Implications of Cosynchronous Teaching and Learning for Hispanic Student Success
General description of the project
The project was to develop an online, asynchronous course for faculty who would teach in the refurbished New Generation Smart Classrooms (NGSC). With the introduction of new technologies, and software, the course aimed at helping faculty learn new best practices for cosynchronous teaching and learning. The course is a self-paced, 2-hour, 3-part asynchronous course in our Canvas LMS. In the course, faculty learn about best practices for cosynchronous teaching and learning, as well as the flexible model of teaching. It focuses on keeping students learning in mind, as well as providing a flexible environment for our students to learn.
There was no immediate cost associated with the creation of the course as it already uses the resources available to us.
The course itself, as part of a more comprehensive approach to the NGSC program, contributed to making sure that students are able to continue their education in relation to the GI 2025, by allowing students to still enroll and attend classes despite potential issues with health or distance to campus.
As the project was just implemented in early September, there are not too many indications of success, although we have data that demonstrate participation in the course. We will have more data by the time of the conference. Thus far, some of the faculty data collected are based on a faculty exit survey upon completion of the course. The surveys collected are also giving us an insight into the lessons learned and what we would need to do in the short future as we modify, redesign the course.
As a Hispanic Service Institution, everything that we, as instructional designers, do to help faculty teach is geared towards our 70% Hispanic student population.
Technologies
The course was developed in Canvas, and some of the content was borrowed and modified from a much larger course on the HyFlex model adopted by the CSU Chancellor’s course. The course has a combination of software applications, as well as best-practice methodologies to help faculty become more competent in the NGSC. It is also important to recognize and mention that this course is not just a stand-alone course, it is directly related to the equipment and set-up of the smart classrooms. It is the technology that was used for those classrooms that guided the need for the course. Within the course, faculty are also presented with a module about understanding those technologies, and learning about their functioning and applications to best serve to teach and encourage student learning and engagement.
Explain project results
Results will not be available until the end of the Fall 2021 semester. At that point, we will have a better idea of how the implementation of the course, as part of the general NGSC project helped our institution with the integration of online learning and technology integration.
Some of the faculty comments thus far are:
“Great course! I found out about some new tools and strategies for my cosynchronous classes and learned a lot from reading about other faculty’s challenges and goals for their courses.”
“The “Writing Flexible Outcomes” exercise in Module 1 was helpful. Also, enjoyed the “Tactics to Use Technology for Engagement” tips in Module 2.”
“This course was very helpful in providing me with information related to what I need to do in the classroom this semester. Thank you for the materials. The activities were also very relevant to my needs.”
“I learned a lot of useful tips from colleagues as well as examples from the course.”
“Thank you for taking the time to put this together and for sharing this information. It is much appreciated.”
Why it should be considered best practice?
There are several aspects that can be considered as “Best Practices” as this course was developed with the Design Thinking approach in mind. For instance, this course promotes flexibility in teaching and learning and integrates faculty activities to provide some of their own best teaching practices. In addition, this course helps faculty implement a wider option for student access to their courses. Furthermore, it is well documented that a best practice in this type of teaching and learning format (Blended, Hybrid, Flipped, etc.) is focused on student access, flexibility, and options.
This course was also designed with the specific idea of helping faculty development activities to increase student engagement and participation. Module 2 specifically focused on the following best practices:
– Setting expectations and modeling engagement
– Building engagement with course content and activities
– Managing interactions and increasing faculty presence
– Creating a learning community and fostering interactions between students
– Creating and promoting an inclusive environment
Regarding the replicable aspect of this course, I can say with certainty that it was developed with the intention to serve a small number of faculty. But, within days of deployment, the course was offered to all our faculty (~1100). Because this course is self-paced and asynchronous, it can host as many faculty as needed in a larger format. There are no LMS limitations with regard to enrollment or usage. In addition, the format of the course can be copied and shared across institutions for their use. This course can be easily adjusted to any institutional framework, it can help institutions assess and manage building/classroom capacity, as well as serve to manage information systems.
Highlights of your proposed presentation
Thus far, with more to come, some of the highlights are:
– Over 1100 faculty enrolled
– Over 140 faculty trained face to face
– 20 faculty have successfully completed the course
Some of the lessons learned include:
– More examples need to be presented to faculty
– Include video as part of the course activities
– Create a how-to video for the NGSC classroom as a demo
– Create a research-based survey to collect better faculty data
– Create a research-based survey to collect student satisfaction data
The Evaluation Committee will evaluate submitted proposals based on the following criteria. Each area will be rated on a scale from 1 to 7 (1= non-satisfactory; 7 =outstanding), for a maximum of 63 points.