Lessons learned from reflections on supporting the transition to remote learning following the first lockdown of the Covid-19 pandemic.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v9i2.479Keywords:
blended learning, remote learning, curriculum development, active learning, communicationAbstract
Higher education has a rich history of pedagogical innovation and of championing blended and online learning for its students. However, the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic required quick action to enable courses and programmes to be delivered remotely – almost overnight. Following this initial shift, preparations were made to prepare for the worst and expect the best with a new academic year on the horizon. Academics and professional services staff came together to tackle the most challenging change in higher education in more than a generation. This case study shares two models created out of the process of supporting this transition at a Scottish university. The first model provides a route and process for shifting degree course components (i.e. courses or modules) to remote learning and teaching, which can also be used to provide consistency across a degree programme in order to enhance the student experience. The second model was inspired by a cycle used in professional media practice and was adapted to encourage active learning to be embedded at the grassroots of the curriculum – essentially in every teaching and learning event. Drawing on feedback from academics involved in the process, this article identifies the lessons learned from supporting the transition of delivery that mainly had an on-campus first approach (with varying elements of blended learning), to one that features pedagogical innovation at its forefront and is now set to remain permanently in the curricula. This paper will also reflect on how the process of revamping teaching and learning due to short-term necessity has provided an opportunity for curriculum development that embraces a range of sound academic practice, including: active learning; establishing effective communication channels; community building; managing students’ expectations; as well as retaining “jewels of the curriculum” (Cousin, 2006). Furthermore, these models can be applied to any academic discipline.
References
Biggs, J. (1999). What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
Biggs, J,. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching For Quality Learning At University. 4th Ed. New Maidenhead: Society For Research Into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive Alignment in University Teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5-22.
Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education. High Educ 79, 1023-1037. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w
Cousin, G. (2006). An Introduction to Threshold Concepts. Planet, 17(1), 4-5. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.11120/plan.2006.00170004
Cunningham, C.M., and White, T.L. (2020). What are they trying to tell me? Large-scale viability of the Start, Stop, Continue teaching evaluation method. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1810099
Deuze, M. and Dimoudi, C., (2002). Online journalists in the Netherlands: Towards a profile of a new profession. Journalism, 3(1), 85-100. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F146488490200300103
Dhillon, J. (2000). Improving Information and its Communication in Higher Education: challenges and strategies. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 5(1), 77-89. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13596740000200068
Garrison, D.R. and Kanuka, H., (2004). Blended Learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Gibbs, G., (1988). Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit.
Harden, R. M. (2002). Developments in outcome-based education. Medical Teacher, 24(2), 117-120. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220120669
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27, 1-12. Retrieved 11 February 2021, from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Hoon, A., Oliver, E., Szpakowska, K., & Newton, P. (2015). Use of the ‘Stop, Start, Continue’ method is associated with the production of constructive qualitative feedback by students in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 755-767. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956282
Kim, J., & Maloney, E. (2020). Learning Innovation and the Future of Higher Education. Maryland: JHU Press.
Knight, P.T. (2002). Learning from Schools. Higher Education, 44(2), 283-298. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016330531437
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J. H., & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): implications for course design and evaluation. Improving student learning diversity and inclusivity, 4, 53-64.
McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73-81.
Martin, F., Polly, D. and Ritzhaupt, A., (2020). Bichronous online learning: Blending asynchronous and synchronous online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 8 September, 1-11. Retrieved 13 February 2021, from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/9/bichronous-online-learning-blending-asynchronous-and-synchronous-online-learning
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual Series in Educational Innovation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Menter, I., Elliot, D., Hulme, M., Lewin, J., & Lowden, K. (2011). What is a research question?. In A Guide to Practitioner Research in Education (pp.30-46). London: Sage.
Meyer, J.H.F., Land, R. and Davies, P. (2006). Implications of Threshold Concepts for Course Design and Evaluation. In Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. (Eds.), Overcoming Barriers To Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, (pp.195-206). Abingdon: Routledge.
Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In Rust, C. (Ed.), Improving Student Learning - Theory and Practice Ten Years On, (pp.412-424). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD).
Morrison, G. R., Anglin, G. J. (2006). An Instructional Design Approach for Effective Shovelware: Modifying materials for distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 63-74.
QAA. (2018). UK Quality Code - Advice and Guidance (Learning and Teaching). Retrieved 4 March 2021, from: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/qc-a-g-learning-and-teaching.pdf?sfvrsn=1f2ac181_6
Race, P. (2019). The Lecturer's Toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching. 5th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. 3rd edition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sambell, K., and Brown, S. (2020). The Changing Landscape of Assessment: Some possible replacements for unseen, time-constrained, face-to-face invigilated exams. Retrieved 4 March, 2021, from: https://sally-brown.net/kay-sambell-and-sally-brown-covid-19-assessment-collection/
Sargeant, A. M. (2016). Partnerships for success: Working together in higher education for student success. Collaborate: Libraries in Learning Innovation, 1(1). Retrieved from: https://ojs.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/index.php/COL/article/view/4417
Stein, J., & Graham, C. R. (2020). Essentials for Blended Learning: A standards-based guide. Abingdon: Routledge.
University of Glasgow. (2018). Seven Active Learning Principles. Retrieved 23 March, 2021, from: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/anywhere/blendedteaching
University of Glasgow. (2020a). Underpinning Principles of Course (Re)design. Retrieved 23 March, 2021, from: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/anywhere/blendedteaching
University of Glasgow. (2020b). Digital Accessibility Guidance. Retrieved 23 March, 2021, from: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/digitalaccessibility/
University of Glasgow. (2020c). Glasgow Anywhere. Retrieved 23 March, 2021, from: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/anywhere/
University of Glasgow. (2021). Accessible & Inclusive Learning Policy. Retrieved 26 March, 2021, from: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/senateoffice/policies/studentsupport/ailp/#policyandguidelines
Voogt, J.M., Pieters, J.M., and Handelzalts, A. (2016) Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: effects, mechanisms, and conditions, Educational Research and Evaluation, 22:3-4, 121-140, DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725
Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3-4), 121-140. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725
Ward, M. (2002). Journalism Online. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
