Like most of you, I had not taught a synchronous online class before 2020, and, perhaps, I never will again after 2021. That said, I have been thinking a lot about how synchronous online teaching differs from (good) face-to-face teaching and from (good) asynchronous online teaching. Herein, I have gathered some of my thoughts and those of others, who are working hard in real time to deliver high quality teaching during “ye Covid tymes.” I have some thoughts on why synchronous remote teaching may survive the pandemic, or at least some of the things we have learned about teaching while doing it, but I also have a number of successful strategies to share.
It is my sense that across American colleges and universities, there wasn’t much actual choice in the hands of faculty when it came to online teaching this fall. That said, many people seemed to favor moving face-to-face classes to remote synchronous rather than designing new asynchronous courses. While I suspect there are many very reasonable teacher-centered reasons for doing this, I believe there are also a number of learner-centered reasons for preserving a synchronous component to a remote (online) class.
It seems to me that there are a number of learner-centered reasons for retaining a synchronous component to your online teaching. With a synchronous component, teachers and learners can participate in the real time, co-construction of an understanding of course material. This is critical for learners, but is also one of the more enjoyable parts of teaching as we think of old material in new ways. This co-construction is easily preserved in synchronous environments. Some other collateral benefits of synchronous teaching include the embodied role modelling of philosophical thinking, conversation, and engagement that is a critical practice in our discipline, an opportunity for immediate feedback and metacognitive feedback for both teachers and learners, and the opportunity to display empathy, care, and presence for learners that is elusive in asynchronous learning environments. The timing of a synchronous element for a class provides students with a familiar schedule and routine to schooling, this element can also provide useful learning cues, such as others making notes, voice related signals of importance or relevance, the need for allocated time for learning, and so on. Additionally, there are audiences that really benefit from a teacher in their immediate learning environment, for example students who are new to college or graduate students. While I suspect there are clever ways to provide these valuable things asynchronously, it is undoubtedly the case that we are already equipped and familiar with how to address these values synchronously.
At some level of abstraction, teaching and learning isn’t really different online than in person, but closer to the ground things tend to be quite different. I note that the Humanities have always used the ‘flipped classroom’ that has become so popular in the sciences – read and do some independent thinking outside of class and then come, ready, to practice and discuss. As a result, we are already ahead of the curve in terms of a move to remote teaching. I have been thinking about trying to capture our move from classic learning environments to online ones in terms of the following question: what are the available proxies for classic practices in terms of online technologies and student abilities? It seems to me that there are four basic sorts of answers to this question for different practices. First, there is a good (enough) synchronous, online proxy. Second, there is a good (enough) asynchronous proxy. Third, there is no good (enough) online proxy. Fourth, an important answer in my opinion, the search for a proxy may reveal that the face-to-face practice was not very good and thus not worth saving in any environment. As an example, Zoom is a good proxy for classic lectures, where you want to ensure that learners are building a common understanding and you want to deliver background materials to a large number of students, quickly. Zoom is, in turn, only an alright proxy for large group discussions. I have noticed a courage gap in responding (having to lean over and unmute leads many learners to opt out of discussion and longer wait times between respondents). And, Zoom is not a good enough proxy for gathering basic informal feedback from learners about pacing, understanding, and so on. While I think many of us wished for that informal feedback in our synchronous Zoom classrooms, it just isn’t there – a different tool is needed. Another thing that Zoom fails to serve as a proxy for is collateral learning, that learning that takes place in common areas outside of class or right after class and tends to go beyond class content, including advising, talking about student research, aiding in navigating institutions, or just learning about learning. This aspect of college learning seems to require an in-person element that I am just not sure how to capture in a remote setting.
As we think about these proxies for classic learning environments, and try and capture the good (and excise the bad) aspects of those environments and practices, I think we should be guided by a number of bigger ideas. I would like to share three that I have found helpful. First, metacognition (in this case learning about learning) needs to be prompted. I have found the move to remote learning has reminded me of the need for guided instruction for learners with respect to helping them gauge their successful and unsuccessful learning practices. A learning journal is a good idea. Second, the move to remote learning has also reminded me that a lot of good teaching involves simply assessing prior learning and proceeding accordingly. What do students know about learning and what technologies do they already know (or do I already know) that can serve as proxies? For example, I learned to use Google Forms to survey student preparation for my upper level class and ask them what they expected from a good class, and one of my own students uses this technology to capture student learning from class to class in her new course. Finally, when making decisions about teaching and learning our goals can fall more toward teacher-centered goals (in our interest), learner-centered goals (in their interest), or discipline-centered (in the interest of the discipline). I urge thinking about which sorts of goals are being favored in making decisions about remote teaching practices. The best decisions are not the ones that ignore real learners.
I have some parting thoughts on successful proxies. The move to remote teaching has provided many of us with an opportunity to notice what is really great about the embodiment of classic learning environments. It is probably worth keeping track of those things as we move further into an age of skepticism about higher education. Also, this move has given me the opportunity to remember some truly great teaching strategies and develop some new ones. Here are a few synchronous teaching strategies for remote teaching: slack or discord discussions, rather than threaded (message board like discussions in our LMS), jigsaws for breakout room activities, the use of Google Docs to monitor and bring group discussions together, rather than large group discussions, and using chat functions to do ‘stacking’ for discussions. And, here are a few really interesting ideas to replace our lost embodied practices with some asynchronous ones: reflective journal activities, video recorded ‘fishbowl’ discussion, and using Google Forms to get daily student feedback regarding learning or to assess prior learning.
W. John Koolage
Dr. W. John Koolage is a Professor of Philosophy and Director of General Education at Eastern Michigan University. His research focuses on bringing ideas from philosophy of science and cognition to bare on contemporary issues, such as gun control, climate change, nanotechnology, forensic science, conspiracy theories, and, of course, teaching and learning.
