Lessons for screen production pedagogy from pandemic-era experiences of teaching online

ABSTRACT

Screen production educators throughout Australasia pivoted to online and remote teaching as the Covid-19 pandemic restricted face-to-face teaching. Teachers’ experiences in 2020–2021 are instructive for the lessons we can learn about effective online teaching for this typically hands-on and collaborative field. This article presents an analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with nine screen production educators working across nine universities and film schools in Australia and New Zealand. The insights gathered through these interviews point to the challenges specific to teaching screen production online, particularly related to students acquiring skills in operating professional equipment and collaborating as a crew with their peers. Interviewees found some surprising value and possibilities during their adaptation to this mode under pandemic conditions but generally experienced it as unsuitable for the discipline and for students’ successful acquisition of the suite of core skills. The swiftly adapted teaching practices undertaken in this period have helped to elucidate the possibilities and significant limitations of online teaching, as well as the needs and satisfaction levels of both staff and students when teaching and learning in this mode.

KEYWORDS:

• Screen production
• pedagogy
• online learning
• blended learning
• higher education
• filmmaking

Introduction

The Covid-19 pandemic significantly interrupted face-to-face teaching in Australasian higher education institutions throughout 2020 and 2021. This was particularly disruptive for the teaching of screen production, which is a heavily hands-on and collaborative discipline. The nature of screen production courses – which typically involve learning to operate professional-grade equipment and software and work in crews to produce film, television, or other screen content – do not easily lend themselves to fully online pedagogy, yet screen production educators had to adapt to this delivery mode for multiple semesters. Parts of Australia and New Zealand had long ‘lockdown’ periods during which staff and students could not visit campus for classes nor access equipment and facilities, necessitating attempts to meet learning outcomes without either the physical spaces and resources nor in-person learning and collaboration that are central to face-to-face screen production pedagogy. Although some activities and resources can be transferred from an in-person classroom to an online context, teaching in ways that do not involve physical co-presence of students with their peers and teachers presents significant challenges to established methods of teaching screen production skills. At the same time, the upheaval created by the pandemic’s impact on higher education has presented opportunities for innovation in this area. What can we take away from the experience of teaching through these times?

This project aimed to investigate the perspectives of academics who currently teach screen production in universities and film schools around New Zealand and Australia. We invited a sample of screen production teachers to share their pedagogical experiences, learning, and advice through individual short recorded interviews. This research seeks to contribute to trans-Tasman and cross-institutional sharing of best practice and the development of effective pedagogical strategies for remote and online teaching of screen production. ‘Screen production’ is used here as an encompassing term to include film and television degrees as well as courses in media and screen production industries more broadly, which variously cover areas such as extended reality (XR) formats, 360 video, digital photography, video production for online platforms, and other screen-based media production. Some instructors and courses focus on traditional industry pathways into film and television production, whereas others emphasise new technologies, processes, and industries. The authors were interested in the common experience of teaching production courses that were not specifically designed for online delivery but nonetheless had been taught online for part or all of 2020 and 2021. How did it go, and what did we learn? What were the challenges, the benefits, the surprises, and the takeaways for screen production pedagogy in the longer term?

Screen production pedagogy pre-pandemic

While a flurry of research has emerged on the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on learning and teaching in higher education, there needs to be further consideration of the specific context of screen production pedagogy and the needs of screen production students as they develop technical proficiency, aesthetic knowledge, collaboration skills, and familiarity with professional standards and processes from production safety to filmmaking ethics. As John Hetherington and Trish FitzSimons found in reviewing the literature on online blended programmes and courses, sources from other fields ‘were not directly applicable to the screen media environment’ and ‘do not align with the particular production requirements and processes of screen media’ (2015, 13). Pre-pandemic, in a 2015 publication, Hetherington (University of Southern Queensland) and FitzSimons (Griffith Film School) investigated the potential for online delivery of screen media production courses at their Queensland institutions. For these authors, the exploration of alternative delivery modes (online and blended delivery) ‘stem[med] from the view that new technologies provide many opportunities to question older pedagogical paradigms’ (Hetherington and FitzSimons 2015, 11), and was also prompted by a shift toward offering creative arts courses in distance mode at the regional university (USQ). The present article is driven by similar questions, as like USQ, Massey University has specialised in distance delivery and there has been a push toward offering our digital media production courses in distance mode (in addition to on campus in Wellington, Palmerston North, and Auckland). At the same time, of course, issues of online pedagogy have been brought into focus with a new urgency for all screen production educators since the public health measures for the pandemic (including border closures and extended lockdowns in some regions) began to impact our teaching – and our students’ learning – from early 2020. Where previously, pre-pandemic, online teaching and learning was typically supplementary to the screen production face-to-face classroom (if employed at all), the impacts of Covid pushed educators into blended or online modes.

As Hetherington and FitzSimons note, while many tertiary courses have shifted online in the past two decades, with the exemption of scriptwriting courses, ‘the teaching of screen production has largely been immune to this trend, due to its dependence on group-based teaching, realisation of assessment items and use of complex technology’ (Hetherington and FitzSimons 2015, 11). We have observed that in addition to these factors, there is a degree of scepticism and resistance to the possibilities of teaching screen production courses through online delivery amongst some colleagues in the field, including at our own institution. Nonetheless, institutional and student pressures to offer such courses in alternative modes continue, as does the development of technology and tools that can facilitate online and remote learning. The present paper builds on Hetherington and FitzSimons’ reflections on the challenges and possibilities of teaching screen production either partially or wholly online, incorporating a broad range of experiences of our interviewees from different institutions across Australia and New Zealand. Where Hetherington and FitzSimons’ investigation focused on one regional institution (USQ) and the counterpoint example of an urban film school (GFS) – and this type of case study approach reflecting on an initiative or shift at the authors’ own institutions is common in screen production pedagogical studies (eg. Aquilia and Kerrigan 2018; Carlin and Ritchard 2008; Connolly 2022; Dooley and Sexton-Finck 2017; Murray et al. 2020) – our study focuses on the diverse experiences of nine individual educators from different Australasian institutions during the pandemic (a period of intensified reliance on online and remote pedagogies). This presents an opportunity to reflect on the common challenges and shared practices as well as the specific pressures, possibilities, and opportunities experienced by these educators, particularly during the pandemic.

Areas of interest for screen production pedagogical research in the Australasian region have included collaboration and teamwork skills (Dooley and Sexton-Finck 2017), intensive teaching mode (Murray et al. 2020), and incorporating feature film production (Young 2014). Such research explores the benefits and practical hurdles of alternative modes and models of screen production education, with innovation in these directions typically underpinned by hands-on practical experience within groups/crews in intensive production modes that mirror – and prepare students for – professional production contexts. These values are reflected internationally, for example, in how UCA Farnham’s undergraduate screen production curricula features ‘an emphasis on group production and the mirroring of industrial practice’ (Connolly 2022, 85). Prior to the pandemic, there was already motivation to rethink the ‘traditional’ model of weekly lectures and tutorials or studio workshops due to ‘emergent research into best practice creative education … and increasing emphasis on graduate competency and “employability”’ (Murray et al. 2020, 20). We were interested to hear about whether, in the context of screen production education, the pandemic threw such developments off course (forcing online and remote pedagogies that were neither evidence-based nor desired) or accelerated educators’ innovation and redesign of their courses in positive ways.

The significant impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on screen production education in higher education has been observed by UK-based film production educator Stephen Connolly, who found there were positive aspects: ‘Despite confinement, students were enabled to develop their filmmaking skills in solo productions that also boosted their creative confidence …  Pandemic conditions have offered lessons for educators in film production’ (Connolly 2022, 85). For Connolly, the pandemic’s necessitation of solo productions opened up interesting questions about the impact of group work on women students in particular. Significantly, the shift from collaborative projects to solo production of ‘pandemic films’ – and women students’ success with the latter format – led Connolly to make the change permanent (integrating the production of individual films into the curriculum) and to reflect on broader questions about screen production pedagogy (Connolly 2022, 88). In parallel, we have been interested in the impacts of the pandemic on our peers in the Australasian context. What other questions have been opened up for screen production educators while adapting to teaching throughout the pandemic? What insights and observations about our teaching models and practices in this field came about through the experience of online and remote teaching in the past two years? We share with Australian screen educators an ongoing concern about ‘how to best equip screen production students with skills to enter into, and find success in, a dynamic industry’ (Dooley and Sexton-Finck 2017, 74). How have screen production educators in our region navigated the pandemic context to continue to strive for this goal? The rationale for our study was both to develop our own pedagogical strategies in this context and increase the dialogue within our regional community of screen production educators to share experiences and strategies, as we continually reflect on how we define and strive for best practice in our field.

Methodology

To explore the perspectives and recent experiences of screen production educators regarding online and remote teaching, we conducted semi-structured interviews with instructors experienced in teaching various film, television, documentary, and digital media production classes at higher education institutions in New Zealand and Australia. We sought to speak to a diversity of screen production teachers in terms of location, institution, specialisation, career stage, gender and generation. Potential participants – identified via our professional networks and snowballing – were approached via email and provided with the information sheet. Interviews were arranged with invitees who were keen to participate and were conducted by the second author (whose recent PhD research had similarly involved online interviews with local and international screen practitioners). Interviews (between 30 and 45 min in duration) were conducted via Zoom in the summer of 2021–2022, transcribed by the researchers, and then examined through thematic analysis using inductive coding and analytic memos. The key themes to emerge from the analysis are outlined in the findings section below.

Nine screen production educators participated in individual interviews: six based in Australia and three based in New Zealand. The interviewees teach across nine different institutions (universities and film schools) in Australasia and represent a mix of permanent and sessional academics working at varied academic levels (associate professor, senior lecturer, lecturer, senior tutor). The number of years of university teaching experience varied between interviewees, but all had a minimum of three years (with most ranging between one to two decades of experience) and have been teaching screen production during the pandemic. The interviewees also have a range of specialisations and professional experience in the screen industries (including independent documentary, television studio production, film production and post-production, and experimental filmmaking). Pseudonyms (Terry, Danny, Melissa, Bruce, John, Chris) have been used for all interviewees except Billy Head (Monash University), Max Schleser (Swinburne University of Technology), and Susan Kerrigan (formerly University of Newcastle and AFTRS, joined Swinburne University of Technology post-interview).

Not every institution or location in Australasia is represented, as the aim was to capture a variety of perspectives with in-depth interviews rather than survey a representative sample or cover all institutions. The choice of an interview methodology (as opposed to a written survey, for instance) meant sacrificing the number of participants we could accommodate for the richness this methodology offers in terms of unpacking the challenges and complexities of screen production pedagogy in the period in greater detail. We were particularly interested in the experiences of educators in locations impacted by pandemic public health measures such as ‘lockdowns’, for example, Melbourne, which was the world’s most locked-down city at 262 days by the summer of 2021–2022 when these interviews were conducted. For the purposes of this article, we were also less interested in the teaching of screenwriting courses, as this has historically been taught online successfully at many institutions (for example, Hetherington and FitzSimons [2015, 14] note that it was a smooth transition at GFS to offer these types of courses via distance years ago). Screenwriting as a craft is typically more focused on individual effort and does not require hands-on acquisition of skills with camera and lighting equipment, so does not present the same pedagogical challenges as other areas of screen production explored here. Screen production has been an expanding field in higher education in Australia and New Zealand over the past two decades¹ and the authors acknowledge that there is a wealth of experience within various institutions that is untapped within this study; we hope the conversation generated here continues amongst the strong and growing community of screen production academics in Australasia.

Findings from interviews with screen production educators in Australasian higher education

The major themes to emerge from the interviews – which are examined in turn below – were: (1) the reassessment of key skills that screen production students should acquire, and the potential for doing so online; (2) the challenges for studio production and the standard workshop model in screen production classrooms; (3) equipment limitations and the switch to smartphone filmmaking; and (4) the acceleration of an existing shift to blended delivery during the pandemic. These were the most salient issues for interviewees in the aftermath of the pandemic pivot, and while there were some surprising positive effects of the shift to online teaching and learning, overall, interviewees found the challenges and limitations of this mode to be generally disadvantageous and undesirable for screen production instructors and their students.

Key skills and the potential for developing them online

Analysis of the interview data revealed the key skills that interviewees aim to develop in their students. The interviewees’ identification of – and reflection upon – desirable skills underpinned consideration of how students could acquire them through online teaching and learning, both under recent pandemic conditions and into the future. The process of pivoting to online teaching and learning commonly prompted interviewees to reassess (and typically reaffirm) what the core screen production graduate attributes are and how they could (or could not) be taught online without unacceptable compromise.

Technical skills

The acquisition of fundamental technical skills was nominated as a core part of screen production education, regardless of whether students were training for a specific film and television industry role (such as cinematographer or editor) or completing screen production courses as part of a degree or major leading toward a generalist or non-screen industry role (such as public relations, marketing, advertising, or journalism). In introductory courses, interviewees expect their students to be able to demonstrate ‘basic things like composing a shot, getting it in focus, doing a white balance, sound recording levels … ’ (Terry). Graduates seeking careers in a range of roles and industries benefit from acquiring fundamental skills in operating cameras and microphones and using editing software, so introductory courses are about ‘ensuring that they have shooting, writing and editing skills’ (Danny). Introductory courses give students an understanding of pre-production, production, and post-production processes, with an opportunity to apply these processes and practice their basic technical skills in individual or group projects. Following the grasp of fundamentals at first year, ‘the second and third year courses are about enhancement and a bit of a specialization’ (Danny).

While demonstrations of software (and to a lesser degree, equipment) may be possible online, guided support in students acquiring hands-on skills is more difficult to achieve. Practical skills in areas such as filming and sound recording ‘can be very difficult to deliver online’ as ‘you can’t be there watching what the student is doing, making suggestions’ (Melissa). Similarly, to acquire skills in post-production software, ‘it’s probably easier for students to be hands on, and for us to supervise and support’ (Bruce). Yet Danny is considering continuing to teach editing online post-pandemic, as he found it easier to troubleshoot when students could share their screens immediately and he also found it more economical: ‘I could cover more in each class… and the time was spent a lot better’ (Danny).

All interviewees regarded the need for at least basic technical skills as a given, while also acknowledging the need to be prepared for changing technologies and industries through transferable skills in learning, research, and adaptability (as discussed further below). Being ‘open to new opportunities’ and ‘understanding the innovation space’ are beneficial in this context, and it is important for students to have ‘good storytelling skills’ and ‘a good understanding of aesthetics’ (Max). Learning ‘the technology and the tools that they’re working with in their particular role’ is fundamental, but as several interviewees pointed out, graduates will need to learn new equipment and software as technology quickly evolves, so it is important not only to know ‘the particular piece of software or particular camera, or particular technical workflow, but also understand how to learn new skills’ (Max).

Collaboration

Students’ development of skills in collaboration tended to be positioned as equal to, or even more important than, the acquisition of technical skills in screen production education. Regardless of the type of production, it is important ‘that they can collaborate with people around them’ (Susan). Susan highlighted that

in teaching filmmaking and television production, it’s really important that students know how to learn and make decisions in a collaborative environment, that they can socialise their ideas with each other, confirm the way forward and be able to execute the ideas.

Central to effective collaboration are the interpersonal skills developed through group work, including professionalism and being organised. Students need ‘a kind of social knowledge of how to work with people in groups’ and to work in the film and television industry they need to become ‘sensitive to the realities of production’ including understanding protocols and hierarchies and how to operate within them (John). Susan spoke of how a multicamera studio production course helped students behave as a crew in other courses, developing transferable skills for other areas of screen production. Experiential learning of on-set etiquette and how to speak to each other during production are key skills, and a deficit in these skills was noticed in subsequent courses after students did not have the on-campus opportunity to learn them in the multicamera production course. Terry similarly found that professionalism and interpersonal skills suffered the most when students did not have the face-to-face opportunity to work in groups, displaying less teamwork and accountability for ‘showing up’ when in the online context. Skill in negotiating differences of opinion was mentioned as a key part of collaboration, and this negotiation aspect of collaboration is particularly difficult to develop online (Melissa). The team environment, working together in real time, ‘making decisions on your feet’ and ‘the kind of aha moments that occur when you are making decisions in context’ were learning opportunities that could not be easily replicated in an online mode (Melissa).

On the flip side, students developed skills in online collaboration, preparing them for the industry in future. Chris found it ‘a really big ask’ for students at the introductory level to manage large files and undertake group assignments remotely in an online course, preferring to set individual assignments for first year students (particularly online), but Max and Billy saw positives in the challenges of group work in an online context. Max used the Covid-19 restrictions to explain the concept of larger intercontinental productions when multiple stakeholders and teams are scattered across the globe, describing it as a ‘good learning experience’ for students to figure out file management and workflow when collaborating with people remotely. Similarly for Billy, in ‘that process of having to collaborate across geographical distances and dealing with the technologies of that collaboration, I think there was a real positive that came out of out of that experience. And I think one that will probably hold them in very good stead.’ Billy used technology like Google Drive to share the material with students and introduce a new, intercontinental collaborative approach they otherwise would not experience in the face-to-face classroom. While several interviewees saw their students’ collaboration skills suffer during the pandemic, Bruce was surprised by students’ group work and collaboration in the online learning context, attributing these skills to the networking tools and resources such as Microsoft Teams and the institution’s learning management system ‘that can connect students, formally organise them, give them collaborative tools, and encourage them to work together.’

Alongside the development of collaborative skills is the valuable aspect of learning in a communal way, which interviewees found was similarly reduced in an online environment. This was most keenly felt in not being able to have in-person screenings of student work for peer feedback and celebration. Susan said that

a screening event where they see the work of their peers is also really important, where they can discuss and appreciate and applaud the work of their peers and see the quality of their work in relation to other people’s work … It is achieved so well, when they sit in a room together and can laugh, or sigh or have silence together. You know, there’s a lot of communal aspects to filmmaking that I think are really important, that cannot be achieved online.

Terry described himself as a ‘stickler’ for his class watching each other’s work together on a big screen because ‘they learn a lot from that experience’ and not being able to have these on-campus screenings ‘is bad for morale’. During the pandemic, students missed the full experience of studying, not only the collaborative environment and experience of workshops, group projects, and peer feedback in screen production, but also broader social and communal aspects of campus life and the opportunity to network.

Professionalism, employability, and adaptability

Alongside technical skills and collaboration, interviewees nominated various skills related to professionalism, employability, and adaptability as key. Overall, interviewees regarded online teaching and learning as having mixed potential in these areas, but the pandemic pivot – for both higher education and screen industries – highlighted the importance of these skills, for instance, in working effectively via remote collaboration or adapting to other shifting work practices or technologies (such as virtual production).

Skills in this category include time management and meeting deadlines, as well as information technology skills such as ‘building a website to showcase your work or understanding what file formats you might submit things in’ (Terry). Instructors seek to foster preparedness for industry through course design and assessment, for example, Danny designs courses and assessment to be ‘based on what the industry expectations are of a filmmaker.’ Interviewees spoke of the need to prepare students for their careers beyond training them for a specific role in the screen industries, particularly considering the changing nature of these industries and the competitive environment. While specialisation is one route into a screen industry career (i.e. focusing on one craft, such as editing or cinematography, and developing a career by working your way up in that department), several interviewees pointed to the benefits of ‘a good skill set of various different techniques and technologies’ (Max) so that graduates can freelance and take up new opportunities. Danny encourages students with ambitions to be above-the-line creatives to pick up a below-the-line craft to support themselves and sustain their career in the industry, which is an example of the way that ‘whatever I feel I wish I had known sooner … I’m trying to implement that in the courses.’ Billy similarly identified importance of adaptability (particularly for students not focused on a particular specialised role as a cinematographer, editor, or sound designer): ‘the ability to move into various different roles … the ability to adapt and learn is probably the key thing.’ Agility is necessary ‘to adapt to the contemporary state of our industries’ (Bruce). Interviewees suggested there is a risk in placing too much emphasis on specialist skills or learning a specific piece of equipment or software in an environment of fast-paced change, and it is incumbent on educators to equip students with generalist skills and adaptability.

I think most students need adaptability [and] general confidence. I think they need a general willingness to attempt new practices and use new software and hardware … . we shouldn’t presume to be able to go through a fixed training regime, and then come out as pre-packaged experts, and instead what most people are looking for is that drive, that passion, that willingness, that enthusiasm. They can adapt and shape on the fly as the roles change. (Bruce)

This perspective has been foregrounded for educators through the adaptability required of both screen industry practitioners and educators in the Covid-19 pandemic context and it also reflects their teaching experience in these conditions as their own adaptability (and that of their students) came to the fore. The challenges of remote learning fostered skills of adaptability for some students as they had to problem solve and figure out ‘how do we work out post-production workflow or deal with technical challenges’ when their crew was scattered over the globe (Billy). With his students, Billy found that despite not getting the full experience, ‘most did appreciate that they were learning a similar sort of skill set, and that they did learn a certain amount of adaptability and that is something that they could apply in future.’ Furthermore, ‘they managed to create some really great projects, even despite the limitations’ (Billy). Technical problems or practical challenges with online learning and collaboration could be reframed by instructors as learning experiences for the students and an opportunity for both instructors and students to practice troubleshooting.

Challenges for studio production and the workshop model

The interviewees echoed Hetherington and FitzSimons’ pre-pandemic assertion that there are limitations of a virtual environment, for instance, for a class learning how to operate as a television crew in a fully equipped teaching studio, ‘an understanding of how one role relates to another, the physical operation of equipment and the safety factors involved in moving through the studio environment can only be achieved in a real studio interacting and learning alongside others’ (2015, 16). This was borne out in Susan’s experience, as although students picked up some different digital skills and transferable skills when her multi camera production course went online, the learning outcomes could not be met. In particular, Susan nominated ‘studio etiquette, talking to each other professionally and trying to work through problems’ as one of the most difficult skills to deliver online. Similarly, John said that television studio production was clearly the trickiest type of course to deliver during the pandemic because of the confined spaces and intense teamwork required.

While television studio production courses were viewed as the most difficult, a range of courses taught in a studio environment or using a workshop model (typically a weekly workshop of two to three hours in duration, focused on hands-on acquisition and application of skills such as camera operation and lighting) faced challenges in the pivot to online delivery. ‘I think almost all the studio environments or skills are difficult to teach online because it’s about that contact,’ said Max, who felt that ‘studio classes should be taught in the studio, because it’s just so much more fun to be in the proximity of the students and work with them together to explain to them how the equipment works’ and it is easier to facilitate feedback and discussion. Danny found that courses in writing and video editing worked well in the online environment, ‘but not the studio elements, not the workshop elements, it’s just not replicable.’ Billy and Chris both found that workshop-style teaching could not be well replicated on Zoom, as it is difficult to do demonstrations with cameras, and students could not do hands-on workshop activities in groups and receive immediate guidance and feedback as they do in the physical classroom: ‘I don’t think it’s as effective as having them in the classroom with their hands on the camera’ (Chris). Another general advantage of the physical classroom is the opportunity for students to think and operate in a spatial environment: ‘thinking about framing and lighting and space and context and coverage, those things are hard to communicate online. I feel that it’s possible to grasp them conceptually, but it’s that in-the-moment decision-making that you don’t know’ (Melissa). In the face-to-face classroom, instructors also found they could be more responsive in assessing students’ knowledge and skill levels and tailor their teaching accordingly; in a virtual classroom, when students did not have webcams or refused to turn them on (a common occurrence), it was not possible to read facial expressions to gauge attention and comprehension.

Equipment limitations and the switch to smartphone filmmaking

The limited technology and equipment available to the students at home was a key issue for screen production educators and students during the pandemic. One of the most common problems interviewees mentioned was the low specification of personal laptops that are not designed to run professional post-production software such as Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom, or Premiere Pro (and not all institutions provided licenses for this post-production software). Furthermore, many students’ laptops had low storage capacity, creating issues with saving footage; instructors found they had to teach skills in file management and ‘how you might manage media across hard drives’ (Susan). Slow internet speeds and connectivity issues – particularly for regional students – further compromised some students’ ability to participate in course activities and communicate with peers or the instructor.

Interviewees pointed to the equity issues that surfaced from differing device access (including cameras and computers) and how it had ‘been a challenge in terms of trying to teach across that range of technical access’ (John). For example, providing instruction on operating cameras was challenging when some students were using DSLRs and others were using smartphones. An unequal level of equipment made the standardisation of courses and assessments harder, for example, Chris questioned ‘how to make a course fair when someone has a $20,000 digital camera setup and their classmate has a four-year-old Samsung Galaxy smartphone, they’re just not really equivalent.’ Interviewees voiced frustration that their students were unable to access campus production and post-production facilities or borrow equipment from their institutions for multiple semesters due to pandemic restrictions and university protocols. Many students were disappointed or dissatisfied and ‘felt that they weren’t getting the full experience’ without access to the equipment and facilities, which are drawcards for students to enrol in production courses (Billy). The on-campus equipment and environments, designed to reflect industry standards, facilitate students’ learning of professional skills and processes; without access to these for extended periods, both the curriculum and expectations had to be adjusted and some courses could not be offered.

The limited teaching on-site and the inability to distribute expensive professional gear pushed mobile technology to the forefront as a logical and affordable solution. As John noted, many students have access to smartphones with good quality cameras, ‘so if you can treat it right, in terms of lighting, and if you can stabilise it and move it in a certain way that actually, you could produce quite a good end product.’ John recalls that pre-pandemic, there was ‘a lot of resistance’ to a move toward using mobile phones, a resistance that is now ‘all but gone’. Several interviewees (temporarily) shifted their courses to smartphone workflows, which enabled students to develop technical and storytelling skills of filmmaking with the equipment to hand. This pivot typically involved what Bruce described as a ‘technology agnostic approach’ (focusing more on the technique and the practice as opposed to a specific piece of gear), which he clarified as being distinct from mobile filmmaking:

we don’t necessarily take the approach of you know, mobile filmmaking or smartphone filmmaking, we’re not subscribing to the theories and the ideas of specifically using your mobile device … that kind of agnostic way of thinking about it is that actually what matters is the image that you capture, the story that you tell, and the way you work through the process.

In this approach, which Terry’s institution also used, ‘conceptually, the practical skills were the same but … the actual equipment was different’ (Terry). Similarly, in Billy’s courses,

we essentially kept the same structure and we taught them the same sort of basic principles around framing, composition, and approaches to getting good technical quality from the productions. But we switched to using Filmic Pro as the software on a mobile phone that we used to illustrate those sorts of concepts and for them to do their productions.

The technology-agnostic approach was instrumental for departments to continue to offer their face-to-face courses in an online environment during the pandemic. Courses that did not suit this approach (because the operation of specific professional equipment or working together in physical environment was crucial) either had the hands-on production component postponed or were cancelled for the semester.

Both in terms of diversifying technical skills and learning adaptability, the resource limitations of remote teaching in the pandemic context had a silver lining for students and staff. On the staff side, for example, Terry said that in adapting his classes for online delivery, ‘I’ve certainly utilised some tech better … I’ve learned some tech, and I’ve used some tech that I wouldn’t have otherwise used.’ However, students’ acquisition of fundamental skills in the operation of professional equipment and collaborating in a crew suffered in this context of solo productions on mobile devices. After lockdown restrictions forced students to work with smartphones, ‘I think there’s a bit of catching up to do to give students the experience to get their hands on the equipment’ (Max). Particularly for students undertaking film and television production degrees or majors, Susan emphasised the importance of doing productions with professional equipment on campus rather than just developing skills with mobile media individually:

I think that benefits the students the most. And that makes them also feel like they’ve really had a proper learning opportunity. And they learn an enormous amount through experiential learning, through learning through trial and error. And they do that by being with each other. That’s what I believe.

Acceleration of an existing shift to blended delivery

As a result of teaching modifications made during the pandemic, many interviewees recognised benefits of blended delivery for the longer term. At many institutions, there was an existing shift toward blended delivery pre-pandemic, and interviewees found that the sudden need to deliver courses online shook up their face-to-face course design and pushed them to think about how a blended model might work. For Max, adapting a course that was not set up for online delivery was used as ‘an opportunity to redevelop these courses towards a sort of “flipped classroom” idea’ (Max), and teaching 360 video online was an experiment in how much the delivery mode can shift while still meeting the requirements of the curriculum. Billy similarly found that the pandemic teaching experience helped to develop the tools and techniques of a flipped classroom, adding asynchronous learning aspects that are helpful for engagement and priming students for hands-on learning.² By becoming a necessity in the lockdown conditions, asynchronous and blended learning were developed and embedded, reinforcing a direction that screen production pedagogy was heading in: ‘there’s certainly been things that have added on to the development of where the pedagogy was going beforehand’ (Billy). Similarly for Danny, ‘there is definitely value in aspects of online teaching that I had experienced in the past few years, which I will implement’ for an enhanced learning experience, including continuing to use recorded lectures online in a blended model (with interactive workshops in person). Instructors put significant time into developing quality recorded lectures and demonstration videos which they continue to use in a flipped classroom model as students return to campus. Reflecting the developing interest in blended learning expressed by other interviewees, John said the idea of blended delivery is here to stay; as a result of the pandemic, he finds teachers are more convinced of its effectiveness and more confident with the tools.

Several interviewees were in favour of intensives for hands-on production, with some institutions already offering block courses (mainly over summer). Danny suggested technical and hands-on skills are well suited for teaching in block workshops, which offer more opportunities for student collaboration and building synergy and momentum (rather than needing to recap when students miss classes or forget skills learnt in previous weeks). In contrast, Danny felt that scriptwriting courses can be taught online with ease but cannot be condensed, as students need more time to develop stories and have some creative distance to reflect on their work. Intensives were used by some instructors during the pandemic at the end of semesters when teaching had to occur online, giving students an opportunity to use the professional equipment and complete productions. Again, teaching strategies that were used to adapt to Covid-19 pandemic incidentally operated as trials of new methods, and the interviews suggest that intensives are a delivery mode that screen production educators are interested in exploring further. This was not a new idea that emerged in the pandemic, for instance, a case study first published online in 2019 indicated the pedagogic advantages of the blended and intensive mode for screen production students ‘include an enhanced student experience of the screen production creative process, and increased feelings of production confidence and competence. Students also believe that this teaching mode better mirrors codes of professional practice than do “traditional modes” of weekly lecture/tutorial delivery’ (Murray et al. 2020, 28). The pandemic teaching context reinforced this emerging direction for screen production pedagogy as more educators were familiarised with this mode and forced to pilot it in some form.

Whether or not they advocated for blended or intensive delivery modes post-pandemic, interviewees commonly noted that online teaching has its limits and most screen production courses cannot be fully taught online. Susan was insistent that

there really are some courses that should not be taught online and I really think our practical filmmaking courses is one of those key things that you just cannot replicate online. If you want them to have learning outcomes that make them professional and collegial and do share decision-making around content you cannot do that online.

Furthermore, while interviewees commonly found student feedback was positive – even more positive than usual – in the first semester of the pivot to online teaching, it significant dropped in subsequent semesters. Interviewees attributed this to students’ initial gratitude for staff efforts in enabling their studies to continue by offering courses in an alternative mode, then ‘Covid fatigue’ set in: ‘by the second semester of online teaching and learning the students were just over it’ (Terry). It is difficult to determine to what degree the lower engagement and satisfaction was related to the studying through a pandemic or studying fully online. This is an important caveat to our findings in general: the experiences and outcomes of online and remote pedagogy in 2020–2021 were coloured by the pandemic context, so while the period functioned as a sandbox for new teaching strategies and delivery modes – and frequently prompted us to rethink our curricula, assessment, and teaching methods – application in the post-pandemic context will need further consideration. For example, Bruce observed that in the online environment it was difficult for the students to improve skills in reflective practice (‘consistently reflect on each step each stage of the things that they’re doing and make incremental improvements’) but ‘I don’t know how much of that is the online environment, or how much of that is the challenges that our students are facing in a Covid lockdown situation.’ Bruce reflected that likely both were factors in the issues with lower engagement, connection, and work ethic that educators observed from the second semester of the pandemic onwards. Terry also noted that in addition to ‘this level of dissatisfaction that was to do with learning online and not feeling like they were getting experience with real cameras, that they weren’t having a real university experience and meeting and making friends,’ students were cognisant of the pandemic’s impact on the screen industries and possible implications for their careers post-graduation, which caused anxiety for some students and prompted them to question their choice of industry.

Discussion

The experience of teaching screen production in the Covid environment brought broader shifts and pedagogical questions for our field into sharper focus, not only online and blended delivery options, but how to teach core skills effectively, how to engage students, and how to prepare them for the evolving screen industries. Reflection on teaching practice prepared educators to adapt to teaching in pandemic conditions, and these teaching experiences then further developed educators’ adaptability, teaching strategies, and reflective practice. Bruce reflected that prior to the pandemic, ‘I think that I was already making shifts and adaptations as a teacher … I think one thing that we will need to increasingly work towards is creating a kind of connected, supportive and engaging environment for our students.’ Issues of student engagement and assessment performance that arose during the pandemic prompted further reflection on student experience and teaching and assessment practices, which renewed Bruce’s commitment to finding engaging learning opportunities that are ‘a little bit more sort of project based, supported, supervised, and collaborative.’ Bruce attributes having begun to shift his pedagogical approach in this direction prior to the pandemic to having helped with his response to teaching under pandemic conditions.

Whether or not pedagogical changes made during the pandemic are incorporated into teaching strategies or course design in the longer term, the experience has been a valuable opportunity to reassess priorities and practices. It has been a reminder to stay agile, which remains relevant regardless of the pandemic situation since, as Melissa noted, ‘not just practice of teaching, but the screen industries themselves are … always in flux, they are always in change.’ Alongside the pandemic situation, technological evolution and the expansion of free production and digital post-production tools are creating both challenges and opportunities in the screen industries and in the teaching of screen production. At present, best practice is undeterminable, partially due to the unknowns around the future directions for both higher education and the screen industries. John reflected on the divergent directions that screen industries might head in the future, and consequently, how we can teach students to prepare for careers in these industries: will the Covid-19 pandemic create a long-term disruption and permanently change professional workflows, or is it an anomaly that will be quickly forgotten once lockdowns and other public health measures ease? Will industry return to the standards of high production values and large crews on set/location, or will individual/minimalist crews and mobile media expand to become more dominant? As educators, we must keep an eye on industry shifts, particularly preparing students to step into the opportunities open to graduates in the coming years.

The often-challenging experience of teaching screen production online or in blended modes (including intensives) during the pandemic crystallised the graduate attributes that instructors seek to impart to their students as well as the affordances of these modes for different aspects of screen production pedagogy. Interviewees reflected on both the opportunities and significant limitations of online teaching and learning, finding some surprising value and possibilities during their adaptation to this mode (for example, the upsides of teaching editing online conveyed by Danny) but generally experiencing it as unsuitable for the discipline and for students’ successful acquisition of the suite of core skills (comprised of technical skills, collaboration, and skills related to professionalism, employability, and adaptability). The findings also indicate differing potential and problems for online learning across year levels. While to some degree, first year screen production lends itself more to online teaching (in that smartphone cameras and free software, as opposed to industry-level equipment and software available on campus, have been used to cover some of the fundamentals), there are other considerations such as transitional pedagogy and engagement, the need to start developing collaboration skills early, and issues of equity such as the financial cost of equipment and software licenses.

The interviews were an excellent opportunity to compare contemporary screen production teaching practices across a variety of courses and institutions in Australasia, and while the project’s focus was on online teaching specifically, teaching during the pandemic also prompted interviewees to reflect more broadly on what the non-negotiable competencies and experiences are for students in their courses and degrees as well as what strategies and modifications could aid their achievement in an era of significant shifts in higher education, screen industries, and technologies. The study has raised questions about pedagogical practices and values more broadly, such as how to supervise and support students individually and as a cohort, how to best use time and resources (including face-to-face classroom or live online class time), and how higher education in our field can best prepare students for the rapidly evolving technologies and future roles in the screen industry. Adaptability is seen as a valuable graduate attribute in this context, though the emphasis on adaptability evident in the findings may also reflect the intensified uncertainty of pandemic times.

Through the interviews it was evident that the experience of teaching in the pandemic context has prompted instructors to reflect on what they enjoy and find satisfying about teaching screen production, what the value is in their teaching for these students, and what the students really need from them. The communal aspect of filmmaking, sharing the same space, gaining hands-on experience in a team environment, and peer critique, were often the hardest to translate into an online classroom, and amongst both teaching staff and students there has been a demand to return to on-campus teaching and learning to build these core skills most effectively. Interviewees were not definitive about what best practice is for screen production pedagogy, as although there were some surprising positive outcomes of teaching in pandemic conditions – as well as positive developments such as the acquisition of new skills with educational technology and innovations in teaching strategies and alternative assessments – it is difficult to separate out what works in an emergency remote teaching scenario to what will work in the longer term. As one of our interviewees reflected,

people were excelling at the same time as responding to a crisis … we hadn’t yet taken a wholesale strategy towards online teaching. And I don’t know if we will. It’s hard to separate out what our best practice for online would have been and how the experience of that might differ from a lockdown situation. (Bruce)

With this in mind, we nonetheless have seen in the interviews the value of reflecting on the pandemic teaching experience for reassessing our assumptions and practices in screen production pedagogy and figuring out the way forward post-pandemic. The pandemic (and in some cases, recent institutional pressures to offer courses online) forced teaching staff to reckon with the assumption that teaching screen production online is not possible. The swiftly adapted teaching practices undertaken in this period have helped to elucidate the possibilities and significant limitations of online teaching, as well as the needs and satisfaction levels of both staff and students when teaching and learning in this mode. In the coming years, following this challenging period of upheaval and experimentation, instructors’ on-the-fly innovations in curricula and teaching delivery should be carefully evaluated to assess their ongoing post-pandemic value for the teaching of screen production and their effectiveness in preparing the next generation of students for the rapidly-evolving screen industries.

Conclusion

This small study hopes to have contributed to generating more conversation amongst screen production teachers in higher education regarding effective teaching practices in the current environment, in particular, in the context of online and remote learning, to whatever degree that continues to play a role beyond the pandemic. Scholarship of teaching in screen production has commonly offered case studies based in one or two institutions. While such studies are essential for sharing and developing best practice – and would be a logical next step to consider more closely some of the innovations referred to by interviewees above – the present interview-based study across a range of institutions has offered a rare occasion to reflect on the values, challenges and practices that have cut across institutions in the same unique period. Our study was prompted by an interest in how fellow educators at other institutions around Australasia had adapted to the online context during the pandemic, and what their views and experiences of online teaching were after two years in these circumstances. Yet, it also opened up conversations that encouraged a broader appraisal of what we need to teach and how we can best serve students, including by preparing them for work in dynamic screen industries. In setting out to conduct this research, we were interested in best practice in online teaching for screen production, but it was quickly evident that a clear picture of best practice has not emerged and that due to the pace of change (not only in the public health context, but in higher education, screen industries, and technology more broadly), ongoing reflection, evaluation, and peer exchange of teaching practices is crucial. Just as interviewees emphasised the importance of students getting hands-on in their learning, experientially learning about the affordances of different modes of teaching was critical for instructors to have a more detailed understanding of the potential and limitations of online pedagogy for screen production for different courses and cohorts.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the community of screen production teachers in higher education across Australia and New Zealand, particularly those who participated in interviews for this research. We would also like to thank colleague Ilja Herb, a Senior Tutor on the Wellington campus of Massey University who has taught Digital Media Production courses with us over the past three years.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the 2020 Massey University Early Career Teaching Award awarded to Claire Henry, which funded Milan Maric’s research assistance on this project.

Notes on contributors

Claire Henry

Claire Henry FHEA conducted this research as Senior Lecturer in Digital Media Production at Massey University in Wellington, New Zealand, and is now based at Flinders University, Australia. Claire has taught both production-focused and theory-focused courses in film and media studies at several universities across Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. She has delivered conference presentations on effective media education practices at Screening Melbourne, SSAAANZ, Sightlines, and Teachers Talking. She was awarded Massey University’s Early Career Teaching Award (2020) and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences Innovation and Excellence Award (2018).

Milan Maric

Milan (Markuza) Maric AFHEA is a PhD candidate at the School of Humanities, Media and Creative Communication, Massey University in Wellington. For the past twenty years, Markuza has worked as a content producer, cinematographer, photographer, and video editor. His portfolio includes more than fifty short fiction films, several feature-length docs and production of thousands of hours of various TV programmes. Rapid developments of online media and its impact on professional workflow inspired his interest in academic research.

Notes

1 Writing in 2013, Goldsmith and O’Regan noted that ‘Over the last 15 years or so, the number and variety of film education institutions in Australia has grown’, including private providers, ‘traditional’ film schools, public universities, and vocational education colleges (2013, 149).

2 At the 2019 ASPERA conference, Jane Newton and Julia Avenell from AFTRS explored the potential of a flipped classroom in a film school context (Newton and Avenell 2019). They begin by acknowledging that there is sometimes resistance to this model, and the pitch of their presentation is indicative of how it was not widely embedded in Australian screen production pedagogy pre-pandemic, although educators were becoming more familiar with its tools, techniques, and potential benefits.