I teach and electromagnetic theory course during the fall every year. The course is best described as “intermediate” and is compulsory for my department’s masters degree program. The class consists of applications of mathematics to specific problems in electrical engineering.  The best teaching of this subject I have experienced is where an engaging personality writes formulas and derivaitons slowly and deliberately on the white board (chalk board even better) and pauses after almost every step to reiterate to the audience where we came from and where we’re going. At the end of each lecture, there’s no ambiguity regarding the origin and applicability of the formula. Its then up to the students to (a) re derive the formula on their own to deepen understanding and (b) figure out how and when to use it.

Corona Virus has obviously required a move to online learning and a first past adaptation of the material saw us use Powerpoint and Zoom to mixed reviews. I actually think the class was worse than the student’s feedback indicated, but I also believe that their other engineering classes were experiencing trouble adopting to the teaching world post corona virus so we benefit from low standards.

In an effort to promote and class participation and engagement, my fellow course instructor and I implemented in class exercises where we broke the class into small breakout rooms and tried to get them to solve problems together. At first, I thought this approach was a failure as the students were not speaking up or offering any sort of input. However, it was here that I stumbled upon the utility of one important aspect of the Community of Inquiry: teachers are ready to concede fallibility.

I was making a lot of example problems and, inevitably, they were riddled with typos and mistakes. The students, even though they were not talking, were apparently paying attention. When a mistake  showed up in an example problem, they would speak up for clarification. I would commend the student for finding the error, and then discuss the correction and the associated implications.

The typos gave me the chance to concede fallibility in front of the class and, importantly, communicated to the students that “yes, this material is difficult.” Moreover, the discussion stimulated new learning that was not originally planned for the course lecture.

I have an idea to now build typos into course content. It’s a difficult line to design errors that spur discussion while not giving the impression that you are unprepared given the lecture is “riddled with errors”.