By Kathleen Kavanagh, Robyn Hannigan, and Joe Skufca
The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on K-12 and higher education—including both students and their educators—should not be underestimated. But can we truly estimate it at all? The fall semester is quickly approaching, and institutions must grapple with their expectations of incoming students and determine how to best support them after more than a year of nontraditional learning. Some recent high school graduates have not been in a classroom since March 2020 and will suddenly find themselves in a class of 120 college students. Despite herculean efforts by high school teachers, students might not have mastered trigonometry or algebra and thus will not be able to apply those fundamentals to related rates problems. The same is true for returning college students, many of whom learned their entire calculus sequence over Zoom. Will they be able to utilize these concepts in an in-person thermodynamics course?
In addition to the potential knowledge gap, one must also consider the pandemic’s mental and emotional toll. It is foolish to think that educators can teach the same way they did before March 2020, at least in the immediate future. So, what information do we have and how can we use it to plan for the coming semester?
A Data Anecdote for Undergraduate Coursework
Examining the questions of “outcomes evidence” in any detail requires a bit more pause. For context, Clarkson University shifted to fully remote learning after spring break in 2020. The fall 2020 (F20) semester was a mix of on-campus, hybrid, and completely online courses. With grade distributions only ranging from spring 2020 (S20) to F20, there is not much data with which to resolve the longitudinal impacts. However, we can still begin to scour the data we do have for anecdotal evidence.
Figure 1. Histogram that represents the grade distributions for Differential Equations (MA232) and Engineering Science (ESXXX) in “pre-COVID” (spring 2019/fall 2019) and “post-COVID” (spring 2020/fall 2020) settings. Note the apparent shift to the right in distributions for both courses in the “post-COVID” setting. Figure courtesy of Joe Skufca.
To account for as many variables as possible, we examined a specific two-course sequence that crossed disciplines: Differential Equations (MA232) and Engineering Science (ESXXX), where MA232 is a prerequisite for ESXXX. We compared the cohort from the S19-F19 semesters (both courses taught in person) with the equivalent cohort from S20-F20 to attempt to understand the differences.
The unexpected mid-semester shift to online coursework impacted MA232 students in the second cohort (S20-F20). Though students were back on campus the following semester, social distancing limited class capacity and ESXXX was taught as a fully online course.
Figure 1 shows pre-COVID and post-COVID distributions for the aforementioned two courses, where the sample population is students who took this specific two-course sequence. We note a minor shift to the right (representing improved grades) for the MA232 comparison and a much stronger shift toward higher grades in ESXXX. Based on this observation, one could conclude that MA232 students were sufficiently well prepared for the follow-up course — despite the shift to online learning in the middle of the semester. However, we acknowledge that many confounding possibilities lurk behind this simple interpretation. Did the online shift actually help students? Are teachers simply grading more leniently? Did educators simplify the courses to the core material, which provides the minimal requirements but perhaps does not challenge the students to think? How did assessments change? As educators, we have many questions to ponder over the summer, especially after we receive additional results from the most recent semester.
Mental and Emotional Impacts on Graduate Students
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted every aspect of the graduate student pathway to a Ph.D.; research, learning, and even teaching responsibilities. As graduate students, teaching assistants are a bit more prepared for online participation because they already possess independent study skills. However, student-student interactions and an overall sense of community are both important in graduate school, and social distancing has disrupted that mechanism.
Like professors, graduate students who teach had to move their pedagogy online — but perhaps with less support, especially in regards to technology. Many of them have families and were thus taking classes and teaching online courses while also homeschooling or caring for small children. Some institutions made adjustments for faculty members who were under similar levels of stress, like delaying the tenure clock. What accommodations could and should we provide for Ph.D. students? At Clarkson, the Department of Mathematics delayed all qualifying exam requirements but did not formally adjust any other expectations in terms of degree completion (though we are monitoring the situation and remaining flexible).
The social impacts of COVID-19 for students have been significant. Grad students typically operate as a cohort, and much of the information comes from that collective group. Without close communication, things can quickly derail. In a situation that we assume is not unique to Clarkson, one of our first-year graduate students appeared to be a bit withdrawn (which is harder to identify with remote interactions). One of his instructors dug a little deeper and noted that the student’s cohort was small; given social distancing, it was essentially nonexistent. The student thought he needed 30 credits for the year (the stated maximum, not a minimum), believed that there was no way he could keep up, and was afraid that he would lose his assistantship. Without other students to commiserate with, he felt like he was not meeting the standard; in reality, he was doing fine — struggling in the same way everyone else was struggling. His advisor had noticed that the student seemed more stressed and had therefore reduced some research expectations, which the student then interpreted as a lack of faith in his ability to contribute to the research group. These misunderstandings would likely not have arisen if students were working face to face, with ready access to advice from more senior peers and the usual easy communication between advisors, faculty, and grad students.
As we slowly begin to emerge on the other side of COVID-19, we will need to take a personal and institutional inventory to understand any necessary adjustments. As faculty, advisors, mentors, and academic leaders, this is everyone’s first time navigating the aftershock of a pandemic. SIAM provides many opportunities to network, collaborate, share, and plan as a community, and we encourage readers to organize a minisymposium on the topic of education, consider writing an article for SIAM News Online, and continue to engage in discussions with fellow SIAM members. Moving forward, we hope that applied mathematics education will be at the forefront of discussions so we can overcome the challenges of the last year. We urge members to dive into their own data and leverage the SIAM community so we can all learn from each other and determine the best path forward.
We invite readers to share their own experiences with virtual teaching or learning, offer suggestions for tips and techniques, and brainstorm with one another. Leave a comment below to get the discussion started!
Kathleen Kavanagh is a professor of mathematics at Clarkson University and the Vice President for Education at SIAM. Robyn Hannigan is the provost at Clarkson. Her academic work includes publications about the opportunities of diversity in advancing student achievement and learning outcomes assessment. Joe Skufca is a professor and Chair of Mathematics at Clarkson who conducts research in dynamical systems, data science, and applied modeling. He is an active member of the SIAM Activity Group on Applied Mathematics Education with a special interest in ethics in mathematics.