Most of the published best practices in teaching are independent of the mode of instruction; however remote instruction, whether asynchronous or synchronous, and in-person instruction have long employed their own unique professional development activities. The ASCE ExCEEd teaching model has been used as the basis for an in-person teaching workshop that has been delivered annually for five years at a small public polytechnic university. As the coronavirus pandemic hit in spring 2020, the workshop coordinators redesigned the institutional workshop to support best practices in remote delivery and offered the workshop itself in a remote format. The effectiveness of the workshop did not suffer and workshop participants ranging from new faculty to a 30-year veteran professor praised the experience. One of the hallmarks of the workshop is that it requires participant instruction and employs a teaching assessment tool in its program. Most other seminars and workshops do not actually require participants to teach but leave the implementation to participants after the fact. This paper will outline the workshop format and schedule, both in-person and remote. It will also describe the differences in content between the face-to-face and remote delivery and discuss the growing appreciation of traditional instructional faculty for remote delivery tools and technology that can support long established models for effective pedagogy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riley et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: