Faculty Support

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, colleges and universities rushed to create resources to address both technology needs and pedagogy. These resources were often informed by lessons learned from established practices in online teaching (Hodges et al., 2020). Many higher education institutions had not established continuity plans—used in emergency and disaster preparedness—specifically addressing the need for online instruction (Hodges et al., 2020; Moore et al., 2021). Indiana University launched a Keep Teaching website to house technology and remote teaching resources (Trustees of Indiana University, n.d.), and, through a Creative Commons license, hundreds of higher education institutions followed their lead (Stanford, n.d.). The spread of the Keep Teaching phenomenon continues to be documented in a Google Sheet created by Daniel Stanford (n.d.) at DePaul University’s Center for Teaching and Learning.

Enterprise technology companies and educational technology providers soon began to offer their own resources, guides, and instructions on the tools and techniques of emergency remote teaching. As Krsmanovic (2020) observed, educators began to experience resource overload:

The shortage of resources for remote teaching and work is certainly not an issue that faculty have experienced during the COVID-19 crisis. On the contrary, it is the magnitude, breadth, and variety of these resources that transpired as a barrier to their effective use. (pp. 56–57)

Responding to Faculty Needs

Educational development offerings, such as workshops hosted by faculty and educational developers through established CTLs, experienced high attendance early in the pandemic (Carter et al., 2021). Faculty soon began to feel overworked and overwhelmed, experiencing burnout and anxiety (Carter et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022; Manokore & Kuntz, 2022; Pautz & Diede, 2022). Educational developers, too, experienced burnout (Chen et al., 2022). Tailoring CTL programming in response to burnout, by offering programming with elements of community (Moore et al., 2021) and self-care (Carter et al., 2021; Sumer et al., 2021), may provide faculty with a space to decompress and rejuvenate as they reflect upon and retool their teaching. Pautz and Diede (2022) recommended providing “space for faculty to talk and reflect” but cautioned that we intentionally “steer the conversation productively to avoid becoming mired in complaints with no forward motion” (p. 78).

In their survey of faculty members’ motivation to re-engage in educational development programming, Pautz and Diede (2022) concluded that educational developers and CTLs are uniquely positioned to “help faculty and administrators to think through appropriate, sustainable practices they have developed during the pandemic” (p. 79). Inviting faculty back to our CTLs and providing resources to grow and refine the techniques they found most effective during the pandemic can help ensure that the momentum gained over the past 3 years is not lost. However, failing to respond to faculty fatigue and burnout may hamper institutional progress (Landy et al., 2022).

As we work to sustain the momentum of these enduring practices, it is important that we also work to refine and improve them, as faculty may have made significant modifications to the techniques they tried for the first time during the rapid move to emergency remote teaching. In a pre-pandemic study on faculty adoption of pedagogical practices, Dancy and Henderson (2010) found that while faculty participants self-reported the adoption of a teaching strategy, follow-up questions indicated that many of those participants were using the teaching strategy in a way that was inconsistent with the key components that made the strategy effective for student learning. When faculty make significant modifications to established research-based teaching strategies, “there is a possibility that one or more components essential to student learning may be eliminated” (Dancy & Henderson, 2010, p. 1058). Given the less-than-ideal teaching conditions presented during the period of emergency remote teaching, Dancy and Henderson’s observation may be helpful in informing our approach to working with faculty and guiding our conversations to detect the presence of ineffective or inconsistent approaches.

Early Observations on Enduring Practices

While many faculty relied on live, synchronous Zoom sessions that mimicked the traditional classroom lecture, other faculty moved away from live lecturing (Zakrajsek, 2021) and attempted new practices, often for the first time. These included adoption of flexible classroom management policies (Carter et al., 2021; Hills & Peacock, 2022; Holtzman et al., 2023); flipped classrooms (Manokore & Kuntz, 2022; Manturuk & Reavis, 2022); video production for student review (Holtzman et al., 2023; Manokore & Kuntz, 2022); rethinking how to assess student learning (Manokore & Kuntz, 2022; Maurer, 2022); and utilization of engaging technology tools (Carter et al., 2021; Sumer et al., 2021). Early reports on the tools and techniques faculty have continued to use after their return to campus are making their way into the scholarly conversation.

Faculty implemented flexible policies for student attendance and assignment deadlines (Hills & Peacock, 2022; Holtzman et al., 2023) by using flexible classroom management strategies to help mitigate the stressors students were facing during the pandemic (Carter et al., 2021; Maurer, 2022). In a study of student reflections on their pandemic learning experiences, Kelly (2022) found student learning was impacted by lack of structure, engagement, and motivation; personal factors such as inability to find a space to work while quarantining with others, introduction of familial-related stressors, and financial-related issues; and technology-related issues, including internet connectivity or a lack of skills in educational and business computing (distinct from skills in using mobile devices and smartphones).

Early reports suggest that faculty are keeping the flexible classroom management practices they adopted during the pandemic (Holtzman et al., 2023). As described by Hills and Peacock (2022), flexible practices for participation, attendance, and deadlines can lead to a more equitable learning environment for students with special needs or those who encounter systemic barriers to their learning. In their interviews with faculty who implemented flexible attendance and due date policies, Holtzman et al. (2023) reported that their participants found these changes beneficial when the policies “balance structure and flexibility” (p. 6), whereas those faculty who implemented the most flexible policies without boundaries were dissatisfied with their classroom management choices.

In a study of faculty teaching English as a second language, participants reported their continued use of flipped classroom techniques after returning to face-to-face teaching (Moussaoui & Al-Hattali, 2022). However, flipping the classroom during the period of emergency remote teaching would have introduced a new set of challenges, such as facilitating active learning techniques in class using online video conferencing software. In a systematic literature review of flipped classroom experiences during the pandemic, Lo (2023) identified challenges such as students being unable to complete the pre-class activities before the live, in-class session and students appearing disengaged during the live, in-class active learning activities, which resulted in poor in-class participation. The implications of the pandemic that impacted student learning—such as the barriers outlined by Kelly (2022)—may have exacerbated issues with pre-class preparation. Student disengagement during in-class active learning activities could occur in either synchronous online or face-to-face settings, and Roehling (2018) recommended ways that faculty can monitor student engagement: rotating between groups and listening to conversations, soliciting the thoughts of a disengaged student, and providing immediate feedback on a group’s progress.

Respondents in a survey distributed by Manokore and Kuntz (2022) identified short videos as useful for student review and scaffolding, and videos were further enhanced with apps that embed quiz questions within the video. Prior to the pandemic, the literature had established best practices for educational video content in online learning, such as the use of short videos chunked into segments of 5 to 7 minutes each (Smith, 2014). Faculty may wish to reuse videos produced during the pandemic, but they should first identify non-enduring content within their video collection—content that references due dates or logistical information from a previous academic term (Smith, 2014).

The pandemic shifted faculty toward utilization of non-traditional assessment techniques (Manokore & Kuntz, 2022), such as open book assessments or authentic assessments (Maurer, 2022). This led some faculty to revisit their learning objectives, think critically about their existing assessments, and decide what, exactly, they were assessing (Manturuk & Reavis, 2022). The use of authentic assessment was well documented prior to the pandemic, and scholars such as Wiggins and McTighe (2005) advocated for better alignment of objectives and assessment by using backward design.

With this background literature in mind, we proceed by first providing brief descriptions on each of the four institutions included in the survey. Institutional selection was driven by the research team who were introduced to one another through participation in a POD Connects group, hosted by the POD Network. Following the site descriptions, we describe the survey methodology used to better understand which educational technology tools and pedagogical techniques faculty adopted during the pandemic and have continued to use. We then discuss survey findings, list limitations, and close by presenting recommendations and conclusions.

Community College

The community college represented in this study is an urban, public institution in a major U.S. city. The college educates roughly 4,000 students annually. The student population consists of students enrolled in career technological education fields and those preparing to transfer to a four-year institution to complete a bachelor’s degree. At the time of this study, there were 128 full-time faculty and 378 adjunct instructors employed by the institution. While most students complete their degrees on campus, the community college offers nearly 100 fully online course electives. A remote teaching page was added to the CTL’s website with resources and best practices to assist faculty in the pivot to emergency remote teaching. The CTL also serves as the primary resource for the college’s learning management system (LMS), Brightspace. All courses offered at the college, regardless of delivery modality, are required to have a current syllabus posted to their Brightspace course shell and utilize the attendance tool. This requirement existed prior to the pandemic and continues to this day.

Small University

The small university represented in this study is a private liberal arts university in the southern United States with 85 full-time and 46 part-time or adjunct faculty members. They offer 70 undergraduate or graduate academic programs and serve approximately 1,800 students, both traditional and non-traditional. Financial assistance is awarded to 90% of their students who come from diverse backgrounds and educational experiences. Two master’s degrees are offered fully online. The CTL, along with the university’s technology services department, provided resources to help faculty move to remote teaching. A web page of resources was developed by the CTL that included tips, relevant links, and tutorials created by experienced faculty members.

Medium-Sized University

The medium-sized university represented in this study is a selective enrollment public research university in the rural south with approximately 400 faculty members and approximately 8,600 undergraduate and 1,000 graduate students. The medium-sized university is known for its affordability and fast time-to-degree while maintaining instructional quality. The university does not have an active CTL or equivalent. Prior to the pandemic, almost all classes were held exclusively face-to-face, though many faculty members had experience teaching some asynchronous online classes (particularly during the summer quarter). A Keep Teaching website was created by the information technology department.

Large University

The large university represented in this study is a public, land grant research university in the southern United States with approximately 3,200 faculty members, 53,000 undergraduate students, and 13,000 graduate students. The university is primarily a residential campus, though online course electives are available at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Master’s programs throughout the university can be completed entirely online. Faculty support during the pandemic was available through the university’s CTL as well as a campus academic technology support unit. Of the campuses in this study, the large university had the most robust Keep Teaching website with both how-to technical resources and pedagogical resources on moving to emergency remote teaching. The transition to emergency remote teaching was further complicated by the university’s planned transition to a new LMS, Canvas.

Video Conferencing Tools

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the enduring use of video conferencing technologies was observed across all four of the higher education institutions surveyed (Table 6). Tools cited included Zoom, Webex, Microsoft Teams, and Lifesize. Examples of the continued use of video conferencing primarily referenced holding office hours online and allowing students who were quarantining to attend class virtually. Many of the qualitative comments suggested the continued use of video conferencing may have been a result of social distancing; for example, faculty may not want to meet with students in the confines of their office or to teach an infectious student in the classroom. One respondent shared, “Zoom allows kids who would have missed class to [attend virtually] and it allows people to get to office hours to ask short questions without having to come into campus.” Additional uses for video conferencing technology identified by the respondents included inviting guest speakers into the classroom, the ability to hold class while faculty travel for conferences, and holding class during inclement weather. Future studies should investigate the increasing or decreasing use of video conferencing technologies, how these may relate to campus life and social norms when interacting with ill students (e.g., those with COVID-19 or influenza), or how these norms evolve over time.

Video Production Tools

Following the continued use of video conferencing technologies was the enduring use of video production tools at each of the four higher education institutions surveyed (Table 7). These included tools such as Mediasite, Camtasia, WeVideo, YuJa, and VidGrid and associated hardware such as Wacom tablets and multiple camera switchers. Respondents overwhelmingly referenced the ease of using Zoom to provide video recordings. A respondent also gave praise to the automatic captioning features: “Zoom is great at screen-capture and pre-recording lectures if I will be out sick or traveling, plus it has built in closed captioning which greatly reduces the time to incorporate that for ADA requirements.” Faculty also referenced the use of video production tools for creating libraries of video clips as described in this response: “Easy to take topics and capture them, create video playlists and remix video playlists as needed, [and] works well in in-person, hybrid, and remote teaching situations.” As recommended by Smith (2014), faculty should be on alert for any outdated references within their existing videos, such as due dates or outdated announcements. Other survey comments referenced the use of both planned video collections and the creation of just-in-time videos to address students’ needs, as one participant described: “Videos are a much better way to explain some content than a worksheet or long email.” Whether faculty follow through on their self-reported plans to reuse their video collections remains to be seen, and future studies should explore the extent to which faculty have reused the video collections they created throughout the pandemic.

Uses for video production also included the recording of long-form classroom capture content for student review and excused absences (such as student athletes traveling to games). One respondent found the recording capabilities of Zoom was a better match for their needs compared to the classroom capture hardware installed in their classroom:

Before the pandemic, I used technology in some of the classrooms to record class . . . . Once I started using Zoom for remote classes, [I] realized I had far better control over creating and managing the videos. I continue to use Zoom during class to record lectures for students to rewatch, even though students are no longer using Zoom for remote attendance.

Collaborative and Productivity Tools

Other examples of enduring technology tools included the continued use of collaborative suites, whiteboarding, and cloud productivity tools, though these appear to be most prevalent on the campuses of the community college and large university (Table 8). Cloud productivity examples included students collaborating on documents in Microsoft 365 and Google Drive. One participant found these tools “allow students with minimal experience to work in a practical way, to enhance their ability to practice collaborative dependencies, and [to learn] to work within a team.” Collaborative suites included the use of Slack and Microsoft Teams. It is worth noting that, while Microsoft Teams also has video conferencing capabilities, responses were coded based upon qualitative data that provided context on the use of Microsoft Teams in a manner comparable to other collaborative suites, such as Slack. Collaborative whiteboard tools included Padlet, Miro, and Jamboard, and although whiteboard capabilities within video conferencing systems are available to presenters, these qualitative responses were coded based on the context of collaboration among multiple students. For example, this participant described their students’ use of a collaborative whiteboarding tool: “I like Google Jamboard for collaborative learning exercises where all the students can log in, add content, build a visual and then use [the content] as a study tool.” These collaborative whiteboard tools were also useful for allowing students in the classroom to collaborate with students joining the class remotely due to quarantine, as one participant shared: “Miro allows for greater interactivity for students in-class, and allows for students who have to attend remotely to do so (and still participate).”

Engagement-Based Techniques

Faculty reported their continued use of student engagement techniques they found valuable, such as the inclusion of student-centered activities throughout a lecture (Table 9). Some of the techniques reported by faculty were quite simple, such as worksheets with a list of questions for students to answer during the lecture. One participant shared the benefit of providing a question list of this kind: “Students need to pay attention to the lecture to get the answer and it encourages [them] to ask questions.” Engagement-based changes reported by faculty sometimes dovetailed into rethinking student assessment, as this participant described:

I have been moving away from formal assessments (tests and quizzes) for a while, but the pandemic convinced me that those tools are worthless. Once you convince students that you are more interested in the experience of learning and not assessing what they remember later on, they really start to engage with the material with enthusiasm.

Flipped Classroom Techniques

Some respondents specifically referred to the flipped classroom model in their responses (Table 10), while others provided a description of what could be considered flipped classroom techniques (students were assigned a video lecture to watch before class; time together during the live, synchronous online class session was used for active learning). It is unclear whether those respondents self-reporting the use of flipped classroom techniques were following the flipped classroom model as described by Roehling (2018) or if concessions and modifications to the model were made. Examples of flipped classroom techniques also demonstrated the use of formative assessment techniques by embedding quiz questions within the assigned pre-class video, as described by this participant:

We used Edpuzzle for inserting questions into video instruction and ‘chunking’ long videos into shorter segments. Long instructional videos needed to be broken down with formative assessment built in periodically to ensure learning was taking place at an acceptable level.

Student Well-Being and/or Equitable Techniques

Faculty reported a variety of techniques they have continued using for student well-being and creating a more equitable learning environment, such as modifying due dates, attendance, and participation points (Table 11). Changes of this kind benefit all students but especially those students most likely to encounter systemic barriers to their learning (Hills & Peacock, 2022). Some faculty reported substantial changes that have the potential to address systemic barriers, such as the use of grading contracts and more transparency in assessment. One participant shared:

I began using grade contracts. It makes the criteria for earning a particular grade clearer. The grade is based on process/labor rather than outcome. I teach writing, so students who are native English speakers have an advantage in the class. This levels the playing field for students. While I didn’t adopt it to make my class more equitable, I am continuing to do it [because] I see it as an antiracist teaching practice.