One of the novel aspects of teaching during the pandemic was the opportunity to teach the same course using different instructional delivery modes within a relatively short window of time. This was not a common experience for me prior to the pandemic. Yes, I had taught a course in-person/in the classroom and then later online (asynchronously and then synchronously), and I had experimented with another course using several instructional modes over the years (asynchronously online, then in-person/in-class, then flex–combining in-person/in-class and synchronous online modes). These experiences taught me that it is challenging to deliver high-quality learning experiences in all delivery modes and each mode poses some unique challenges. But most of the courses I taught were in-person/in-class, and in hindsight, I never fully embraced the degree of change in teaching methods required to create “equivalent” engaging learning experiences in each mode of instruction. Nor did I fully understand the relative merits of each mode of instruction.

     This reflection focuses on an entrepreneurship course: Startup Accelerator, an undergraduate course with no prerequisites, where students work in teams to start a business. The course is an extreme, active learning experience, where teams receive $1,000 to defray startup expenses, must start a business by mid-semester (e.g., develop a product or service, financial plans, and a legal entity), and have sales by the end of the semester in order to pass the course. I taught this course in-person/in-class for three years (Fall 2017, Fall 2018, and Fall 2019). Then in Fall 2020, I taught it using remote instruction (Canvas course with synchronous video conference classes), and in Fall 2021, I taught it using a flex mode (Canvas course with in-person and video conference participants combined for classes).

     Unlike in Spring 2020, when courses had to be converted to online/remote with little notice mid-semester, for Fall 2020, I had time to plan and prepare to teach remotely. Plus, I took time during that summer to learn more about remote learning best practices, participating in several virtual conferences and workshops. For Fall 2021, there was uncertainty about the mode of instruction, and new classroom technology was rolled out shortly before the start of the semester to better accommodate a flex mode of instruction. As a result, I felt less prepared, barely recovered from the stresses of the prior school year, and faced more uncertainty about the teaching environment.

     Regardless of the mode of instruction, for the course learning objectives to be accomplished, students need to form teams very rapidly because they need to create a business within five or six weeks. Money must be distributed to the teams quickly (within a week after teams are formed) so that they can use it to pay for startup expenses. Teams must work together to create their firm and share their progress and challenges via weekly presentations and class discussions. The instructor must meet with teams regularly to monitor progress, provide feedback, and mentor/coach teams. Sometimes the instructor may need to meet with individuals, to discuss unique challenges they face. The instructor must also teach students some technical skills required to successfully run a firm. Because there are no prerequisites, students may need to learn how to use spreadsheets, how to create financial plans (e.g., unit economics, sales forecasts, income statements, etc.), and how to track key metrics for their venture. Table 1 and Table 2 provide an overview of key course activities and implications by mode of instruction.

Fall 2020: Remote Teaching

     As I transitioned this course from in-class to remote in Fall 2020, I focused on two key changes: building community and cash transfer. For all of the other key learning activities, I essentially planned to do the same activities, just translated into a virtual environment–team formation via speed dating in breakout rooms instead of in class, team meetings in breakout rooms instead of huddling in class, presentations via screen sharing instead of from the podium in class, team consultations in private breakout rooms instead of while huddling in the classroom, and mini-lectures using screen sharing instead of slides shared via a podium/projector/screen set-up in class. To encourage community building, I prepared two to four questions, which I asked at the beginning of each class. The questions focused on discovering shared interests, feelings today, and gratitude today. Everyone was invited/expected to participate and students could choose to engage verbally, via chat, or sometimes by a signal/sign (thumbs up/down, a number, etc.). Regarding cash transfer, the process became completely electronic using Apple Pay.

     As I reflected on this experience, I realized that the remote mode of instruction actually yielded a superior learning experience versus the in-person/in-class mode in some respects. Of course, these results were only achieved when students had reliable Internet access, working computers, had their cameras on, and were prepared to engage. Teamwork and team consultations were more effective in private breakout rooms; there were fewer distractions, it was easier to hear each other and easier to focus. Private team matters could be discussed freely without worry of being overheard or embarrassing students in front of their peers. Once students learned how to share their screens, presentations flowed more smoothly with less lag time between presentations; this increased focus and engagement. Surprisingly, the personal computer view afforded by remote instruction proved more effective than the classroom view for technical mini lectures. When viewing a computer screen, spreadsheet examples adjusted appropriately were large enough to be seen but still small enough to capture the whole. This is hard to do in a classroom–when scale is increased enough for visibility in the back row of the classroom, the perspective of the whole is often lost. It is easier to follow a discussion or explanation of a spreadsheet from 24 inches away than ~24 feet away; there are fewer distractions in your field of view, and it is easier to see and focus. During these mini lectures, I also discovered that it was easy to quickly share student work and collectively problem-solve ways to improve the work (i.e., using screen share or file share via chat with screen share). This heightened engagement and increased learning, making it more personal/specific.

     With hindsight, I realize that some of the changes/improvements to the course could be achieved or applied to the in-class mode of instruction. For example, the community building activities did help build community and this approach can be applied to in-person classes, although some classroom interaction technology may be needed to ensure widespread engagement. The electronic cash transfer approach was easy, quick, and reliable; there was no reason to revert to physical distribution, even when students return to the classroom.

Fall 2021: Flex Mode

     As I planned to implement this course in Fall 2021, the mode of instruction and associated technology was not clear until a few weeks before classes started. When I found out the course would be taught in a flex mode (with some students participating in the classroom and some participating via video conference), I focused on learning the new technology. I had pioneered use of a flex mode in our graduate program (as the program grew, flex provided an efficient way to accommodate new online students without having to create new course sections with very few students). I knew the challenges of this mode of instruction and that it could be effective.

     With hindsight, my experience may have given me a false sense of confidence that I could make flex work in any course. What I quickly discovered was that for this particular course, a flex mode had significant disadvantages. Team formation activities were less successful using this mixed mode of instruction in comparison to classroom and remote modes; students were not prepared to communicate across space during the first week of the course. Consequently, about half the teams were formed based on convenience–working in the same mode–rather than shared business interests or goals. This resulted in less cohesive and less effective teams. Teamwork and team consultations were challenging when some team members were online and some were in the class. Team members in the classroom had to bring laptops, phones, and headsets to class to communicate effectively with online teammates during class. They expressed resentment at having to work across space, they had chosen to be in class and did not want to work via video/phone. All privacy was lost when team consultations were conducted in a flex mode with teams having members in the classroom and online. People in the classroom had to speak loudly so the room microphones would pick up the sound for online participants to hear (or in-classroom participants, including the instructor, had to use headphones and phones/computers–essentially going online). During team presentations, online students were bored during the longer transition times in the classroom. Adjusting scale to accommodate classroom and online students during mini-lectures was challenging but doable. There was a noticeable difference between the engagement and comprehension of the classroom and online students with the online students more quickly grasping the material, asking questions, and sharing examples and work.

     It rapidly became evident to me and students that the flex mode of instruction was making teamwork and team consultations harder and less effective. So as a class, we discussed the challenges and talked about options for improving the situation. We agreed to try an experiment for two weeks: We would all show up in the classroom on Tuesdays and we would all show up via video conference on Thursdays. Tuesdays would be reserved for team presentations and mini-lectures, while Thursdays would be reserved for teamwork and team consultations. Everyone agreed to the plan. What actually happened was that most students showed up in person on Tuesdays, but not all, and all students showed up via video on Thursdays. After two weeks, we had another discussion, and students agreed this format was more effective, even though students who preferred for everyone to be in the classroom had not been accommodated. Teamwork and team consultations were much more effective for mixed-mode teams when all participants used video.

Looking Ahead

     My pandemic experiences have helped me realize that multiple modes of instruction are here to stay and they can be used in ways that improve (Fall 2020) or worsen (Fall 2021) the learning experience for students. I’ve learned that: 1) each mode of instruction has unique characteristics–advantages and disadvantages, 2) not all learning objectives/activities are best accomplished via each mode, 3) just as learning activities and assessments must be selected to align with learning objectives, so should modes of instruction be aligned with learning objectives, 4) planning, selection, and execution of learning activities, assessments, and instructional strategies must take into consideration and be responsive to or fit the characteristics of the mode of instruction, 5) effective online instruction, whether synchronous, asynchronous, or part of a flex format, is highly dependent on reliable technology (i.e., electricity, Internet access, computer, etc.) and participants’ willingness to engage versus merely observe or watch, and 6) the flex or mixed mode of instruction is the most challenging, has the least evidence base (Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2021; Miller et al., 2021), and requires active effort to overcome the disadvantages of mixing modes (i.e., in-group/out-group attributions and resentments, differences in lag or pacing/flow, differences in quality of sound and visual experiences by mode, etc.). The flex or mixed mode was attractive to administrators during the uncertainty of the pandemic and widely adopted to manage institutional issues and give students choice. In the future, a more nuanced decision-making process that includes consideration of the strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness of this mode of instruction in specific learning contexts will better serve students and institutions.

Table 1: Key Course Activities by Course Mode

Table 2: Implications for Key Course Activities by Course Mode