First of all, this is a very personal perspective and a particular experience. Second, I feel that this blog is somewhat the second part of my previous blog – BP3 -Learning in communities – networked collaborative learning. Third, let me give context to my post by starting from the course I have just completed teaching and grading.
In this civil engineering class on the geometric design of roads, I found myself as a manager. I organized the course as a networked learning process with 14 teachers. YES, 14! The idea was to offer the basic theory in a few lectures from my side as the responsible teacher and then have professional engineers present real case studies on different technical aspects connected to the design. In addition to in-classroom lectures, the course consisted of laboratory sessions where the students were supposed to practice with design software to deliver their project at the end of class. Initially, the course was supposed to be offered face-to-face (F2F), as my university aimed for entire back-to-campus teaching. However, after discussing with the department chair, we agreed to record the lectures. Meanwhile, before the course started, several students reached out to me asking if there was an opportunity for remote teaching, claiming different reasons: safety from the Covid virus, not being in the region or country, and other situations.
In view of the evolving conditions, I decided to move into the hyflex offer (1). Therefore, students could attend F2F in the classroom, remotely from their location, and if they could not attend, they were offered the possibility of watching the recording posted on the learning management system. This approach was adopted for the lectures and the exercise in the computer room. I supported the students during the lab session by answering questions in Zoom (for students online) or going around in the computer room for the students attending F2F). Also, the exercise sessions were recorded and made available to the students. Individual work mainly included preparation for the class; students were expected to read the lecture notes provided in advance. Also, if students could not attend the lectures, they had the option to watch the recording as often as needed, which was very appreciated! Such preference for online delivery is also supported by the degree of F2F attendance. One-third of the students were usually present in the classroom, and most of the remaining online, simultaneously. Promoting cooperation among students was not easy in this hybrid situation. Usually, 2-3 students worked together on a question in the classroom or breakout rooms online. Some students were unwilling to speak, but they still contributed by typing their responses in the chat, and the instructor acted as the bridge between the classroom and online students. Unfortunately, the assigned classroom was not equipped with the necessary tools. The department supported the responsible teacher with a student taking care of the equipment setup and connection at each session. Students highly appreciate the class and the effort despite the technical limitations, which is reflected in a highly positive evaluation of the course. Some of the students’ comments were: “The teaching methods (lectures, labs, group work, online study, …) supported our learning”, or “I liked the exercises! It was easy to get help during the exercises for any issue. Also, the recorded sessions helped!”.
What could be improved? Two aspects: 1) classroom facilities for online teaching, and 2) improve the communication in the exercise sessions concerning the assignment. While the latter is relatively easy to address, the first depends on the school and the future direction in terms of teaching mode.
References
Talbert R., Research Report: Experiencing the hyflex model. https://rtalbert.org/research-report-experiencing-the-hyflex-model/
