Coronavirus

[clean]

I am still waiting to hear how my community college will conduct online courses in welding and auto repair.

I saw an example on The Music Man!  They are going to use 'The Think Method'! 
It all worked out for everyone there! Especially Marian The Librarian!


It also worked out for Ron "Opie Cunningham" Howard!

[sprout]

But I think the question for a lot of us is, "After I've done all of this work to make reasonable virtual labs, are there at least a subset of students (such as non-majors) who might want to take this course that would get reasonable value from the virtual version?"

There might be a surprising number of cases where the answer is a qualified yes.

This has been a part of my thinking/planning. We have majors courses where the hands-on practical skills in lab really are a critical part of what students need to get out of the course, and will be expected to have when they transfer.  But in the non-majors introductory courses, the basic goals are to get students to learn how to think like a scientist and to understand some fundamental disciplinary concepts.  They can still get this if they're, for example, learning how to use a microscope in theory but not actually turning a physical knob.

I am still waiting to hear how my community college will conduct online courses in welding and auto repair.

Ugh, yeah.  We're looking to have limited return to in-person teaching for prof-tech programs for late spring and into summer.  They're higher up the list than science labs.

[bacardiandlime]

Wouldn't welding gear offer pretty good coronavirus protection?

[Aster]

All of the For-Credit, clinicum and practicum based coursework at Big Urban College is being converted to remote for the Fall. But students will be keeping their assigned class meeting times for possible synchronous instruction. Actually, we *really* just kept the assigned class meeting times as we always use, and we reuse the same plan every semester, and nobody wanted to mess with it.

Our certification and licensure vo-tech programs will proceed with on-campus instruction as needed for professional certification requirements, same as sprout's. But not the For-Credit courses that teach similar critical professional training skillsets, noooooo we're just gonna slap that junk online. It's disappointing too see how poorly valued the professional training of For-Credit courses has recently been viewed. I feel that perhaps too much Ivory Tower Syndrome in the last decades has left the Academy rather complacent in either caring about or properly communicating the importance of clinicum and practicum based coursework. I wince every single time our state governor gets on the podium and flippantly states "Oh, we're just moving all instruction online" like classroom instruction is nothing more than a whimsical preference. I doubt he's ever taken an online course in his life, and his kids are like most upper class kids and schooled in nice fancy classroom-based schools and never touch an online anything except as a novelty or accessory.

I'm also disappointed and surprised that hands-on, professional skill training for 4-week certificate programs are viewed as mandatory, but hands-on, professional training for 4-year bachelor's degree programs are given a shrug and a Zoom account and told to Fake It Until You Make It. Maybe that demonstrated just how much greater political pull the wham-bam certificate programs have vs. the full college degrees. Or maybe it's just a heck of a lot easier for universities to articulate the short list of professional training that goes into a 4-week certificate course vs. the convoluted but order-of-magnitude greater professional training in a 4-year technical or applied sciences degree. Sort of like reading a sentence fragment vs. reading a paragraph.

Or, the vo-tech courses just happen to have a lot less students in them, and it's possible to actually bring them onto campus. So, it's a choice between giving nice things to some students, vs. not giving nice things to any students at all. 

[Caracal]

To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)



They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.

Sure, I agree about that. The actual plans for classes my uni has seem ok in terms of allowing more physical distancing and protecting people at higher risk. The part that I haven't seen anything about is under what conditions we wouldn't  have in person classes. It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

[polly_mer]

It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This is actually one of the worst solutions, as has been discussed recently in a variety of higher ed places with experts who are doing the planning, running scenarios, and talking through the situation in consultation with other relevant experts.

insidehighered.com is free to all readers.

The Chronicle of Higher Education often posts links to the free version of articles through its Twitter account (@chronicle).

Stop reading "the news" with its oversimplified versions of everything and go read something that has sufficient nuance to be worthwhile as background.

[nebo113]

Lab accommodations for visual impaired students might be a starting point for on line labs.

[Caracal]

It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This is actually one of the worst solutions, as has been discussed recently in a variety of higher ed places with experts who are doing the planning, running scenarios, and talking through the situation in consultation with other relevant experts.

insidehighered.com is free to all readers.

The Chronicle of Higher Education often posts links to the free version of articles through its Twitter account (@chronicle).

Stop reading "the news" with its oversimplified versions of everything and go read something that has sufficient nuance to be worthwhile as background.

This is an argument from authority. Why am I wrong that it might be necessary to think of disruptions in classes as a new normal? Everybody who you consider reputable who you've read in Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle thinks so! Since I don't think so, I must be an ignorant person.

Your commitment to logical fallacies of various sorts is what makes you such a toxic presence on this forum. It spins discussions off into totally unproductive avenues. I'm tempted to tell you that, in fact, I read all kinds of things, and that I often find Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle annoying and useless in various ways. But, then I'm the person telling everyone that, actually, I read the Atlantic and I find the Chronicle rather tiresome...Who gives a crap about that?

Of course what you aren't doing is actually engaging. Of course there's an argument to be made that disruptions would be too chaotic or too damaging. Why don't you tell us about it? If you've seen arguments like this you found compelling you could link to them. Then we could, you know, discuss them.

[marshwiggle]

To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)



They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.

Sure, I agree about that. The actual plans for classes my uni has seem ok in terms of allowing more physical distancing and protecting people at higher risk. The part that I haven't seen anything about is under what conditions we wouldn't  have in person classes. It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This would be a nightmare for labs. All of the labs build on one another, working up (often) to some sort of culminating activity or project. Some activities can be done virtually, others can't. If labs are going to be virtual, then they can't all be drop-in replacements for in-person labs. So you either need to design a complete sequence of virtual labs, with appropriate culminating activities, OR you need to have all the labs in-person with the in-person culminating activities.

Anyone who doesn't get that has no clue about how labs work.

[Caracal]

To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)



They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.

Sure, I agree about that. The actual plans for classes my uni has seem ok in terms of allowing more physical distancing and protecting people at higher risk. The part that I haven't seen anything about is under what conditions we wouldn't  have in person classes. It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This would be a nightmare for labs. All of the labs build on one another, working up (often) to some sort of culminating activity or project. Some activities can be done virtually, others can't. If labs are going to be virtual, then they can't all be drop-in replacements for in-person labs. So you either need to design a complete sequence of virtual labs, with appropriate culminating activities, OR you need to have all the labs in-person with the in-person culminating activities.

Anyone who doesn't get that has no clue about how labs work.

I'm not in STEM, so that's true enough. Look, the disruptions could be a big problem. Obviously, that needs to be factored into any decisions about in person classes. The problem is that there's no way for anyone to have much confidence that this is going to go away anytime real soon. That doesn't mean that having fall classes is the right decision for any particular school. Maybe it is the wrong decision for all of them. However, I don't think it works to just say that we can't have classes if we don't know if there might be disruptions as a general principle.

[the_geneticist]

To have any shred of credibility, they need to publicize the conditions under which they'd revert to virtual before the term starts. This time it was unforseeable, but in the Fall it is not only forseeable, but with significant probability. (For instance, here they announced Friday after classes were done that as of Monday we'd be virtual. Not even a day to get ready. This time it's understandable. In the Fall that sort of thing would be grossly incompetent.)



They don't need a crystal ball; for months the prediction has been that a vaccine won't likely be available until at least mid to late 2021, and until then more outbreaks are a real threat. To open before then is a calculated risk. If it's carefully planned, then the plans should be made public as much as possible to avoid blindsiding everyone if the situation warrants another shutdown.

Sure, I agree about that. The actual plans for classes my uni has seem ok in terms of allowing more physical distancing and protecting people at higher risk. The part that I haven't seen anything about is under what conditions we wouldn't  have in person classes. It seems possible that we may have to learn to think of this almost the way we think of weather. Classes could be suspended for a week, or two and then come back in some circumstances. That still would probably be on short notice, but the key would be clarity about the triggers for these things.

This would be a nightmare for labs. All of the labs build on one another, working up (often) to some sort of culminating activity or project. Some activities can be done virtually, others can't. If labs are going to be virtual, then they can't all be drop-in replacements for in-person labs. So you either need to design a complete sequence of virtual labs, with appropriate culminating activities, OR you need to have all the labs in-person with the in-person culminating activities.

Anyone who doesn't get that has no clue about how labs work.

As someone who's entire job is based on designing labs, this 1000%.

Our administration is pushing the idea that classes need to have both an in-person and "remote" option.  Pair that with the ideas that "no student can be made to attend in-person", "no instructor can be made to teach in-person", and we "maintain social distancing in classrooms".  Our lab rooms normally have 24 students.  With social distancing of 6', we could fit at most 6 students.  Any of whom could decide on any given day that they do not feel safe going to class, including the TA.  Some of the labs that we teach in person CANNOT be taught online and I've had to swap them out for other activities (e.g. a diving physiology lab with students as the divers).  This is a logistical nightmare of EPIC proportions.  There is no way to do this that is not horrible disruptive at best, deadly at worst. 
I refuse to put my TAs in an unsafe situation by asking them to teach in-person.  I refuse to more than double their workload (and mine!) by asking them to teach 2 versions of their classes.
We will be teaching 100% online labs in Fall.  The Admin folks will realize it eventually. 

[Aster]

We're in a temporary emergency. Colleges are operating in a temporary emergency. Everyone is extremely unhappy. It is a terrible environment for teaching. It is a terrible environment for learning.

Just do the best you can, under the circumstances. I'm planning on throwing out nearly all of the remote-converted curriculum I'm using now and will use in the Fall. I don't need it and I don't want it. It's a band-aid. It works well enough for the emergency.

But unless you actually are wanting to migrate your courses permanently into fully online instruction, don't work yourself into a pother trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Students are going to be highly stressed and pissed no matter how bad or how good your remote curriculum is.

Like Caracal said, colleges are not going to stop offering courses this Fall. While many are doing that for the summer, summers represent a tiny sliver of college revenues. The true meat and potatoes of college educations are the traditional academic terms.

Most clinicum and practicum courses are going to be an educational write-off. They'll be "offered", but in online format. Outside of certain academic disciplines that don't actually require experiential or hands-on training, only noob professors and unqualified administrators would attest that online-converted clinicum and practicum coursesare equivalent or even adequate. Most of the government regulators (e.g. Department of Education) and professional consultation groups (e.g. American Chemical Society) understand this, hence the waivers and "special circumstances" language they've inserted into their webpages.

Worrying about things that we cannot control well (or at all) might not be the best use of our time. Over the last week, I've come to the realization that my time is probably better spent thinking not for the summer or Fall, but for what we'll do *immediately after* the pandemic is over and students can return to campus and return to feelings of normalcy. There is going to be a crap ton of remediation needing temporary embedding into many, many courses. Almost all students will be less prepared in their degree plans and majors as a consequence of courses they've taken during the pandemic. While there is only so much that we and students can do for those pandemic courses, remediation afterwards may be the better way to deal with the situation.

Graduating seniors are still hozed, though.

[marshwiggle]

As someone who's entire job is based on designing labs, this 1000%.

Nice to have a kindred spirit.

Our administration is pushing the idea that classes need to have both an in-person and "remote" option.  Pair that with the ideas that "no student can be made to attend in-person", "no instructor can be made to teach in-person", and we "maintain social distancing in classrooms".  Our lab rooms normally have 24 students.  With social distancing of 6', we could fit at most 6 students.

I'd say that's probably the typical scenario for most of the disciplines I'm familiar with; a lab with more than 40 or so would be VERY unusual. As far as distancing goes, there's not 6' between the rows of lab benches in most of my labs, (at least not when there are people AT the benches), so the situation is marginal at best.

Any of whom could decide on any given day that they do not feel safe going to class, including the TA.

That is insane.

Some of the labs that we teach in person CANNOT be taught online and I've had to swap them out for other activities (e.g. a diving physiology lab with students as the divers).  This is a logistical nightmare of EPIC proportions.  There is no way to do this that is not horrible disruptive at best, deadly at worst. 
I refuse to put my TAs in an unsafe situation by asking them to teach in-person.  I refuse to more than double their workload (and mine!) by asking them to teach 2 versions of their classes.
We will be teaching 100% online labs in Fall. The Admin folks will realize it eventually.

For my course with about 240 students, there are already 13 lab sections. If we cut those in half for distancing, then the labs for that single course become a kind of instructor purgatory where I'd be doomed for the entire term. Completely virtual is the only remotely workable option.

Looking at my existing learning objectives, I can achieve about 80% of them virtually, and there are a few things I can do virtually that I wouldn't do in person. (Like having them do things that are "wrong" and seeing the outcome.)

[the_geneticist]

The big question is, when will they tell the students that their large-enrollment classes (i.e. ALL of their lower level courses) will be online?  Registration starts on Monday. . . .

[histchick]

Suggests 70% of schools are planning to be in-person in the fall.

That many campuses fully in-person seems unlikely.  More likely to have at least 70% mostly online for fall.  "Mostly online" meaning a few exceptions for particular programs with restricted time and conditions on campus.

I applaud Cal State for making the decision public now so that 500,000 students, faculty, and staff can plan accordingly.

Many universities start up in late August.  Make the decision and let people know by June 15.

This.  I'm in a system that starts in mid-August.  The party line is that we're planning to be face-to-face in the fall.  Unofficially, many plans are being made to continue most classes online.