Rapidly Moving Online in a Pandemic: Intentionality, Rapport, and The Synchronous/Asynchronous Delivery Decision

This article discusses the thought process for shifting courses to online delivery. I taught three courses this past spring: a politics course on ethnic conflict (PEC), a senior research seminar (SrSem), and a general education interdisciplinary senior seminar (ISS) focusing on sustainability. Although this article focuses primarily on the ISS, I cross-reference the other courses for comparison. I model my classrooms on a community of inquiry (figure 1), which provides (1) a richer educational experience by combining social presence—the interconnectedness of learners and teachers in the classroom and beyond (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 1999, 94–96); (2) cognitive presence—teacher–student and student–student interactions (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 1999, 93–94); and (3) teaching presence—that which faculty provide such as learning materials, discussions, and activities (Garrison, Anderson, and Archer 1999, 96–97). The model fully engages students in all aspects of the learning process. My courses needed to maintain the same dynamic after moving to remote learning (ironically, where the model originated).

Figure 1 Community of Inquiry

Note: Author’s adaptation of Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999, 88).

Moving the courses online required thinking about timing, delivery, and learning objectives, with the latter being the most important factor in maintaining rapport. The goal for all of my courses is to build a community of peers who are actively listening to one another (Hamann, Pollock, and Wilson 2009) and the essence of the cognitive presence in classes—virtual or otherwise. Building rapport with students, which Glazier (2016) found to be essential to student success in online classes, was crucial for creating an environment in which students would succeed. Rapport is about creating an environment in which students and faculty interact to achieve common goals (Benson, Cohen, and Buskist 2005; Glazier 2016; Wilson, Ryan, and Pugh 2010). Rapport is built on engagement and communication, not simply by “being nice” (Wilson, Ryan, and Pugh 2010). Rapport is about both student engagement and professor perception (Wilson and Ryan 2013). Moreover, rapport is the essence of the social presence necessary for an effective community of inquiry.

Moving the courses online required thinking about timing, delivery, and learning objectives, with the latter being the most important factor in maintaining rapport.

When I was planning the transition online, each of my three courses needed to be evaluated in light of learning outcomes and the need to continue the community of inquiry. The PEC course is an upper-division course with 22 students (both political science and international relations majors) who meet twice weekly for 80 minutes. In person, the first two thirds of the class session are lecture/discussion, followed by three exams for assessment, and ending with a multiday simulation of intrastate conflict resolution (including writing and engagement). The transition to a synchronous online format was simple—even with the simulation, which combined video-conferencing and a Slack workspace (http://slack.com), a professional version of social media that allows people to chat messaging style and to share information and documents.

The SrSem course was the easiest to transition because the pandemic shutdown occurred as the students were about to begin weekly one-on-one sessions to discuss progress and troubleshoot their thesis projects. Moving those weekly meetings to Zoom was seamless, with screenshare turned on in both directions.

The ISS course, a three-hour seminar limited to 20 students, is required of all undergraduates as the culmination of their general education. Learning outcomes are set by the General Education Committee, and all ISS courses must meet the same objectives regardless of topic. My ISS course examines where humans fit in the natural world by asking “Are we of it or against it?” to encourage students to think about their actions as part of a larger process—the proverbial “Circle of Life.” In person, the ISS course includes rich discussions of readings as well as documentary and theatrical videos. Discussion and regular weekly writings formed the bulk of the course assessment, along with a short video story capstone project.

A three-hour synchronous Zoom class would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish effectively. Although I did not poll students, I knew that they all were stressed seniors concerned about the rapid shift in their educational environment and uncertainties about the last few months of their education. The in-person syllabus required students to complete (1) 14 weekly writing assignments (750 words each) responding to a set of open-ended questions on the required learning materials for the unit (several of which had to be replaced with new materials that were more readily available); and (2) eight biweekly writing assignments (450 words each) in which students could introduce new readings, video, and other content and then discuss the connections to any theme from class. All of the weekly essays were posted on the Sakai Learning Management System. Revising the ISS syllabus entailed rethinking the writing assignments and replacing the in-class discussions. To ensure that discussions continued, I realigned the writings to focus on the weekly prompted essays. I eliminated the biweekly essays; students already had completed three or four before the transition. They completed their weekly essay with a Monday due date and then had two responses in lieu of the biweekly essays: responding to three fellow students’ work (200–250 words each) and replying to any comments received on their own weekly essay (50 words each). The number of weekly essays remained the same with six weeks of responses, increasing the net writing by 250–500 words per week.

To continue building on the rapport established when the class was in-person, after we moved online I commented on every student’s weekly essay and on at least one peer comment. This served both classroom-social and cognitive-presence obligations. I also built rapport through weekly but optional virtual meetings at the beginning of the regularly scheduled class time. The first week, most but not all students (i.e., 14 of 20) joined the optional meeting to discuss the revised plans and the need for further adjustments (e.g., subsequent meetings averaged 10 students). My initial planning for the switch included more flexible due dates for the weekly essays and responses. In online meetings, students wanted more structure to ensure sufficient source material for their comments and responses. We mutually revised the schedule to better fit class needs. Overall, the transition to online allowed students to perform as well or better (based on student grades) than the previous semester’s face-to-face courses. Finally, students in both online meetings and emails expressed appreciation for the thoughtful transition process and the effort to maintain our learning environment, albeit differently.

Moving to a virtual environment requires intentionality to keep students focused on the learning environment and the educational experience. As Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999, 89) noted, “cognitive presence is a vital element in critical thinking.” Maintaining that cognitive presence online requires adaptability and a student-centric approach to building a community of scholars engaged in thoughtful and meaningful dialog. The intentionality of the process is critical. Any course can transition to virtual if the instructor is willing to thoughtfully consider how to adapt it to students’ needs and, most important, to learning outcomes.