COVID struggles: undergraduate teaching assistants balance teaching and learning during a pandemic

Abstract

Undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) have become valuable collaborators with faculty in large undergraduate first-year classes. Their participation requires them to manage their teaching duties and their own learning. The pandemic posed unusual problems for them. Here, two students, along with their instructor, provide an inside look. Throughout the pandemic, UTAs were found to increase their efforts during tutorials in attempts to help ensure that students were more prepared and engaged through the online learning formats. New strategies were implemented to maintain student attendance and participation in class, which greatly increased the workload for UTAs. Students not turning on their cameras and speaking up in online classes made teaching more tiring and stressful, which was compounded by the already present “Zoom fatigue” during online education. UTAs found real challenges in balancing senior year classes and extracurriculars with preparation for tutorials, especially closer to assignment or exam deadlines when the engagement and questions from students would sharply increase. Despite numerous efforts and adaptations made by UTAs to adjust to the impacts of the pandemic, online learning was an immense challenge to both students and teachers in comparison to the in-person formats.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY Undergraduate teaching assistants balance teaching others with their own learning during the recent pandemic. Their struggles provide an inside look into a student's plight.

INTRODUCTION

Undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) have been used in North American science courses for decades. (1–6) They can play multiple roles as facilitators, teachers, supplemental instructors, and collaborators with faculty. They also act as liaisons informing instructors of students’ problems and individual strengths and weaknesses. (2) Several studies have suggested that UTAs are as effective as graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) for undergraduate science students in terms of learning outcomes. (1, 3) However, they could be more effective in other ways, such as encouraging students to ask questions and feel more respected.

Large undergraduate courses challenge students and teachers. Students struggle to see flashing slides in large auditoriums and strain to make sense of lectures delivered in various tones and accents. Teachers see a sea of faces, uncertain as to whether the students are listening at all. Teaching assistants (TAs) often come to the aid of beleaguered teachers and form a crucial link between students and them. (2) Unfortunately, UTAs are often classed within the lowest rung of the educational hierarchy.

In contrast to GTAs, often subsumed in their research, UTAs can provide teachers with more flexible options. However, being an intermediary is not easy, even at the best of times, as undergrads who serve as TAs have the difficult task of navigating their way through their learning and that of others who are, at best, a few years younger. This juggling act was made worse by the restrictions and tensions induced by the recent pandemic.

The literature on TAs could be more extensive in presenting their individual voices. Furthermore, there needs to be more literature on the perspectives of UTA experiences teaching during the pandemic. We attempt to highlight just that. Initially, one of us, Patangi K. Rangachari (PKR), provides the course’s context from a course instructor’s perspective. Then, the UTAs and authors Auva Zarandi (AZ) and Aaron Wen (AW) describe their juggling act over the last year. We did not require ethical approval for this interview since all perspectives mentioned are those of the authors listed in this paper; however, we received the Assistant Dean’s permission to have this discussion and write the piece. As we express our personal opinions, we have chosen a conversational tone that allows us to emphasize some of the nuances that arise.

In 1985, McMaster began employing teaching assistants to assist course instructors, which could be graduate students, undergraduate students, or individuals who “apply to specific departments” (7). According to McMaster University, undergraduate teaching assistants at McMaster play various essential roles, including leading class discussions, supervising laboratory groups, marking assignments, meeting and corresponding with students, or facilitating review sessions (7). A substantial body of literature has been found that demonstrates the role of undergraduate teaching assistants in improving the learning experience. Research has reported that students are more willing to communicate questions and areas of confusion with UTAs, given that they are more intimately aware of the challenges with the course, even more than graduate teaching assistants (3, 5, 8). UTAs have also been reported to facilitate more engaging yet relaxing learning environments, allowing students to collaborate actively on their ideas and processes in a safe environment (5, 8). A literature review conducted by Armstrong et al. (9) in 2021 concluded that UTAs also had an impact online, being “an elemental factor in delivering an engaging online classroom,” with 62% of students from the study believing TAs played a role in their success. In this course, undergraduate TAs serve the role of what McMaster calls “Tutorial Leaders,” who regularly meet with a group of students, attend lectures, review the assigned material to review concepts in minilectures and question and answer sessions, lead discussions, take attendance, and possibly evaluate student participation or grade tests or exams. Another vital role is to meet with course instructors to report on tutorial activities and the state of the course in general. As of the 2020–2021 school year, McMaster established mandatory TA training and faculty-specific training programs to include instruction on topics such as pedagogy, antioppression, leading effective tutorials, Indigenous cultural competency, mental health, antiracism, etc. (10). These were established by CUPE Local 3906, Unit 1 collective agreement to uphold further accessibility and inclusivity in classrooms, defined as “a classroom in which all students and instructors are invited and welcomed to contribute ideas, views, and concerns” (10).

While a body of literature does support the role of undergraduate teaching assistants in enhancing the learning environment, there are also potential challenges, especially for the teaching assistants themselves. Previous research has shown challenging experiences in working with a vast diversity of students with different levels of content knowledge and with students who are unmotivated and unprepared (11). At times, teaching assistants would feel pressure to be unable to answer questions from students; training for teaching assistants often addresses this due to its frequency (12). In some situations, teaching assistants found it challenging to interpret passing or grading criteria and also felt pressure when failing students or punishing cheating (11). Also, increasingly rigid academic schedules in later years of undergraduate education can make balancing teaching, courses, and personal commitments difficult. Furthermore, teaching and exam pressures likely peak at a similar time, further increasing the challenge of balancing personal and teaching commitments. (12).

Table 1 presents a summary of the discussion between PKR, AZ, and AW.

Table 1.

Summary of discussion between PKR, AZ, and AW

	In-Person Learning	Virtual Learning
Engagement	Increase in absences as the year progressed, potentially due to the availability of lecture recordings after class	Disengagement as the year progressed potentially due to increased lecture and screen time
	Greater sense of community as TAs were able to interact face-to-face with students	Difficulty creating connections and building community online–“Breakout Room” features helped to mitigate this
		TAs created more activities and office hours to increase engagement–generally did not work
	Overall: decreased engagement online
Preparedness	Slides were posted in advance so students were able to read and prepare questions before class	Slides and podcast were uploaded in advance Lectures were recorded and posted after class
	TAs prepared slideshows before lecture to recapitulate key points
		Students frequently came to tutorial unprepared
		TAs frequently prepared slides and exercises of their own for lecture content, hoping to engage more students
	Overall: increased in preparedness for TAs, decreased preparedness among students
Accessibility	Students found it difficult to pay attention; those seated towards the rear were limited by the lecturer’s volume Absence from lectures posed a barrier to staying up to pace Students felt limited to asking questions/clarification during lecture hours	The removal of in-person lectures and seating makes learning more accessible for students, particularly those who are hard of hearing The ability to keep up with lectures has been improved with increased access to lecture recordings and tutorial materials
		Students had more opportunities to do ask questions either verbally or through the chat function, as well as at all times of the day via MS Teams
	Overall: accessibility has improved given open access to resources at all hours

PKR, Patangi K. Rangachari; AZ, Auva Zarandi; AW, Aaron Wen; TAs, teaching assistants.

THE COURSE

PKR: ‘The standard in-person course is a mandatory two-term class for all first-year students in the McMaster University BHSc (Hons) Program. From March 2020 till January 2022, the course was taught online. It has presently reverted to the standard in-person format. Though entitled “Cell and Molecular Biology,” it has a much narrower focus (cellular signaling) than most courses at the introductory level. In term one, students study in depth the production, storage, release, effects, and termination of select endogenous molecules (e.g., histamine, acetylcholine, catecholamines, cortisol, interferons, prostaglandins, cannabinoids, and nitric oxide). The course emphasizes what was currently known and how that information was gleaned so that methods are discussed. In term 2, they use specific examples to explore the consequences of dysfunction in cellular signaling.’

‘Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the course was held weekly as one three-hour class from 2:30 PM-5:20 PM EST. The first 45 min of the class consists of the lecture content given to students beforehand. The last period following a break is the tutorial, where the students meet with their teaching assistants in small groups of ∼20 to go over the lecture content and ask any questions. At the beginning of every lecture, a student, chosen at random, is called to the front of the class to briefly recap the content covered the week prior. These “cold calls” have a mixed reception; some, like the authors of this paper, respond enthusiastically, others more reluctantly. It should be noted that the course currently has been modified to have the tutorial on a different day from the lecture, to give students more time to digest the content and ask questions. Assessments come in three forms. A One Correct Answer Test (OCAT) assesses the meaning of specific terms and concepts from lecture content and is often done in a crossword puzzle. This is the closest to a format the students were familiar with, multiple choice questions, except that they had to think of the best word instead of selecting from a menu. At the opposite extreme are the No-One Correct Answer Tests (NOCAT), belonging to a class of process-oriented problem-solving exercises, which are situational prompts that challenge the student to use the concepts of cellular signaling to rationalize possible answers to the questions provided. These exams have no definitive correct answer and are marked for how the student applies the content covered in the lecture to the prompt. Finally, a Legacy NOCAT is often done at the end of the year, where a group of students work together to create a NOCAT-style problem and possible answer set, again testing their ability to apply the knowledge they learned in signaling to novel situations.’

“In contrast, the online version of this course tried to preserve much of the same structure. A sudden shift to an online format in March 2020 forced educators worldwide to rapidly convert materials and methods to suit online teaching. (13) The literature shows that many students faced challenges during this time, including unstable internet access, unstable housing, and mental health struggles, which could negatively impact student learning. (14, 15) The course was conducted synchronously online twice weekly from 2:30 PM-5:20 PM EST. The 270 students come from parts of Canada and abroad (Africa and Asia). The synchronous nature of the course raised problems for students on other continents, given the time differences. Students were expected to attend two sessions each week. The first session had the lecture content for the first two hours and a tutorial for the last hour. The purpose of the tutorials was the same: to help students clarify any confusing concepts from the lecture slides. Then, the second three-hour session was an opportunity for the students to ask the professors any questions and was also a time when the professors taught extra activities and concepts to help facilitate understanding of the lecture content. This was a novelty added to the curriculum specifically for online schooling. All slides were posted in advance, and the lectures were podcasted to ensure fair access. At the sessions, specific elements were discussed in-depth, and opportunities were provided for students to ask questions. In the early years of the course, GTAs were used, but the experience could have been more satisfactory, so we resorted to UTAs, and these alone have been used since 2008. We chose the UTAs on an application process. All UTAs had taken this course and were familiar with the content, expectations and assessments. In an in-person OCAT, students completed crossword puzzles with clues. Unfortunately, with assessments moved online, these were simply reduced to online quizzes. From the instructional perspective, it was an unsatisfactory compromise. As mentioned, the other set was the opposite extreme, the NOCAT. This was a variation of the TRIPSE, an approach described in earlier publications. (16, 17) It was essential to have TAs who were students that completed this course since the incoming first-year students had come through a schooling system that had only rewarded them for getting correct answers. Thus, the OCATs and NOCATs were challenging and therefore, the first-year students needed to interact with students who had also dealt with the same transitional issues.”

“In the following sections, we have adopted a conversational approach that could be considered a variation of a qualitative one. We have used this approach in an earlier publication in this journal, where we argued that it allowed us to highlight some nuances and had been used in the past to discuss issues of teaching and learning (examples: the dialogues of Plato and Galileo). (18) The manuscript was based on e-mail exchanges and in-person discussions, so there were no transcripts to be coded. The viewpoints expressed are those of the authors.”

UTA PERSPECTIVES

PKR: “I have presented a brief overview of the course. I want each of you to start briefly with your individual perspectives, emphasizing your experiences as a student in this course and your expectations of taking on a TA role in these rather torrid times. Aaron, as you have been a TA in the regular in-person class, why don’t you start first?”

AW: “Sure, I would love to. This first-year cellular and molecular biology course changed how I thought about undergraduate education and scientific thinking. It was a breath of fresh air compared to the didactic testing formats of multiple-choice questions and true or false, emphasizing the process of reaching an answer rather than just the answer itself. In exploring signaling, I was challenged to regurgitate facts and apply them to novel experimental situations. It was an exhilarating course to be in. As a TA, I expected myself to play both the role of a lecturer and facilitator, someone who can teach the fundamental concepts proficiently, but also someone who could help my students develop a more curious and analytical mindset. Unfortunately, COVID drastically influenced the way I taught. I am very animated when I teach, with hand gestures and movement as hallmarks in my tutorials. Unfortunately, these gestures do not convey well across a Zoom call, which has been challenging to teach. How about you, Auva?”

AZ: “I echo a lot of the same sentiments, Aaron. This course was unique in its delivery - I can understand why some students may be intimidated by this transition. The unconventional testing styles challenge your understanding and application of course content. When I took this class, everything was in-person for the first semester, and we rapidly switched to online learning in March 2020. In-person, the lectures were engaging, and tutorial sessions were a time when we could get together with our peers and identify our learning gaps. The TAs were also readily accessible. Our class was the first to implement cold calls, where students presented course content in front of their peers before lectures began. It was a unique way to work on your public speaking skills and refresh others on the content previously taught, which was a new and thrilling opportunity. Given the rapid switch to online learning, I did not have experience teaching in person, but I have a unique student perspective. The past academic year was very different from the rest. The year was fully online, and the first term was expected to be online, so there was more certainty than usual during pandemic learning. I expected to teach entirely online and face some unique challenges concerning online learning and teaching. When taking on a TA role, my expectations were naively like what I knew about teaching in person, but I quickly realized this was not precisely the case. In-person and online learning environments have nuanced differences, and both present their benefits and challenges, which I believe we will get into later.”

PKR: “In term one, we tried to formalize the sessions by having the Instructors provide the material in the form of power-point presentations. We also posted the slides and commentaries (podcasts) in advance. The sessions themselves attempted to highlight critical points. After about an hour of teaching, we passed them on to you. How did you deal with the students in those TA sessions?”

AW: “Every TA does things differently during their tutorials, but there were some common themes. Every TA was given a checklist of key concepts we had to review with our students for each tutorial, ensuring every student had the opportunity to review the lecture content. How TAs would deliver the review would significantly differ on both the student’s learning styles and the TA’s strengths; I gauged the students’ learning preferences early in the semester and made review slides that covered key points. I also prepared a lot of practice content for each tutorial because I had many students who excelled with practice questions. I know other TAs that preferred to spend their time answering specific questions that students had about the lecture content, as they found it to be more time efficient. Some TAs annotated notes for their students, and other TAs had diagrams prepared to clarify concepts. In the end, I think every TA had the goal of covering all the key concepts for each lecture, but the method of execution could differ. However, since TAs regularly shared content with each other, every student could practically access any tutorial resources from any tutorial, depending on which style of teaching they preferred. I think these teaching methods translated very well between in-person and online learning.”

“On student preparedness, I noticed that students would be far more prepared for in-person lectures. In both the 2019–2020 yr and the 2020–2021 yr, I know that you, Chari, and our other instructors, would put up the lecture notes multiple days beforehand, and often students had at least pre-printed or annotated the notes with questions before the lecture. If I had to hypothesize, it is because that in-person environment pressures students to be diligent with their learning, especially since they are under the gaze of their peers, TAs, and professors. Judging preparedness in the online environment is much harder, but Auva, do you have any more thoughts?”

AZ: “Yes, I do have some more to elaborate. Although I was not a TA when this course was held in person, I was a student at that time, and I know that I would always come into the lectures and tutorials with notes I had already viewed in preparation for the class. Most of my peers were the same, and it was helpful for us to understand the content during the lecture, as we would ask more comprehensive clarification questions. It was also a practical method for us in preparation for our assessments. In contrast, I think the online class was more “confused” at any given moment and asked less general or more fundamental questions. As a new TA, this was a real challenge since, at times, I could not gauge the knowledge level of my students or had to spend more of the time rehashing fundamental concepts rather than doing the planned activities I had prepared. The pre-recorded lectures and supplements you provided, Chari, seemed ineffective in encouraging previewing. I found student attendance during both lecture and tutorial sessions would diminish as the year went on, and I think most of us TAs observed this to be true regardless of if the class was in-person or online. As for managing my students in my tutorial sessions, I would often start with a check-in to see how my students felt about the material and gauge their general well-being. This quick activity would help me adjust my teaching to their mindsets on the given day. I would then review the lecture’s main ideas using my slideshow presentations, and in this, I would have application questions embedded for the students to answer. Toward the end of the tutorial, I would either do a small activity in breakout rooms or open the floor to any questions based on the material. The one benefit of teaching online, at least in hindsight, was that there were many ways to creatively use teaching platforms such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams.”

AW: “I also want to add that we as TAs tried various learning strategies and methods to help compensate for our students’ seeming lack of preparedness during the pandemic. Funny enough, the online learning environment made us TAs more prepared! I know that quite a few of us TAs, including Auva and I, enhanced our tutorials online with anonymous feedback forms to identify how our students felt about the course, along with critical gaps in their knowledge and any other constructive criticism. I have spoken to some other TAs about this, and it seems that the forms generally gave students a comfortable platform to ask questions they may have been embarrassed to ask during the live sessions or tutorials. Now, this is great, but the problem is that it was an increased workload for us, who are both teaching assistants and undergraduate students. I’m not sure about Auva’s daily schedule, but I was swamped between my research, clubs, and courses for my third year. As much as I love teaching, having that extra workload put on me during the past school year was not pleasant. I presume you feel the same way, Auva?”

AZ: “For sure, Aaron. I was also really busy with my courses—the day we taught, I had class from nine AM to two-thirty PM without any significant breaks, and I had to teach right after my classes. This is just a glimpse of my schedule on our teaching days, it does not even include my other projects and community involvement, so the increased workload was definitely stressful.”

PKR: “In the in-person classes, the TA sessions were held in a large classroom where the Groups were spaced out. Instructors were able to wander around and sit with individual groups, see what was going on and also were able to chat with the students. Obviously, this dropping-in was far more difficult in the online format. We all felt quite frustrated by this as we did not have the opportunity to establish those transient, personal contacts with the students. Did you find any ways to embody the in-person learning environment?”

AW: “I’m happy to start since I did get to experience both in-person and online teaching. As you had said, Chari, TA sessions in a large classroom had an atmosphere about them which was so appealing to be in, as both a student and TA. The hustle and bustle of a room with students working together, laughing, and speaking to TAs is impossible to replicate through current technological options. Even having multiple TAs teaching in different corners of the same room brought a feeling of excitement as a fellow TA, as the noises in the room were often students and TAs discussing cellular biology. Organic conversations were entirely serendipitous; I remember a tutorial in 2019 that I was leading when you came down the stairs with an organ bath and started to build on my topic but in a different direction than I had planned. My students found this unplanned discussion an absolute delight, and this emulation in online rooms is significantly more challenging. The organ bath you presented in that instance could not be represented nearly as effectively through an online format, as students had the chance to feel the organ bath and see it up close. Technological audio or internet connection issues can also spoil the experience for both students and TAs, which happens plenty.”

“On the other hand, there is a notable benefit with online learning that in-person tutorials do not cover as well. When I used to teach, students would sit in rows to hear me speak, which often led to different engagement levels between students in my tutorial. Those who sat in the back rows would usually not pay attention. Furthermore, students who sit at the front don’t get to see the students at the back, and students at the back couldn’t really see the students at the front. The tutorial transitions away from a discussion to a lecture, which is not in the spirit of the course at times. In an online environment, this issue is mitigated; a Zoom call shows everyone’s screen next to everyone else, and everyone can make face-to-face contact wherever they are. Unfortunately, I have also found that this perk about Zoom falls short when students fail to turn their cameras on and rarely speak in class. Hence, the online environment still presents difficulty in establishing meaningful student-teacher relationships, but I thought I would mention this point here.”

AZ: “I agree with Aaron in the sense that both the virtual and in-person settings have their own benefits and drawbacks. We attempted to replicate the relationships developed in class through the virtual check-ins at the beginning of our tutorials. In order to re-establish those personal contacts, I started adopting the “check-ins” that I was participating in other smaller classes of mine to create a space for students to get to know one another and for them to also keep me in the loop as to what is going on in their own lives. This also provided greater context when it came to analyzing grades or identifying potential students that I wanted to reach out to offer extra help. As more and more TAs adopted this, we realized we were attempting to address the issue surrounding building student relationships. In some tutorial sections, student engagement was further enhanced by these check-ins. That being said, hearing a student’s voice for the whole term is not the same as actually seeing them in person and reading their body language. Most students did not turn on cameras, and encouraging them to do so was difficult. I acknowledge, though, that students at that point in time had experienced a significant amount of online learning, so engagement tends to be more difficult. Engagement, similar to in-person learning, naturally drops off throughout the term. The students are experiencing assessments in all their courses, potentially some challenging life events, and the transition to university—all of these factors can impact a student’s engagement level in class. Do I think the isolated nature of teaching online impeded student learning? I believe it depends on the student and their educational needs. For some, the online environment helped them stay focused, allowing them to thrive in their studies. For others, especially those who thrive off building those close connections with their instructors, the joy of learning could have been lessened, thus potentially impeding their learning.”

PKR: “In the in-person setting, the instructors and the TAs met at the end of each class to talk briefly about the sessions. We tried to capture that to some extent through a group call at the end of the online classes. However, I found that rather unsatisfactory and was never able to get a sense of cohesion among the TA group. Any comments?”

AW: “Ah, I do remember our post-class conversations quite fondly. I remember gathering around you, Eric, and Caitlin, discussing how the lecture went and what our students thought for feedback. I think the way we could hear everyone’s voice at once made those sessions more effective in person. A TA would bring up a point, and you could listen to everyone else speak in agreement. There would be a brief few seconds where a flurry of sounds would exist until another prevailing voice came through, everyone else quieted down, and the cycle would repeat itself. This was how we improved and discussed the feedback we had received from our students, collating the opinions of all TAs at once during our discussion. In the online format, this method wasn’t as effective. If everyone speaks simultaneously on a Teams or Zoom call, the audio is static-y, and you can’t hear anyone. This means that every time we met online after the tutorial, only one person could speak at a time, and everyone else had to remain quiet. As a result, the conversations went slower, and I feel fewer people could express their opinions.”

“The other part was in the pre-pandemic world, the tutorial cohesion between us TAs was much more significant than now. For example, before each class began, when hundreds of students would rush into the lecture hall, we would meet to discuss the week’s content and share resources. This in-person time was crucial for our collaboration and growth as TAs, and the face-to-face interactions expedited this sharing process. The result was that the TAs had a similar understanding of the content, and therefore, our delivery was more consistent.”

AZ: “Much of what Aaron said has changed with the transition to a virtual learning environment. You folks did not build this course with virtual learning in mind; it is an in-person course. Had it always been a virtual course, there would have been measures in place to mitigate differences in tutorials. Though we could see each other’s learning platforms and share our materials, the primary method of communication changed. We used the online TA group chat far more for communication, and it was less enticing to discuss tutorial content. Personally, with the large amount of screentime I had on teaching days, Zoom fatigue would impact me tremendously, so the post-class meetings felt very slow. In addition, I feel that our discussions with you, Chari, and the other instructors became less frequent, with only an occasional debrief after class. As you can imagine, the result was inter-tutorial differences in etiquette; some tutorials had active student participation, and others did not. Some groups had many students turn on cameras, while other TAs did not “see” their students all semester. In general, I think this led to reduced tutorial cohesion overall, alongside isolated student and TA experiences.”

PKR: “Perhaps the most contentious element of this course from the student’s point of view were the assessments. These were very different from the ones they had been used to. We have always relied on UTAs to help us mediate. This was one major reason we preferred TAs who had already taken this particular course. What are your thoughts on the assessment formats?”

AZ: “The assessments were one of the few components of the course that remained consistent between the online and in-person delivery formats. These evaluations were always intimidating in first year because of what you described: these were not exams that students had ever encountered before. They were novel problems, not questions one could answer with regurgitated information from a textbook. Sometimes, the instructional team entirely made up the cells or topics at hand! Even trying to go online and look for an answer would be pointless. Aaron has already mentioned this before, but these questions were great because they forced us out of our comfort zone and challenged us to a higher-level application of our learning.”

AW: “While the test was more or less the same, the in-person format allowed us TAs to proctor the exam properly. But with the online version, unless there was a lockdown browser used, which I know many McMaster University courses did not end up using for the first semester, there was no natural ability to proctor exams. That can be of concern, but otherwise, the format was acceptable and translated well between in-person and online schooling.”

PKR: “One of my concerns pertained to your learning. Both of you had to manage your own courses. These too were conducted online. I know that several of you spent a lot more time with the students than that “officially” allocated. How did you manage to deal with these conflicting demands?”

AZ: “It was difficult at first. I worked two jobs, as a UTA and another within the Department of Family Medicine, while taking a full course load. With inquiry-based learning, many of my group projects often took up much time in my schedule. I found that setting boundaries for myself helped to balance the influx of online questions. Since all our teaching was done online, we also became more accessible outside of class hours, so I felt more students were taking advantage of this. In order to better balance my TA responsibilities, I gave myself a set time in my schedule to respond to students. If I got messages late at night (which was often the case), I would take some time to respond in the morning. Work-life balance as a student is hard enough as is, but with increased accessibility to TAs, co-workers, peers, etc., this balancing act was even harder to manage and maintain. That being said, having the support of the other TAs and instructing team was also very helpful.”

AW: “Honestly, lots of sleepless nights. I’ve always struggled with work-life balance, and this year I chose to pursue the McMaster Concurrent Certificate of Immunology, Virology, and Microbiology. It meant that on top of my required courses, most of my electives were quite intense, and I also was running three clubs and working in two laboratories. Although I didn’t have the same inquiry-based learning schedule as Auva, I also had quite a few hours of meetings after all of my classes, which made this semester stressful. I also encountered the same problem as Auva. Online learning probably made the students think they could take advantage of how active the TAs were online, and I received a wide variety of requests and questions at any hour of the day. Especially days before exams, I regularly received messages at late hours of the night, all the way to 1–2 AM. I usually tried to answer them as soon as possible, even if the messages came at a ridiculous time. I don’t necessarily blame this TA position for the reason why I ended up having some sleepless nights, as there was just a lot of coursework and laboratory work that I was juggling at any given moment, but the additional stress that this position brought upon was accentuating the problem.”

PKR: “If You Could, Would You Repeat This Virtual Teaching Experience Again, or Would You Rather Teach in-Person?”

AW: “I have had the fortune of being in this course in both an in-person and online format. We have discussed some of the unique advantages of the online environment, but I must admit I would always want a class like this to be in-person. There is something so valuable about that energy before, during, and after class that gets me excited as a student and TA. I am not saying this class is unviable online; considering how many students were from out of province, the course can be better online from a logistical standpoint. But when considering a learning experience, which I believe heavily depends on the learning environment, nothing will compare to the in-person scenario. I have already mentioned this countless times, but the emptiness when teaching to a collection of black screens is a painful feeling as a TA. Not only do you feel like no student is paying attention, but you also can’t gauge if you are confusing students as you are explaining concepts. I can’t speak as well to the experience of a student in the online format, but as a TA, the enjoyment and quality of the learning experience, in my opinion, dramatically drops when transitioning from in-person to online learning.”

AZ: “I agree with Aaron on many sentiments. Though virtual learning has aided in increasing the accessibility of course materials and allowed students to tune into class from wherever they are, I believe these benefits do not make up for the lack of energy that in-person learning and teaching has. Aaron is right—it is so discouraging and challenging when you cannot gauge a student’s comfort with content, especially with decreased tutorial participation. When I was a student in the course, I found that the energy in the room during tutorials made me want to learn and kept me engaged in the discussion, and this accountability is often lacking in a virtual setting. Obviously, this depends on the students that make up the group, but generally, even in my courses, I have found this to be the case. In addition, I think there is something special about the peer and student relationships fostered in the in-person setting. It isn’t easy to recreate these connections virtually. Based on past experiences in other educational settings and my own experience as a student in this course, I would much rather continue teaching in person if given the opportunity” (19).

CONCLUSIONS: FROM THE INSTRUCTOR’S PERSPECTIVE

The COVID year proved to be challenging. Apart from the technical issues that had to be dealt with on an ongoing basis, the “distancing” proved more difficult than initially imagined. The course was usually held in a large classroom, and there were often problems with acoustics. We had naively believed that the online format would mitigate these problems. That was true to some extent, but it also excluded students from our ken. Advanced podcasts were often ignored and students seemed unwilling to tap into them until they heard us. Given the technical demands, students had to keep their cameras off, which affected our inability to make ongoing decisions. Thus, in the large classroom, we could pause the lecture, walk up and down the aisles, and interact with the students: this brought about a sense of camaraderie that was removed. I, at least, often made a rapid decision in the classroom to either change direction or scrap the prepared lecture and adlib. These spontaneous “happenings” often led to deeper and more meaningful sessions. This became impossible in a virtual setting. It was also tricky to respond satisfactorily to student questions. In the in-person classroom, we had cold calls where we could randomly call on students to answer questions or even hand them the floor to talk to the class as a whole. In fact, the two students who are authors of this submission often volunteered to come to the front of the class and summarize what they had learned. It was difficult to replicate that informal atmosphere that we had established over a decade. When the UTAs were having their sessions in person, the instructors had the luxury of dropping in occasionally, sitting with the students, and chatting with them. This casual tenor became challenging to sustain. It was a sterile world where viruses alone thrived. The online experience had a distancing effect in more ways than one.

DISCLOSURES

No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

A.Z., A.W., and P.K.R. conceived and designed research; A.Z., A.W., and P.K.R. analyzed data; A.Z., A.W., and P.K.R. drafted manuscript; A.Z., A.W., and P.K.R. edited and revised manuscript; A.Z., A.W., and P.K.R. approved final version of manuscript.