Family Therapy Goes Digital

Online distance learning has become increasingly common as a teaching method in both undergraduate and postgraduate programs around the world. As this trend continues, higher education consistently integrates more and more complex technology into the learning process. With each new technological advancement, there is an opportunity for more efficient digital learning at the graduate level. Though some still view a degree from a face-to-face program as being of higher quality, it is impossible to deny the many benefits of online learning (Fresen, 2018; Harrison et al., 2017). Online learning allows for flexibility, lower cost, and convenience for both the students and the teachers.

Typically, online learning takes either a synchronous or asynchronous approach in terms of structure of the course. However, in some situations, these styles are combined to present a more comprehensive approach to learning in higher education in order to build upon the strengths of each style. For example, having asynchronous aspects within a course allows for more time for reflection, while having synchronous aspects increases student engagement (Giesbers, Rienties, Tempelaar, & Gijselaers, 2014). It has been found that strictly synchronous learning can inhibit students’ time for reflection and strictly asynchronous learning can lead to a lack of student involvement in the material. Thus, using both methods helps bridge the gap. Additionally, the blending of synchronous and asynchronous learning is a way to provide flexible and convenient opportunity for students to participate in class when being physically present may not be an option (Shen, Wang, & Pan, 2008; Wang, Quek, & Hu, 2017). This is common when students meet together in an online space through video-conferencing, though they are each at their individual locations. Students are able to learn in a synchronous setting while overcoming barriers such as disabilities and distance. Other benefits of integrating these two ideas is the flexibility to adapt to student learning style and attend to diversity issues (Magnier-Watanabe, Benton, Herrig, & Aba, 2011). This is especially helpful when the student body is culturally diverse, for the professor can address issues of culture synchronously in real time, as well as to include it in asynchronous assignments to allow time for research and reflection.

There has been an overall increase in synchronous online classrooms with the continual advancements in videoconferencing technology (Lawson, Comber, Gage, & Cullum-Hanshaw; Smyth, 2015; Wang et al., 2017). It is easier than ever to bring learners together despite distance. Furthermore, videoconferencing is being used to allow distance learners to interact synchronously in a variety of disciplines. For instance, it is being used in nursing, with medical teams, and health services management curriculums (Foronda & Lippincott, 2014; Lundvoll Nilsen, 2011; Matlakala, Nikosi, Modiba, Dolamo, & Maboe, 2013). It was found that the use of video-conferencing increased enjoyment, was more flexible for learners, and allowed for greater interaction, though there were technical challenges that had to be overcome throughout the experience. Similarly, it has been found that online courses using synchronous videoconferencing were found to have high levels of cognitive presence in the students than their asynchronous counterparts (Molnar & Kearney, 2017). This type of learning allows for the students and teacher to interact more fully in the moment and invest in the learning process as a group.

The Department of Family Therapy within the College of Art, Humanities, and Social Sciences at Nova Southeastern University has a curriculum that is generally made of up of face-to-face, lecture style courses. A couple of classes have unique dynamics, such as the Equine Therapy course that meets at the barn frequently and several electives that are offered online. The online classes take place through an online portal called Canvas and are mainly asynchronous. However, in the fall semester of 2018, the department decided to adjust a core course in a unique way by implementing digital teaching. This turned the PhD level class into a hybrid course in which some of the class meetings took place face-to-face with the professor present and most of the class meetings took place using videoconferencing technology with the professor teaching from Nova Southeastern University’s Orlando campus. The professor of this course, who had been teaching it for well over a decade, lived in Orlando, FL and was retiring at the end of the semester. Rather than making the weekly commute to class, it was decided that the department would take the chance to experiment with innovative digital technology for one of the first times in the program’s history.

The professor came to Nova Southeastern University’s campus in Fort Lauderdale for the initial class meeting. It was in this meeting that the structure of the class was formally explained to the students, as well as to us, the teaching assistants. After that, the students and teaching assistants continued to meet together weekly at the assigned classroom, while the professor was videoconferenced in from the Orlando campus. This was how the remainder of the course went, other than the professor’s attendance in person once half way through the semester and a second time for the final class meeting. When the professor was not physically present, the teaching assistants were responsible for taking attendance and beginning the class, as well as facilitating dialogue of the material when needed. Also, in regard to structure, the class meetings within the program last roughly 3 hours with a short break occurring halfway through each class. Classes took place in the late afternoon or evenings.

The course in question is unique in of itself. It is called Thinking Systems and it is designed to help students understand the theoretical underpinnings of cybernetics, as it is a key component of systems theory, which is what the field of family therapy is founded upon. This is done in the course by investigating the work of Gregory Bateson, creator of systems theory. Over 16 weeks, the course takes students on a journey that completely challenges the way one looks at the world and makes meaning of experience. The readings are extremely challenging and difficult to understand, as each concept of Bateson’s builds upon the next concept introduced, all while pointing back to the same major idea of “relationship.” It is a course that the professor did not teach in a lecture style. Instead, he often sat in a circle with the students and allowed everyone to make meaning of the material together. Every class period was different, for the content covered in class depended on what the student’s chose to bring up, which also meant every year the course was somewhat different. The same books were used year after year, but no PowerPoint presentations existed to help guide the course once it was adapted to use digital technology.

The majority of the time the professor was only available through technology, whether that was e-mail, phone call, or videoconference. Nevertheless, it was still quite easy to consult with him and plan for class when necessary. It was more difficult to meet than in a traditional experience, because it involved a lot of scheduling and having to rely on e-mail as a main form of communication. As expected, this was not as effective as in-person, verbal communication but it also required us to be more intentional about our meeting times and more efficient with the time we did have together. I think this is a more accurate representation of what it is like for professors who only communicate digitally with students, so now I feel more prepared for that aspect when I begin teaching online courses. Personally, I found it difficult to schedule with the professor and the other teaching assistant because I had a full-time work load to balance at the same time. It forced me to be more disciplined with my professional work and other class work, on top of the added responsibility of being a teaching assistant.

As far as working as a teaching assistant in the classroom, I noticed that my experience shifted as the course went on. At first, I felt like I needed to sit back and be quiet so as not to interrupt the professor on the video screen. It was a little strange getting used to the video equipment, so I decided to sit back and let everyone else adjust to it as well. Yet, as the course went on, I found that I gained confidence and found the space to be more vocal in class. During times the conversation lagged, or it was difficult to hear the audio, I found that I was able to utilize my skills as a teaching assistant and help bridge the gap that had emerged. This was done by facilitating discussion among the students about the reading material for the week. Since I had taken the course as a student the year before, I knew what topics were most important to cover and would likely lead to a sustained conversation. Looking back, I can see the significance of having a physical presence and voice in the room that assisted the students when needed.

Toward the end of the course, I asked a few students about their experience. The overall feedback I received was positive. The students gave a general consensus that they would have preferred the professor be physically present as he had been in the past, but they were still pleased with the way the course went. Some expressed that they found it interesting to be a part of the first course in which the program had used this method of videoconferencing. Per my observation, the students seemed to get more at ease with the format and structure of the course as the semester progressed. Slowly but surely, they began to talk more amongst themselves, occasionally sparking dialogue that required no facilitation on the part of the professor or teaching assistants. Nevertheless, it was apparent to me that the technology aspect made the course more complex and confusing. It was common, especially at first, for the professor to begin talking on the screen and the audio to lag slightly, so that a student would begin speaking at the same time. The opposite also occurred, which led to many moments of awkward silence or mumbled conversation as everyone tried to figure out who should be the one speaking. Furthermore, the course content itself is extremely dense and can easily be confusing to first-time readers. The fact that there was often a lag or miscommunication when the professor tried to answer the students’ questions and clarify the material made it even more troublesome at times.

Overall, I found my unique teaching assistant experience to be valuable and productive. It was during this semester that I gained insight into much of the behind-the-scenes happenings that make an online course successful, especially one involving videoconferencing. There are many moving parts to using technology in the classroom. Now I better understand how to navigate this process from a teacher’s perspective in order to give my future students the best possible experience.

I remember walking into Thinking Systems as a student and not knowing what to expect. I heard this class would change my life in many ways and while I was awaiting this life-changing experience, I was also terrified as it was my very first PhD semester. As I think back now, life-changing would be an understatement. This class has impacted me in so many ways, including the way I think about thinking, the way I think about learning, and the way I think about systems. I struggled with this class because it challenged the way I viewed things and as a doctoral level student, this was the exact type of challenge I needed. For these reasons, I jumped at the opportunity to become a teaching assistant in this course.

Becoming a teaching assistant for the first hybrid digital course was an exciting experience. The fact that I would be a teaching assistant for a course as unique as Thinking Systems was a bonus. I was concerned in the beginning, knowing the professor would predominately be off campus; however, he made himself available when needed to make the process easier. We would set up video calls to discuss the course topics and our involvement as teaching assistants, and brainstormed ideas on how to increase student engagement. My expectations of being a teaching assistant shifted as the semester continued when I began to realize this experience would be very different from most. My assumption was that I would lecture at some point throughout the semester, but this was not a lecture-type course. I quickly became curious to see what this experience would hold, considering the classes are more dialogue in nature. I soon realized I would be more of a facilitator in the classroom. I thought I would only assist in keeping the conversation going in the classroom; however, I also became a person who others would go to for clarification on the assignments or the material. I enjoyed meeting with the students and having a discussion about their thoughts on the course and discussing how their experience was.

Since I was able to take the class when the professor taught it on campus, my experience of the thinking systems class was a bit different from this one. When I took the course as a student, there were roughly eight students and we sat in a circle and shared unique conversations with the group. This time around, as a teaching assistant, the class was set up in the traditional style, with roughly 12–15 students all facing the video projector. I felt this led to a decline in the type of conversations that would usually emerge when sitting facing each other. As the professor was in attendance via videoconference, we were subjected to typical audio and connection delays. Yet, even with these challenges, we were grateful technology made it possible to have the course taught by this professor. Having both experiences, I believe this course functions better when it is taught nontraditionally, sitting in a circle, having thoughtful conversations about the material read, although I am extremely grateful videoconferencing was available so the professor could teach this course one last time.

I was able to be involved in a revolutionizing transition in our department and, as I am realizing, in education. The use of technology will continue to develop in our classrooms, providing us with access to materials and people that we may not readily have access to. I hope to use this experience in the future with other courses and be able to contribute to the field with the use of digital technology. The use of videoconferencing allowed us to have one more semester with a pioneer in our department. It allowed us to be a part of an ever-growing shift in the field of education.

By using an innovative approach to teaching in this course, the hybrid digital course offered many benefits. The use of video-conferencing allowed students access to a professor who was located in another city. Had this not been an option, this professor would not have been available to the students. Technology was a viable tool to connect the students to the professor during this transitional period, as the professor was planning on retiring. Hybrid digital courses can be a way for the program to gain access to faculty members who may not live within travel distance to campus. The students can continue to meet in an asynchronous manner and have the professor join in via videoconference and continue to lecture the course. This type of opportunity can also provide access to potential faculty members where the possibility to move closer to campus is not feasible. Similar to other sources of technology, we are given direct access to others through videoconferencing,

This first hybrid digital course also allowed for the teaching assistants to gain a unique perspective of this course. When the teaching assistants were students, the Thinking Systems course were conducted face-to-face, sitting in a circle. Having this type of setup made the discussion about the material to emerge naturally. As stated above, the hybrid course was facilitated in a more traditional classroom set up, with the students facing the front of the class. The type of concepts covered in this course can be difficult to comprehend and the typical lecture style does not necessarily apply, but the teaching assistants were able to see firsthand what it would look like if it was taught in that manner. They were placed in a position where they could compare the two styles of teaching and see the benefits and limitations both have to offer.

Both courses offered a different experience, and while the students were able to participate in the first hybrid digital course, they missed out on the intimate setting in which the course usually shares. What they gained was being a part of an innovative experience that is the wave of the future. Every student in this course can walk away knowing they were a part of the first hybrid digital course in the Department of Family Therapy at Nova Southeastern University. They are able to speak about what it was like and give feedback to the staff in case this opportunity arises once again. As technology is making its way into the classroom in many ways, we can assure that hybrid digital courses will continue to gain momentum in education.

There were several aspects of the course that can be seen as limitations. The first is an inevitable aspect of using technology in the classroom: technical difficulties. The professor and teaching assistants and students could see each other and talk in real time, but there were many times over the course of the semester when class time was lost or negatively affected because of malfunctions with the software, audio system, or some other technical component. There were times when the professor was unable to be seen or heard. Moreover, even small lags in the audio caused confusion and led to people talking over one another. These instances typically resulted in an interruption in the class, for there was miscommunication about which part of the material was being discussed. The second limitation involves the lack of additional resources used in the course. Historically, the Thinking Systems course is a dialogue-based course based on the reading materials. As a result, there were rarely, if ever, any PowerPoint slides, videos, or activities done in the classroom. When the professor was present digitally rather than physically, it ended up leading to more of a lecture-based style of teaching. Though this was not problematic in itself, it is possible that having additional resources in place would have helped the students be more fully engaged in the materials in the present moment and potentially have led to an increase in dialogue about the content of the course.

The structure of the course was also limiting, as it was inconsistent due to some class meetings taking place digitally and some occurring in person. The teaching assistants observed that student involvement fluctuated, depending on if the professor was there in person or on the video, as their participation increased when he was in the room with them. Another impact of the inconsistent structure was related to the way the professor gave feedback to students. In the past, he had handwritten his feedback on all assignments as they were graded. These were handed back to students so they could incorporate the feedback into future assignments. However, due to distance concerns, the students’ assignments were submitted digitally, and feedback was given that way as well. The professor stated he viewed this as a limitation to how he was able to communicate with students. He reported that it was a less personal way to engage with them, as before he had viewed it as having a type of conversation with them on their papers. The digital component had an effect on the amount of feedback he was able to give, as well as the way it was presented.

Based on the presented experience, there are a number of proposed recommendations for future doctoral level courses that take place in a hybrid digital format. It is suggested that such courses involving hybrid digital teaching and videoconferencing technology have trained teaching assistants that communicate regularly with the professor. This may vary based on need, but should likely occur about every week or two. The role of the teaching assistant can be vital to bridging the gap between professor and student. This makes having teaching assistants who are well versed in the course content and in distance learning a key aspect of a successful course. It is also recommended to have an array of activities planned to facilitate classroom interaction. While having dialogue between student and professor is extremely important, it is also important to ensure students are interacting with one another in meaningful ways. Structured or semi-structured activities are a way to achieve this when the professor and students are not physically present together in a room. Though not required, incorporating ways for students to engage with one another can lead to increased engagement and understanding.

It would prove to be useful to obtain student feedback on a regular basis to ensure they are able to understand the material being presented. As videoconferencing has its limitations, one way to combat any confusion can be to be in contact with the students on a regular basis so they are able to express if they have any concerns or if any of the material is getting lost due to technical difficulties. We would recommend checking in with the teaching assistants weekly to clarify any of the material covered or what is required for the assignments. This type of information can be lost in translation and by meeting with the teaching assistants, some of the misunderstandings can be avoided. It can also assist the students in feeling connected to the material and to the course. With the professor predominately off campus, the students may not feel comfortable voicing their concerns and having access to the teaching assistants will allow for an outlet.