Cameras on! Requiring Cameras “on” in the Virtual Classroom

by Sydney Kennedy, PharmD, PGY1 Pharmacy Practice Resident, University of Mississippi Medical Center

The Covid-19 pandemic forced employees of many industries into remote work, most often from home. Likewise, students were forced to rapidly transition to remote learning.  The rapid transition from in-person to remote instruction posed challenges to both learners and educators. From an educator’s standpoint, requiring the use of cameras during remote instruction most closely approximates the face-to-face interaction that occurs in an in-person classroom.  The assumption is that interacting “face-to-face” will increase student participation, but is this true? There is controversy about whether requiring cameras to be “on” during meetings and classes improves the quality of the meeting or the instruction. The lay press reports how students and workers are feeling drained after attending face-to-face virtual meetings.  Some call this phenomenon “Zoom fatigue.” The impact on students who have been, by necessity, forced to learn in a virtual environment has not been studied. There may be consequences of the virtual environment caused by prolonged video conferencing.  Just because you ‘can’ use video cameras does not necessarily mean that using video leads to better outcomes.

A recent study entitled “The Fatiguing Effects of Camera Use in Virtual Meetings: A Within-Person Field Experiment” reveals the negative impact that a “camera’s on” policy might have. This was a four-week field experiment.  The authors hypothesized that virtual meetings would be more fatiguing for women and those who were newer members of the organization.  The study was performed to gather insights about best practices for virtual meetings. The study involved 103 employees that were largely female (56.3%) who had been with the organization, on average, for about three years. The participants were randomly assigned to the camera study condition, “on” or “off.” The camera “on” or “off” condition was the independent variable, and all participants were given a survey instrument that included questions about how they felt during the meeting. Fatigue was significantly greater in the camera “on” group (p < 0.001). Camera use also negatively effected engagement (p < 0.001). This was assessed by participant ratings on the survey after each meeting to the question, “in meetings today, when I had something to say, I felt like I had a voice.” The association between camera use and fatigue was stronger for women than men (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a positive relationship between camera use and fatigue among those employees with the shortest tenure with the organization (p < 0.001). Overall, these results suggest that camera use is particularly fatiguing for women and newer employees.

The results of this study align with the theory that virtual meeting participants feel that they need to actively manage impressions when their cameras are on.  When the participants’ are on camera, they experience a “self-presentation” effect that causes fatigue. Thus, encouraging (or requiring) employees or students to turn cameras on may be harmful and actually hinder engagement. 

To date, there are no studies that have evaluated whether different camera angles would be less fatiguing by being able to give the learner the ability to minimize the self-presentation effects. Self-presentation may be fatiguing due to pressure to “look” competent while maintaining societal appearance standards. There are limitations to these findings, however, such as not being able to evaluate the long-term effects of virtual meetings over time and whether the size of the virtual meetings contributes to these effects.

While this study evaluated people in an employment context, I believe the results can be extrapolated to the virtual classroom. Similar to students, employees are being evaluated on performance and engagement in discussions. There may be additional reasons contributing to fatigue in the virtual classroom. The amount of close-up eye contact with the instructor and other students is not a natural distance when compared to in-person classrooms. Furthermore, students may be spending a lot of time acknowledging self (e.g., looking at themselves) rather than the educator — a phenomenon that does not occur during in-person classes. Additionally, the frame of the camera is small and limits normal mobility.  This can be physically straining. Lastly, the cognitive load is higher in a video environment because it’s more challenging to pick up on nonverbal cues and therefore work much harder to send and receive signals. 

There have been several proposed solutions to these problems. It may be beneficial to reduce the size of the window on the monitor to reduce the student’s face size. For those who use laptop computers, external keyboards can increase the distance between the learner and the video monitor. It has also could be suggested to build in camera “off” time spaced throughout the day to give the students nonverbal rest. 

Admittedly, this topic is controversial.  But the results of this study provide some evidence that requiring “cameras on” during video conferencing may not always be beneficial and may contribute to a negative learning environment. Clearly, we need to learn more about the effects of cameras on student learning and performance! However, educators should be cognizant of some of the negative consequences of “cameras on” in their virtual classrooms.

References

1. Shockley KM, Gabriel AS, Robertson D, et al. The fatiguing effects of camera use in virtual meetings: A within-person field experiment. J Appl Psychol. 2021 Aug;106(8):1137-1155.
2. Ramachandran V. Stanford researchers identify four causes for ‘Zoom fatigue’ and their simple fixes.. Stanford News 2021. Accessed November 2021.

The Flipped Classroom Model in the Age of Virtual Learning

by Emily Plauche, PharmD, PGY1 Pharmacy Practice Resident, University of Mississippi Medical Center

Virtual learning played a huge role in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020 when the pandemic first began to spread in the United States, educators had little time to transition to an online learning environment. Some schools gave students a few weeks off to allow time for administrators and teachers to make plans and learn how to use the technology while others immediately transitioned to an online platform with little guidance. Virtual teaching can be done synchronously via platforms such as Zoom and asynchronously using pre-recorded lectures or other online resources. Live classes allow for more interactive learning but may be limited by technical difficulties and students’ access to technology. Pre-recorded lectures provide students with more flexibility in terms of how and when they prefer to study, but students may feel disconnected from their classmates and instructors.¹  In order to best recreate the flipped classroom model, asynchronous pre-class assignments with synchronous/ live in-class activities would be ideal. Now that the education system has had more time to adapt and is able to provide almost all features of an in-person classroom experience in a virtual platform, it raises the question of whether the flipped classroom model is still effective in a virtual learning setting.  Giving students the option to attend class in person or online may become common practice as the COVID-19 pandemic persists, technology advances, and our comfort with virtual learning grows. 

The flipped classroom model is a somewhat new teaching strategy that focuses on in-class application, rather than lecturing. Instead of homework after class, students complete pre-class assignments in order to prepare for class and class time is reserved for discussions, case studies, and other activities that require students to apply what they learned prior to class. The flipped class has become increasingly popular over the last decade. A meta-analysis studying the flipped classroom model in health professions education found that the model provided several benefits including a statistically significant improvement in learner performance compared with traditional teaching methods, more time for active learning during class time, and the opportunity for students to study at their own pace before class. The analysis also found that more students favored this method of learning over traditional lecturing. However, this model requires students to prepare ahead of time in order for the activities in class to be productive. The increased burden on the student can be a limitation to its success and should be considered when teachers assign out-of-class activities.²

Traditionally, pre-class assignments are done remotely via pre-recorded lectures and required readings, and the interactive classroom activity is done in person. However, COVID-19 required all learning activities to be done virtually. Educators wanting to implement this model while teaching virtually should provide both pre-recorded lectures and live but virtual classes in order to effectively mimic the model. The question is whether a flipped classroom model is still effective in an online learning environment. A study performed in Spain specifically compared performance and emotions towards the flipped classroom model in undergraduate STEM courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic comparing two groups: “face to face” and “face to screen.” The course consisted of three hours of live class with pre-recorded lessons to watch in preparation for class in both groups. The instruction methodologies, syllabi, and structure were identical in both groups. The study did not disclose what type of assessments were used but the “pass rate” was similar in the two groups with 67.1% of students in the face-to-face group achieving a “passing” score compared with 70.3% in the face-to-screen group.  The difference was not statistically significant. Face-to-face instruction was associated with more positive emotions such as enthusiasm, confidence, tranquility, and fun while face-to-screen instruction was associated with more negative emotions including concern, nervousness, fear, and boredom.³

Some of these negative emotions observed in the face-to-screen group were likely influenced by the uncertainties at the beginning of the pandemic and were not solely due to virtual learning. As students become more acquainted with distant learning, it is likely the virtual classroom will be perceived less negatively. However, student engagement and attention in the virtual classroom may be persistent challenges. It is promising that there was not a statistically significant difference in performance between the groups, suggesting that the flipped classroom is an acceptable approach to teaching in a virtual setting.

Instructors can work to increase virtual student engagement by offering a variety of ways for students to participate. Some may prefer to use the microphone, type in a chat box, or use the raise hand feature. By offering multiple options, students are able to interact in a way that they feel most comfortable. Breakout rooms can also be used to facilitate work in small groups, which might reduce students' anxiety about taking in front of a large group. Teachers can also ask their students for feedback throughout the semester to better understand students’ needs and concerns. To minimize technical difficulties, teachers should perform test runs before live class sessions to ensure Zoom links, internet connection, and sound are working properly.

The flipped classroom model allows for more interactive classroom experiences between students and teachers and has been shown to improve student performance when compared to more traditional methods to teach. While we have limited data from studies, the flipped classroom method still works in a virtual classroom setting. Teachers planning to utilize the flipped classroom model in an online class may face challenges including technical difficulties along with reduced student engagement, attention, and attitude towards virtual learning. Teachers should keep this in mind as they develop material to teach virtually. As more research is published about online teaching methods, educators will have a better understanding of how to approach teaching in virtual classrooms.

References:

1. Camargo CP, Tempski PZ, Busnardo FF, Martins M de A, Gemperli R. Online learning and COVID-19: a meta-synthesis analysis. Clinics 2020;75: e2286.
2. Hew KF, Lo CK. Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):38.
3. Jeong JS, González-Gómez D. A STEM Course Analysis During COVID-19: A Comparison Study in Performance and Affective Domain of PSTs Between F2F and F2S Flipped Classroom. Front Psychol. 2021;12:669855.