A medical school can move its lectures online and still leave students uncertain about how to learn. They may have recordings to watch, slides to download and several discussion spaces, yet struggle to connect those resources with what they are expected to understand or demonstrate. The central design task is to give those activities a coherent educational purpose.
Emergency remote teaching describes a rapid, temporary response to disrupted provision. Hodges and colleagues explain that the circumstances of this transition matter when judging its quality: preparation time, staff support and access shape what an institution can reasonably deliver. That makes a manageable initial plan valuable. A course team could agree on one route for materials, one place for announcements and a predictable pattern of activities, then improve the arrangement as problems become visible.
The 2020 emergency curriculum guide distinguishes three starting points: an actively used learning management system, an underused or non-functioning system, and no established online provision. It recommends coordinated planning, needs assessment, faculty preparation, student support and continuing evaluation. These recommendations draw on the authors’ experience of the transition. The guide also proposes starting asynchronously while preparing faculty for live teaching.
For curriculum design, constructive alignment offers a useful organising principle: connect the intended learning outcome, the activity students undertake and the evidence used to assess their performance. Consider an illustrative session whose objective is to justify a differential diagnosis. Students could review a short fictional case before class and submit two possibilities with supporting reasons. During the discussion, the teacher could introduce an additional finding and ask students to reconsider their reasoning. A subsequent task could use a different case to see whether they can apply the approach independently.
This sequence gives each resource a job. The preparatory material establishes the problem; discussion makes students’ thinking visible; feedback addresses gaps; and the final task explores transfer. The teacher can inspect the reasoning behind an answer and decide what needs further explanation. The same design can be adapted to a discussion forum when students cannot participate simultaneously.
Interaction also needs deliberate attention. In a survey of 155 online learners, Martin and Bolliger found that interaction with instructors was especially valued. Regular announcements and clear grading rubrics were among the highly rated strategies. As evidence about student perceptions, these findings help identify support priorities. A practical application would be to tell students when questions will be answered, what a successful submission should demonstrate and how feedback will inform their next attempt.
At the end of a teaching cycle, the course team could examine a small sample of student explanations alongside questions raised during discussion. If many students reach the right answer through weak reasoning, the next session needs to explore that reasoning. If a task produces little participation, asking students about its instructions and accessibility can help identify what to change. Each review should lead to a specific adjustment that students can recognise in the next learning activity.
Read the full guide to curriculum delivery during an emergency.