Discussion
Survey results revealed perceived negative effects of teaching modality
shifts on field teaching during spring 2020 and upcoming semesters,
which was unsurprising given that a large majority or respondents
(79.5%) taught courses with modes of instruction impacted during spring
2020. These negative effects included reduction or elimination of
learning outcomes typically taught in field activities (Figure 1A), a
shift to remote teaching activities that appear less student-centered
(Figures 2 and 4), and adoption of remote teaching activities that
instructors viewed as relatively poor quality substitutes for field
activities, or that have substantial potential shortcomings in terms of
equity (Figure 3).
Respondents typically taught, in field settings, a variety of learning
outcomes using diverse activities. The most frequently taught learning
outcomes related to field techniques, data collection, natural history
and identification, study design, and teamwork, and the most frequently
used activities were instructor field lecture, group data collection in
instructor-designed studies, instructor demonstration, group
observation, and independent observation (Figure 1). The learning
outcomes most frequently reduced or eliminated in response to the
pandemic were also those that were most commonly taught in field
settings (Figure 1). Declining institutional support for field trips and
increasing class enrollments likely had likely already largely forced
field teaching to focus on learning outcomes difficult to teach by other
means (Fleischner et al. 2017). This result further suggests that
outcomes typically taught in field settings were difficult to replace in
alternative modalities, especially given limited time for preparation
and available information.
Respondents used or planned to use a diversity of remote teaching
activities to substitute for activities typically taught in the field.
The most frequently-reported remote teaching activities used in spring
2020 were student discussion, video materials, additional reading
assignments, independent research, or instructor demonstration (Figure
2). These activities appear to be both less student-centered and less
active than typical field activities, although this conclusion is
contingent on the specific pedagogy applied (i.e. active learning can be
incorporated into lectures or videos). Activities planned for use in
future terms appeared to shift, to some extent, towards more active or
student-centered activities relative to those used in spring 2020
(Figure 3) which may result in improved student outcomes given the
effectiveness of active learning (Freeman et al. 2014, Handelsman et al.
2007). Respondents mapped typical field activities to remote substitutes
(Figure 4), and these results also suggested a shift from active,
student-centered activities to more instructor-centered activities,
although the survey did not directly ask respondents about active
learning in remote teaching activities.
Respondents had generally negative views of both the effectiveness and
equity of remote teaching activities (Figure 3). There was an apparent
mismatch between perceived effectiveness (relatively high) and equity
(relatively low) of independent data collection and field work
activities conducted by students. Free-response answers to questions on
barriers to equitable teaching suggested that while independent data
collection and field work activities were relatively effective
substitutes for field teaching, they may be difficult to implement
equitably in a remote modality. Identification of perceived barriers by
respondents (Table 1) provides insight into what barriers to equity
might be operating. Respondents also expressed relatively high perceived
effectiveness and equity of instructor-generated video lectures and
demonstrations, which was surprising given the relative passivity of
these types of exercises and the generally superior performance of more
active pedagogical approaches (Freeman et al. 2014).
The sample of survey respondents from the complete US faculty population
was non-random due to a combination of selection bias and likely
response bias. One source of selection bias was my use of institutional
websites to obtain email addresses for direct recruitment, because the
numerous part-time faculty and graduate students that teach a
substantial portion of postsecondary courses may not be listed on such
websites, This selection bias was probably only partially mitigated by
distribution of the survey via email lists of professional societies. A
commonly-hypothesized source of response bias in faculty surveys on
teaching is that faculty more engaged in their teaching responsibilities
may be more likely to respond to surveys about their teaching (e.g.
Becker and Watts 2001). The substantial over-representation of
tenure-track or tenured faculty in this survey (81% of respondents) is
likely caused by these dual sources of bias. However, given the
inductive nature of this survey, some of these sources of bias may
actually make the sample more useful in addressing the descriptive
research questions, given that the respondents are likely to be
tenure-track or tenured faculty more engaged in their teaching. Thus,
these data may represent more useful and thoughtful responses than
non-respondents might have provided.
Teaching field learning outcomes in a remote modality clearly poses
challenges. Respondents offered a variety of potentially successful
approaches to remote teaching of topics typically taught in the field,
several of which I summarized, expanded, and related to selected
literature (Table 2). I focused on the learning outcome types most
frequently taught in typical field settings and most heavily impacted by
modality shift: identification and natural history, field techniques,
data collection, and study design. The suggested activities and related
resources are general rather than specific, and may be applicable to a
variety of synchronous or asynchronous remote courses that teach such
learning outcomes. I assumed that more active and student-centered
activities are generally more engaging to students and likely to produce
positive outcomes in both face-to-face (Freeman et al. 2014) and remote
environments (Farrel et al. 2018). I do not discuss virtual field trips
as a substitute for field activities, because virtual field trips do not
appear to represent a single pedagogical approach, but rather a wide
type of remote or even face-to-face activities that are meant to
substitute for the traditional field trip.
The challenges to inclusive teaching posed by shifting to
distance-learning modalities that were most frequently identified by
respondents were technology, student time, less engaging modality, and
geography or transportation (Table 1). A combination of institutional
support, such as providing necessary equipment to students, and
thoughtful remote course design, such as focusing on activities likely
to be effective in a remote environment, may assist students in
overcoming these faculty-perceived barriers. An important consideration,
expressed unprompted by 27 survey respondents in free-response
questions, is that remote teaching modalities may exacerbate existing
inequalities between students, presumably because of correlation between
access to technology and socioeconomic class or other factors (Table 1).
Further, asking students to engage in field activities alone may present
personal hazards to students, and risk could be correlated with
socioeconomic class, ability, or any number of other factors. Mitigation
of these hazards is worth considering when designing inclusive courses.
The faculty survey results and discussion presented here represent a
first attempt at applying survey-based approaches to understanding and
improving field pedagogy within a sudden, seemingly intractable
disruption that has uniquely impacted field-based higher education in
ecology and evolution. This survey was designed, administered, and
analyzed in relatively short order, leading to several potential
shortcomings that can be overcome through more targeted and
well-designed education research. Future studies with improved
randomization during selection and elimination of response bias would
improve inferential scale and confidence. More targeted research that
specifically assesses the application and effectiveness of active
learning strategies in remote or face-to-face teaching of field learning
outcomes allow for more specific pedagogical recommendations. I
optimistically hope that the self-reflection and assessment of existing
field teaching activities forced by the pandemic will spur additional
research into field pedagogy in ecology and evolution, and in the long
run, improved and more inclusive experiences for students in field-based
disciplines.