been dealing with for weeks now is "How can we make the remote experience as meaningful as possible?" The longer this distancing is enforced, the more the question when the end is in sight will become "How can we make the in-person experience as meaningful as possible?"

Let's face it: with huge lectures, tutorials delivered by TAs, and so on, there are lots of situations where the "face-to-face" description of classes is barely relevant. 

With the technology that exists now, it's vastly cheaper to get people together virtually than physically, so it's definitely time to deliberately consider what experiences can't be easily created virtually so that face-to-face learning is actually worth the cost.

Thinking about how to be deliberate about making in-person interaction most effective is a very good thing.

Absolutely agree with the bolded paragraph. It's hard to justify the lecture theatre model, which is probably the easiest thing to move online.

Actually online is  better than the lecture theatre model in lots of ways.

• Everyone gets an equally good view.
• The volume is adjustable.
• The lecture can be paused, rewound, and repeated as many times as needed (if it's recorded).

Large lecture theatre classes are basically the worst of both worlds.

[Aster]

Universities do not maintain the giant theatre lecture model except for the one reason that it is cheapest and easiest modality.

It is definitely easier and cheaper to operate it compared to converting into a fully online format. The exception to that would be a MOOC-formatted course.

Yay, MOOC's. They did so well when they came out.

[dr_codex]

Universities do not maintain the giant theatre lecture model except for the one reason that it is cheapest and easiest modality.

It is definitely easier and cheaper to operate it compared to converting into a fully online format. The exception to that would be a MOOC-formatted course.

Yay, MOOC's. They did so well when they came out.

Yes, but that's because MOOCs are not courses. They are glorified digital textbooks.

Anything that requires actual teachers is going to take work, and cost money.

Anything that is so obviously easier and cheaper is almost certainly a scam.

[onthefringe]

Universities do not maintain the giant theatre lecture model except for the one reason that it is cheapest and easiest modality.

It is definitely easier and cheaper to operate it compared to converting into a fully online format. The exception to that would be a MOOC-formatted course.

Yay, MOOC's. They did so well when they came out.

Yes, but that's because MOOCs are not courses. They are glorified digital textbooks.

Anything that requires actual teachers is going to take work, and cost money.

Anything that is so obviously easier and cheaper is almost certainly a scam.

That's the saying, right? Cheap. Fast. Good. Pick two...

[bacardiandlime]

Let's face it: with huge lectures, tutorials delivered by TAs, and so on, there are lots of situations where the "face-to-face" description of classes is barely relevant. 

This is true if the only F2F element considered is teacher-student. But there's a lot of social and cultural capital that comes with being F2F with peers too (even making friends in the back row of that large lecture theater).

[spork]

Let's face it: with huge lectures, tutorials delivered by TAs, and so on, there are lots of situations where the "face-to-face" description of classes is barely relevant. 

This is true if the only F2F element considered is teacher-student. But there's a lot of social and cultural capital that comes with being F2F with peers too (even making friends in the back row of that large lecture theater).

Social identity and group affiliation are baked into the business model of tuition-dependent, low-enrollment institutions in the USA. E.g., students who live in campus dorms and are members of DIII sports teams often have better retention rates than commuter students who don't play sports. It's a larger, more reliable revenue stream. Until, of course, there are not enough students living on campus or playing sports.

Think of the implications of this job advertisement:

"As part of Western University's Online and Blended Academic Continuity Strategy for 2020-21, the Centre for Teaching and Learning is hiring a team of 11 Instructional Designers and 2 eLearning and Curriculum Specialists on temporary, one-year full-time contracts. Incumbents may work remotely for the duration of the contract and need not move to London, ON."

[dr_codex]

Let's face it: with huge lectures, tutorials delivered by TAs, and so on, there are lots of situations where the "face-to-face" description of classes is barely relevant. 

This is true if the only F2F element considered is teacher-student. But there's a lot of social and cultural capital that comes with being F2F with peers too (even making friends in the back row of that large lecture theater).

One of the earliest pieces of advice that I got as a teacher (I was a PhD candidate, teaching my own section in a gateway course) was that a primary objective was to have the students bond; If they bonded against me, that was fine.

[marshwiggle]

Let's face it: with huge lectures, tutorials delivered by TAs, and so on, there are lots of situations where the "face-to-face" description of classes is barely relevant. 

This is true if the only F2F element considered is teacher-student. But there's a lot of social and cultural capital that comes with being F2F with peers too (even making friends in the back row of that large lecture theater).

That's an interesting point. I'd be curious to know if anyone has studied that. A couple of things come to mind:

• The value of interaction is going to vary a lot by class; in some of my classes, I made friends like that, while in others I didn't connect with anyone.
• The value of interaction is going to vary a lot by student; some interact with peope around them, while some always sit alone.

All of that has to be weighed against the value of asynchronous online lectures with the ability to pause, replay, etc. as I stated earlier.

My guess is that which works better, and how much, will depend on the student, but it would be fascinating to research.

[Hegemony]

I suspect that I'm a much better teacher in my online classes. In a face-to-face class, students frequently come up with something I hadn't anticipated, and I get that deer-in-the-headlights feeling — time stops, the brain has completely stopped functioning, and I'm desperately searching around for my ability to speak. Later on I thunk myself in the forehead — "Why didn't I point out that ...?" I also have a terrible sense of whether the material I've planned for the class is going to last the right amount of time. Half the time the hour has ended and we've only covered 10% of the material; the other half, we've covered all of it by twenty minutes in and I'm desperately spinning out the discussion. I think the students probably don't notice how I'm having to stage manage everything on the spur of the moment, trying to make it look as if it was all planned ahead, and as if my brain seizing up is me thinking profoundly about their deep questions. But it's not optimum.

Teaching online — which I do asynchronously — I finally feel as if I can actually get down what I want to say, and respond in discussions with observations that actually advance the discussion, instead of whatever I can scrape up in my brain. I know a lot of instructors really appreciate the energy and dynamics of a live classroom, and I see their point. But I have to say that for me, online teaching has some real advantages. Which is handy, considering our current situation.

[spork]

This is a press release from SNHU, but worth reading: https://www.snhu.edu/about-us/newsroom/2020/04/full-tuition-scholarships-for-incoming-freshmen.

[dr_codex]

I suspect that I'm a much better teacher in my online classes. In a face-to-face class, students frequently come up with something I hadn't anticipated, and I get that deer-in-the-headlights feeling — time stops, the brain has completely stopped functioning, and I'm desperately searching around for my ability to speak. Later on I thunk myself in the forehead — "Why didn't I point out that ...?" I also have a terrible sense of whether the material I've planned for the class is going to last the right amount of time. Half the time the hour has ended and we've only covered 10% of the material; the other half, we've covered all of it by twenty minutes in and I'm desperately spinning out the discussion. I think the students probably don't notice how I'm having to stage manage everything on the spur of the moment, trying to make it look as if it was all planned ahead, and as if my brain seizing up is me thinking profoundly about their deep questions. But it's not optimum.

Teaching online — which I do asynchronously — I finally feel as if I can actually get down what I want to say, and respond in discussions with observations that actually advance the discussion, instead of whatever I can scrape up in my brain. I know a lot of instructors really appreciate the energy and dynamics of a live classroom, and I see their point. But I have to say that for me, online teaching has some real advantages. Which is handy, considering our current situation.

Funny, but I feel almost exactly the opposite. I feel a lot of pressure when writing things for a course to be absolutely accurate, when I can be more speculative in a discussion. Also, there are topics that I would broach in a room that I would be much cagier about in an online forum, where tone is so difficult to modulate. I dropped a discussion of racist language in a text this semester, and not just because we were pressed for time.

Also, I'm delighted when students say things that I didn't expect, and take the conversation in a radically different direction. It makes the live process worthwhile.

I can understand where you're coming from; my psyche is just best suited for seminars, I guess.

[apl68]

I suspect that I'm a much better teacher in my online classes. In a face-to-face class, students frequently come up with something I hadn't anticipated, and I get that deer-in-the-headlights feeling — time stops, the brain has completely stopped functioning, and I'm desperately searching around for my ability to speak. Later on I thunk myself in the forehead — "Why didn't I point out that ...?" I also have a terrible sense of whether the material I've planned for the class is going to last the right amount of time. Half the time the hour has ended and we've only covered 10% of the material; the other half, we've covered all of it by twenty minutes in and I'm desperately spinning out the discussion. I think the students probably don't notice how I'm having to stage manage everything on the spur of the moment, trying to make it look as if it was all planned ahead, and as if my brain seizing up is me thinking profoundly about their deep questions. But it's not optimum.

Teaching online — which I do asynchronously — I finally feel as if I can actually get down what I want to say, and respond in discussions with observations that actually advance the discussion, instead of whatever I can scrape up in my brain. I know a lot of instructors really appreciate the energy and dynamics of a live classroom, and I see their point. But I have to say that for me, online teaching has some real advantages. Which is handy, considering our current situation.

Funny, but I feel almost exactly the opposite. I feel a lot of pressure when writing things for a course to be absolutely accurate, when I can be more speculative in a discussion. Also, there are topics that I would broach in a room that I would be much cagier about in an online forum, where tone is so difficult to modulate. I dropped a discussion of racist language in a text this semester, and not just because we were pressed for time.

Also, I'm delighted when students say things that I didn't expect, and take the conversation in a radically different direction. It makes the live process worthwhile.

I can understand where you're coming from; my psyche is just best suited for seminars, I guess.

I suppose that brings up the question of synchronous vs. asynchronous classes in online education.  I've had experience of both as a student.  The asynchronous classes were much more convenient for scheduling purposes, of course, and weren't as subject to being crippled by technical glitches.  But the synchronous classes often benefited a lot from the real-time discussion and interaction.