In a blended instructional model like FurmanFlex, there will be instances when students who join your class in-person or remotely will engage in an activity differently. In other cases, some activities may include both groups of students participating together, albeit in different physical spaces. Finding ways to integrate students in both settings in the same activity will both save you time and energy and enhance the collaborative nature of your course. These “overlapping” activities provide learning opportunities for students to engage and integrate across modes of engagement (Beatty, 2019).

As you outline your course pedagogy and activities, it is therefore prudent to first attempt to create or modify existing course activities to include some virtual engagement component so that both face-to-face (F2F) and remote students can interact concurrently as a full class, even if they are located in different places (e.g. one group in class, one group virtually). There may be instances where this is not feasible and you’ll need to develop two separate pathways (one F2F and one virtual) through which an activity is completed. However, the downside of this split design approach is that it will require additional time and planning on your part and may hinder a cohesive course experience for students who engage in your course through different modalities. Additionally, grounding at least a portion of your course activities in virtual platforms is the most flexible in the case of campus closure. Consider below several promising practices for active learning in both face-to-face and virtual environments.

Regardless of the instructional approach you assume, we encourage you to ground your pedagogy with strategies from trauma-informed practices as these can help create an environment conducive to learning during periods of stress.

Works Cited: