MCC Daily Tribune

February MCC Town Hall: Recording and Responses to Unanswered Questions

Thank you to everyone who participated in the February Town Hall. A recording is now available.

We appreciate those of you who took the time to submit questions. Below are responses to questions that were not addressed due to time constraints as well as responses to previous questions that may benefit from addition clarification.

Question 1: Re. "Hybrid is working" - true hybrid *requires* on campus attendance. How many true hybrids are we offering? The early results (student attendance) from the Hyflex pilot are not encouraging. To whit - students do not want to come to campus and instructors are teaching to an empty classroom while being recorded.
There is some confusion about terminology in describing how we are planning to expand in-person offerings for the fall 2021 semester, specifically around the terms “HyFlex” and “hybrid.”

This spring we offered 167 hybrid section where students met face-to-face for part of the instruction and then either met remotely by Zoom or participated online. These were most commonly lab/lecture classes.

A small HyFlex pilot is currently being offered as a way to give students options for participating in a single course in-person, remotely, or fully online. Faculty piloted 5 modified HyFlex sections this spring, 3 credit-bearing courses, and 2 non-credit strong foundation classes. We are monitoring student attendance patterns and will use the information to make future plans. We will continue to offer a small number of sections using the HyFlex modality in the fall for those instructors interested in teaching in this way.

One instructor currently teaching in the HyFlex reported the following, “I am only having 1 student come in at the moment and it varies between 1 of 3 students. However, I do not agree with the implication that this is a waste of time. I’m really glad that I volunteered to try this out. If only one student comes to my f2f class, it is worth it in my book. Anyone who teaches knows that everything we try may not work as planned on the first attempt. This is no different. I don’t think that we can make a judgement on Hy-Flex based on this semester because of the pandemic. It would not be fair to the modality.”

During the Town Hall, the Provost was discussing our planning strategy to increase our face-to-face offerings, acknowledging that there are still open questions around future COVID testing requirements, vaccine availability, and social distancing requirements. We plan to do this by allowing departments to split sections into in-person and remote synchronous modalities. The faculty will teach face-to-face and simultaneously broadcast through Zoom to synchronous remote students. This is neither true “HyFlex” nor “hybrid.”

The model of splitting the sections into in-person and remote parts will be seamless for the student, and they will choose which mode they prefer upon registration. While we haven’t worked out the specifics of how to display the information (i.e., perhaps we cross-list sections), students will select a course that is either in-person or remote and will remain in that modes during the term. For example, one section is F2F with a cap of 8 and the cross-listed remote section has a cap of 18. Students independently select the mode that works for them. Although we expect students to continue in their chosen modality for the duration of the semester, this model would allow us to quickly and easily adjust the number of face-to-face students in either direction, if conditions change or we need to "pause."

Question 2: I find Provost Wade’s comments alarming. It sounds as if the working plan is leaning toward a more robust hyflex model, yet the current hyflex models are entirely unsupported and working only because faculty are going to extreme measures to make the model work, sort of. What support will be available for this model, other than telling faculty that we have EAP as a resource?
The statement that “the current HyFlex models are entirely unsupported” is not accurate. Prior to the start of this semester, the Virtual Campus (specifically Andrea Gilbert) provided workshops and training sessions for the HyFlex pilot faculty. During this time, Learning Resources staff (namely Phil Oettinger and Andy Eggleston), under the direction of AVP Terry Keys, worked with faculty to identify and provide the equipment and technological training they would need to run their classes. They continue to engage frequently with faculty to troubleshoot problems. Dean Michael Jacobs cultivated and continues to coordinate a HyFlex advisory board that supports the work of current and future HyFlex instructors. This advisory board has met three times to discuss challenges, logistics, processes, and best practices—and co-developed a catalogue of online resources for faculty and staff. Dean Jacobs also served on a SUNY steering committee this fall that offered a week-long series of HyFlex webinars (open to the SUNY system). April Daniels, Andrea Gilbert, and Dean Jacobs all served as panelists at one of these events. All of these supports are still available (including the webinars, which were recorded).

The working expansion plan is not “leaning toward a more robust HyFlex model.” HyFlex connotes flexibility in terms of attendance options; students who choose a face-to-face (F2F) course in the fall (if available) will not be able to move from modality to modality. Instead, they will choose one (either F2F or remote) and stay with it throughout the term.

Question 3: The Dual Credit office has been asking for help at the CSEA level since November 2020. When can they expect a response/update?
Prior to September 2020, there was very limited or temporary secretarial support for Pre-Collegiate Partnerships. As of September 2020, a full time Secretary II has been working in the office, along with the temporary secretarial staff member and a management assistant. In addition, each staff member has been asked to keep a time log as a foundation with which to begin a conversation about the need for additional help in the office. Student Services and Technology Services are conferring on the ways some work can be automated. The current staff mapped out office processes and assigned them to office staff and cross-divisional staff so that work is better distributed. We hope that these measures will provide for a more sustainable workflow.

Question 4: The proposal to have a particular class section offered both remote and face-to-face seems like it would be confusing to students. Wouldn't it be better to clearly designate certain course sections as face-to-face for all who register for it, a different specific section with a different CRN to be remote for all students who register for it, etc.? We need a clear registration process for students.
We need to plan for some level of continued social distancing in the fall semester, so holding whole classes in a F2F setting would limit us to a handful of classes in the large lecture halls.

The model of splitting the sections into in-person and remote parts will be seamless for the student, and they will choose which mode they prefer upon registration. While we haven’t worked out the specifics of how to display the information (i.e., perhaps we cross-list sections), students will select a course that is either in-person or remote and will remain in that mode during the term. For example, one section is F2F with a cap of 8 and the cross-listed remote section has a cap of 18. Students independently select the mode that works for them. Although we expect students to continue in their chosen modality for the duration of the semester, this model would allow us to quickly and easily adjust the number of face-to-face students in either direction, if conditions change.

Question 5: Are we considering mandatory orientation, to ensure students are able to navigate all the required modalities/requirements/communications options to ensure their success?
The complicated answer is both yes and no. Mandatory orientation has been a cross-divisional discussion at MCC for several years. Matthew Lawson (Office of Student Life and Leadership Development) has developed, and redeveloped several iterations of student orientation over the past few years. While we need to ensure that students meet the learning outcomes of orientation prior to the first day of class, and we believe orientation should be required, meeting the varying needs of all MCC students is a challenge. How we deliver the information is what Student Services continues to review and reformat, exploring various modalities in an effort to meet the needs of our students. Likely, much will continue to be created and delivered in a virtual format, with an expectation that opportunities will also be offered in person (when appropriate and allowed). The main focus will be on determining an orientation requirement that does not create a barrier to student enrollment. The Entry and FYE Student Success Committee, along with AVP Christine Casalinuovo-Adams and AVP John Delate, have been charged to review and make recommendations for new student onboarding, which includes orientation. We welcome feedback and ideas from the college community and look forward to creating an orientation experience that ensures student success.

Question 6: Can some course sections be completely face-to-face or true hybrid, without the remote student component? It would make proctored testing difficult if some students are always on campus and some are never on campus, but registered for the same class section.
We may be able to have a small number of fully face-to-face classes held in instructional spaces that allow for social distancing.

We have always offered a few true hybrid courses and, assuming we can schedule a room that would work with social distancing, we can continue those offerings.

Comment 7: I don't feel we are being honest about what a hyflex is. The faculty will still have to be flexible between modalities. This is a huge lift. Workload is a serious issue. If we are serious about mental health, let’s not forget that this adds to the issue.
The proposed model for face-to-face (F2F) instruction outlined in Friday’s Town Hall is not HyFlex as it does not afford flexibility in terms of attendance. Students choose an option and the plan is that they would stay with it throughout the semester. Moreover, the model does not call for the inclusion of an asynchronous component that provides the same level of engagement as the F2F and remote constituents discussed in the plan—which is a hallmark of the “true” HyFlex model. If faculty members need assistance teaching F2F and remote-synchronous simultaneously, they should work with the Virtual Campus. We are also exploring embedding supplemental instructors in remote mode to assist instructors. Faculty members volunteered to be part of the pilot HyFlex offerings, and we appreciate their willingness to help us learn more about that modality.

Question 8: How long can non-student facing employees expect to be assigned to remote work?
This answer will depend on decisions made regarding the Summer and Fall 2021 semesters. Stay tuned.

Question 9: Realistically, if a student misses attending a hyflex class in person, it seems unreasonable to not allow that student to gain access to materials online since the material will already exist for students that select that mode. However, this defeats the purpose of "requiring" them to come to class, and seems like it could lead to the situation it sounds like exists currently. Is this a reasonable interpretation?"
“HyFlex” and “requiring” students “to come to class” are antithetical. Per the response to a previous question, students who choose a face-to-face course in the fall (if available) will not be able to casually move from modality to modality. If instructors wish to make online materials available to students, they are both welcome and encouraged to do so.

Question 10: So, beyond the type of courses currently being taught on campus (labs, studio art) if we elect to teach on campus we will be doing a class that is both with students in the classroom and have synchronous remote students?
During the Town Hall, the Provost was discussing our planning strategy to increase our face-to-face offerings, acknowledging that there are still open questions around future COVID testing requirements, vaccine availability, and social distancing requirements. We plan to do this by allowing departments to split sections into in-person and remote synchronous modalities. The faculty will teach face-to-face and simultaneously broadcast through Zoom to synchronous remote students. This is neither true ‘HyFlex” nor “hybrid.”

The model of splitting the sections into in-person and remote parts will be seamless for the student, and they will choose which mode they prefer upon registration. While we haven’t worked out the specifics of how to display the information (i.e., perhaps we cross-list sections) students will select a course that is either in-person or remote and will remain in that mode during the term. For example, one section is F2F with a cap of 8 and the cross-listed remote section has a cap of 18. Students independently select the mode that works for them. Although we expect students to continue in their chosen modality for the duration of the semester, this model would allow us to quickly and easily adjust the number of face-to-face students in either direction, if conditions change.

Question 11: On the slide about hybrid models and remote broadcasting, there was a reference to "the typical classroom setup for remote broadcast." Could you clarify what would be included in this set up?
The standard classroom setup enables the instructor to share their screen and to be heard and seen by remote students (via Zoom) via the instructor station. This utilizes the existing classroom technology that is in all classrooms. This has limitations with student audio.

Rooms set up for HyFlex add a microphone(s) for student use and a monitor in the back to see the remote students.

Our next MCC Town Hall will be held at noon Friday, March 19.

Katherine Douglas
Office of the President
02/24/2021