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.