Fei Victor Lim, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

In barely a few months, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of education in what could have taken years. With the suspension of face-to-face classes in Singapore, universities have required faculty and students to move toward distance learning. However, distance learning is not just a change of medium from the physical to the digital. It involves a review of the ways in which knowledge can be expressed, the nature of pedagogic interactions, and a redesign of the learning experience with the semiotic technologies used (van Leeuwen, Djonov, & O’Halloran, 2013). Semiotic technologies in the teaching and learning context refer to instructional tools that are both resources and social practices that we make meaning with (Lim, 2021).

The teacher as a designer of learning (Kress & Selander, 2012) uses appropriate semiotic technologies along with a set of design considerations in designing the learning experiences of the students. In this article, I identify five design considerations, based on the reflection of my experience in transforming my course from face-to-face classes to distance learning.

The first consideration in the design of distance learning experience is to understand the needs of the students in relation to the learning goals. Though the syllabus determines the learning goals of the course, as a teacher educator, I had to think about the best way to deliver the goals. In my course, the students’ ages ranged from the 20s to 50s. From previous in-class activities, I also observed that some of them were more comfortable and proficient with technology than others.

As such, I was careful in the selection of the semiotic technology to be used for distance learning. I chose to continue using a social media platform that students were already familiar with and were using in my previous lessons. A private group had been created within Facebook, and I wanted to use the features, such as allowing for scheduled multimedia posts, discussion threads, and easy responses through likes and hearts for feedback to facilitate knowledge sharing and discussions in the digital space. In this, the second consideration is on the choice of the tool: Favor the more familiar and simpler semiotic technology.

Distance learning can happen asynchronously, with students posting and responding in their own time, within the stated period, or synchronously, with teacher and students interacting together at a scheduled time online. Previously, I had tried asynchronous discussions online and students responded well—with lengthy and substantial comments on their reflections from the readings. In structuring distance learning as a replacement of face-to-face learning, I wanted to preserve the sense of community by having the class come together during the regular class time for synchronous learning. This will not only reduce the feeling of social isolation, but also produces a sense of discipline toward distance learning. As such, the third consideration is the choice of mode—whether an asynchronous or a synchronous learning mode works better for the learning goals.

The fourth consideration is to think about the different ways in which the knowledge can be expressed through the semiotic technology used. Knowledge can be expressed through a live video lecture by the teacher, a recorded video lecture from an expert, a curated multimedia presentation, or just an article for students’ reading. Though the live video lecture may be most similar to what might have happened in a face-to-face class, distance learning now allows for other ways of knowledge expression to be integrated and presented seamlessly in the lesson. Distance learning also provides the opportunity for the teacher to step aside from their role as the knowledge authority to that of a facilitator of learning by using other ways for knowledge to be expressed and for the teacher to focus on moderating, shaping, and guiding the ensuing discussion.

In designing the distance learning experience, the final consideration is for the teacher to plan for and structure the pedagogic interactions expected. Rather than have the interactions centering on the teacher, as it typically is, in the face-to-face classroom, distance learning presents more opportunities for peer-to-peer interactions. Students can respond to each other’s posts and comments, unfettered from the constraints of one interaction at a time in face-to-face lessons. Not only is it a more efficient use of time, collaborative knowledge building can occur as well. In my experience, many of my students’ posts received comments from their peers, even before I got to read them.

Distance learning is not the same as face-to-face learning. In designing distance learning experiences, we do not need to try to replicate face-to-face learning. Instead, it can be worthwhile to explore the different possibilities for knowledge expression and pedagogic interactions that technology can offer. Distance learning invites the teacher to rethink how a particular topic can be taught. With practice, we can emerge from the pandemic stronger in our skills as designers of distance learning experiences.

References

Kress, G., & Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003

Lim, F. V. (2021). Designing teaching with embodied teaching: Perspectives from multimodality. Routledge.

van Leeuwen, T., Djonov, E., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2013). ‘David Byrne really does love PowerPoint’: Art as research on semiotics and semiotic technology. Social Semiotics, 23(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2012.738998