Road Map to Remote Instruction During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Road map to remote instruction 307

Road Map to Remote Instruction
During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Melissa J. Kaufman, MS & Jim P. Stimpson, PhD

Abstract
The rapid shift from in-person to remote instruction due to the COVID-19
pandemic forced institutions of higher education to rapidly pivot to provide
high-quality, remote education to their students. In this paper, we will outline
the decisions and resources the university and the school developed for the
move to remote instruction. This outline includes a review of the successes and
challenges of making this transition to remote education at a large, private,
nonprofit, research-intensive university, and specifically at an accredited school
of public health. Faculty used many innovative strategies in remote learning.
A sample of the public health examples will be shared, and we will provide
context about how the established partnership between instructional design
staff and faculty formed the bedrock of this innovation. We will also review
how our experience of rapidly transitioning to remote instruction has shaped
our school and university, including shifts in priorities for noninstructional
remote needs, such as student services and technological support. Finally, we
will reflect on how the shift to remote instruction during the pandemic could
influence the environment for remote and online teaching and how universi-
ties might prepare for future disruptions.

Please address correspondence to: Melissa Kaufman, MS, Director of Academic Innovation,
Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, 3215 Market Street, Nesbitt Hall, Philadel-
phia, PA 19104, Phone: (267-359-6208), Email: mjk397@drexel.edu

308    The Journal of Health Administration Education               Spring 2021

Introduction
The rapid shift from in-person to remote instruction due to the COVID-19
pandemic has created many challenges for institutions of higher education.
From technology infrastructure to faculty training to leadership, institutions
have had to pivot rapidly to provide high-quality education to their students.
Higher education was already facing a looming enrollment crisis driven by
changing demographics before the coronavirus pandemic (Kelderman, Gar-
ner, & Conley, 2019). The financial pressures were forcing some institutions
to consider mergers or closures as the rise of online learning and alternative
educational models coupled with dwindling public subsidies magnified the
enrollment cliff of 2025 (Kelderman et al., 2019; Lederman, 2018a, 2018b, 2019;
McKenzie, 2019). While many institutions had acknowledged these challenges
and were actively developing and implementing strategic plans, the long-term
systemic change needed to fully address them had yet to be implemented. In
this paper, we will outline the decisions and resources a university and the
school developed for the move to remote instruction, including a review of
the successes and challenges of making this pivot to remote education at a
large, private, nonprofit, research-intensive university, and specifically at an
accredited school of public health.

Definition of Remote Learning
In the rapid switch to remote instruction in the spring of 2020, a number of
terms have been in use, including: distance education, online, remote, asynchro-
nous, and synchronous. Many of these terms are used interchangeably (Saykili,
2018). For the purpose of this paper, they will be defined as follows: Distance
education is an all-encompassing term that represents online/remote learning
(Saykili, 2018). Online learning tends to be more self-directed than in-person
instruction (Willkomm, 2020). It is usually asynchronous, meaning students
can complete work when it is convenient for them. Remote learning, as most
institutions have practiced this spring and summer, is more closely aligned to
face-to-face learning than online learning (Willkomm, 2020). Typically, remote
learning has synchronous sessions, meaning students are required to partici-
pate in a virtual meeting at the same time as their instructor and classmates.
     There has been, and continues to be, bias against distance and online
education by faculty. According to Jaschik & Lederman (2019), 15% of ten-
ured faculty and 13% of tenure track faculty who responded to their survey
strongly disagree that online learning is as effective as face-to-face learning.
This perception has shifted over time; in 2015, 28% of tenured faculty and
21% of nontenured faculty who responded to their survey strongly disagreed
(Straumsheim, Jaschik, & Lederman, 2015). This perception about online

Road map to remote instruction 309

education by faculty has been an additional barrier for institutions attempt-
ing to increase their online program portfolio (Lloyd, Byrne, & McCoy, 2012).
More pressing, this attitude represented a challenge to institutions needing
instructors to quickly pivot to remote learning that provides a quality student
experience.

University-Level Response
The university had many centralized resources already in place that could
be leveraged. It was an early adopter of technology-enhanced education for
working adults, and nearly two decades after launching its first online courses,
the university offers more than 150 online programs using the same accredited
curriculum and distinguished faculty as it does on-campus. The organizational
unit responsible for supporting online education had many resources in place
to support faculty teaching, including instructional designers to convert courses
to an online format. Moreover, there were existing support structures in
place, such as the Online Learning Council, a volunteer group of faculty who
train their peers in online pedagogy and instruction. Recently, the university
launched a teaching and learning center that provides professional develop-
ment resources to faculty. The university also has an Instructional Technology
Group that manages and supports Blackboard, which is the official learning
management system (Blackboard Learn, 2020). Finally, the university already
had an enterprise Zoom license so that every faculty and staff member had
their own Zoom account (Zoom, 2020).
     The university launched a plan of action in early March as the pandemic
grew in the United States. On March 2, 2020, a university-wide plan to cope
with a potential outbreak was shared via email and the university website
(Drexel University, 2020a). This plan included university travel restrictions,
the provost charging the Instructional Technology Group with determining
the feasibility of remote learning, and student life considering potential sup-
port plans for students who might fall ill. On March 11, the university com-
municated the decision that winter quarter exams would be held remotely
(Drexel University, 2020b). Individual academic units worked directly with
the Instructional Technology Group to assist faculty to quickly adapt to re-
mote finals. On March 12, the decision to move the spring quarter to remote
learning was announced (Drexel University, 2020c). As part of this plan, the
spring break was extended one week to give faculty, staff, and students two
weeks to prepare to pivot to remote instruction in the spring quarter.
     The spring quarter pivot to remote instruction was a collaborative effort.
Over 3,200 remote learning experiences were conducted by faculty (Drexel
University, 2020d). The Office of Information Technology created more than

310    The Journal of Health Administration Education                 Spring 2021

9,000 Zoom accounts, began supporting around 1,000 class meetings a day,
tripled the number of training sessions offered to faculty, and loaned out
over 100 laptops (Sherwood & Downey, 2020; Zoom, 2020). The University
Writing Program supported remote writing instruction to faculty by offering
consultations on converting writing courses to a remote learning format and
teaching specific writing-related aspects of their courses in digital format
(Falcone, 2020).
     Faculty were aided by professional staff from across the university, in-
cluding the Library and Information Technology (Falcone, 2020; Sherwood
& Downey, 2020). The university Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) held
several remote-teaching workshops that were attended by more than 250
faculty in the two weeks before the spring term began; for reference, that
same number of faculty had participated in TLC workshops between August
and February (Falcone, 2020). The Online Learning Council (OLC) Faculty
Fellows saw even greater participation, with 453 faculty, staff, and graduate
student attendees in its eight workshops on March 18–27 (Falcone, 2020). The
Remote Teaching Task Force curated recordings of these workshops and other
resources for faculty pedagogical support in the Remote Teaching SharePoint
site (Falcone, 2020).
     The university chose synchronous remote learning (versus asynchronous
online learning) as the primary course delivery mode for three main reasons.
First, because it is closer to the experience of a face-to-face class (Willkomm,
2020). Faculty can meet with their students in real time and do not need to
employ alternative methods for instructor-to-student and student-to-student
interactions. The second reason is that development of high-quality asynchro-
nous online courses generally takes four to six months, and the university
wanted to maintain a high-quality student experience, which would not have
been possible in the two-week time frame (DUO, 2020). Finally, and most im-
portantly, this method was chosen because it is the method that our current
face-to-face students preferred.

School-Level Response
As it became increasingly clear that the school would need to provide instruc-
tion remotely in the spring of 2020, we created a road map for ourselves in
advance of the university plan. We were fortunate to have some online initia-
tives in place that could be leveraged for this crisis; the majority of our spring
quarter courses were taught in a remote synchronous format. The school built
upon existing resources to create a compilation of remote teaching resources.
First, our school had been working to significantly enhance our online learning

Road map to remote instruction 311

capacity over the last three years, including faculty development for an online
learning incentive program (Kaufman & Stimpson, in press). Therefore, be-
cause we had been working diligently to train faculty, we were able to quickly
compile remote learning resources for faculty before the university resources
were rolled out. We had created some resources ourselves, while others came
centrally from the university’s Instructional Technology Group, OLC, and TLC,
and others were resources disseminated by others, such as the Chronicle of
Higher Education and Quality Matters (Hogan & Sathy, 2020; Quality Mat-
ters, 2020). A key communication tool we had recently implemented was an
internal web-based intranet that we could leverage to post real-time updates
to resources and communications using live documents and blog entries.
Second, as a result of our ongoing initiative to build online programs, including
the online master’s programs that will launch in fall 2020, there was a small but
critical core of our faculty available to develop and deliver online versions of
our courses. They had been trained in online pedagogy and course develop-
ment, were comfortable in the online learning space, and were able to serve
as peer mentors for faculty who had little experience with online teaching.
Moreover, each academic department in the school was tasked with creating
a contingency plan for faculty teaching in the spring quarter so that if a fac-
ulty member fell ill, there would be continuity of operations for the course by
someone qualified to be a substitute instructor for that course.
     After we addressed the challenge of delivering our winter quarter finals
remotely, we then identified the courses that were set to be taught face-to-face
in the spring (35) and reached out directly to instructors for spring and sum-
mer courses in anticipation that summer would be remote like spring quarter.
Each department had faculty develop a teaching plan for the spring term, and
we held training sessions on how to use Zoom and Blackboard (Blackboard
Learn, 2020; Zoom, 2020). We also conducted a substantial number of just-in-
time consultations with faculty, which was enabled by having a staff member
dedicated to academic innovation and online learning.
     Finally, we benefited by luck that we have been engaged in a significant
focus on curriculum revision over the past two years in response to the re-
cently revised public health accreditation guidelines and also on the creation
of online programs, which pushed us to create rich and innovative online
learning experiences. In addition, our school agreed to academic procedures
for course scheduling in the past year that we could apply to decisions we faced
in scheduling courses for the pandemic. We were also fortunate that both our
regional accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and
our national accreditor, Council on Education for Public Health, allowed us to
pivot to remote instruction without submitting substantive change forms. We

312     The Journal of Health Administration Education               Spring 2021

were in the process of piloting our student services, including advising and
professional development, for our online certificate students and were able
to quickly apply those resources to all of our students remotely in the spring
quarter.

Successes
The Provost’s Office and Remote Learning Task Force conducted a survey of
students to determine their perception of their remote learning experience
during the spring term and gather student feedback (Drexel University, 2020e)
(see Table 1 and Table 2). Overall, students were satisfied with their course
experiences during the spring term. However, the Provost’s Office interpreted
this to be a short-term outcome and that students might judge courses more
harshly in future terms; in essence, students may be lenient in their judgment
given the reality of the situation, but as faculty have more time to prepare, the
expectations may be raised for remote courses.

Table 1

Drexel University Spring 2020 Remote Learning Survey Results

Use of Technology Has Been Effective
Stongly Agree                     15%
Agree                             54%
Disagree                          24%
Strongly Disagree                  7%

     Students provided important feedback about successful practices in re-
mote courses. First, students indicated that a syllabus with clearly articulated
expectations for the class in terms of assignments, assessment, and due dates
for papers and projects was a key driver of success in a course. Second, synchro-
nous lectures (in contrast to asynchronous lectures) were preferred, whenever
possible, with a recording of the lecture posted on the course page for later
review. Third, an up-to-date and weighted gradebook in Blackboard helped
students understand their progress in the course and have the opportunity to
address any weaknesses, which lessened stress and anxiety in comparison to
courses that did not maintain a gradebook (Blackboard Learn, 2020). Fourth,
student engagement during the scheduled class period and during office hours
enhanced learning and satisfaction with the course through synchronous ses-

Road map to remote instruction 313

sions or recorded lectures with “live” Q&A sessions, discussion boards, and
virtual office hours. Finally, scheduled breakout Zoom sessions for group work
and team projects, if group work is a significant part of course assessment,
helped student success and engagement with the course. On a related note,
students commented favorably that they learned to collaborate on projects as
a group using remote technology, which was seen as an important skill.

Table 2

Drexel University Spring 2020 Remote Learning Survey Results

Technologies That Had a Positive Impact
Shared faculty screen             90%
Recording of class sessions       84%
Ability to interact with audio    84%
Blackboard content and tools      80%
Text chat during class            79%
Faculty camera found              78%
Other prerecorded videos          76%
Student feedback (polls, etc.)    73%
Whiteboarding during the class    69%
Breakout rooms                    64%

     Our school also fielded a student survey to gather feedback on the spring
quarter (Dornsife School of Public Health, 2020) (see Table 3). In response
to the question “How would you rate your remote learning experience this
quarter?” the majority of students (76%) gave a rating of 6 or higher on a scale
from 1 to 10. Students also noted that they preferred synchronous remote ses-
sions but appreciated that they were recorded for later review or if a student
missed the live session. The results of this survey were consistent with the
findings of the survey sent out by the university. See Table 2 for a review of
student course evaluation data for the school’s spring term. The results were
aggregated at the department level and suggest higher scores for two key
metrics—“Applies Principles” and “Written Assignments”—in the spring of
2019–20 than in the spring of 2018–19. Considering the uncertainty and pivot
to remote instruction, the results from the course evaluations were promis-
ing and did not suggest lower satisfaction with the courses. However, we
also shared the interpretation of the university that students were forgiving

314    The Journal of Health Administration Education                    Spring 2021

of faculty during this emergency situation, and a comparison of subsequent
terms would provide more information about the level of satisfaction with a
different course delivery method.

Table 3
Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health Course Evaluations by
Department for Spring Quarter 2018–19 and Spring Quarter 2019–20

                I am able to apply prin-   Written assignments were
                ciples from this course to relevant and contributed to   Response
      Term      new situations.            my learning.                  Rate
Department of Community Health & Prevention
      2018-19   4.25                       4.12                          49.14%
      2019-20   4.43                       4.47                          53.13%
Department of Environmental & Occupational Health
      2018-19   4.30                       4.35                          30.94%
      2019-20   4.43                       4.51                          20.90%
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
      2018-19   4.21                       4.30                          57.69%
      2019-20   4.48                       4.62                          49.42%
Department of Health Management & Policy
      2018-19   3.97                       3.90                          37.97%
      2019-20   4.09                       4.06                          47.10%
Note: Course evaluation scale ranges from a high score of 5 (excellent) to a low
score of 1 (poor).

     The positive results from the student feedback on the spring term could
also be associated with a number of innovations in faculty teaching. For ex-
ample, a faculty member teaching Arts for Community Health and Wellness
had students create virtual journals with artifacts related to COVID-19 in the
arts. These journals were shared only between the student and instructor,
and students could also include reflections on the art they were experiencing.
These journals were then used to develop the student’s final projects. In Health
Management and Policy II, the faculty member surveyed students early in
the course with a simple two-question survey about what was working and
what was not with the remote delivery. Based on the feedback from this for-

Road map to remote instruction 315

mative assessment, the faculty member adjusted the course to better support
students in the remote format. In the final example, a faculty member teaching
Multi-Method Data Analysis in Community Health & Prevention conducted
a virtual syllabus tour that introduced students to the course, and also taught
students how to collect data from Twitter using an application programming
interface search integration (Twitter, 2020). Students used the data collected
to complete the assignments in class lab sessions. These examples of active
learning show that even given a short time frame, faculty can develop innova-
tive and engaging ways to deliver content and connect with students in the
online environment. The teaching methods to enhance student engagement
are critical to student success and to combating faculty burnout from remote
teaching (Costa, 2020; Lynch, 2020).
     An unintentional advantage for the university was the academic calendar,
which for most programs is based on the quarter system. Therefore, when the
pandemic closed in-person operations, the university was entering finals week
for the winter quarter. In contrast, most universities were in the middle of
their semester. The timing of the closure during the end of the winter quarter
meant that the first task for remote instruction was putting final exams online.
While converting exams from in-person to remote delivery was challenging,
it was easier than pivoting an entire course instruction to be remote during
the second half of a semester course. The university leadership then made the
decision to delay the start of the spring quarter by one week to provide faculty
and staff an extra week to develop plans for remote instruction for the spring
quarter, and also to provide students with extra time to prepare to take all
courses in a remote format, which was a new experience for some students.
     An investment in instructional design before the pandemic enabled our
success to pivot to remote instruction. Our college hired an instructional de-
signer in spring of 2016 to help build capacity to develop fully online master’s
degrees. Instructional designers are people who are trained in pedagogy and
course design, typically with a focus on technology and online instruction.
They are experts on the rules and regulations governing online learning, acces-
sibility, and universal design for learning (Decherney & Levander, 2020). The
university has a team of instructional designers who work in the Instructional
Design and Multimedia team and support online programs. These instruc-
tional designers have been invaluable to the academic units in the university
for developing online degrees. Others have written about the critical role an
instructional designer can play in the shift to remote learning (Decherney &
Levander, 2020). However, universities that lacked this capacity may now find
themselves needing to invest in instructional design for the next academic
year.

316    The Journal of Health Administration Education                   Spring 2021

Challenges
The Provost’s Office survey also revealed some challenges (Drexel University,
2020e). Specifically, student engagement with the instructor and with other
students needed improvement, with 50% of students stating that their active
participation in class decreased compared to in-person courses. Additionally,
students found they were spending more time on coursework, with 50% saying
their time increased compared to traditional face-to-face classes. This feed-
back is likely related to the lack of experience most faculty have with remote
instruction and how best to adapt to the requirements for instructional time
and student engagement.
     Our school also experienced some challenges, given that the situation
was dynamic and information was fluid. Many university communications
came out late on Fridays, which meant staff and administration often had to
work over the weekends to interpret and formulate a school-level response.
Additionally, much of the information was shared with one person from each
college, which meant the potential for information to be lost if that person
were to fall ill. To ameliorate this potential break in operations, our school
created a contingency plan for key administrative roles and functions in case
an employee fell ill, including getting additional staff permissions to access
systems that are typically permitted for only one person.
     Our school had to convert 35 classes to a remote format during the ex-
tended spring break. This meant a large increase of just-in-time training for
faculty and staff. Even though the university provided significant resources
and training for remote teaching to faculty, our impression was that faculty
felt more comfortable approaching and consulting with our staff members
focused on academic innovation and online learning along with fellow fac-
ulty members with online teaching experience. Moreover, each department
approached the challenge of remote teaching in varying ways, many holding
weekly live meetings with faculty, staff, and students to discuss challenges
and successes. This preference of departments led in some cases to inaccurate
information being disseminated that needed to be clarified at the school level.
     As a part of our strategy for quickly offering remote learning to our students,
our school utilized Zoom web conferencing accounts to facilitate synchronous
sessions with our students. Fortunately, all faculty at the school already had
Zoom accounts through the university’s enterprise license. However, a new
challenge soon emerged: Zoom bombing. Zoom bombing is when a person
accesses a live Zoom meeting either through guessing the URL or by being
given the link by someone who was invited to the meeting (Taylor, 2020;
Zoom, 2020). Staff at the university and school level held training sessions
with faculty on how to conduct a Zoom meeting and reviewed settings such

Road map to remote instruction 317

as requiring a password and creating a waiting room for those who click on
the link, so you can only admit the people invited. As a result, the school did
not have any known Zoom bombing incidents; however, the situation requires
continual monitoring and training.
     Another challenge we faced, which aligned with the general challenge of
a rapidly evolving situation, was the move by the university to pass/no pass
(P/NP) grading for the spring quarter. The university sent a communication
to move to P/NP grading near the start of the term without prior notice to
school and department leadership. This lack of notice and the tardiness of the
decision caused a great deal of confusion among faculty, staff, and students
about implementation, student eligibility, and the effect it would have upon
academic standing. Eventually, the university provided clarification about
the policy via FAQs (frequently asked questions) targeted to faculty and to
students.

Looking to the Future
The future, as it currently stands, remains uncertain about the course of the
pandemic and the eventual return to campus. The federal government pres-
sure on schools to reopen in 2020 was significant, especially symbolized by the
failed attempt at regulating remote courses for international students (Alvarez
& Shoichet, 2020). This attempt at disrupting the experience of international
students created a major challenge for universities and a false choice: do you
protect your students by offering a mostly remote learning delivery and in that
effort jeopardize international students’ ability to remain in the country, or do
you attempt a hybrid approach knowing your international students will not
have the choice to participate remotely? In an already complex and stressful
decision-making process, this type of federal political gamesmanship added
stress to an already stressful situation for universities. The rescinding of the
ruling on July 14, 2020, was welcome, but universities must remain vigilant and
prepared for disruptive regulations by the federal government (Binkley, 2020).
     The university continued to use a hybrid approach during the 2020–21
academic year, much like most universities, with some completely remote
courses, some hybrid (face-to-face and online), and some HyFlex—a new term
in distance education which means that students get to choose how they engage
with the course content (Lederman, 2020). Because of the limited number of
spaces on campus that allow for HyFlex instruction, the school and university
evaluated how to retrofit classrooms to allow this type of instruction. Even
with adequate investment by the university in the technical equipment and
support needed for quality HyFlex instruction, there are concerns about the
student experience in HyFlex classrooms without adequate pedagogical train-

318    The Journal of Health Administration Education                    Spring 2021

ing and preparation for faculty (McMurtie, 2020). However, an investment
in HyFlex technology for classrooms might be worthwhile as it could open
the door for new student populations, such as students outside the city who
want a synchronous, rather than asynchronous, experience.
     The shift to remote instruction this spring will likely have a lasting effect on
institutions of higher education. Disruptions to school calendars, such as snow
days, protests, sports celebrations, or emergencies, may be less disruptive in
the future. It is hard to imagine an event more disruptive than the COVID-19
pandemic. Many colleges and universities have risen to the challenge of provid-
ing academic instruction even when that instruction is conducted from home
rather than the classroom (McMurtie, 2020). As institutions of higher educa-
tion reflect on the past year, the lessons learned can help prepare for future
disruptions. Beyond a road map to shift to remote learning, communication
strategies, student engagement strategies, and technology infrastructure have
all been created and can be utilized in the future should institutions need to
pivot from their planned models.
     We are seeing some lasting changes to the university as a result of the
pivot to remote instruction this spring. For example, the university is differ-
entiating between synchronous and asynchronous remote (or online) courses
in the course schedule and registration system for the first time, which will be
helpful to students as they plan their schedules. There are many other changes
in academic operations that will likely endure from the rapid investment in
and collective experience from remote instruction and operations.
In our school, we continue to build upon what we put in place for the spring
quarter, leveraging university-level resources to support faculty training
in tools and pedagogy for online/remote instruction. Our school is shifting
our focus to enhance and support the variety of student needs in the varied
learning environments, rather than the traditional focus solely on in-person
students. The school did offer an abbreviated selection of student program-
ming remotely in the spring in comparison to the usual slate of activities, but
this fall we offered all programming in a remote format, including first-year
student orientation. Instead, student programming will be supplemented with
in-person events, which is a significant shift in approach. Moreover, academic
advisors and faculty mentors across the university have been and will con-
tinue to support students through Zoom meetings, phone calls, and emails.
The school is also increasing the technological support available to faculty by
promoting university trainings as well as providing just-in-time training and
support to faculty within our school. We are also using predictive analytics to
predict our seat numbers for each course to help determine which in-person
courses will be too large to meet physical distancing requirements.

Road map to remote instruction 319

     The COVID-19 pandemic may simply accelerate the anticipated crisis of
the enrollment cliff of 2025 (Kelderman et al., 2019). However, enrollment in
our face-to-face master of public health (MPH) program in fall 2020 was higher
in comparison to last year’s enrollment, and our online MPH, which was just
launched in fall 2020, outdid our expectations by 400% with 92 confirmed
students. However, we will continue to monitor enrollment trends because
we anticipate that the pandemic may create long-lasting changes in the mar-
ket that are either independent of or interact with the enrollment crisis facing
higher education in 2025.

Conclusion
In sum, we anticipate that this pivot to supporting remote students will be
sustained even after the pandemic, which supports the investment in enhanc-
ing and diversifying our capacity to deliver high-quality student experiences
and engagement to both in-person and online students. As always, we are
continuing to work with faculty and staff on innovative ways to communi-
cate and engage with our students regardless of the instruction modality.
Perhaps future surveys of faculty about the perceptions of online instruction
will continue to shift toward acceptance of online instruction that leads to in-
novations in academic and student programming (Jaschik & Lederman, 2019;
Straumsheim et al., 2015). A recent survey of chief online officers points to
this trend (Legon & Garrett, 2020). Certainly, university administrators will
want to preserve the investment made in online learning (Legon & Garrett,
2020). By extension, administrators are likely to perceive the landscape of
higher education has shifted because of this pandemic and may identify new
organizational change strategies to leverage the investment made in remote
learning to respond to future organizational challenges.

References
Alvarez, P., & Shoichet, C. E. (2020, July 7). International students may need to
   leave US if their universities transition to online-only learning. CNN.
   Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics/international-
   college-students-ice-online-learning/index.html

Binkley, C. (2020, July 14). Trump administration rescinds rule on foreign
    students. Associated Press. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/38b6562
    b7aaa73ea66fb72b06472e05d

Blackboard Learn. (2020). https://www.blackboard.com/

320    The Journal of Health Administration Education               Spring 2021

Costa, K. (2020). Crash course: Connect with your students. Online 2.0: How
   to Lead a Large-scale Transformation of Virtual Learning. The Chronicle
   of Higher Education.

Decherney, P., & Levander, C. (2020). The hottest job in higher education:
   Instructional designer. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
   https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/education-time-
   corona/hottest-job-higher-education-instructional-designer

Dornsife School of Public Health. (2020). Student remote learning survey results
   [Report]. Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University.

Drexel University. (2020a, March 2). Drexel establishes university-wide plans
   to cope with potential coronavirus outbreak. Drexel Now. Retrieved from
   https://Drexel.edu/now/archive/2020/March/Drexel-establishes-
   university-wide-plans-to-cope-with-potential-coronavirus-outbreak/

Drexel University. (2020b, March 11). Final exams move online next week as
   coronavirus precaution. Drexel Now. Retrieved from
   https://Drexel.edu/now/archive/2020/March/Final-Exams-Move-Online-
   Next-Week-as-Coronavirus-Precaution/

Drexel University. (2020c, March 12). Spring break lengthened, online courses
   for start of spring quarter, campus to remain open. Drexel Now. Retrieved
   from https://Drexel.edu/now/archive/2020/March/COVID-19-message-to-
   community-spring-break-lengthened-online-courses-campus-open/

Drexel University. (2020d, April 3). Welcome back to the future of Drexel
   University. Drexel Now. Retrieved from
   https://Drexel.edu/now/archive/2020/April/Welcome-back-to-future/

Drexel University. (2020e, June 23). Spring 2020 remote learning survey results.
   Office of the Provost. Drexel University. Retrieved from
   https://Drexel.edu/provost/news-events/news/2020/June/Spring%20
   2020%20Remote%20Learning%20Survey%20Results

DUO. (2020, July). Instructional design services: Services provided. Drexel
  University Online. Retrieved from
  https://www.online.drexel.edu/idms/services-provided.aspx

Road map to remote instruction 321

Falcone, A. (2020, June 8). How did Drexel adapt courses for remote
    teaching and learning this spring? Drexel Now. Retrieved from
    https://Drexel.edu/now/archive/2020/June/Drexel-Remote-Teaching-
    and-Learning-This-Spring/#:~:text=With%20classes%20shifted%20to%20
    online,the%20course%20of%20the%20term.

Hogan, K. A., & Sathy, V. (2020). 8 ways to be more inclusive in your zoom
   teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
   https://www.chronicle.com/article/8-Ways-to-Be-More-Inclusive-
   in/248460

Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2019). 2019 survey of faculty attitudes on technology:
    A study by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Inside Higher Ed. Washington, DC.

Kaufman, M. J., & Stimpson, J. P. (in press). Do nominal monetary incentives
   work to increase full-time public health faculty participation in online
   teaching professional development? Journal of Educators Online.

Kelderman, E., Gardner, L., & Conley, B. (2019). The looming enrollment
   crisis: How colleges are responding to shifting demographics and new
   student needs. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Lederman, D. (2018a). Leading in turbulent times. A survey of presidents.
   Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/
   survey/leading-turbulent-times-survey-presidents

Lederman, D. (2018b). Online education ascends. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
   from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/11/07/
   new-data-online-enrollments-grow-and-share-overall-enrollment?mc_
   cid=337cf125c6&mc_eid=df9dd7604b

Lederman, D. (2019). Not future-ready. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
   https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/10/22/four-
   year-college-leaders-not-feeling-ready-future

Lederman, D. (2020). The HyFlex option for instruction if campuses open this
   fall. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/
   digital-learning/article/2020/05/13/one-option-delivering-instruction-if-
   campuses-open-fall-hyflex

322    The Journal of Health Administration Education                    Spring 2021

Legon, R., & Garrett, R. (2020). CHLOE 5: The pivot to remote teaching in
   spring 2020 and its impact. Quality Matters and Adventures Research.
   Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-
   center/articles-resources/CHLOE-5-report-2020

Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty perceived barriers of
    online education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1):1–12.

Lynch, K. (2020). Crash course: Engage your faculty. Online 2.0: How to Lead a
   Large-scale Transformation of Virtual Learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

McKenzie, L. (2019). Has the master’s degree bubble burst? Analysis
   suggests projections of rapid growth in the master’s degree market were
   vastly overstated. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
   https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/12/20/
   probing-slowdown-masters-degree-growth

McMurtie E. (2020, July 10). Colleges say hybrid courses will make the fall a
  success. But will students get the worst of both worlds? The Chronicle of
  Higher Education. Retrieved from
  https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Say-Hybrid-
  Courses/249162?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_
  campaign=campaign_1363685&cid=nwsltrtn&source=ams&sourceId=3277593

Quality Matters (2020). QM emergency remote instruction checklist for
   higher ed. [Google Doc]. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://docs.
   google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRzSgvQZDAbu9iG3Cxn
   q3D2hlxiUZrzwVRj94MGPVDvY9exqxiSgOkuhKxkexPSxb12cb3QN
   qDTWSIc/pub?utm_source=Quality+Matters+Digital+Communications&
   utm_campaign=59c8c41e3a-EMAIL_ERIC_2020&utm_
   medium=email&utm_term=0_355a0627da-59c8c41e3a-33971221&mc_
   cid=59c8c41e3a&mc_eid=8e47696604

Saykili, A. (2018). Distance education: Definitions, generations and key
   concepts and future directions. International Journal of Contemporary
   Educational Research, 5(1).

Sherwood, S., & Downey, B. A. (2020, July 8). A city keeps its distance. Drexel
    Magazine. Retrieved from
    https://Drexelmagazine.org/2020/a-city-keeps-its-distance/

Road map to remote instruction 323

Straumsheim, C., Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2015). The 2015 Inside Higher
    Ed survey of faculty attitudes on technology: A study by Gallup and Inside
    Higher Ed. Inside Higher Ed. Washington, DC.

Taylor, L. (2020, March 20). “Zoombombing”: When video conferences go wrong.
    The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/
    2020/03/20/style/zoombombing-zoom-trolling.html

Twitter. (2020). https://twitter.com

Willkomm, A. C. (2020, April 22). Online vs. remote learning: What’s the
    difference? Professional Studies Blog. Goodwin College of Professional
    Studies, Drexel University.

Zoom. (2020). https://zoom.us

324   The Journal of Health Administration Education   Spring 2021