This presentation was made at the CPUT Teaching and Learning with Technology Day on 26 November 2020

1. DEVELOPING DEEP AND
AUTHENTIC LEARNING IN
REMOTE TEACHING AND
LEARNING
OLUWASEUN OYEKOLA
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, CAPE TOWN 7535, SOUTH AFRICA.
oyekolas@cput.ac.za

2. INTRODUCTION
• Multimodal remote teaching and learning
• Academic practitioners have raised possible
challenges and their concerns about this sudden
shift.
• “one of the academic risks of moving our
courses into emergency remote teaching is
keeping the integrity of our programmes and
the value of our qualifications” (Lange, 2020-
The DVC, teaching and learning, UCT).
• “nobody thinks this is the way online education
should be done. Victory during the pandemic
will not include the development of high-quality
online education, but rather helping faculty
support their students through a difficult time -
focusing on engagement, compassion and
flexibility” (Lederman, 2020-editor and co-
founder of Inside Higher Ed)
Istockphoto.com/martinwimmer

3. INTRODUCTION
• BB promises several advantages
• Most educators have simply migrated to
the new mode by “digitising” their
conventional face-to-face teaching
materials
• enhanced by using synchronous (e.g.
Zoom, WhatsApp, MS Teams) and
asynchronous (WhatsApp & email)
• “Emphasis placed on interaction without
being clear about an educational goal or
learning objective may have inadvertently
created some of the problems of poor
student engagement” (Meyer, 2014, p.40).

4. LEARNER EXPERIENCE
San Diego State University, USA
“I did not feel challenged like I had been in the
first half of the semester, and I felt the quality of
learning had gone way down.”
“I watched the lectures posted, but I wasn’t
learning the material,” wrote another. All told,
moving online caused “a profound sense of loss.”
“The lessons are in person, and not on a screen.
This is important because it helps me and other
people pay attention when the teacher is in the
same room as us. You get more out of what they
are saying when you can see their body language,
and it’s more a personal experience”
Cape Peninsula University of Technology, SA
“Physical Interactions are better than Online Learning”
“Remote learning is depression itself”
“The online classes are so stressful, all modules have
basically become self study which has made nearly
impossible to cope”
“This thing of studying online and writing at campus is
not okay with me “
“Adjustments made when moving from F2F learning to
remote learning were not easy and difficulties will
again be faced when moving back to F2F learning, for
this reason it would be better if we continue with
remote learning “

5. “ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM”
• The issue isn’t so much about technology
• It is apparent that the abrupt shift of teaching mode is devoid of structure and
human interactions. Hence, consequent decrease in social engagement and
deep-learning.
• There are sociocultural considerations that have not been incorporated. The
sociocultural backgrounds that impact adoption of ETs need to be critically
considered from different perspectives (Ng’ambi and Bozalek, 2014).

6. AIM
The study aims to investigate ways of designing effective intervention for the
prescribed multimodal remote teaching and learning during the COVID-19
pandemic, in order to promote continued teaching and learning for
undergraduate Chemical Engineering students during the national lockdown
Absence of face-to-face (F2F)/social interaction between individual learner and instructor is
having negative impact on students’ effective learning. The possible causes are (i) sense of
isolation, (ii) lack of meaningful/ deep learning in the remote teaching and learning mode.
PROBLEM STATEMENT

7. APPROACH
PHASE 1: ANALYSIS OF A PRACTICAL PROBLEM
Undergraduate chemical engineering lecturers (n=10)
were interviewed to evaluate and validate the problem
posited.
DBR approach in educational technology research (Reeves, 2006).
PHASE 2: DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS
“a design for the learning environment is proposed to
address the concerns. This design could be a new set of
strategies or it could be based on research gathered
from previously tested design principles” (Amiel and
Reeves, 2008, p. 35).

8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

9. PHASE 1
Figure 1: Analysis of practical problem. Student anxiety during
the remote teaching and learning (RTL) mode. 1=indifferent;
5=anxious
Figure 2: Analysis of practical problem. Student’s participation
during RTL mode. 1=low; 5=high

10. Figure 3: Analysis of practical problem. Nature of student’s learning and
factors influencing RTL mode.
PHASE 1
Figure 4: Analysis of practical problem. Nature of student’s
learning and factors influencing RTL mode. 1=low; 5=high

11. PHASE 1
Questions Lecturers’ Responses
 How prepared are your students with the shift from conventional
face-to-face (F2F) teaching approach to online delivery?
 Do you sense any form of anxiety in your students?
37.5% of students are unprepared, while 12.5% are well-prepared.
The remaining 50% fall in between. There was a major sense of
anxiety (62.5%) among the students
 What tool(s) do you use for your online teaching
 What tools have you found most valuable
 How will you rate the nature of your students’ learning (surface or
deep?)
 Any substitute for the physical/ social presence previously
provided in the F2F mode
Major percentage (75%) of the lecturers are using asynchronous
teaching tools augmented by WhatsApp for interactions.
Only 50% of the responders showed they have created a
substitute for the teacher’s presence.
 How would you compare students’ participation during the
conventional face-to-face (F2F) teaching approach and online
delivery?
 Participation unpacked as (class attendance, meeting
deadlines & interaction
 How do you interact with your students? (synchronous and/
asynchronous tools)
Student participation in class is lower (25%) compared to the F2F
mode
 How do your pass rates compare in the F2F and the online
modes (better or worse: provide values)?
50% of the respondents indicated increased pass rate, while 37.5
and 12.5% showed no difference and worse pass rates

12. SUMMARY OF PHASE 1
• Student’s anxiety is on the rise and this is associated with
decrease in student participation and more of surface-learning
(Figures 1 and 2).
• 50% of the respondents agreed that while pass rates have
increased, meaningful and deep-learning are on the decrease
(Table 1).
• These observations agree well with Biggs and Tang, (2007)
characterisation of surface and deep-learning.
• Students learning was identified to be mostly impacted by
sense of isolation and lack of ICTS facilities (Figure 3).
• The aforementioned pose potential barriers to the remote
teaching and learning. This is further unpacked by using
TIPEC (Technology (T), Individual (I), Pedagogy (P), and
Enabling Conditions (EC)) conceptual framework (Ali et al.,
2018). This informs the choice of tools and technologies,
contributes to guiding the proposed intervention.
Student learns simply to pass
assessment. Connected to,
circumstantial (Biggs and
Tang, 2007).
Students are very inquisitive,
engaging meaningfully with it.
This often results in student
satisfaction (Biggs and Tang,
2007).

13. Figure 5: Sociocultural theory of development. Illustration by Brianna
Gilmartin, Verywell.
(Source: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-sociocultural-theory-
2795088)
Figure 6: Laurillard’s Conversational Framework
PHASE 2: THEORIES AND FRAMEWORKS
Figure 7: Modes of interactions (Anderson and Garrison,
1998).

14. Figure 8: Matrix of Authentic Learning (Herrington et al
2010).
PHASE 2: THEORIES AND FRAMEWORKS
Figure 9: Universal Design for Learning) framework (CAST, 2011)

15. Draft Principle 1: Create
learning space that
incorporates meaningful
cognitive and social processes.
This suggests that educators
need to understand how their
students interact online and
students’ preferred learning
styles (Johnson et al., 2017).
Provide strategies that meet
the learning needs of diverse
population of students to cater
for varying learning types
SUMMARY OF PHASE 2
GLOBAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Draft Principle 2: Provide
scaffolding and coaching
roles to promote authentic
learning. The learner should
be more in control, while the
lecturer plays the roles of
scaffolding and coaching.
One-way transmission of
knowledge is avoided.
Interactions are encouraged
between the learner and the
teacher.
Draft Principle 3: Provide collaborative
spaces that promote student engagement
and reflection. Laurillard’s conversational
framework (Laurillard, 1999) recommends
that effective learning requires dialogue
between the students and teachers, and
among learners. “Collaboration and
reflection lead to better learning and
powerful thinking” (Papavlasopoulou et al.,
2019, p. 424).

16. PROPOSED INTERVENTION
1. Addressing inequality in access to internet connectivity and cost of technology: Rather than providing
links for students to download materials through YouTube, videos, lecture notes and screencasts are to
be uploaded on the platform. Most of the engagements with students should also be asynchronous.
2. Tackling sense of isolation due to less face-to-face interactions: Social and cognitive presence can be
achieved by placing students in groups for collaborative construction of knowledge by working on
group learning activities. Google Suite will be used. Discussions can be conducted on WhatsApp and
discussion board on Blackboard
3. Creating engaging teaching and learning: educators should be instructional designer, ensuring equity,
providing student-centred learning and using open educational resources are essential for continued
learning in the current context (Morgan, 2020). Development of artefacts and the learning environment
should be guided by the UDL principles (CAST, 2011), the cognitive theory of multimedia learning and
social agency theory described by Mayer (2017).
4. Adoption of different Learning activity types: the design of learning activities is underpinned by the
pedagogic theory of Laurillard’s conversational framework (Laurillard, 2012). The 6 learning types
highlighted by Laurillard are suggested to be espoused in the instructional design. Acquisition,
Investigation, Discussion, Practice, Collaboration and Production

17. CONCLUSIONS
Global design guidelines that foster authentic learning, meaningful cognitive and
social processes, and student engagement, that will guide instructional design,
facilitate a variety of learning activities, that cater for different learning styles of
students, were proposed

18. REFERENCES
Amiel, T., and Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-Based Research and Educational Technology: Rethinking Technology and the Research Agenda. Educational Technology and Society. 11(4): 29–40.
Anderson, T.D and Garrison, D.R (1998). Learning in a networked world: new roles and responsibilities. In: C. Gibson (Ed), Distance learners in higher education. Pp. 97-112. Madison, WI: Atwood.
Biggs, J.B., and Tang, C (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university, 3rd ed. Berkshire: Open University Press.
CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0.Wakefield, MA: Author.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C and Oliver, R. (2010). How real does authentic e-learning need to be? In A guide to authentic e-learning. Routledge London and New York.
Johnson, C., Hill, L., Lock, J., Altowariki, N., Ostrowski., da Rosa dos Santos L. and Liu (2017). Using Design-based research to develop meaningful online discussions in undergraduate field experience courses.
International review of research in open and distributed learning. 18(6):37-53.
Lange, L (2020). COVID-19: a ‘teachable’ moment. Retrieved October 27, 2020 from https://www.news.uct.ac.za/article/-2020-05-18-covid-19-a-teachable-moment
Laurillard, D (2012). Motivating and enabling the learning cycle in: Teaching as a Design Science. Routledge, New York
Laurillard, D. (1999) 'A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the learning organisation and the learning society', Systems Research and Behavioural Science, Special Issue: Applying Systems
Thinking to Higher Education, 16(2), pp. 113–122.
Lederman, D (2020). Will Shift to Remote Teaching Be Boon or Bane for Online Learning? Retrieved October 20, 2020, from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-
going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-learning
Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 33: 403–423.
Morgan, H (2020). Best Practices for Implementing Remote Learning during a Pandemic, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies. 93(3): 134-140.
Ng’ambi, D and Bozalek, V (2014). Introduction to emerging technologies. In: Bozalek, V., Ng’ambi, D., Wood, D., Herrington, J., Hardman, J. and Amory, A. (eds) Activity Theory, authentic learning and
emerging technologies: Routledge research in higher education, London and New York.
Papavlasopoulou, S, Giannakos, MN and Jaccheri, L (2019). Exploring children's learning experience in constructionism-based coding activities through design-based research. Computers in Human Behavior.
99:415-427
Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. Educational design research. pp. 64–78. Routledge.