I don't want to go back to the classroom

[marshwiggle]

In terms of whether asynchronous teaching is more efficient, I think it really depends on the student and the subject. I have taken quite a few of synchronous classes and, at their best, they approach the utility of a well-taught in-person class (and surpass a poorly-taught in-person class). At their worst, they are useless (which can also be said for in-person classes). For learning just skills, they can be very useful, especially if the students are motivated and already have a basis to learn the material.

I think this is pretty accurate. Here's a question: What percentages would you qualify as "well-taught" and "poorly-taught"?

I'd probably count about the best 10% as well-taught, and maybe the bottom 20-30% as poorly-taught.

I'd probably say that a good online class would beat a mediocre in-person class in many cases as well.

[fishbrains]

The caliber of the instruction mattered a LOT.  The instructors I had online were mostly full-timers with relevant degrees.  They ran the gamut from excellent, to challenged in their teaching skills, to just phoning it in. 

This has been my experience. I would add that along with subject matter and caliber of instruction, some experience with teaching and taking online courses helps quite a bit.

COVID actually improved my online asynchronous teaching (CC composition courses on a 6/6 overload) mainly because I didn't have to go to campus to do office hours. Instead of sitting in my office for no f*cking reason other than frequent work interruptions from non-students folks, I told students that I would answer emails within an hour from 10-3 and 4-7 Monday through Friday and within two hours from 10-7 on Saturday, with possible Zoom meetings if the email didn't work (which they don't always do for students). This quick feedback schedule let students know I was ready and willing to answer questions quickly while they were working on class material. Students said this was kind of a game-changer for them compared to their other online courses.

My success rates have gone up over the past year--not by a huge margin, but I didn't see the lower rates that some of my colleagues have lamented about--and my asynchronous online success rates were about the same as success rates in our pre-COVID face-to-face courses. The best part is that this didn't really require much additional effort on my part. Most questions from students were pretty quick and straightforward (many I could answer on my phone if I was up-and-about), I only had to do 8 or 9 Zoom meetings (which were fine because the students showed up ready to talk), and I just set the kitchen timer if needed to make sure I met the hour deadline. And from 3-4 was nap-time. Win-win overall.

Now we are going "back to normal" and we're supposed to be excited about it? Uggers. End of rant: Sorry if I'm a little off-topic here.

[marshwiggle]

COVID actually improved my online asynchronous teaching (CC composition courses on a 6/6 overload) mainly because I didn't have to go to campus to do office hours. Instead of sitting in my office for no f*cking reason other than frequent work interruptions from non-students folks, I told students that I would answer emails within an hour from 10-3 and 4-7 Monday through Friday and within two hours from 10-7 on Saturday, with possible Zoom meetings if the email didn't work (which they don't always do for students). This quick feedback schedule let students know I was ready and willing to answer questions quickly while they were working on class material. Students said this was kind of a game-changer for them compared to their other online courses.

Related to this, I was doing mostly labs asynchronously this year. In person, if a lab is going *smoothly and/or the TAs are handling things well, most of my time in the lab is spent converting oxygen to carbon dioxide. Remotely, I'm at my computer during work hours for the 3 days the lab is available, so I can answer any email pretty quickly. But when there are no questions, (i.e. MOST of the time), I can actually get other work done. All in all, a way better use of my time, with about the same response time as I would have in person.


*In a well-tuned lab, this should be the norm.

[dr_codex]

I'm all for scepticism about standards. I'm sure plenty of online classes are basically scams.

But I will take that scepticism and raise it. I'm not sure that more online classes are more likely to be scams and a waste of time than regular face to face classes. I've seen plenty of faculty meant to be meeting for 3 hour classes let students go after an hour or so, for example. Indeed, I don't really see how it is possible to hold students' attention for 3 hours, so the whole idea of a 3 hour gen class seems bad from the start. But plenty of schools run those evening and weekend 3 hour classes.

If anything, it is easier for administrators to run surveillance on online classes than inspect what is going on in classrooms.

This is certainly true. I warn my students and my colleagues about this at least once a year.

3-hour gen ed classes are possible. The extended time slot is especially valuable for things that take substantial time to set up and break down -- labs, theater workshops, studio art classes, film analysis. No, you cannot just lecture for 180 minutes, but you probably shouldn't be doing that in any course.

[the_geneticist]

I'm all for scepticism about standards. I'm sure plenty of online classes are basically scams.

But I will take that scepticism and raise it. I'm not sure that more online classes are more likely to be scams and a waste of time than regular face to face classes. I've seen plenty of faculty meant to be meeting for 3 hour classes let students go after an hour or so, for example. Indeed, I don't really see how it is possible to hold students' attention for 3 hours, so the whole idea of a 3 hour gen class seems bad from the start. But plenty of schools run those evening and weekend 3 hour classes.

If anything, it is easier for administrators to run surveillance on online classes than inspect what is going on in classrooms.

This is certainly true. I warn my students and my colleagues about this at least once a year.

3-hour gen ed classes are possible. The extended time slot is especially valuable for things that take substantial time to set up and break down -- labs, theater workshops, studio art classes, film analysis. No, you cannot just lecture for 180 minutes, but you probably shouldn't be doing that in any course.

You should NEVER just talk at students for 180 minutes (or worse still - expect them to watch videos of you talking at them for 180 minutes).  I wouldn't even watch a really entertaining movie for that long! 
A class with a 3-hour time slot means that you should embrace the opportunity to run it as a workshop.  My favorite classes to teach were workshops where some of the time was split into "mini lectures", lab work, data analysis & trouble shooting, planning, student presentations, etc.  Even better, as the class progressed, I talked to the students less and less and the students talked with each other about the course materials more and more.

[Caracal]

It is also clear that if there's any point in being in a classroom*, it is due to the social nature of the experience. That means that the learning outcomes should be explicit about that social element, and really classroom and online teaching are oriented to different skill sets. All my students will be doing presentations -- at least in the classes where I am confident that it won't be a total waste of class time.

I don't want to seem rude...but...well, of course. What would learning be if it wasn't social?

[downer]

It is also clear that if there's any point in being in a classroom*, it is due to the social nature of the experience. That means that the learning outcomes should be explicit about that social element, and really classroom and online teaching are oriented to different skill sets. All my students will be doing presentations -- at least in the classes where I am confident that it won't be a total waste of class time.

I don't want to seem rude...but...well, of course. What would learning be if it wasn't social?

Antisocial? Asocial?

I wonder what proportion of face-to-face classes include an explicit element requiring interaction between students?

[ciao_yall]

It is also clear that if there's any point in being in a classroom*, it is due to the social nature of the experience. That means that the learning outcomes should be explicit about that social element, and really classroom and online teaching are oriented to different skill sets. All my students will be doing presentations -- at least in the classes where I am confident that it won't be a total waste of class time.

I don't want to seem rude...but...well, of course. What would learning be if it wasn't social?

Antisocial? Asocial?

I wonder what proportion of face-to-face classes include an explicit element requiring interaction between students?

Mine - probably 75% of the time the students are sharing out their own thoughts, or doing group activities. I find if I say something they dutifully take notes because I'm the prof and it might be on the test. If another student says it, they really react and think about it.

[jerseyjay]

I am not entirely sure what "explicit element requiring interaction between students" means,  but I would say that most of the classes I took as an undergraduate, and all of the undergraduate classes I have taught, require some form of interaction between students. These include, group work, discussion, presentations, etc.

Some classes, of course, have more student interaction (such as language classes where students are supposed to talk to each other in groups) than others (such as courses where the interaction takes the form of discussion at the end of the class) but all have some form of interaction.

The only classes that I have seen that do not require interaction among students are the huge lecture classes where the professor talks for an hour or two in front of a hundred or so students. But even these tend to have recitations where there is more interaction between the students.

[the_geneticist]

It is also clear that if there's any point in being in a classroom*, it is due to the social nature of the experience. That means that the learning outcomes should be explicit about that social element, and really classroom and online teaching are oriented to different skill sets. All my students will be doing presentations -- at least in the classes where I am confident that it won't be a total waste of class time.

I don't want to seem rude...but...well, of course. What would learning be if it wasn't social?

Antisocial? Asocial?

I wonder what proportion of face-to-face classes include an explicit element requiring interaction between students?

All of the ones I teach require a lot of student-student interaction in every class.  Yes, the class has explicit learning goals of working in teams and oral communication. 

[Parasaurolophus]

Indeed, I don't really see how it is possible to hold students' attention for 3 hours, so the whole idea of a 3 hour gen class seems bad from the start. But plenty of schools run those evening and weekend 3 hour classes.

All my classes are three-hour Gen Ed (intro!) sequences (apart from an occasional 2x 1.5hr class). It took some getting used to, and I don't know that it's pedagogically sounder than breaking them up over two days (three seems too broken up to me now). But it works well enough, and my students usually manage to stay engaged for the duration. We take breaks, though, and it's not like it's three hours of lecturing. There's lots of interaction.

It's particularly nice when you want to use class time to workshop papers, have students work through problem sets together in a group, or introduce an educational activity/game. If the periods are too short, doing those things seems to divorce them from the lesson content, rather than reinforcing it.

[Caracal]

It is also clear that if there's any point in being in a classroom*, it is due to the social nature of the experience. That means that the learning outcomes should be explicit about that social element, and really classroom and online teaching are oriented to different skill sets. All my students will be doing presentations -- at least in the classes where I am confident that it won't be a total waste of class time.

I don't want to seem rude...but...well, of course. What would learning be if it wasn't social?

Antisocial? Asocial?

I wonder what proportion of face-to-face classes include an explicit element requiring interaction between students?

This reminds me of the student who asks "is this going to be on the exam?"

[Wahoo Redux]

People will be looking at me again...so I need to lose the weight I put on in the last year.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I was in the classroom in fall 2020 and spring 2021, with a few students there with me and the vast majority zooming in from home. It was terrible. I'm hopeful to be back in a full classroom in fall (fingers crossed).