Abstract:

The crisis caused by the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) proved to be the catalyst for a long over-due re-evaluation of the traditional model of higher education. Students returning to campus and face-to-face instruction following the crisis-enforced pivot to remote instruction discovered a “new model” of post-pandemic higher education.

In this “new model” of higher education, teaching strategies had evolved, faculty had learned new behaviors and competencies. Some faculty had reinvented themselves during the crisis and incorporated digital pedagogy into their in-person classroom teaching to increase the engagement of the returning global learners. Teaching during the pandemic had taught faculty the importance of increasing student engagement by establishing a culture of trust and a sense of togetherness, community and belonging.

With the return to campus, students were offered an unparalleled flexibility and autonomy (the perception of having a choice) in how they could attend their classes. In many classes, students were able to view lectures synchronously “live” from anywhere, even the classroom, asynchronously review recorded content or select some hybrid alternative. Providing students with autonomy is critical to their professional growth and academic success and is associated with increased satisfaction with their learning experiences.

There is a corpus of evidence that suggests that the mode of lecture attendance does not make a difference to student examination scores. Consequently, the authors believe that providing students with some autonomy in how they attend their classes increases motivation, learning and achievement. However, in our experience, this student autonomy has had the unintended consequence of reducing attendance in the live in-person classroom. Though we do not consider this a problem, being more concerned with the levels of student engagement than the number of students in seats, classroom attendance has long been a topic of concern at medical school. Now that student attendance is falling, some faculty may consider a return to pre-crisis mandated attendance.

Given that the evidence connecting classroom attendance and attainment of student learning outcomes is variable, the authors posit that those faculty considering mandating classroom attendance should rather consider modifying the classroom experience to deliver some “value-add” to incentivize attendance. The in-person classroom experience simply needs to be better for the students than staying at home or watching the recorded lecture. By mandating attendance, students will likely physically attend lectures in-person but remain disengaged, negatively impacting the learning experience for both students and faculty. There is also evidence to suggest that mandating classroom attendance leads to a culture of distrust and antagonism between students and faculty, thus we believe attendance should be “recommended” or “encouraged” or even “mandated”, but with some flexibility for free passes incorporated.

In our opinion, the commitment to student autonomy and establishing and maintaining an inclusive learning community developed during the crisis must remain a strategic priority now that the impetus for change has gone. Higher Education should retain the beneficial practices implemented during the pandemic, addressed herein, and resist an insidious return to pre-pandemic instruction.

Keywords:

Student engagement, learning community, student classroom attendance.