Simulating “Normalcy” in a Global Pandemic: Synchronous e-Learning and the Ethics of Care in Teaching

The benefits of using simulations as an active-learning activity in the political science classroom are well documented (Asal and Blake 2006, 1–18; Newmann and Twigg 2000, 835–42). Insights from the pedagogy literature in the discipline already address a variety of formats, including simulations developed for in-person learning in or outside of the classroom or entirely online (Taylor 2013, 134–49). Yet the COVID-19 pandemic presents new opportunities and challenges. Instructors may need to consider whether and how an in-person simulation can be conducted while maintaining physical distancing, determine if and how it can be conducted remotely, and reassess the balance between synchronous and asynchronous learning. ¹

This article builds on our experience, as instructor and students, ² in remotely conducting an in-class simulation in the context of emergency e-learning as part of a fourth-year undergraduate seminar in international relations at a Canadian university. We offer practical advice on how to move simulations online as well as broader insight into the value of a hybrid approach to remote learning that combines asynchronous and synchronous components and how this can be grounded in a pedagogy of care (Smith and Hornsby 2020). The voices of student coauthors, identified by their first name, are woven in throughout the following discussion. Our hope is that this contribution will inform how students, educators, and administrators approach the so-called new normal in postsecondary education.

In this particular course, the transition to emergency e-learning entailed adapting an in-class, two-week simulation of a diplomatic negotiation between parties to the South China Sea disputes for remote instruction in less than a week. This decision was made amid emerging discussions about synchronous versus asynchronous learning in an emergency context (Barrett-Fox 2020; Flaherty 2020). Most of the structure of the simulation, which involved both synchronous and asynchronous components, was preserved, and the structure and timeline were adjusted so that the assignment could be conducted via Zoom. The simulation also became optional: students could choose an alternative (i.e., fully asynchronous) assignment.

The transition to a remote format involved multiple challenges. Both instructor and students needed to familiarize themselves quickly with new technologies. Yet, as Max ³ points out, there is a prevailing expectation among instructors that “Generation Z” ⁴ students will be technology savvy by instinct. However, this is not always the case, especially when learning how to use software and apps with which they are unfamiliar. Educational-psychology research also provides evidence of this, as some scholars argue that assuming the average student is a “digital native” amounts to a belief in “yeti-like creatures” (Kirschner and De Bruyckere 2017, 135).

Conducting negotiations in a virtual space also proved challenging irrespective of technological proficiency. The inability to physically move around, access private discussions, respond effectively to nonverbal interpersonal cues, and locate “where the action is” as they would have if the simulation had been conducted in person was frustrating for students—although it also contributed to their learning experience in unexpected ways. ⁵ Some were managing multiple private chats simultaneously in addition to following the drafting process and coordinating with their team. As Munro states: “Part of what made it challenging is that thinking and acting fast in-person are much easier than on a device—there’s a limit to how quickly I can type.” Other students who were cut off from direct access to private dealings among teams had to make executive decisions for the team without having all of the information they thought they needed to do so. Chairing an online simulation also made it more difficult for the instructor to track participation in real time. Fortunately, “channels” ⁶ allowed for written traces of intra-team coordination to be consulted after the fact for assessment purposes.

Finally, students experienced new challenges while coordinating asynchronous group work online. Some students reported additional discomfort at “annoying” their teammates and being more mindful than usual of how their peers might be experiencing extenuating circumstances related to COVID-19 that would hamper their ability to contribute. Although feedback from participating students was overwhelmingly positive, these challenges provide important lessons.

First, instructors should be mindful that students are likely to experience various emotions as a result of their reluctant participation in remote courses—which, as Munro reminds us, is “not what they signed up for.” Feelings of disbelief, excitement, despair, anxiety, fear, worry, compassion, and grief were expressed by students, including the authors, at various stages during the transition to remote instruction. Some of these feelings will persist beyond the emergency. This should be a factor in how instructors approach remote instruction moving forward.

Second, our experience suggests that compassion and flexibility on the part of everyone involved in deadlines and expectations and during collaborative work is, as Sydney states, “non-negotiable” in the context of e-learning in a crisis context. Flexibility is not without tradeoffs, however, which brings us to our next lesson.

Third, under certain circumstances, preserving synchronous learning components is the ethical choice. Indeed, the lack of structure that generally accompanies the type of flexibility afforded by asynchronous learning can lead to procrastination and difficulty in focusing for students. In an emergency context, the support system that many students rely on to stay organized (e.g., study groups and student clubs) disintegrates. As a result, for Munro, finishing a semester remotely was “a really isolating experience.” The synchronous components of the simulation exercise and being accountable to others allowed her to retrieve some of what was lost. The chaotic frenzy that accompanied synchronous negotiation was a welcome mental break from the uneasiness students had been experiencing throughout the transition. Group work, which often included video calls, allowed them to retain a connection with their classmates. As Serena notes, “knowing our peers from weeks of class together” also made the transition easier, whereas students starting a course online must deal with a different type of loss. Instructors will need to institute measures so that students can build the kind of peer-to-peer support that develops organically in an in-class format. Colleges and universities proactively making online technologies (e.g., Flipgrid, FeedbackFruits, and Perusall) broadly available and aimed at promoting student interaction, and training for instructors to foster such support, is key. There are legitimate concerns pertaining to how the development of online teaching capacities can be used as a pretext to further the neoliberalization of higher education. However, these technologies offer clear opportunities to improve students’ overall learning experience, including in the context of in-person teaching after it resumes.

…under certain circumstances, preserving synchronous learning components is the ethical choice.

The chaotic frenzy that accompanied synchronous negotiation was a welcome mental break from the uneasiness students had been experiencing throughout the transition.

As we transition from emergency into the new normal, these lessons can productively inform how instructors, students, and administrators approach remote and online teaching in the context of a global pandemic and beyond. Although some of the challenges faced will have receded, many will subsist. They must be met with an ethics of care that, it is hoped, will survive COVID-19.