GEOG30162-60162 Geographies of Food and Farming is an optional module for third year undergraduates, broadly in environmental geography. Taught during national lockdown, the major challenge here was translating in-person activities into an online format. Other problems to be navigated included low motivation levels and feelings of detachment among students, who were struggling with the pressures and novelty of online learning. As a result, attendance, contribution, and pre-session preparation were generally quite low.

Particularly for seminars I used Padlet. Ahead of meeting with students, rather than starting with a blank board, I prepared a Padlet board with a structure and tasks anticipating around 20 students for each session, though this varied substantially throughout the semester. To correspond with my planned timed seminar tasks, I decided to use separate Padlet notes (the individual ‘stickers’ on the board) e.g. 4 notes/stickers, which correspond to a 10, 15, 10 and 5 minute task. This I found kept the session paced and gave a clear indication of where the session was going (it also helped to avoid the ‘dragging’ feeling that can sometimes accompany Zoom learning, with no end in sight).

On the day I started each session with a 5 minute opening discussion, where I described/outlined the topic and gave some preliminary thoughts. I then shared the Padlet board in the Zoom call so that everybody was looking at the same screen, then broke off to start the first activity. In order to mitigate against the drop-off that is sometimes follows the announcement of breakout rooms I made it clear that the breakout rooms were time-limited and that students would be returning in 10 minutes.

For the tasks, I used breakout rooms which corresponded to a section of the Padlet board. For example, if I was anticipating 4 breakout groups, I would prepare 4 blank notes labelled 1-4 for the first activity, where each breakout room would input their comments and discussion points relating to the activity. From my perspective in the main Zoom room I would then see the board starting to populate with comments from each of the 4 rooms on the 4 respective notepads. As contributions started to come in, I had time, alone in the main room, to start pulling together ideas and threads across the groups’ discussions.

After bringing students back into the main room, the 4 Padlet notepads each group was working on became the visual aid/prompt for a wider group discussion. I either asked for any general contributions, or focus in on a particular point on the Padlet board ask groups to speak to that. I often find that praising a particular point in this way, in front of the rest of the class, encourages people to come forward and ‘claim’ that point and, moreover, elaborate on it. This was a significant step in getting beyond the initial students’ reluctance to contribute and comment within the wider Zoom plenary, where the barrier to contribution feels high from the student perspective. With this first Breakout/Padlet activity completed, I often found that the ice was broken and students were much willing to both share ideas and to talk with one another more than they were in a 20-person online room.

For the second activity I would try to embed 2-3 short video or social media clips as a discussion prompt. I often split the class off into 2 larger groups, or keep everybody in the same room and have a larger group discussion where appropriate.Combined with the interactive first task I found this really drove engagement and kept the momentum up around the 35-40 minute mark of the seminar. This was another timing/pacing issue that the Padlet format assisted with.

In the last 5-10 minutes I would normally summarise and link back to key course concepts. I found that in an online seminar, this was more effective than trying to direct the entire session towards key readings and concepts from the outset. I would first use the above-mentioned strategies (case-study-driven Padlet discussions, social media examples) to drive enthusiasm for the topic, then follow up with theory and conceptual ideas afterwards, once engagement was already established. I found this was quite well received overall, and reminded students that this more inductive approach to the course content was just as valid as starting with the concepts and then working down.

At the end I would export the Padlet as a JPEG so that it was saved as a record of the session and as a revision aid, before wiping the contributions from that session – while keeping the structure and questions – for the next class. The Zoom link was the same for both.

Results/Evaluation

Engagement and attendance were consistent throughout the module. Students showed up regularly and were eager to participate when they did. I heard from several students after the sessions that they enjoyed the format and felt comfortable contributing.

Unit Surveys quantitative and qualitative feedback showed really positive responses to the teaching methods, especially the use of Padlet rather than the ‘standard’ breakout rooms + discussion questions format.

See student feedback below.

School: Environment, Education and Development

Discipline: Geography

Academic: Matt Varco

Course: GEOG30162-60162 Geographies of Food and Farming

Cohort Size: 70

Themes: Enhancing learning with technology, Teaching Ideas, Padlet

Ref: 055