The notion that face-to-face, or synchronous teaching more generally, is inherently superior to online asynchronous (on-demand) learning is a myth. Those that claim online delivery results in poor motivation, disengagement and the absence of a learning community are referencing the outcome of educators who have attempted to shoe-horn an in-person experience in an online environment. Course designers who instead embrace the unique format of asynchronous delivery have the capacity to maximise flexibility, accessibility, and engagement in their teaching, and beyond what’s possible with traditional in-person delivery. You can foster that elusive learning community as well.

My motivation for ditching the traditional course design of 2x 50 min in-person lectures and a 3 hr practical in a teaching laboratory each week, typical of STEM courses in Higher Education, was prompted by declining student satisfaction and lecture attendance. For example, student evaluations for my BIOS3011 Animal Behaviour course had dipped below the university average for the first time since I began teaching the course (MyExperience, Learning & Teaching Agree: 4.4/6 compared to university average 4.7/6). Poor lecture attendance was consistent with global trends in the tertiary education sector more generally (Zhu et al. 2019; McMurtire 2022). Both are symptomatic of the changing pressures on undergraduate students (Gitnux 2023), requiring educators to provide greater flexibility in course delivery (Roberts-Grmela 2023). 

I redesigned BIOS3011 Animal Behaviour for exclusive online delivery. Content was available on-demand and students were able to complete tasks at their own pace, including new practical activities better aligned with real-world research practice. Student satisfaction with the new online delivery was overwhelmingly positive (5.8/6). The sense of belonging to a learning community also sky rocketed (from a low of 4.0/6 prior to redesign to a high of 5.7/6 post redesign). Grades obtained by students increased, showing engagement translated into tangible improvements to learning (median final mark: prior to redesign = 72%; post redesign = 85%). A summative peer review of the course evaluated it as ‘very effective’ for all six of UNSW’s Principles of Quality Teaching:

Principle 1: Engages through active learning 

Principle 2: Builds on existing knowledge

Principle 3: Links learning to relevant contexts

Principle 4: Challenges and supports learning

Principle 5: Communicates expectations and requirements

Principle 6: Caters for student diversity

The strategies I used, along with instructional videos, can be found on this MyEducation profile - look for TiPs.

References:

Gitnux 2023. Working college students statistics 2023: a look at the numbers. https://blog.gitnux.com.

McMurtire, B 2022. A ‘stunning’ level of student disconnection. The Chronicle of Higher Education, published online 5/4/22.

Zhu, L, Huang, E, Defazio, J & Hook S A 2019. Impact of the stringency of attendance policies on class attendance/participation and course grades. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 19: 130-140.

Roberts-Grmela, J 2023. More students want virtual-learning options. Here’s where the debate stands. The Chronicle of Higher Education, published online 5/5/23.