The Harriet W. Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning
January 28, 2021
Tags Teaching During COVID

Effective Brown Faculty Strategies for Online/Hybrid Teaching: Fall 2020 Update

Reports

Walking Workshop

Want to listen to this newsletter while driving or taking a walk? You can link to an audio version.

In Spring 2020, Brown University instructors quickly moved to online and remote instruction, generating an array of creative responses to the rapid shift in modality. In Fall 2020, faculty had the benefit of more lead time to plan, but the movement of 960 courses to hybrid or fully online formats was still unprecedented. (It is hard to imagine now, but previously, Brown offered only a few online courses, and there were none offered in Fall 2019!) To capture reflections on their experience, all faculty were asked to respond to a December 2020 survey that invited them to consider three dimensions of the transition: “Thinking about your fall course(s), please tell us about one teaching approach or strategy that worked well for your students. Why do you think this was effective? What might you do differently in the Spring Term?”*

With a high response rate (71%), this survey offers an opportunity to share a comprehensive picture of teaching approaches that faculty perceived to be effective at Brown. We link key themes to research and highlight specific examples from over 30 faculty. Although the faculty perspective is the key focus of this newsletter, for context, we do offer that student feedback was generally quite positive, with the vast majority (91%) of students agreeing that their Fall 2020 courses were effective for their learning experience (88% response rate to course feedback).

Interestingly, nine months ago, faculty offered a very different response to a similar survey question about teaching approaches that worked well in Spring 2020. At that time, the most frequent observation from instructors was that they made very few adjustments, finding that the pivot online was relatively fluid. However, in describing Fall 2020, lack of adjustment was a relatively infrequent reflection (only 21 comments).

Instead, faculty detailed a number of modifications to their course, with the advantage of more planning time over the summer. In many cases, faculty, such as James Kellner describe a substantial re-thinking of their courses.

Teaching online is like vegetarian cooking. You cannot just take a meat dish and substitute tofu and expect it to work well. A good vegetarian dish begins with a different premise and builds differently from the ground up. I did this over the summer with my lecture material and feel that it paid off.

James Kellner Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

This planning and re-thinking likely was a key reason that most faculty (88%) agreed that they felt prepared to teach in the Fall Term. Here, we report on the top three strategies that Brown faculty found effective, with links to research and examples from Brown classrooms: breakouts, alternate presentation modalities, and written discussions. Each section also includes suggestions specific to hybrid courses. While research suggests that hybrid learning outcomes are similar to other formats (Raes, Detienne, Windey, Depaepe, 2020), Brown faculty who taught in hybrid format reported lower levels of preparedness (84%) than those who taught fully online (90%). Therefore, we also offer particular attention to strategies that were reported to work well in hybrid courses, which can present more challenges to instructors.

For a consultation on any of these ideas, sign up for a Digital Learning and Design 1:1 appointment, or email the Sheridan Center.

subscribe to the Sheridan Center Newsletter

* There were 758 respondents to the full Fall 2020 faculty survey. 205 respondents reported that they were not teaching in Spring 2020. An additional 104 respondents did not respond to these questions. Two faculty noted that nothing worked in the spring term, and four noted generally positive comments. Of the remaining responses, there were 849 distinct ideas that were coded by thematic frequency, 494 about what worked in Fall 2020 and 355 about what the instructor would do differently next time. In other words, one respondent might have multiple ideas, which were analyzed separately. For questions about the analytical process, please contact Sheridan_Center@brown.edu.

** This title comes from Schwartz & Bransford’s (1998) eponymous article, which describes an approach for helping students learn from a presentation or reading. Although active learning is a critical teaching tool, brief lectures or explanations are also important components of many classes, especially to establish a basic understanding for students new to a subject or, for intermediate learners, to address misconceptions (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008).

References

Borup, J., West, R.E., & Thomas, R. The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2): 161-184.

Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harbin, M.B. (2020). Collaborative note-taking: A tool for creating a more inclusive college classroom. College Teaching, 68(4): 214-220.

Kinsella, G.K., Mahon, C., & Lillis, S. (2017). Using pre-lecture activities to enhance learner engagement in a large group setting. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(3): 1-12.

Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid technology: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23: 269-290.

Ryan, T. (2021). Designing video feedback to support the socioemotional aspects of online learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. Available: https://rdcu.be/cdUPk

Schwartz, D.L., & Bransford, J.D. (2008). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4): 475-522.

Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1): 49-64.