Rising to the Challenge: Finding Inspiration in Faculty’s Commitment to Learning during COVID-19

Carolyn Ives and Catharine Dishke Hondzel

When COVID-19 caused Thompson Rivers University to move students, staff, and faculty off campus and courses to move to alternate modes of delivery, we were in shock and a bit paralyzed by the sudden pivot to digital. As an educational developer and a Director in our Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT), we work with faculty to improve pedagogy and course design, but our area is not technology, and the Learning Technology Team implemented their own faculty support plans so quickly that we felt useless and helpless. We were able to contribute somewhat to their resources and support desk, and we created several handouts and a few videos to help them in their faculty support efforts.

But we wanted to do more. We decided we would create an online course for faculty to help them plan for flexible courses that could move fully online if necessary: we titled it Facilitating Learning in Moodle (FLIM). However, since we had recently come to Thompson Rivers University from other institutions, we had limited experience with Moodle, TRU’s learning management system. Also, we knew that good online courses at TRU involved the work of a Content Developer, a Consultant, an Instructional Designer, and Editor, and a Production Technician. We had access to none of that. We did, however, have extensive experience in course design, so we opted to leverage our strength in that: we decided to rely on principles of backward design to replicate what faculty without any training in online learning could create in a short period of time, and we also wanted to provide them with the opportunity to see and experience what their students might see and experience.

This meant a steep learning curve for us, as we hadn’t used Moodle much in the past, and the tools TRU supports are very different than ones with which we were familiar. It was exciting, though, to learn new tools within Moodle, and it helped us be aware of the potential struggles faculty and students might have in navigating this new mode of course delivery. Many faculty who registered for the course had never used Moodle extensively, and some had never even logged into Moodle before. How would they deliver what would normally be a face-to-face course through Moodle?

Initially, we in CELT had hoped to draw on existing courses focused on online teaching and course design, as there are many of them out there, and some are even open access and freely available. However, we opted instead to create something unique for TRU faculty. Our goals for the course were as follows:

• To create something simple to navigate and usable;

• To model principles of backward course design;

• To model for faculty how to use a consistent module structure;

• To model online presence and community-building;

• To help faculty create course elements that would be usable in any mode of delivery; and

• To show how even novices of Moodle could put together a consistent, aligned course in a short period of time by following some basic course design principles.

Once we decided on draft learning outcomes for the course, we followed principles of backward design (as outlined in Chapter 1 of Darby and Lang’s Small Teaching Online, one of the readings we assigned in the course) to determine what successful achievement of those outcomes would look like, and then we selected readings and created activities and assessments to align with those outcomes and ideal demonstration of outcome achievement. To see our initial plan, please see the attached course planning table for the course. The course planning table tool was so helpful in our course design that it became part of our first assignment to help faculty plan their courses as well.

The course ultimately was designed to be a four-week commitment for participants. It consisted of four modules—course planning and design, building community, engaging learners, and facilitating assessment—plus introductory and a wrap-up activities; we also included many optional supplementary resources. Each module was created consistently, thanks to advice from Michael Wesch in a recent ACUE webinar; each included reading or two, an activity, a discussion forum with prompts, optional participation in a synchronous session, and an assignment. Faculty were asked to request a sandbox Moodle site from Moodle Support in advance, as each assignment asked faculty to submit something in the assignment drop box and then create something in their own Moodle sites. Faculty were also given the option of participating in small groups to give and receive feedback on their Moodle elements. We also offered faculty the choice of engaging in the course as much or as little as they liked, knowing that such a course would be a substantial time commitment.

While Carolyn created the modules and the structure, Catharine and others from CELT contributed some of the readings, videos, and other resources; Instructional Designers and the Learning Technology Team contributed initial feedback and a synchronous session about learning technology tools. After we planned and developed the course, we launched it on May 4—and the first cohort saw 92 faculty members register! We facilitated the discussion forums, offered feedback on assignments and faculty members’ Moodle sites, and spent countless hours discussing activity and assessment options with them.

From the first cohort of the FLIM course in May, we discovered that many who’d signed up for groups were unable to spend time completing assignments offering feedback for each others’ Moodle sites. A few people indicated that they’d never used Moodle before, and the course interface was too confusing. However, most were appreciative of the course and the opportunity to participate at their own pace and to the degree of their own level of comfort. Of the initial 92 registrants, a few dropped out, but 90 remained in the course, and 81 participated in a meaningful way. Even one faculty member who had never logged in to Moodle or worked online before persisted to complete the course, including all the assignments.

The feedback we received from the May FLIM cohort was helpful in planning for the June cohort. While only 21 participants offered feedback, of the 21 respondents, only one respondent indicated that the FLIM course did not live up to their expectations. Most encouraging, 20 of the 21 respondents indicated they felt more prepared to teach in an alternate mode of delivery after participation in FLIM. Similarly, 20 indicated that the course encouraged them to consider pedagogy, learning, or assessment in ways they had not previously. Additionally, the open-ended comments were mostly positive and appreciative. This was hugely reassuring!

In response to the feedback, we simplified the course by removing some of the resources, readings, and activities and moving all the supplementary resources to a separate tab; we also clarified dates in the tab headings. We also gave participants more control over the group sign-up process. While we don’t yet have feedback from the second cohort (it ended on June 26, but assignments are still being submitted), as of today, June 30, of the 92 registrants, no one dropped out, and we have received far fewer e-mails with questions, so we are hoping that means the course format is clearer and better structured. We are curious to see if the feedback reflects our revisions to the course.

Most promising, however, is that we saw 182 registrants over two sections remain in the course—that’s a huge number of faculty to undertake such ambitious faculty development! Even more important is that, at least partially due to FLIM, faculty are even more aware of and concerned about student access to course materials and online sessions, and they are taking steps to ensure students can engage in their courses in ways that work for them. They are also more cognizant of the value of online presence and building community, as they have now had the opportunity to experience online learning.

One of the most remarkable things we witnessed was faculty members testing tools, creating activities, and developing new kinds of assessments—and then getting peer feedback on their creations—to support student learning in ways they’d never had to consider previously. Even more inspiring is the number of faculty members who have commented that these learning experiences will help them in their face-to-face classes as well.

If you’d asked us just four months ago about faculty preparedness to teach remotely for Fall 2020, we likely would have said there’s no possible way that could happen. However, now, after witnessing faculty members’ determination to learn and to help students succeed, we would not hesitate to encourage anyone to come to TRU for the fall semester. We have seen just how much our faculty here care about students and their learning.

*To navigate, please click on the “Click to read" button for full-screen viewing.  Also, you may download the document as a PDF here:

Appendix: Course Planning Table for Facilitating Learning in Moodle Course

Works Cited

Darby, Flower, and James M. Lang. Small Teaching Online: Applying Learning Science in Online Classes. Jossey-Bass, 2019.

Mondy, April E., Alyson Snowe, and Michael Wesch. Organizing Your Online Course. ACUE Webinar Series: Effective Online Instruction. Association of College and University Educators (ACUE). April 9, 2020.