Practical learning in hybrid environments: Can remote learning be active, authentic, and real?

Abstract

Online strategies designed to enable practical learning were in use prior to the pandemic. Nevertheless, in response to the rapid shift to online delivery during lockdowns, face-to-face practical learning was often postponed and replaced with traditional transmissive and theory-focused modes. This paper reports undergraduate and postgraduate university students' online learning experiences in New Zealand, where some practical learning approaches were evident particularly in the fields of teacher education, health or medicine, and sciences. Using multiple methods, data stemmed from a national survey followed by individual interviews and focus groups. Findings affirm that practical learning is possible in hybrid contexts, and is no less real than learning on campus. In-home or community-based activities, virtual simulations, online practice, and video-based learning all offer engaging opportunities for practical learning.

Keywords:

• practical learning
• hybrid learning
• teacher education
• medical education
• science education

Introduction

One of the challenges of teaching and learning online during the pandemic was the impact on practical learning. Disciplines where practicums, internships, laboratories, or fieldwork are a key part of learning had to rethink their approach. While innovative online strategies for practical learning existed pre-pandemic, the sudden mainstream pivot online posed new challenges. Postponement was a common response. However, this left a gap in learning that has raised concerns about students’ future capabilities.

Our study of New Zealand university students’ learning experiences during the pandemic foregrounds challenges and opportunities for practice-based learning. Looking to the future of learning, we need to be flexible and adaptive. Based on our findings, we propose strategies beyond business as usual for practical learning.

Literature review

Practical learning is active learning

Practical learning is aligned with authentic learning: learning activities that are either carried out in real-world contexts or have a high transfer to a real-world setting, where students are taught how to think like a member of their discipline (Galindo, 2022). This includes practice-based education where students are situated within an actual practice setting and “work and learn simultaneously while also interacting with other ‘practising’ professionals” (Mann et al., 2021, p. 30), for example, teachers in schools and medical professionals in hospitals. Practical learning also includes activities undertaken by students similar to real-world professionals, for example, field and laboratory experiences (Galindo, 2022).

The underpinning pedagogy is active learning, an approach that actively engages students in activities and discussion, “as opposed to passively listening to an expert. It emphasizes higher-order thinking and often involves group work” (Freeman et al., 2014, p. 23). Active learning increases engagement (Campbell et al., 2022), promotes inclusivity (Haak et al., 2011), and extends depth of learning and collaboration with peers (Arthurs & Kreager, 2017). Active learning is commonly linked to student-centered or student-directed learning approaches (Chi, 2009; Quinton & Smallbone, 2010) and to cognitive and social constructivist learning theories. The key premise of cognitive constructivism is that individuals construct knowledge by building on experiences. Cognitive constructivism entails active engagement in creating meaning, as opposed to passively receiving transmitted knowledge. Social constructivism stresses the importance of the social and collaborative nature of learning. Vygotsky (1978) introduced the idea of the zone of proximal development, where people learn through interacting with more capable others, such as their peers and teachers. Learning is scaffolded by direction and feedback from the teacher/peers to clarify and enhance the learner’s understanding. Peer feedback and interaction have also been recognized as key elements in facilitating active learning and co-construction of knowledge (Hattie & Clarke, 2019).

Pre-pandemic practice

There is a significant body of literature detailing active and practical learning in online and distance education over many years. While not the focus of this paper, it is acknowledged that some universities have engaged students in practical learning in online, home, and community contexts well before the advent of COVID-19 (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Dating back to correspondence education via the 19th century postal system (and later, via radio and television broadcasting), students have been engaged in home study, some of which has involved practical learning (Simonson & Berg, 2016). Open universities around the world were evident from the 1970s, and conventional universities also offered distance programs. For example, in the 1960s in the United States of America, the Articulated Instructional Media Project offered home experiment kits, and mobile laboratories (Moore, 2023). With the expansion of digital technology, universities have used a combination of online resources and hands-on activities to facilitate home-based practical learning. These resources included online simulations (Carnevale, 2003), virtual laboratories (Chan & Fok, 2009; Grout, 2017; Neves et al., 2017), programmable devices (Pang, 2005), and online demonstrations (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). These patterns of historical provision led Moore (2023) to conclude that “the new must be informed by the old” (p. 39), as we draw lessons from history to guide current and future practice.

Pandemic challenges to practical learning

Despite the rich literature on innovative strategies for practical learning at a distance, it was nevertheless evident that one of the challenges of teaching and learning online during the pandemic was the impact on practical learning experiences. For example, in teacher education, practicum in schools and early childhood centers is central. As Kim (2020) noted, “A teaching practicum provides student teachers with authentic and hands-on experience for teaching in classrooms” (p. 146). A minimum number of days in schools is generally a requirement for accreditation of teacher education programs enabling students to become registered and certified as teachers (Kim, 2020; Van Nuland et al., 2020). Similarly, in the sciences, which depend upon practical activities to facilitate learning, it was challenging when students could not access laboratories at university for practical work (Abriata, 2022; Kara, 2021; Van Haeften et al., 2020).

The lack of hands-on training in medicine (Gaur et al., 2020) or in-school experiences for teachers (Flores & Gago, 2020; la Velle et al., 2020) has raised concerns. Students in later stages of medical training may struggle when faced with clinical challenges, a situation characterized by Coe et al. (2020) as “skill decay during remote learning” (p. 140). A similar point was made by Mahdy (2020) about veterinary medical science. Student teachers might later struggle in the classroom due to a lack of in-school experience (Flores & Gago, 2020; la Velle et al., 2020).

Responses to the pandemic

At the start of the pandemic, postponement of practical activities was a common response (Van Haeften et al., 2021). In Pakistan, learning and teaching of practical and clinical work temporarily ceased, and the focus remained on “the knowledge component” (Kara, 2021, p. 17). For student teachers in England, Kidd and Murray (2020) reported “the removal of the practicum” (p. 544), while la Velle et al. (2020) described “the abrupt termination of their teaching practice” (p. 603), which was instead replaced by “additional time to read and reflect” (la Velle et al., 2020, p. 603). A decrease in the facilitation of practical science activities, even after students returned to physical classes, was also reported due to social distancing measures (Chadwick & McLoughlin, 2021).

However, there was recognition that students “could not simply skip practical activities for a whole year or even longer” (Abriata, 2022, p. 19). A range of strategies thus (re)emerged including:

1. in-home practical learning

2. learning in the neighborhood outdoors

3. virtual simulations

4. video-based learning.

In-home practical learning

Even before the pandemic, there were innovative possibilities for practical learning at home (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Rovai, 2002). For example, in sciences, experiments could be conducted using materials purchased at pharmacies. During the pandemic, there were instances of equipment and materials being delivered to students’ homes (Abriata, 2022; Flores & Gago, 2020). Coe et al. (2020) suggested that medical students work independently at home using suturing kits, artificial tissue, and other materials that could be borrowed for technical practice. Kim (2020) taught music online by asking students “to bring a household object that could make a sound and download a virtual instrument to be played for an online music session” (p. 150).

Learning in the neighborhood and community outdoors

In Australia, Van Haeften et al. (2021) restructured activities so that students could participate in practical science learning remotely. Their Grass Gazers citizen science project involved students in interactive science learning activities in their home environments. The students observed botanical data of grasses around their neighborhood, tracking grass species, collecting specimens, and looking at different pollens. They added data and photos to a shared database and viewed each other’s entries online. The project helped the students to remain connected as a class during lockdown. As Van Haeften et al. (2020) noted, “The students were exposed to ‘real-world’ scientific research, authenticating learning and encouraging the development of reflective and critical thinking skills” (p. 3490). The students, their friends, and families, all got involved, raising awareness of the benefits of citizen science and of the importance of grass diversity and public health implications.

Virtual simulations

Abriata (2022) reported how technologies assisted science learning at home. Augmented reality replicated laboratory experiences, and smartphone apps were popular (e.g., microscopes and spectrometers). Gaur et al. (2020) have suggested that “Clinical students can be benefited when teaching is supplemented by virtual simulations and computer-based models” (p. 1994). There is widespread interest in 3D virtual tools to simulate clinical situations (Abriata, 2022; Gaur et al., 2020; Mahdy, 2020). Resources used in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to enable learning of anatomy during the pandemic include recorded presentations, tutorials via Zoom and similar systems (e.g., Collaborate Ultra, BigBlueButton), and digitized cadaveric and 3D virtual resources (Gaur et al., 2020).

Video-based learning

The use of video has long been prevalent (Abriata, 2022; Mahdy, 2020). For example, in a surgical resident education context, Coe et al. (2020) noted that “video-based education (VBE) has become an increasingly utilized, effective technique for both knowledge acquisition and operating room preparation” (p. 139). Faculty can produce videos or collaborate with other institutions to pool resources and generate peer-reviewed video libraries (Coe et al., 2020). They suggested a role for video across all elements of surgical resident education, as video can be used for lectures and demonstration, while students can also film home-based skills and share these with faculty or peers for feedback.

Studies reported that student teachers could teach their peers online and exchange feedback about their online teaching practices through combining the power of videoconferencing and simulation (Brinia & Psoni, 2022; Burns et al., 2020; Kidd & Murray, 2020). In some instances, student teachers could teach children online to meet practicum requirements (Flores & Gago, 2020; Kim, 2020).

Benefits

Unexpected benefits included the development of professionally relevant technological skills. For example, science students learned bioinformatics and programming skills deemed essential for modern scientists (Abriata, 2022). Student teachers learned “new ways, new skills and knowledge” needed to teach children online (Kim, 2020, p. 149). Brinia and Psoni (2022) similarly found that student teachers learned about new educational technologies. Furthermore, they “also developed skills that will be proven useful for their future teachings, like adaptability, flexibility and promoting students’ interaction in online settings, which they would not have developed in a traditional setting” (p. 621).

This is despite a pervasive view that what happens online is not necessarily “real” in terms of “real practice” (Flores & Gago, 2020, p. 514) or “real-world practice” (Moyo, 2020, p. 537). In Moyo’s (2020) terms, with teacher education, “Unlike other academic modules which could be completed via online and distance education, the practicum, being a practical undertaking in the real world of the classroom … presented unique challenges” (p. 538). It follows that Moyo (2020, p. 542) referred to “online simulation of teaching,” rather than simply online teaching.

Nevertheless, researchers are optimistic about applying lessons from lockdown to future learning, provided effective strategic planning exists (Burns et al., 2020; Kara, 2021; Kidd & Murray, 2020). As Flores and Gago (2020) pointed out, adapting to new ways brings new learning and opportunities to reshape traditional roles and practices.

Prior research about approaches to practice-based learning during the pandemic has illuminated innovative course-based approaches (Kim, 2020), teachers’ perspectives (la Velle et al. 2020), or were limited to very specific aspects of student experience, such as perceived safety and associated anxiety (Quansah, 2022) or academic performance (Mahdy, 2020). However, qualitative accounts from students’ perspectives have been missing from this conversation.

Methodology

This article is based on a national research project exploring New Zealand university students' online learning experiences during the pandemic (Brown et al., 2021; Hartnett et al., 2023. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Waikato (FEDU 036/20), AUT (20/171) and Massey University (4 000 023 000). The approvals were lodged with and ratified by the ethics committees of the other two universities—Auckland and Canterbury.

The project explored domestic and international students' perspectives and lived experiences of online learning across all eight New Zealand universities. The participants included undergraduate and postgraduate students across multiple disciplines. Findings related to the challenges and opportunities for practical learning during the pandemic are the focus of this article. Other findings are reported at https://studentonlinelearningexperiences.com/.

Our study used multiple methods which enabled "a complete understanding of research problems and questions" by "comparing different perspectives drawn from quantitative and qualitative data" (Creswell, 2018, p. 216). As such the study used an online survey and individual and focus group interviews to collect data. We developed the survey and interview questions after reviewing relevant literature on online teaching and learning (Bayne et al., 2020; Hartnett, 2016).

In the first phase, we worked with student associations in each university to invite students to complete an online survey about their experiences of online learning. Invitations were sent through student social media channels and organizational newsletters between July and October 2020. The online survey was available via Qualtrics, and we received 952 valid responses.

The first part of the survey consisted of demographic questions, and the second part asked students about their online learning experiences during lockdowns, including the benefits and challenges of online learning, practical learning experiences, students’ attitude changes, study routines, and helpful teaching approaches. The last two open-ended questions of the survey asked students what they appreciated most about online learning and what they would like to see continued in terms of future course design. Quantitative data were then analyzed by generating descriptive statistics (frequency counts and percentages) for a range of demographic variables and survey items. The qualitative data from the open-ended questions and additional comments related to students’ practical learning experience were imported into NVivo to be analyzed with the qualitative data collected from the individual and focus group interviews.

In the second phase of the study, 43 participants volunteered for semi-structured individual interviews or focus group interviews conducted via Zoom. The interviews explored participants' experiences of their online learning, including the benefits, challenges, and impacts of lockdowns in greater depth. Using NVivo, themes and subthemes were derived through iterative reading and identifying patterns in meaning across the data, including relevant descriptive statistics. The process was led by two of us and then checked by the other team members. Subthemes were discussed, clarified, and then merged or discarded based on their significance.

While student participants were from a wide range of disciplines, and individuals experienced diverse circumstances and impacts, it was apparent that students studying programs with practical components were significantly disrupted during COVID.

When asked to select all the ways their study had changed in the survey, 704 (74%) of the students indicated that their routine changed, and 222 (23%) indicated a lack of practical tasks was a key change (n = 952). For this article, we extracted data from open-ended survey responses, interviews, and focus groups pertaining to practical learning experienced by students (n = 379) studying education (109, 29%); health sciences or medicine (127, 33%;); and sciences (143, 38%). The rationale for this extraction of data was to focus specifically on the depth of student experiences to tell the story of practical learning during the pivot online.

Findings

Throughout the survey (Survey, Participant number X), and especially via the interviews (INT PX) and focus groups (FGX PX), students referred to a range of practical learning. This section presents the findings related to the diversity of students' views and experiences of practical learning, including postponement of practical learning and the tendency to regard postponement as the only conceivable response. Challenges articulated by students in relation to collaboration, communication, and feedback are presented as impediments to practical learning. Finally, we present findings about the strategies and innovations that were evident, including the practical learning that occurred in students’ homes and communities, in online contexts, and with the use of video as a key tool.

Pre-pandemic practice components

When students referred to practical learning experiences in their courses, these included practicum, placements, and physical or tactile learning as well as laboratory and field work. For teaching practicum in schools “experience in the classroom … in the primary school” (INT P12) was a vital component. For health students, clinical placements and physical work with cadavers and patients were core, encompassing “a lot of cadaver dissection, all the labs, histology lab” (INT P2) and “doing a spinal paper at the time, which requires you to actually work on people's bodies” (FG9 P2). Meanwhile, for science students, “real practice is the most important part of doing a masters in science … labs and field trips which are always beneficial for learning” (Survey, P454).

Pandemic response

Postponing practical learning

When the pandemic disrupted teaching and learning the dominant response to practical work was to postpone it. After all, no-one realized just how long this would continue:

“We weren't able to do a whole bunch of the physical aspects … so that's impacted my studies in that we haven't been able to learn a lot of the hands-on stuff” (FG2 P2).

“I had none of the field trips. And so, I quite enjoy field trips and so for me, that was something you do [you] no longer got to see the practical side of things as much” (INT P15).

Practical learning was replaced by more theoretical tasks, or “learning from books” (FG4 P2). As one student noted, “The study became a whole lot more theory-based, rather than putting theory into practice … it became a whole lot more theoretical” (INT P15). For student teachers, this meant “instead of reflecting on the teaching we would have done, we had to reflect on the reading” (INT P12).

Missing laboratory learning was common for students in Science and Health, with the implication that it would be necessary to do this later: “I'm looking forward to being able to catch up on all the … labs that we missed, so learning all the practical skills” (FG2 P2). Students referred to “not having actual labs to gain real experience” (Survey P197) and “having no practical aspect to help consolidate and understand the theory” (Survey, P311).

As one student teacher explained, “Definitely there’s practical stuff [missing] which is a bit bummer and I think, not just me, my classmates as a whole cohort, we feel like we do not have much experience in the classroom and we’re sort of disadvantaged compared to say those students from last year” (INT P12).

Inconceivable online

Despite their disappointment, students communicated a sense of inevitability about missing out on practical components. Few could conceive of the possibility of conducting practical learning during the pandemic, and certainly not in an online environment regarded as the antithesis of practical learning. “I was studying advanced psychometrics, you can’t learn that online. … all those other advanced bits of such, you know, science, mathematics, you can’t do that on Zoom. Very hard” (INT P8).

Other students shared the perception that “putting theory into practice … just isn’t really as available over an online setting” (INT P15). A student said:

My internal course had lab components as well. That was really difficult. I guess for them to be able to put that to be online because, you know, how do you do that? We’re meant to be doing a practical lab component. (INT P16)

The inconceivability of online practical work aligned with the overwhelming tendency by students to equate online learning with Zoom classes. Many also had very little experience of online learning outside of Zoom. They conveyed an expectation that online learning meant attending a Zoom lecture or meeting, with limited opportunity to discuss and ask questions, let alone participate in practical learning.

This appeared transmissive as a student coined “Monotone Zoom lectures” (INT P2), with limited active engagement by peers: “I did find it really hard when people have the camera off and mute their voice all the time because then you're missing out on that kind of personal level, you know?” (FG7 P1). Given that active learning is student centered and involves peer interactions, it is unsurprising that for students, where online learning was a proxy for Zoom lectures, activity-based learning online did not seem possible.

Even when lecturers tried to create discussion opportunities, disengaged peers impacted other students’ learning opportunities. One survey respondent (P414) reported:

Other members of my cohort with whom I would get paired with in breakout rooms, hadn't bothered to read and prepare for the sessions. That was precious time I couldn't get back. I ended up feeling angry and resentful towards them. I was also appalled at their lack of Zoom etiquette.

However, students did acknowledge that Zoom classes had untapped potential and could be more “interactive” (FG7 P1), but this did not always eventuate in practice. As one student noted, “I'm pretty good at Zoom conversations by now, but it's a different art from face-to-face conversations” (FG1 P1). Another student mentioned, “It works really well … as long as there are those opportunities for discussion” (INT P16).

Constructs of practical learning

Although students did not connect the constructs of collaboration, communication, and feedback with practical learning directly, we noted their challenges in relation to these aspects.

Collaboration

Collaboration was a significant challenge for students, hindering practical group learning. Students pointed out that online group work was challenging due to absent or unwilling peers:

We still had these big group assignments. And I felt they were quite important because they were worth between 35 to 40% of our final grade. So it could basically make or break you. And I take them really seriously. We weren't able to pick our group partners, they were assigned to us … we had students who would not respond to phone calls, or messages, or emails or who never contributed to the assignment. (FG6 P2)

One exception was the student who reported that “online definitely works well in terms of finding a time that suits everyone and sharing resources and looking at them together” (FG7 P2). However, overall, students reported less collaboration and practical learning online.

Communication

Communication with group members was regarded as far less efficient and effective when conducted online:

You talk to people like sit down and actually like, Hey, let's do this. That will be really efficient and effective because you can solve the problem really quickly. And you know exactly what the other person exactly what he's thinking but now people just use emails and Messengers all the time and maybe even Zoom. So sometimes the efficiency of communication could be reduced. It is because it takes time to read the emails, type it down and reply back and so you know it all takes time. So probably yeah, how to improve the effectiveness of communication. (FG3 P1)

Even basic communication with the lecturer about learning proved challenging in the online context, according to the students we interviewed. For example, a student referred to “the ease at which you can just ask a question in person” (FG5 P1). Another student explained, “I feel a lot more comfortable asking questions to lecturers, when it's in person, you can go up at the end of class to engage with someone rather than a blank screen” (INT P15).

This notion of comfort was also mentioned, for example:

I’m just used to dealing with people face to face, and online, I don’t mind researching and doing my assignments and that but communication feels, feels more comfortable and I tend to absorb more when I’m in a classroom studying with others. (FG2 P1)

Hence, while on-campus communication was deemed comfortable (normal, easy, natural), online communication was characterized as awkward and stilted in contrast.

Feedback

The opportunity for interactive formative feedback and timely correction from the lecturer was often missing from online learning via Zoom. Students explained that they felt there were far more opportunities in face-to-face contexts for approaching their lecturers for individual clarification and for sharing their work in progress with the lecturer to ensure they were on the right track. This is illustrated by one student who noted:

In class [on campus], he's able to come up and check what you're doing and he can point out the … [errors and] tell you that's wrong. You haven't calculated that properly. You may need to rethink that whole equation. [Whereas online you’re] on your laptop, wondering what you're doing. … you know, the math, the formulas and stuff like that. It needs to be checked, that should be face to face. (INT P8)

This links closely to practical learning as it highlights the need for students to have targeted, individualized feedback based on observation of their demonstrations of learning. Feedback is reassuring for students, deemed a crucial aspect of their learning culture.

As such, students considered that communication in general, including informal, interactive feedback and being able to ask questions was easier in on-campus classes. Students considered it simpler to show their work to their lecturer in person, for immediate input as they worked in class. This was the perception even when lecturers did invite students to talk; however, it also seemed that some students did not consider interaction to be achievable on Zoom, indicated by the familiar refrain “You can’t do that on Zoom.” Very few students referred to sharing their work and ideas in Zoom classes.

There were very few classes where there was good sort of, interaction and engagement with the lecturer and other students online, for no fault of the lecturer, but it's just a harder way of interacting when there are 30 people on a Zoom call. It feels more awkward to have a discussion, in that way. Yeah, so I think the main thing was that it became less practical and there was less engagement probably. (INT P15)

Nevertheless, amidst the challenges some interesting and innovative opportunities arose. As we found in our literature review, in-home or community-based practical learning, virtual simulations, and video-based learning all offered engaging opportunities for practical learning.

Strategies and innovations

Practicing at home or in the community

As one medical student explained, being proactive and adaptive enabled some practical learning to continue during the lockdown:

The biggest challenge would have been, adjusting to the changes in the practical component of the course, um, we were doing a spinal paper at the time, which requires you to actually work on people's bodies. Um, so just before we went to the lockdown, um, I borrowed a spine, not a real, real one. It was a pretend one and also borrowed a treatment table of a friend of mine and I was able to practice on my willing partner and my lovely child, who gave me their bodies to practice on, so that was really helpful. (FG9 P2)

Combined with video demonstrations, the opportunity to practice on the equipment led to powerful learning for this student:

I ended up having to pause the lectures, pause the recordings and practice on my little pretend spine … it was really empowering because I just sat there and did it again and again and again until I got it. (FG9 P2)

This raises the possibility that, had the lecturer (and/or peers) been able to observe the student’s practice via video, feedback could have been provided on the practical learning demonstrated.

The help of families to practice on was also mentioned by student teachers; for example, “So, some people, for drama, have done it with their own children, some science stuff got done with you know people's family at home instead of being in school” (FG3 P2).

Practicing online

While some teaching practice happened in the homes of student teachers, there were also opportunities to practice online teaching. Student teachers could join children and their mentor teachers to teach online, “doing online learning with them through Zoom. So, my teacher would take lessons and stuff and I was a part of that which was quite cool, yeah, during lockdown” (FG3 P2).

Being able to join in online teaching practice was far from a universal possibility for student teachers, however, as this was dependent on individual schools’ participation in online teaching. In some cases, where the mentor teachers were struggling with the additional pressure of teaching children online, the student teachers feared adding to the pressure:

[The university] told us that if our mentor teacher is happy, we could join like a ClassDojo and stuff to be a part of online learning at [school]. But then I didn’t really feel like that was appropriate because obviously the school teachers were busy … so I didn’t really want to be going and be like I want to be part of it because that’s extra pressure for them. (INT P12)

Some medical students were also able to learn about online applications in practice, for example, “We were taught the telehealth system which is a clinical system and that was fantastic learning how to direct people over video and communicate efficiently and safely to keep your patient safe. So it was really cool” (FG9 P2).

This data serves as a reminder that some practical learning could and did occur online and would therefore pave the way for future teachers and medics to communicate and practice online.

The power of demonstration

Students regarded video as a useful source of demonstration of practical learning, with 61% of survey respondents identifying video recordings as a helpful teaching behavior. A medical student noted that the demonstration via video was more helpful when working online, whereas in a physical classroom (laboratory), there was a tendency for students to get straight into the work without seeing a model first:

Because [a] real person cadaver. It's kinda … you have to do the work and sometimes you can’t see the stuff by yourself. Whereas in the video, the lecturer actually dissects everything and like, show you exactly what is happening before. Sometime in the room, you don't really know what to look for. I think that’s a pro. (INT P2)

A similar demonstration was offered in place by a laboratory technician, as one student recounted:

A presentation and the lab technician had recorded like a um, yeah, just kind of going through it. So it was the best one that she could do online because it didn't require as much of a practical component, and it was more looking at um, the way that certain things are done on a website, for example, and how classifications and stuff like that. So it was for plant biology. (INT P16)

A virtual field trip of sorts was also recalled by another of the science students:

They’d flown a drone over previously, it was a case study of a pond and the ecology of it. And it was kind of entertaining. I mean, obviously it would have better to be there, but I did appreciate that they'd gone to that effort to make it seem more normal and yeah, I think actually over that class, we had a lot more interaction with everyone and a little more laughs and yeah. We all came out of it feeling a lot better. Rather than previous ones where it's just lecture slides and everything. (INT P15)

Video demonstrations were helpful, partly because the students could pause, repeat, and adjust the pace of the videos:

I found that with the video is really helpful because I can go back, pause it and take more notes and then continue, which I found really, really good because I just struggle to keep up in in class lectures. (FG9 P4)

However, one drawback of this flexibility was that some students tended to spend more time on the video than they would have done in a live lecture. Our study did not determine the extent to which this extra time enhanced learning:

It's the time schedule that’s a little bit different from the real one. Because in real lecture if it’s an hour lecture, it's actually an hour lecture. Whereas online I actually spent three hours in one lecture because I just keep pausing every time to write notes. Because like in a real lecture you can’t pause the video but in recorded lecture, you can just keep pausing it so that it takes me three hours to do one lecture. It’s really time consuming. (INT P2)

Perhaps unusually, it was rarely reported that many of the video demonstrations were produced by students. Rather, video was presented for students to watch instead of actively engaging in practical learning as they “just had to watch videos of stuff instead of doing it” (FG2 P2). One exception was noted, with the student describing the challenge of collaborating over distance:

We had to do a group presentation video. And with everyone being, sort of, all over the place that was actually kind of challenging, even though there were group members that were … really motivated to the assessment because there wasn't that sense of being in the same place, and actually being able to, you know, physically see what people were talking about like materials for their very own things. Um, so we did actually do that. But that was really challenging. (FG9 P4)

One student teacher did note the opportunity to produce and record digital music, however:

Music was good because we had tasks that we could do and we could use digital, you know, let go on and there was 100 of digital musical stuff and some of those recording ourselves singing and I actually found that quite good because I could do it in the comfort of my own home where I would have struggled to have done that, actually, you know, like on campus with a whole group of people. (FG3 P2)

Other than this student, there was little sense that students could capture practical learning to share with each other online. Video demonstrations were invariably produced by staff or took the form of lectures, with staff doing most of the talking. This was a missed opportunity, as behind the scenes, some resourceful students were engaged in practical learning in their homes.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that during lockdowns, there was a tendency to revert to the transmission of content via lectures and reading, while practical learning was often postponed. In teacher education, health, and science, there were instances of active, constructivist, student-led learning, and even a few isolated examples of situated and applied learning. However, the dominant trend was to postpone practice and replace it with theory, and students found themselves in passive roles (Kara, 2021; Kidd & Murray, 2020; la Velle et al., 2020). In many ways, this can be viewed as a missed opportunity, and building on the glimpses of practical learning, we propose sustainable alternatives to prioritizing theory over practice.

For the most part, students in our study regarded the postponement of practice as inevitable due to the closure of campus laboratories and schools, and the inability to physically mix with other people. There was a widespread assumption that practical learning could simply not occur online, reflected in the literature juxtaposing real-world practice with anything that occurs online (Flores & Gago, 2020; Moyo, 2020). For our participants, this was partially due to the tendency to equate online learning with Zoom lectures characterized by limited student interactivity. At the same time, there was an assumption that if learning could not occur online, neither could it occur offline. This was despite the relative freedom of being able to move around the neighborhood in the New Zealand context at least.

Exceptions to these patterns occurred when students engaged in the following five categories of active, practical and authentic learning:

• Students actively constructed knowledge by engaging in collaborative activities with their peers. While online collaboration was frequently challenging (Cole et al., 2021), it was possible using the wider potential of technologies like Zoom alongside other communication tools. For example, beyond the use of Zoom for lectures, there were instances of student-led presentations and sharing of learning. Discussion in breakout rooms tended to be less stilted when students worked together on authentic problems, shared resources, and adopted a show-and-tell approach—for example, by sharing their screen, working in a collaborative document, or explaining their understandings with a virtual board. These interactive possibilities also enabled formative feedback from lecturers and peers. Just as students appreciated the responses of their peers and lecturers to work in progress in the on-campus tutorial setting, it was also possible for timely verbal feedback to occur online (Brinia & Psoni, 2022; Burns et al., 2020; Kidd & Murray, 2020).

• Students practiced their craft online. By engaging in collaborative learning with colleagues online, students were building a range of skills and competencies needed in the modern workplace (Abriata, 2022; Brinia & Psoni, 2022; Kim, 2020). The ability to prepare, present, give and receive feedback, and collaborate using various communication technologies is essential in all professions these days. Becoming proficient in new ways of engaging, responding, and managing time is vital for practitioners working in hybrid settings across online and offline contexts. Student teachers who could teach peers and pupils online learned to facilitate sessions, provide feedback to pupils, and manage children’s engagement online. Increasingly, online consultations with patients are undertaken by medical practitioners, who need to communicate, assess, and diagnose online. Across the professions, a familiarity with the digital platforms, apps, and virtual tools of the trade is beneficial for tomorrow’s practitioners.

• Students generated their own audio or video recordings to share. As part of the show-and-tell approach to online learning, students could generate their own recordings of material to share, challenging two prominent assumptions: that learning online is solely about what happens online, in sharp isolation/distinction from offline activities; and that videos are for lectures rather than for capturing a range of learning for subsequent analysis and feedback (Gedera & Zalipour, 2021). The teacher education students who recorded music and drama to share online demonstrated hybrid learning across contexts.

• Students combined the affordances of video demonstrations with online interaction and/or offline practice. Again, video proved valuable when video demonstrations of practical tasks and drone footage of the field showed students what to notice and attend to as they turned to their own practice. Benefits accrued from video demonstrations when students had the opportunity to discuss these with peers, to analyze step by step, and often to pause and repeat multiple times.

• Students independently sought out equipment and opportunities for hands-on practice in their homes, as with the student who borrowed a spine and a treatment table. Students involved family and others in offline practice. Teaching their own children enabled student teachers to practice in various curriculum areas, including drama, visual art, and science.

Conclusion

Innovative online strategies designed to enable practical learning were in use before the pandemic. However, amid lockdowns, there was a tendency to revert to traditional transmissive and theory-focused modes and to “lock down” teaching and learning. Practical learning was frequently postponed as a temporary response that, while understandable in the circumstances of crisis, is clearly not sustainable. Alternatives, where students are able to engage in practical learning by actively collaborating, and practicing both online and offline, invite us to reimagine a more flexible, adaptable future—a future characterized by creative and interactive uses of video and support for home-based learning, and where the online opportunities for students’ professional futures are embraced.

There are no grounds for limiting online learning to theory, lectures, and reading or assuming that all learning must occur online if campuses close. Instead, there is evidence that practical learning can and does occur across online and offline contexts, including homes and neighborhoods. When practice occurs in multiple settings, it is no less real, and real life is increasingly a hybrid of online/offline learning.

As students prepare to join their professions, being able to adapt to hybrid modes of collaboration and practice is imperative. Practice can occur in various settings, and video functions (e.g., videoconferencing, video recording) enable demonstration of learning, feedback, and teaching. In the present and future, it is vital that professionals learn to practice in ways that are not dependent on a single physical location. Teachers at all levels of education need to be able to teach online effectively; medical practitioners must be prepared for virtual consultations; and scientists are compelled to think in different ways about data collection in a world where travel is an environmental risk.

Funding information

This work was supported by small amounts of internal research funding from the University of Waikato, the University of Canterbury, and Auckland University of Technology.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable work of the doctoral students who provided research assistance for this project: Ciara Blanca Alfonso (University of Canterbury) and Zahra Mohamed (University of Waikato). We would like to express our appreciation to all the students who took part in this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was declared by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dianne Forbes

Dianne Forbes is a senior lecturer in digital learning and teacher education at the University of Waikato. Her research interests are the human, social, and relational dimensions of learning through digital technologies. She studies innovative pedagogies, and the perspectives and experiences of students and teachers as participants in digital learning.

Dilani Gedera

Dilani Gedera is the teaching and learning manager at the Faculty of Business, Economics and Law, Auckland University of Technology. Her research interests include online pedagogies, video pedagogy, learner engagement, and activity theory. Her books are Video Pedagogy: Theory and Practice (2021) and Activity Theory in Education (2016).

Cheryl Brown

Cheryl Brown is head of the School of Educational Studies and Leadership, and co-director of the Digital Education Futures Lab at the University of Canterbury. Her research interests encompass digital and media literacies, digital well-being, digital inequality, and university students’ experience of digital education.

Maggie Hartnett

Maggie Hartnett is the director of the Teaching Academy responsible for academic professional development at Massey University. She is a senior fellow of AdvanceHE. Her research interests include motivation, technology-enabled learning, and digital inclusion. She is a board member of Ako Aotearoa, the New Zealand organization that supports tertiary education.

Ashwini Datt

Ashwini Datt is the curriculum development manager and course coordinator of Advanced E-Learning in Clinical Education in the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences. Her expertise and research interests are in educational technologies and design. She is currently completing a PhD on the role of networks in building capacity for teaching with technologies.