TY - JOUR
T1 - When low and high tech solutions converge
T2 - Adapting to teaching soils during the COVID-19 pandemic
AU - Mashtare, Michael L.
AU - Lee, Charlotte I.
AU - Fulk-Bringman, Sherry S.
AU - Lott, Erica A.
N1 - Funding Information:
A special thanks to our graduate teaching assistants (Alyssa Besser, Shams Rahmani, Parker Thomas, Daniel Welage, and Adam Wehrman); Connie Foster; Nastasha Johnson, our instructional design team (Debra Dunlap Runshe; Vincent Hornbach; Allan Celik; and Mark Fisher); our faculty lab instructors (Dr. Eileen Kladivko, Dr. Bill McFee, Dr. Darrell Shulze, Dr. Shalamar Armstrong, Dr. Laura Bowling, Dr. Cliff Johnston, Dr. Linda Lee, Dr. Ron Turco, Dr. John Graveel, Dr. Bob Nelson, and Dr. Jim Camberato); and Dr. Steven Landry. M. L. Mashtare also wishes to thank his young daughter, Lee, who has been mostly patient and understanding during the pandemic making completion of this work possible. The use of survey data was reviewed by the Penn State University Institutional Review Board and was determined not to constitute human research because it utilized previously collected (historical) anonymous data.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Natural Sciences Education © 2021 American Society of Agronomy
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - COVID-19 restrictions required a transition of our Soil Science and Forest Soils courses to an online format. A pre-transition survey found that ∼10% of students enrolled in our courses lacked high-speed internet capable of streaming videos and/or computers compatible with the applications in our Learning Management System (LMS). To ensure that students with limited internet or technology were not left behind, we adopted a low-tech/bandwidth delivery (slides + transcript with LMS-delivered assessments) of all lectures and recitation activities. Students could also complete either a low-tech/bandwidth (lab slides + transcripts) or high-tech/bandwidth lab option (delivered via video). Upon completion, students were surveyed to assess preferences and perceptions which are vital in understanding how our approach impacted student motivation, engagement with the material, and overall course satisfaction. Despite 90% of the students having access to high-speed internet, ∼45% of the students used the low-tech solutions either exclusively or half the time, even when high-tech options (such as video) were available. Overall, students felt the low-tech/bandwidth delivery of the lecture (∼87%) and recitation (∼76%) material was effective. Students (∼74%) also reported that online delivery of the lab material effectively supported their learning and was an effective replacement for the in-lab learning experience. Students preferred in-person to online delivery (63 vs. 17%) with 20% undecided. Noting the flexibility and organization of the course, 69% of the students felt the online delivery of our courses was more effective than their other courses despite, or perhaps because of, the lack of high-tech delivery. Our experience demonstrates one approach to adapting an in-person course to a virtual environment that considers inequities in broadband and technology access. Despite being perceived as effective by our students, low-tech options were less preferred than in-person instruction suggesting that, while effective, it was not viewed as equivalent.
AB - COVID-19 restrictions required a transition of our Soil Science and Forest Soils courses to an online format. A pre-transition survey found that ∼10% of students enrolled in our courses lacked high-speed internet capable of streaming videos and/or computers compatible with the applications in our Learning Management System (LMS). To ensure that students with limited internet or technology were not left behind, we adopted a low-tech/bandwidth delivery (slides + transcript with LMS-delivered assessments) of all lectures and recitation activities. Students could also complete either a low-tech/bandwidth (lab slides + transcripts) or high-tech/bandwidth lab option (delivered via video). Upon completion, students were surveyed to assess preferences and perceptions which are vital in understanding how our approach impacted student motivation, engagement with the material, and overall course satisfaction. Despite 90% of the students having access to high-speed internet, ∼45% of the students used the low-tech solutions either exclusively or half the time, even when high-tech options (such as video) were available. Overall, students felt the low-tech/bandwidth delivery of the lecture (∼87%) and recitation (∼76%) material was effective. Students (∼74%) also reported that online delivery of the lab material effectively supported their learning and was an effective replacement for the in-lab learning experience. Students preferred in-person to online delivery (63 vs. 17%) with 20% undecided. Noting the flexibility and organization of the course, 69% of the students felt the online delivery of our courses was more effective than their other courses despite, or perhaps because of, the lack of high-tech delivery. Our experience demonstrates one approach to adapting an in-person course to a virtual environment that considers inequities in broadband and technology access. Despite being perceived as effective by our students, low-tech options were less preferred than in-person instruction suggesting that, while effective, it was not viewed as equivalent.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118259574&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85118259574&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/nse2.20057
DO - 10.1002/nse2.20057
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85118259574
SN - 2168-8273
VL - 50
JO - Natural Sciences Education
JF - Natural Sciences Education
IS - 1
M1 - e20057
ER -