“Making Face-to-Face Matter Again: The LAVIDA Teaching and Learning Framework.”

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56433/vnep3z88

Keywords:

Face-to-face teaching; Flexible learning; Belonging; Student engagement; Teaching and Learning design

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted established pedagogic routines and challenged assumptions about the purpose of face-to-face learning in higher education. As teaching moved online, notions of engagement, belonging, and attendance were re-examined. When universities reopened, students’ expectations of flexibility persisted, requiring educators to reconsider how classroom participation could remain meaningful. This reflective paper introduces the LAVIDA Teaching and Learning Framework (LAVIDA TLF), a structured yet adaptable model developed to support autonomy, belonging, and purposeful participation in post-pandemic teaching. The framework comprises five iterative stages - LAV (Literature, Audio, Visual), followed by the in-class stages; Introduce, Deepen, Apply, and Create & Capture.

Drawing on Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory (SDT), aligning with principles associated with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 2018), and informed by Biesta’s (2013) conception of teaching as relational and intentional, LAVIDA positions educator expertise and learner autonomy in dynamic balance through deliberate shifts in pedagogic control across a structured learning cycle. Early reflections suggest that providing students with choice in preparation, structured dialogue, applied learning activities, and planned consolidation enhances engagement and belonging while maintaining academic rigour. The framework demonstrates how post-pandemic pedagogy can preserve flexibility and inclusion without diminishing the central role of teaching. Designed for adaptation across disciplines and wider educational or professional learning contexts, LAVIDA TLF offers a conceptual model and practical guide for educators seeking to sustain motivation and participation in face-to-face, blended, or online learning environments.

 

References

Biesta, G. (2013). The beautiful risk of education. London: Routledge.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press / McGraw-Hill Education.

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1701

Jimola, F. E., & Ofodu, G. O. (2021). Sustaining learning during COVID-19 seismic shift: The need to develop flexible pedagogy. Interdisciplinary Journal of Education Research, 3(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.51986/ijer-2021.vol3.01.02

Marshall, T., Keville, S., Cain, A., & Adler, J. R. (2022). Facilitating reflection: A review and synthesis of the factors enabling effective facilitation of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 23(1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2021.2017275

Moallem, M., Hung, W., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning. John Wiley & Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/derby/detail.action?docID=5660370

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Servant-Miklos, V. F. C., Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (2019). A short intellectual history of problem-based learning. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 3–24). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119173243.ch1

Downloads

Published

2026-09-04

Issue

Section

On the Horizon