Editor’s Comment: Three Teaching Takeaways from the COVID-19 Pandemic

We did it! Just prior to writing this comment, I submitted my final grades and let out a huge sigh of relief. I pause now to recognize the immense achievement of the collective sociology teaching and learning community consisting of faculty at colleges and universities of all types, high school teachers, graduate teaching assistants, students, and all those who have supported and enabled the continued instruction of sociology during an unprecedented time. We faced the global COVID-19 pandemic and were asked to do what seemed initially like the impossible: move into an emergency remote instruction model for which we were largely underprepared.

The immensity of the challenge is even more admirable when we consider the pre-COVID percentage of students enrolled in distance education courses. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2017, only 15.7 percent of all students in degree-granting postsecondary institutions were enrolled exclusively in distance education courses. Astonishingly, by the end of March 2020, that percentage (though specifically unknown) is likely to have escalated to nearly 100 percent. This large-scale transition to a distance learning format was even more remarkable considering that the timeline for moving courses from face-to-face delivery to exclusively remote instruction was, on average, just several days.

Furthermore, the teaching and learning community had very little warning. My own precursory analysis of social media posts and The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed articles suggests that the first inkling that an educational tsunami was developing came from the University of Washington and the University of California systems. On March 7th, the University of Washington announced that starting on March 9th, all classes and finals would be held remotely. It was on March 9th that the reality of going remote started to look inevitable, when Amherst College cancelled classes prior to spring break from March 12th to 13th, stating that it would move to remote learning on March 23rd. Amherst was the first college to encourage students to take as many of their belongings with them as possible without giving a return-to-campus date. This announcement sent shock waves through the higher education community.

I began providing the students in my classes and internships with emergency plans in case Elizabethtown College also went remote—though at the time, no one really believed it would happen. On March 12th, Elizabethtown College announced that classes would be canceled starting March 13th and that classes would resume online on March 18th to continue the learning experience remotely. Faculty and students were notified at the same time. My point here is that everyone reading this piece probably has a similar version of this story and timeline. Regardless, as a community of educators that teach sociology, we need to take a moment to celebrate and a chance to reflect.

The remainder of my comment will focus on three takeaways resulting from the emergency remote instruction we were plunged into. I use the word takeaways instead of lessons, because this educational journey is far from complete. As I write this comment, the future of instruction for the fall semester remains uncertain. Institutions are developing a plethora of contingency plans. Still, it is important that we reflect on what we have collectively experienced to begin to plan ahead. Please note that these are my personal takeaways based on my own experiences, reading of the limited literature, and narratives of those involved in faculty development. I will not be providing solutions or recommendations at this time.

1. Emergency remote instruction is not the same as online learning. The terms remote, distance, and online were often used interchangeably in the initial college announcements, but through the experience of this semester, I have become more aware of the crucial differences. Face-to-face (F2F) instruction that transitioned to remote learning was not a type of planned distance learning. Emergency remote learning is a temporary shift in instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to a crisis. Online learning is a carefully crafted and intentional design using instructional techniques and best practices specifically suited for the virtual environment. Basically, what those who taught F2F were asked to do was to take their current course and move it (largely unchanged) to a digital format. I have heard echoes resonating throughout the community that faculty were asked to provide the same quality of experience digitally as in the F2F modality. This was arguably an impossible feat for several reasons.

First, those teaching F2F where not well versed in the technology needed for a quick change to remote learning. Many individuals teaching F2F had never considered teaching online or had done so infrequently. This resulted in a knowledge and skills gap. Second, while professional development opportunities were offered by most institutions to bridge this gap, the truncated timeline made it difficult for instructors to take advantage of such resources. Many ended up feeling overwhelmed by the webinars and frequent emails instead of empowered.

Finally, I believe we overestimated the students’ ability to interface with technology. As sociologists, we were previously aware of the digital divide. What we were not prepared for was the extent to which students at our institutions would struggle with bad (or no) internet connectivity and lack of access to digital technology, like laptops, printers, and webcams. Furthermore, we expected students to embrace and thrive in the digital world without really considering the significant variation in the individual experience and environment.

2. Faculty are humans who have also experienced trauma from the COVID-19 pandemic. This point seems obvious, but throughout the process, it was an aspect of the lived experience largely overlooked by institutions trying to provide the highest-quality remote learning experience for students. Now that the dust has settled, and grades are submitted, many faculty are reflecting on their own teaching experiences during the pandemic. Faculty have indicated that institutions considered the human experience of students and implemented policies to reconcile the academic and personal challenges they encountered. However, little was done to change the status quo for faculty. The climate was business as usual, but the teaching workload was often double, and many also experienced additional family responsibilities.

Faculty and students both struggled with work–life balance and boundaries, but faculty bore the brunt of establishing a sense of normalcy during digital instruction. During videoconferencing, I was frequently reminded of the importance of the body in teaching from seeing my image on the screen in real time. I was also provided with few, if any, resources for making digital teaching more body-friendly. The effects of sitting for hours hunched over a computer screen included migraine headaches and mental fatigue resulting from poor sleep habits and frequent videoconferencing. The importance of body awareness in teaching was recently shared by Dr. Susan Ferguson in her 2019 Hans O. Mauksch Address, “Teaching: The Body in Question,” which was published in the April 2020 issue of Teaching Sociology. Though her address focused more on the physical and social implications of the body in F2F instruction, the challenges could be even more stark when applied to the emergency remote situation.

To complicate things further, at some institutions, there were no changes in the procedures for student evaluations despite the lack of validity of such measures for understanding the quality of instruction during this emergency. Still, other colleges and universities suspended conventional student evaluations or developed an instrument designed more specifically for the situation. Undisclosed monitoring of digital teaching instruction was also implemented at some colleges and universities by tracking videoconferencing and learning-management-system use. At the time of this comment, it is unknown how and if such data will be used for tenure and promotion. Finally, the lack of consideration for the trauma experienced by faculty has contributed to a commonly expressed feeling of alienation.

3. COVID-19 has significantly impacted scholarly teaching and professional activity. Coinciding with the need to transition to emergency remote learning due to physical distancing, many academic conferences and professional development activities were canceled. In addition, going remote also meant suspending internships, student involvement in research, many types of experiential learning, and community-based activities. It is unclear when such activities will resume and in what format they will take. It is likely that the standards for reappointment, tenure, and promotion based on the completion of such activities will need to be reexamined. Finally, the impact of COVID-19 has had divergent effects on the scholarly productivity of faculty. For some, the pause or shelter-in-place orders and transition to remote learning have led to increased scholarly productivity, while for others it has been a major impediment. The difference in productivity is likely due to previously identified factors known to impact tenure and promotion outcomes, such as sex, age, race, and institution type. For journal editors, COVID-19 has made it increasingly difficult to secure peer reviewers for manuscripts or maintain the average time from submission to publication. I am grateful that there has been a high degree of support from those invited to peer review for Teaching Sociology.

The three takeaways I have shared are meant to stimulate ideas and continue discussion among the teaching sociology community. I invite readers to contribute articles, teaching notes, or conversations focused on these or other takeaways from the COVID-19 remote learning experience. Of course, the editorial team will do our best to keep the review process efficient while maintaining the contribution of high-quality publications to the scholarship of teaching and learning.

In the spirit of distance learning, I am pleased to share that this issue contains the first publication of a podcast review. If you are interested in reviewing a podcast or have a podcast to suggest for review, please contact the deputy editor, Dr. Barbara Prince, at prince@lvc.edu.

Michele Lee KozimorEditorEmail: teachingsociology@etown.edu