As many of us prepare for a digitally delivered fall term, we should consider the variety of options that can be employed in our classes, enabling flexibility and optimizing learning outcomes.

These COVID-19 times are disrupting our lives, our work and our learning. They force us to find new ways to deliver our curriculum and to best connect with our learners at a distance. For many, remote teaching at the end of the spring term and summer session was little more than firing up a Zoom session to synchronously deliver classroom sessions. Unfortunately, this was less than satisfying to many faculty members and students. It left some with a distant feeling that was less personal and less engaged than they had felt in the prior face-to-face model.

Fortunately, there are many more online options than merely turning on the camera.

For the past quarter century, online learning has been mostly asynchronous — engaging students in print materials, short video clips and discussion boards. This “traditional” approach affords the greatest student flexibility — anytime and anywhere. It is relatively low bandwidth while still allowing engagement between and among the students and instructor in the discussion board. Working adult students in particular have valued this approach for the ease of time shifting and mobile phone access through many learning management systems. Online pedagogy and practices have developed over the years to facilitate learning in this mode.

Over the decades, we have endowed this approach with active learning methods. As Steven Mintz of the University of Texas at Austin articulated in his Inside Higher Ed column last month, there is an unending list of effective ways to make the learning online active. Engaging students in meaningful activities is at the core of success both online and on campus.

Online learning offers an array of strategies and practices that can be implemented within the same class. For example, one module might best benefit from an online simulation for a period of a week or more. The Colorado School of Mines has assembled this impressive list of simulations across a whole host of disciplines. Inserting a simulation into the online class schedule can enhance the engagement of students. Another strategy would be to offer a choice to students enrolled in the class: take the simulation or, instead, proceed with the material delivered in the standard “chunked” format — short video lectures — with readings and a discussion board. If one is careful to ensure the same or equivalent learning outcomes, this gives the students greater control and satisfaction in their learning experience.

The online platform supports a wide array of competency-based learning approaches. In many cases, we think of competency in terms of an entire curriculum. In this case, though, I suggest we consider enabling students to demonstrate learning of the contents of a module within the class in a competency mode. For example, for a two- or three-week period students might choose to demonstrate knowledge of the assigned topic through journaling or detailed chronicling of how and when they learned the topic of the module, including outcomes validating the learning. Much like the simulations mentioned above, perhaps they would be given the alternative of demonstrating competency in that specific area, or they could choose to continue in the “normal” mode of mini-lectures, readings and discussion.

I wrote some weeks back about the importance of knowing your students. It is important to understand the circumstances in which students come to your class — especially in these COVID-19-affected times. Many of our learners are in flux. Some are working, others are not. Some are self-isolating while others are out and about pursuing a variety of activities that preclude a regular schedule or location of study. In order to adapt to this diversity, it may be best to assure that your class is mobile-friendly. That is, the learners will be best served if they can access class materials and assignments on a mobile phone. Considerations include ensuring that the LMS is configured to support mobile learning and assignments can be completed on a phone or tablet.

One more approach may be to implement an adaptive learning module. In this case, students would move through the module, step by step, demonstrating mastery of identifiable concepts, principles or skills before they can move forward to the next step. Not all learning management systems are equally prepared to support adaptive learning, but in a smaller module, most will allow the instructor to manually create a string of assessments leading to mini-modules specific to the assessment results. These can then be structured in an adaptive release format. Ultimately, adaptive learning will lead us to truly personalized learning, customized for each learner.

With the challenges of COVID-19 come opportunities. How are you taking advantage of the opportunity to look anew at the methods and modes of delivery of classes? Have you modified your online or blended learning for this fall to afford active learning and greater engagement of your students? Are you fully considering the wide variety of conditions in which your students will be learning? Are you encouraging your colleagues to take this opportunity to move beyond the “camera in the classroom” approach to experiment with simulations and competency-based modules?

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed’s Transforming Teaching & Learning blog.

In the months of COVID-19 isolation, the gulf between college science labs and professional labs has narrowed; they both are converging in online practice.

Academic virtual science labs have improved year by year as more and more learners seek to advance their education and careers through online learning. At the same time, professional laboratories have increasingly utilized robotics, distant sensors and associated technologies to make the labs more versatile, efficient, accurate and operable at a distance. The advent of the Internet of Things (IoT) is overhauling laboratories to provide remote (distant) control and monitoring.

IoT continues to advance month by month in linking literally billions of devices to the network. As a matter of common practice, new models of all types of equipment in all fields are internet connection-enabled. This has led to a new term — “Industrial Internet of Things.” The U.K. editor in chief of ZD Net and Tech Republic, Steve Ranger, writes, “The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) or the fourth industrial revolution or Industry 4.0 are all names given to the use of IoT technology in a business setting. The concept is the same as for the consumer IoT devices in the home, but in this case the aim is to use a combination of sensors, wireless networks, big data, AI and analytics to measure and optimise industrial processes.”

The current pandemic has put increased pressure on both the professional practitioners and professors to implement new technologies to operate laboratories at a distance wherever possible. Many of these technologies were developed prior to the current pandemic. For example, pharmaceutical laboratory Pranatharthiharan moved a couple of years ago to enable remote lab controls:

In addition to collecting data about equipment performance and laboratory conditions, scientists such as Pranatharthiharan can use the IoT to deposit vast amounts of experimental data into the cloud directly from instruments and to control experiments remotely. “It’s very clear that research in laboratories — particularly in biology and biomedicine — is becoming fully intertwined with online technologies,” says Sabina Leonelli, a philosopher who studies data and life science at the University of Exeter in the U.K.

Chemical engineer and biotechnologistArthur Trapotsis of Consolidated Sterilizer Systems has adapted the IoT and IIoT terms to apply specifically to laboratories: “The Internet of Things in laboratories, or as I like to call it, the Internet of Labs (IoL), is about to take off — and in a short time all laboratory equipment will be connected to the cloud. This type of ‘smart’ equipment will enable researchers to be more productive by allowing them to remotely perform experiments, run processes, monitor tests, collect data and more.”

Clearly, as we move forward, graduates will be working in smart laboratories. No longer will they use the manual tools and techniques of prior centuries seen in the classic college laboratory. Instead, they will begin their careers by using computer-controlled, precise, monitored and remotely controlled robotics to perform laboratory work utilizing the Internet of Labs described above. Remote control — even working from home — will become normalized. John Joyce writes in Laboratory Manager, “Ready or not, you need to be planning how to deal with the internet of things (IoT); simply ignoring it is not an option. You may be able to delay its infiltration of your lab, but that will rapidly become an unfeasible option as more manufacturers incorporate the IoT into their instruments.”

The Internet of Things is rapidly expanding to serve laboratories, both professional and academic. In a unique collaboration, MIT has joined Biogen to demonstrate web-based, remote lab tools.

Michael Cima, Lemelson-MIT Program faculty director and associate dean of innovation for MIT’s School of Engineering, says, “We also know that hands-on doesn’t have to mean in-person, and mentoring can happen effectively using web-based collaboration tools. We are excited to join forces with Biogen and their unique expertise, combined with ours, to help another generation of students discover their passion for invention in biotechnology and neuroscience.”

Al Sandrock, executive vice president, research and development, Biogen, says, “While we have always believed that science can be done anywhere, the current public health crisis has pushed us all to consider new ways of learning and to think differently about how we collaborate with others. Lemelson-MIT is allowing us to enrich our program so we can continue to foster an appreciation for science, and reinforce the point that science is accessible, even if you’re not physically in a lab.”

Science education company Labster and Google have joined forces to support an online biology degree using virtual reality labs. And, just as the pandemic emerged, edX launched a free online platform to support the laboratory sciences through interactive simulations and more.

In the coming year or two, as we return to the “new normal” of post-pandemic, we will see the Industrial Internet of Things and the Internet of Laboratories merge in the corporate and research worlds. Are we preparing our STEM students to thrive in the new environment? Are we adapting our laboratories to the emerging IIoT and IoL? Who is leading the initiative to bring the labs on your campus up to speed?

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed’s Transforming Teaching & Learning.

In the weeks of COVID-19 isolation, the disparity of access to the internet has become more obvious as school-age children and adult learners have been deprived access to education and livelihoods.

It has been suggested that internet access in the 21st century is akin to access to the public utilities of water and electricity. It is a public necessity. Four years ago, the United Nations formally amended Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adding, “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet” and another 15 recommendations that cover the rights of those who work in and rely on internet access. It also applies to “women, girls and those heavily impacted by the digital divide.”

This has come into focus in the lockdowns and self-isolation of the coronavirus pandemic. As billions of people around the world, and hundreds of millions in the U.S., have been restricted from public places, businesses, schools and other locations outside the home, a very clear and crippling divide has become evident. Significant geographic areas as well as lower-income demographics have been excluded from opportunities for guided learning, work, rich communication, advanced telehealth services and gainful employment. The people in these domains are virtually stranded. Without broadband access to the lifeline of the internet, these people cannot effectively work or learn from home; they cannot fully engage in society. Having been disconnected for months, they are at a huge disadvantage as we prepare for reopening businesses, schools and government.

Broadband access to the internet is widespread across the U.S. and most developed countries. Yet there remain tens of millions of Americans who do not have access. Those who live in less populated rural areas and low-income groups who may have broadband available, but cannot afford the costs, are left behind. This divide between the broadband haves and have-nots has been examined again and again over the years by the Federal Communications Commission:

Released in April, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2020 Broadband Development Report identified approximately 18 million Americans — principally in rural areas — without access to any broadband network. The report was criticized for continuing to rely on inaccurate mapping data that skews the numbers to be more favorable than reality. An independent review of the FCC’s 2019 report found that the agency seriously undercounted unserved Americans, with the actual unserved population twice as large as the FCC claimed.

There have been some actions that attempt to address the rural divide, notably subsidies and grant programs, though these have not been fully implemented. Tom Wheeler of the Brookings Institution recommends more direct action through “an ensemble of ways” tapping a wide range of technologies and funding possibilities to eliminate the rural divide.

After we emerge from the pandemic, the internet will be even more prominent than before in education, business, government and social engagement. In isolation, we have built a deeper reliance upon the net and we will soon see an expansion of “work from home,” requiring a wider variety of network access for an increasing number of occupations. The corporate economies of a dispersed online workforce utilizing their own homes, instead of expensive business office space, will accelerate the already notable shift to working at home. Katherine Guyot and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution predict, “In the post-pandemic world, it may stay with us as a popular practice that, if done well, can improve job satisfaction, raise productivity, reduce emissions, and spread work to more remote regions.”

In order to avoid further disenfranchising the rural and lower-income workers, it is critically important that we find a way to provide universal access to the massive education and work venue that the internet has become.

How do we solve this access problem? On the one hand, affordability could be solved by subsidizing access for those who otherwise cannot afford it. The precedent for this kind of program dates back to the Reagan administration’s Lifeline program of 1985 that originally provided a voice access discount of $9.25 per month, ostensibly to assure access to 9-1-1 emergency services. That program was updated by the FCC to include measures for a 1,000 monthly minutes of 3-G service at a subsidy of $9.25 to go into effect in December of this year. While these are a great start for providing access to those who cannot afford the full cost of broadband, they are already outdated. Given the advent of 5-G service as the emerging standard for broadband and the expanding monthly subscription costs, the rules need review and revision.

What can we do as educators and institutions to further advance efforts to provide access to the many millions of Americans who are not yet served by broadband in the U.S.? This is a huge issue limiting our ability to reach learners at all education levels. Who is taking responsibility for this at your university? What can you do to help?

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed’s Transforming Teaching & Learning blog.