Learning Science at University in Times of COVID-19 Crises from the Perspective of Lecturers—An Interview Study

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic changed higher education radically and challenged faculties to adapt their teaching to the new circumstances. The aim of this study is to highlight changes, in particular, the advantages and disadvantages associated with them, and to find out what conclusions were drawn for the future in the three experimental natural sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics at the University of Konstanz (Germany). In a guided interview, the majority of the university teachers in the bachelor’s programs were interviewed, and their statements were subsequently categorized. While lectures and tutorials in distance learning were held asynchronously or synchronously online, laboratory courses used a variety of formats. The number of disadvantages cited, as well as the number of university faculty citing the same disadvantage, is greater than for advantages. The most commonly cited drawbacks fall into the areas of workload, communication, feedback, and active student participation. Physical presence and a return to the original learning objectives in the lab courses is wanted by the majority. The results point to commonalities between the science subjects and should encourage science departments to work together on similar problems in similar formats in the future. Furthermore, there is an urgent and ongoing need for the training of natural science teachers in competence-oriented digital teaching.

Full text

Citation: Henne, A.; Möhrke, P.;
Huwer, J.; Thoms, L.-J. Learning
Science at University in Times of
COVID-19 Crises from the
Perspective of Lectures—An
Interview Study. Educ. Sci. 2023,13,
319. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci13030319
Academic Editors: Jutta Papenbrock
and Sascha Schanze
Received: 28 February 2023
Revised: 15 March 2023
Accepted: 18 March 2023
Published: 20 March 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
education
sciences
Article
Learning Science at University in Times of COVID-19 Crises
from the Perspective of Lecturers—An Interview Study
Anna Henne 1,2 , Philipp Möhrke 3, Johannes Huwer 1,2 and Lars-Jochen Thoms 1, 2, *
1Chair of Science Education, University of Konstanz, 78464 Konstanz, Germany;
anna.henne@uni-konstanz.de (A.H.); johannes.huwer@uni-konstanz.de (J.H.)
2Chair of Science Education, Thurgau University of Education, 8280 Kreuzlingen, Switzerland
3Department of Physics, University of Konstanz, 78464 Konstanz, Germany;
philipp.moehrke@uni-konstanz.de
*Correspondence: lars.thoms@uni-konstanz.de
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic changed higher education radically and challenged faculties
to adapt their teaching to the new circumstances. The aim of this study is to highlight changes, in
particular, the advantages and disadvantages associated with them, and to find out what conclusions
were drawn for the future in the three experimental natural sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics
at the University of Konstanz (Germany). In a guided interview, the majority of the university teachers
in the bachelor’s programs were interviewed, and their statements were subsequently categorized.
While lectures and tutorials in distance learning were held asynchronously or synchronously online,
laboratory courses used a variety of formats. The number of disadvantages cited, as well as the
number of university faculty citing the same disadvantage, is greater than for advantages. The most
commonly cited drawbacks fall into the areas of workload, communication, feedback, and active
student participation. Physical presence and a return to the original learning objectives in the lab
courses is wanted by the majority. The results point to commonalities between the science subjects
and should encourage science departments to work together on similar problems in similar formats
in the future. Furthermore, there is an urgent and ongoing need for the training of natural science
teachers in competence-oriented digital teaching.
Keywords:
technological pedagogical content knowledge; science education; higher education;
COVID-19; pandemic; digital readiness; teacher professional development; remote laboratories;
ICT-enhanced learning; DiKoLAN
1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Background
The appearance of the first SARS-CoV-2 diseases in December 2019, first in China
and, a few days later, also in Germany, led to great uncertainty in the universities and,
within a few months, to their closure and the conversion of teaching from face-to-face to
a remote setting [1–5].
In the course of this conversion, it quickly became apparent that neither the necessary
technical requirements nor the digital skills of the lecturers were available across the
board for a switch to online teaching [
1
–
8
] During the pandemic, difficult legal issues
also arose, such as how to conduct remote examinations while balancing data protection
and the protection of subjects’ personal rights with monitoring the proper conduct of the
examination and preventing attempted cheating [9].
Lecturers were not the only ones who had to adapt their teaching workflows to the
new situation. Students also had to adapt to new teaching formats [
10
]. First-year students
in particular lacked contact with their fellow students [
10
]. The lack of social integration
had a negative effect on students’ motivation [
11
], which lecturers also had to take into
Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030319 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 2 of 18
account when designing courses [
5
,
12
–
14
]. Particularly during the first university closures,
new ways of communication and collaboration [
7
,
8
] and tools for motivating and activating
students [5] had to be developed, in addition to new presentation formats [11,14].
In addition to the rather unspecific new demands on university teaching, lecturers in
the natural sciences were also confronted with subject-specific problems. Important ques-
tions are, for example, how scientific experiments can be demonstrated in videoconferences
but also how students can acquire experimental skills themselves if they are not allowed
to work in a hands-on laboratory due to pandemic-related access bans to universities [
15
].
Many substitute options are conceivable here [
16
]. One approach may be to have a lab
technician conduct the experiments in a videoconference as instructed by the students,
with the students observing the conduct [
17
]. However, there is always the risk of the lab
technician influencing the students. Direct confrontation with the operation of unfamiliar
experimental materials is also an important component of hands-on lab courses [
18
–
21
]
that is omitted in a remote setting of this type. Alternatives that allow for higher student
engagement include remote lab experimentation [
22
,
23
], simulations, interactive screen
experiments [
24
], smartphone experiments [
15
,
25
], and low-cost home experiments [
26
,
27
].
In many places, didactic workshops were immediately offered for lecturers so that
they could develop the digital teaching skills needed for online teaching. However, these
workshops tended to focus on digital teaching skills that were not specific to a particular
subject and minimally on the more subject-specific digital teaching skills needed for
science teaching [28].
A competency framework that addresses the specific needs of science digital uni-
versity teaching has been lacking for a long time [
29
,
30
]. This paper, therefore, draws on
an internationally recognized [
15
,
31
–
37
] competence framework for the digital compe-
tencies of science teachers: DiKoLAN—Digital Competencies for Teaching in Science
Education [30,38] (Figure 1).
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 18
account when designing courses [5,12–14]. Particularly during the first university
closures, new ways of communication and collaboration [7,8] and tools for motivating and
activating students [5] had to be developed, in addition to new presentation formats
[11,14].
In addition to the rather unspecific new demands on university teaching, lecturers in
the natural sciences were also confronted with subject-specific problems. Important
questions are, for example, how scientific experiments can be demonstrated in
videoconferences but also how students can acquire experimental skills themselves if they
are not allowed to work in a hands-on laboratory due to pandemic-related access bans to
universities [15]. Many substitute options are conceivable here [16]. One approach may be
to have a lab technician conduct the experiments in a videoconference as instructed by the
students, with the students observing the conduct [17]. However, there is always the risk
of the lab technician influencing the students. Direct confrontation with the operation of
unfamiliar experimental materials is also an important component of hands-on lab
courses [18–21] that is omitted in a remote setting of this type. Alternatives that allow for
higher student engagement include remote lab experimentation [22,23], simulations,
interactive screen experiments [24], smartphone experiments [15,25], and low-cost home
experiments [26,27].
In many places, didactic workshops were immediately offered for lecturers so that
they could develop the digital teaching skills needed for online teaching. However, these
workshops tended to focus on digital teaching skills that were not specific to a particular
subject and minimally on the more subject-specific digital teaching skills needed for
science teaching [28].
A competency framework that addresses the specific needs of science digital
university teaching has been lacking for a long time [29,30]. This paper, therefore, draws
on an internationally recognized [15,31–37] competence framework for the digital
competencies of science teachers: DiKoLAN—Digital Competencies for Teaching in
Science Education [30,38] (Figure 1).
In its surface structure, DiKoLAN precisely contains those competencies that are
needed for the transfer of teaching from a face-to-face situation to synchronous and
asynchronous online teaching, as described above [39]. It is true that the competency
expectations formulated in DiKoLAN are operationalized for schoolteachers. However,
the DiKoLAN can excellently differentiate between more general and more subject-
specific competencies, thus, pointing out the urgently needed science-specific
competencies for university teaching and giving related implications for future subject-
specific training measures for science lecturers.
Figure 1. The DiKoLAN framework (https://dikolan.de/en/, last access on 26 February 2023) [30].
Figure 1. The DiKoLAN framework (https://dikolan.de/en/, last access on 26 February 2023) [30].
In its surface structure, DiKoLAN precisely contains those competencies that are
needed for the transfer of teaching from a face-to-face situation to synchronous and asyn-
chronous online teaching, as described above [
39
]. It is true that the competency expec-
tations formulated in DiKoLAN are operationalized for schoolteachers. However, the
DiKoLAN can excellently differentiate between more general and more subject-specific
competencies, thus, pointing out the urgently needed science-specific competencies for
university teaching and giving related implications for future subject-specific training
measures for science lecturers.
For the planning and design of such science-specific training courses for the acquisition
of digital teaching skills, it is of great importance to find out how the lecturers themselves
experienced the change in teaching during the pandemic [
40
], what different teaching

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 3 of 18
formats were used, and what similarities and differences can be identified in this respect
between the sciences. Furthermore, it will be particularly important for the acceptance
of future training measures whether and, if so, which of the changes due to digitization
in teaching are considered worth keeping by the lecturers. Finally, there is a chance
that lecturers who were previously rather averse to digitization would now be willing to
integrate digitization-related elements into classroom teaching as well [
40
]. This would also
promote the digitization-related competencies of the students and, thus, follow versatile
demands from politics, business, and industry [41].
Since the courses considered here are attended by both science students and pre-
service science teachers, there is a second particularly important aspect with regard to the
integration of digital elements into digital teaching. Prospective teachers need comprehen-
sive digital competencies in order to promote the digital competencies of their students.
Experiencing digital teaching in science courses can, in the sense of cognitive apprentice-
ship [
42
], serve as a role model to motivate students to acquire their own subject-specific
digital competencies [
43
]. Well-trained schoolteachers then, in turn, serve as multipliers
at school, so that it can be expected that in the future, school leavers will take up science
studies with better developed digital skills and, thus, also enter the job market with broader
digital skills [31].
In order to best achieve the goals of subject-specific training for science lecturers as
described above, a site-specific analysis of the current situation is required. To this end, the
following research questions were investigated.
1.2. Research Questions
1. How did the teaching change at university during the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How are the changes perceived by the teachers?
3. What are the implications of these changes for future course design?
4.
What are the differences between lecture, tutorial, and lab courses during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
5. What are the differences between biology, chemistry, and physics?
1.3. Hypotheses
In light of the above questions, the following hypotheses were formulated:
1. Due to the pandemic, lecturers used more digital media in teaching.
2.
The teachers were previously rather dismissive of digital media in teaching; at least,
digital media did not obtain a foothold in teaching (cf. [
44
,
45
]) Now they see advan-
tages and disadvantages.
3. Teachers consider retaining parts of the changes that have been force-tested.
4.
The digitalization rate is higher in the area of lectures and exercises. Practical courses
take place less digitally and less at a distance.
5.
The wetter an experiment is, the stronger the rejection of digitalization in the field of
practical courses. For lectures and tutorials, on the other hand, there is no difference.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Development of an Interview Guideline
The Kvale guided interview method [
46
] was chosen to capture the research questions.
For this purpose, possible interventions for the research mentioned above were, first,
collected and then, subsequently, reviewed and sorted. The structure of the guideline can
also be seen in Figure 2. It was decided to use an open-ended introductory question (“Think
about teaching in the previous winter semester, when you offered your course digitally
for the first time. How has teaching changed in the winter semester 2020/2021 compared
to teaching in the winter semester 2019/2020?”). In the following, the participants were
asked about the associated advantages and disadvantages before they were asked to reflect
on which changes in teaching should be maintained in terms of digital technology used,
changes in subject matter and content, or methodological changes. Furthermore, the

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 4 of 18
participants were asked whether their overall attitude toward digital media in teaching
had changed. The interview was concluded with questions about newly acquired technical
equipment, support offered and perceived, as well as areas where support was lacking.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
compared to teaching in the winter semester 2019/2020?”). In the following, the
participants were asked about the associated advantages and disadvantages before they
were asked to reflect on which changes in teaching should be maintained in terms of
digital technology used, changes in subject matter and content, or methodological
changes. Furthermore, the participants were asked whether their overall attitude toward
digital media in teaching had changed. The interview was concluded with questions
about newly acquired technical equipment, support offered and perceived, as well as
areas where support was lacking.
Figure 2. Participants of the three faculties: biology, chemistry, and physics, were asked about these
topics.
In conducting two mock interviews with research assistants (pursuing PhD degrees)
involved in undergraduate teaching, no need for revision of the guideline was identified.
2.2. Selection and Invitation of Subjects
The focus of the interview study is on subject-specific courses. These are only taken
once in a course of study, so students cannot reliably assess how teaching has changed as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. For this reason, only lecturers were surveyed. (It is
not about general study conditions but explicitly about science courses (lectures and
practical courses)). Among other reasons, since there was already a nationwide large
student survey of all subjects, a further survey of students on the study conditions did not
make sense here [47].
In the selection of subjects, all lecturers in the undergraduate program whose courses
are attended by both Bachelor of Education and Science students were contacted via a
personal email and invited to the interview, which lasted approximately 75 min. In total,
there were 18 biology teachers, 13 chemistry teachers, and 12 physics teachers asked to
participate. The interviews were conducted via zoom due to the given framework
conditions. In order to achieve a higher cooperativeness to participate, no audio or video
recording was made, and instead, the answers were taken down. The interviews took
place in the summer term of 2021.
2.3. Sample
Seven lecturers (university teachers) from biology, nine from chemistry, and nine
from physics participated in the interview study. Thus, a total of just under 40% of the
Figure 2.
Participants of the three faculties: biology, chemistry, and physics, were asked about
these topics.
In conducting two mock interviews with research assistants (pursuing PhD degrees)
involved in undergraduate teaching, no need for revision of the guideline was identified.
2.2. Selection and Invitation of Subjects
The focus of the interview study is on subject-specific courses. These are only taken
once in a course of study, so students cannot reliably assess how teaching has changed
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. For this reason, only lecturers were surveyed. (It
is not about general study conditions but explicitly about science courses (lectures and
practical courses)). Among other reasons, since there was already a nationwide large
student survey of all subjects, a further survey of students on the study conditions did
not make sense here [47].
In the selection of subjects, all lecturers in the undergraduate program whose courses
are attended by both Bachelor of Education and Science students were contacted via a
personal email and invited to the interview, which lasted approximately 75 min. In total,
there were 18 biology teachers, 13 chemistry teachers, and 12 physics teachers asked
to participate. The interviews were conducted via zoom due to the given framework
conditions. In order to achieve a higher cooperativeness to participate, no audio or video
recording was made, and instead, the answers were taken down. The interviews took place
in the summer term of 2021.
2.3. Sample
Seven lecturers (university teachers) from biology, nine from chemistry, and nine from
physics participated in the interview study. Thus, a total of just under 40% of the requested
biology lecturers, 70% of the requested chemistry lecturers, and 75% of the requested
physics lecturers took part (Figure 3).

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 5 of 18
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18
requested biology lecturers, 70% of the requested chemistry lecturers, and 75% of the
requested physics lecturers took part (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Population and sample. The plot shows the relationship between invited university
teachers (population) and the participants (sample).
Twenty-one of the participants reported on their lecture, eleven on their lab course,
and eighteen on the tutorial accompanying the lecture or lab course. Demographic data
are not provided here in order to protect the anonymity of the subjects. To answer the
research questions, the responses were transcribed, pseudonymized, and thematically
summarized.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of the Results
In this subchapter, the results in relation to the research questions are summarized.
A more detailed insight into the results for research questions 1–3 can then be found in
Sections 3.2–3.6.
3.1.1. Research Question 1: Changes in Teaching
A little more than half of the lectures were held live via web conferencing tools, and
the remainder of the lectures took place in asynchronous formats. In live sessions, slides
were shared. For asynchronous lectures, either a screencast of slides or a screencast of
taking notes on a tablet was provided. Previously, several lecturers used the chalkboard
to write down notes in lectures.
All tutorials were implemented in web conferencing tools, and worksheets were
distributed digitally. If necessary, the exercises were also submitted electronically.
In lab courses, several formats were used: from in person during the semester or
during the semester break to hybrid, online, and offline labs at home and a mixed formats
lab.
3.1.2. Research Question 2: Perception of the Changes
Several participants perceived it as a benefit that recorded files were available
afterwards and students could watch them again. Furthermore, more time flexibility for
students and lecturers was noted. Another advantage was the availability of software and
hardware for online teaching that was achieved.
The number of disadvantages mentioned was larger than the number of advantages.
The same applies for the number of university teachers naming the same.
Figure 3.
Population and sample. The plot shows the relationship between invited university teachers
(population) and the participants (sample).
Twenty-one of the participants reported on their lecture, eleven on their lab course,
and eighteen on the tutorial accompanying the lecture or lab course. Demographic data are
not provided here in order to protect the anonymity of the subjects. To answer the research
questions, the responses were transcribed, pseudonymized, and thematically summarized.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of the Results
In this subchapter, the results in relation to the research questions are summarized.
A more detailed insight into the results for research questions 1–3 can then be found in
Sections 3.2–3.6.
3.1.1. Research Question 1: Changes in Teaching
A little more than half of the lectures were held live via web conferencing tools, and
the remainder of the lectures took place in asynchronous formats. In live sessions, slides
were shared. For asynchronous lectures, either a screencast of slides or a screencast of
taking notes on a tablet was provided. Previously, several lecturers used the chalkboard to
write down notes in lectures.
All tutorials were implemented in web conferencing tools, and worksheets were
distributed digitally. If necessary, the exercises were also submitted electronically.
In lab courses, several formats were used: from in person during the semester or during
the semester break to hybrid, online, and offline labs at home and a mixed formats lab.
3.1.2. Research Question 2: Perception of the Changes
Several participants perceived it as a benefit that recorded files were available af-
terwards and students could watch them again. Furthermore, more time flexibility for
students and lecturers was noted. Another advantage was the availability of software and
hardware for online teaching that was achieved.
The number of disadvantages mentioned was larger than the number of advantages.
The same applies for the number of university teachers naming the same.
The most frequently mentioned disadvantages of changes in teaching were related to
communication, feedback, and student engagement in distance courses. A further main
topic was the greater workload caused by the changes in teaching.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 6 of 18
3.1.3. Research Question 3: Implications for Further Courses
Most of the participants wanted to return to the lecture hall and not to continue online
teaching. A fourth could imagine maintaining online teaching during travelling. One of six
lecturers wanted to reuse recordings accompanying the in-person lecture.
In lab courses, returning to the pre-pandemic learning goals was wanted by six of
them, but three could imagine adopting rethought structures as well.
3.1.4. Research Question 4: Differences between Lecture, Tutorial, and Lab Courses
In lectures and tutorials, the conversion to distance learning was successful without
having to adapt content. Laboratory courses, on the other hand, could not maintain the
same learning objectives and content online. Either new learning objectives were defined
for a new format or the course was held in the laboratory at the university with the same or
reduced content, as far as legislation allowed.
3.1.5. Research Question 5: Differences between Biology, Chemistry, and Physics?
Almost all chemistry lecturers gave their lectures in an asynchronous format, whereas
all biology lectures and most physics lectures were held synchronously online. In tutorials,
no differences could be found. In all three sciences, there was at least one on-site lab course
at the university, but there was only one remote lab in physics. Other at-home solutions
were again provided for all three subjects.
3.2. Changes in Teaching
In this subchapter, the changes in teaching are described that provide an answer
to research question 1. The results are divided into changes in lecture, tutorial, and lab
courses.
3.2.1. Changes in Lecture: Almost Half of the Lectures in Asynchronous Formats
Format
On one side, a lecture was held in an asynchronous format for nine out of twenty-two
interviewed lecturers, mostly by chemistry teachers. Three chemists said that students re-
quested this format. Another chemist complements that, according to him, the synchronous
formats were not desired by the university. In addition to the asynchronous inputs, one
question and answer session was offered per week by four lecturers.
On the other side, a lecture was held in a synchronous format via a web conferencing
tool for 14 lecturers. Three of the participants explained that this was because they wanted
to hold the time schedule for the students unchanged. Four of the participants went on to
say that the live session was recorded and made available for all the students via a learning
management system afterwards, but there were four clear statements against the recording
of the lecture: first, because of the loss of interaction (“If I make an effort and include
interactive elements, then I come close to a live event. For example, I’ve included breakout
sessions.”) and, second, because of the loss of spontaneity (e.g., “I also make a joke now
and then, which loosens things up.”). Third, a fixed schedule was thought to be required
by many students. (“There are definitely many who would like to have a fixed schedule.
They think it’s good to be there and stay on the ball.”) Finally, in the live sessions, students
had the opportunity to ask questions.
Methods and Materials
Mostly, presentation slides were shared during the synchronous session. For the
asynchronous sessions, either a screencast of slides was created or the script was written
down on a tablet computer and made available as recorded. One lecturer also used the
tablet computer to write down the script in a live session online. Videos were produced
to show demonstration experiments in the beginner’s lecture. Within the live session, the
recorded slideshow was presented by one participant as a video, and in the end, questions
were clarified.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 7 of 18
Previously, several lecturers wrote their scripts on the blackboard, and the students
took handwritten notes. One lecturer explained his opinion concerning the blackboard
writing as follows: “The ulterior motive was that the speed is so limited, you don’t
rattle off the slides, you can develop, the students have to copy it down and so they
certainly wrote it down once. That’s where the term comprehend comes from. Not with
slides/reading through”.
Three reasons for the material chosen were given by three lecturers. The decision of
the first one for a slide-based lecture was made because recording the blackboard writing
did not work. Another tried to transfer the format with the blackboard to his online lecture
by writing on a slideshow with blank pages in the live session with the drawing tablet. The
decision for a tablet computer was made by the last one because, with a digital slide-based
presentation (e.g., with PowerPoint), the tempo would be too fast and, therefore, a tempo
similar to the blackboard writing was reached.
Several but not all lecturers then used the learning management system to make slides,
scriptures, or recordings available.
Time and Interaction
Three lecturers mentioned that the typical content for a 90 min lecture is covered in
less time. One lecturer noted that, unfortunately, the rest of the time could not be used for
further occupation. Another lecturer reported that the rest of the time was used for newly
implemented quiz questions at the beginning of the online live session.
Concerning the interaction, one lecturer said that questions were collected in the live
session via microphone or the implemented chat function and clarified at the end of the
lecture. In another lecture, everyone or pairs was/were prompted to ask a question about
something that was unclear. It was mentioned that this strategy worked out well. When
the possibility for asking questions was given before, there were always no questions.
One lecturer proceeded in the way that, during web-conference sessions, videos of all
the members were shown on a second screen, because that felt closest to an on-site lecture.
A chat server was included by one teacher, and the asynchronous lecture was accom-
panied by an online forum in the learning management system by another.
3.2.2. Changes in Tutorials: Tutorials Took Place in Web Conferencing Tools and
Worksheets Were Distributed Digitally
Format
All tutorials took place online via a web conferencing tool.
Methods and Materials
Homework was presented in the conferencing tool. Either the students or the tutor
presented the solutions as before. They used screensharing of a photo or submitted pdf-files
to present the right solutions, or the tutor wrote them down using a tablet computer or used
notebooks with touch screens. Some tutors also created a slideshow with good solutions.
Some used screenshots for backup; a sample solution was distributed by others.
The handing out of the exercise sheets, as well as the handing in of the solutions, were
realized via the university-run learning management system or with other, unspecified
electronical ways.
In one tutorial, the students could take online tests in the learning management system
to achieve bonus points for the exam.
One lab manager said that the he himself was in the main room, and the students
were divided in six breakout rooms with one tutor and ten students. The tutorial was
implemented in this way because the students should have time to talk about the topics
and have contact with each other, and the learning alone was intended to be interrupted.
The group size in one tutorial for a lecture was smaller (Instead of 7, there were only 5
members per tutor).

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 8 of 18
3.2.3. Changes in Lab Courses: Great Variety of Formats Was Implemented and Content of
Lab Courses Was Modified
Format
Many different formats were used: All types, from in person during the semester or
in the semester break to hybrid, online and offline at home or remote lab up to a mixed
format lab, were represented.
Three lab courses were implemented as full online lab courses. In all three courses,
data from previous courses were handed out to the students, and they had to work with
those. In the third, furthermore, simulations and video materials from other universities
were used.
For another lab course, a digital unit was prepared for those who could not participate
and supervised during the live session by a student assistant.
Two other biology lab courses were implemented as hybrid lab courses. Half of the
students worked on site and the other half either made evaluations only at home or took
part online at home.
Four lab courses were offered in person as before the pandemic and another as a
compact course in the semester break.
For several physics labs, a complete at-home type was implemented with mixed-
methods. First, there were prerecorded interactive multimedia representations of the
experiments used. Second, it was possible to run simulations, and third, students could
perform simple experiments at home. The decision for a lab course at home was made due
to the plannability; in this case, no spontaneous changes were necessary.
Another complete at-home solution was found for one biology lab course, in which
the students had to explore an area by their own choice in groups of two and evaluate their
findings based on the material provided.
For a further lab course, there were some deliberations in transmitting the sample
material to the students’ homes, but for three reasons, the decision was made against
the home solution. First, letting them collect the material was difficult, as well as letting
them buy it themselves, because they were not at their place of study. Furthermore, the
technical equipment was missing at home, and finally, it was difficult to control the
safety regulations.
For an advanced lab course in physics, three remote experiments were found and the
students were then guided through those three setups. Another lab manager explained it
would have been a possibility that single experiments were offered remotely, but he had
refrained from it because there was too great a number of students and experiments.
Colloquia
One lab manager transferred the colloquia to an online format; another was handing
out sheets for it. Both had the aim to reduce the time spent on-site.
Groups and Group Size
For in-person courses, mostly the group size was reduced. In one case, the number of
teams of two per room was reduced, and in another group, the size was similar, but the
rooms must change because of the room size.
A lab manager switched the care. Previously, each tutor always supervised the same
experiment; then, fixed tutor–student groups through all experiments were implemented,
because it turned out for him that this results in a better interaction between students and
tutor in the case of the pandemic lab-course mode.
Materials and Methods
Two lab-course managers said that materials from other universities were reused
(e.g., from the FU in Berlin [
24
,
48
]); another used content from an educational software.
Professional pictures of almost every preparation from previous years could be used
intensively by another lab manager.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 9 of 18
Due to the content changes in several lab courses, all instructions had to be rewritten
and the valuation guidelines were changed.
In all physics lab courses, materials and handing in the report were already online.
Then, additional paper reports were eliminated. Furthermore, the students of these courses
were encouraged to use ShareLaTeX for their reports. (ShareLaTeX is an online LaTeX editor
that enables real-time collaboration, as well as direct compilation of LaTeX source code to
PDF via the web interface).
3.3. Changes in Attitude towards Digital Media in Teaching
In this subchapter, the results are presented with regard to the question of whether
the changes in teaching also brought about a change in attitudes towards the use of digital
media in teaching.
Twelve of the participants said there was no change in attitude. For five lecturers, the
attitude was positive before, one said it was as negative as before, and the rest did not
specify their attitude. One lecturer tried several things, but in-person teaching seemed
more effective to him. Finally, one lecturer summarized that he was neither for nor against
(“There must be a good mix and you have to decide according to the situation. Didactic,
pedagogical or convenient is the question.”).
There was a change perceived by another twelve participants. One lecturer was
grateful to the COVID-19 pandemic that it forced them to prove that it was possible to
teach online and that there could be promoted equivalent competencies in the lab course.
For eight lecturers, the attitude regarding digital media in teaching was more positive. For
one lecturer, digital media was not useful for teaching. Another was convinced that online
lectures plus a question-and-answer session and tutorials in-person sounded like a good
concept. Digital media was perceived as great for research by two lecturers. Finally, one
university teacher concluded that they had become more experienced and now advantages
and disadvantages were seen.
Three participants said it was difficult to answer, on the one hand, because it is hard
to leverage the high potential of digital media with the current structure of lecturers, and
on the other hand, digitalization is so unspecific.
3.4. Advantages of the Changes: Recorded Files Are Available Afterwards, More Time Flexibility
for Students and Lecturers, and Software and Hardware Is Available for the Online Instruction
In this subchapter, the advantages of the changes in teaching are described that
provide an answer to research question 2. The results are divided into advantages of
formats, methods and materials, and interaction.
3.4.1. Format
The most mentioned advantage of the changes was that the students could look at the
lectures again if there was a recording (it was mentioned by 6 lecturers) and furthermore,
they could watch the videos individually. With the recordings, more time flexibility for
students was perceived by four lecturers, as well as for themselves by two lecturers, and
in asynchronous formats, the video material could be edited before publishing. As a
further benefit of asynchronous/blended teaching, it was mentioned that the students came
prepared to the attendance time and the attendance time remained for problem solving.
Another tutor said the exercises were completed much faster because there was no need to
write on the blackboard and, therefore, more attention was paid to understanding.
3.4.2. Methods and Materials
In terms of materials, it was mentioned thrice that equipment for online and hybrid
instruction was made available. The learning management system worked great then for
one participant, and it was an advantage for another that the use of digital media (e.g., the
learning management system) was trained.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 10 of 18
The newly implemented use of iPads was perceived as an advantage, either because
of the possibility to store the written material and upload it afterwards or because the
writing is not gone if a tablet is used instead of a blackboard (“It is possible to scroll back
to previous chapters and it is stored.”) or, third, because the iPad offers more possibilities:
e.g., pictures or videos, and fourth, the switch between the “blackboard” screen and the
computer is easier.
In case of asynchronous teaching, the content of lecture and tutorial could be adapted
by one easier without a time offset.
The use of multimedia reduced the workload for two lecturers: On the one hand, the
evaluations of online tests for bonus points in the exam were available immediately, and
on the other hand, the video material was available for further courses.
Within the videos for the experiments, it was easier for two university teachers to
show important details than in the lecture hall or in the lab course.
The students liked the recordings, and the advantage in the script being available
beforehand was added by one lecturer.
A benefit of the pandemic that was perceived by one lecturer was that the teaching
could be reconsidered. Having time to focus on promoting other competencies, such as
critically engaging with subject matter in the lab course, is one perceived benefit called out
by another.
3.4.3. Interaction
Three lecturers noted that more students attended the lecture or looked at the
recordings during the pandemic compared to before, and so they were better prepared,
and the discussion in lecture or question-and-answer time worked online better for three
other lecturers.
It was a twice-mentioned benefit that inviting external people to a lecture is easier
(e.g., “I now have full freedom to invite excellent people with little money.”).
However, there were also three lecturers that could not see any advantage.
3.5. Disadvantages of the Changes
In this subchapter, the disadvantages of the changes in teaching are described that
provide an answer to research question 2. The results are divided into disadvantages of
formats, methods and materials, interaction (feedback, communication, relationships),
and workload.
3.5.1. Format
Concerning the format changes, there were several individual opinions. Two lecturers
complained about the missing 3D impression, either because a lower dimensional visual
impression limited perception or because it is not healthy to always have the same eye
distance and no movement. As a further drawback of asynchronous formats, the missing
rhythm for students was mentioned. For online lectures, less variation was lamented and
for online lab courses, students’ own curiosity could not be considered, which made the
lab more like a lecture.
The mentioned disadvantages of an at-home lab course were that the accident insur-
ance does not apply, and the students were not supervised.
3.5.2. Materials and Methods
The blackboard was missed by three lecturers: first, because working with the blackboard
is more flexible (e.g., parallel work with wooden pointer stick and overhead projector) and,
second, because the presentation of larger contexts is difficult with the limited space of a
tablet, and if slides are changed, a context break occurs online. Furthermore, one lecturer feels
more comfortable with the blackboard, and fourth, performing and perception are another
consideration if the person and presentation are harmonious aligned with each other.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 11 of 18
Missing technical equipment on the site of the students, as well as a bad internet
connection, were a further negative that was mentioned by three participants.
Five lab course managers said the digital redesign of the lab course did not promote
manual skills (e.g., “This means that essential technical skills are missing.”), and the haptic,
olfactory, and sensory parts of practice were lost. Neither textbook nor videos could
convey this, and in addition, the fact that size ratios were difficult to represent online
was supplemented by one. Furthermore, it was mentioned by two others that, due to the
adopted changes, not all learning objectives could be reached.
Two lecturers noted that the teaching was led, unfortunately, to a more school-like
way of teaching: It was more about knowledge transfer and less about acquiring problem-
solving strategies or learning from one’s own drive.
Finally, it was constated by one lecturer that it was difficult to control whether asyn-
chronously provided materials were watched by the students or if non handwritten sub-
missions were copied.
3.5.3. Less Interaction, Feedback, Communication, and Relationships Were Declared as
Main Negative Side Effects of the Implemented Changes
Feedback was missed by thirteen participants in all types of teaching (tutorials, lab
courses, and lectures), as well as interaction in general by three further. Eight of them
clarified that it was missed because, without feedback, the teaching could not be adopted to
the audience (e.g., “In the lab room, I see what they think about it, and I can do explanations
and justifications or shorten if everything is clear.”). The higher inhibition threshold for
active participation was mentioned by four lecturers as a reason for the missing feedback.
Communication with the students was perceived as limited by eight, as well as
communication among the students by six university teachers. It was explained by one
participant that communication via digital media had to be learned first, and according to
another, how to implement interactional parts had to be learned as well. In particular, the
lack of scientific discussion was perceived as a disadvantage by one lecturer.
It was criticized by three university teachers that it was difficult to establish a student–
teacher relationship, the personal contact was missed by five lecturers, and everything
informal was perceived as lost by one. As reason for the need of a student-teacher relation-
ship was mentioned that it is important to feel comfortable to ask questions.
Furthermore, three lecturers declared that the social life of the students was missing,
and therefore, (the essential) cooperation among students was more difficult, and team
spirit was missed by one lecturer.
On the one hand, students’ cameras in online live sessions were often turned off (noted
by seven lecturers), and on the other, more interactivity and active participation in the
question-and-answer sessions was wished for, as well as more participation (“No more
than half were present.”), and two disclaimed that it did not work and that the students
came prepared.
It was noted nine times that being on-site in person leads to significantly more en-
gagement: Online or asynchronous formats lack engagement from the students, and it was
more difficult to activate students, especially shy and lazy ones. Moreover, if students did
not take notes and, respectively, only watched the recording, they were disclaimed as just
consuming by two lecturers (e.g., “If they have to write down what they hear and see, then
they have to be active in a completely different way.”), and there were certain doubts with
regard to the entertainment character. It was a personal experience that calculations should
be performed by the students to enable them to deal with them. Furthermore, two lecturers
explained that it was difficult to concentrate online for 90 min because the temptation
of distraction was great. One lecturer remarked that everyone might be more fixated on
themselves. Group dynamic processes were missed by another, and therefore, it was more
or less a self-study, and one teacher remarked it no longer felt necessary.
One lecturer said good students got along well, bad students got lost every time, but
unfortunately, midfield students got lost as well.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 12 of 18
3.5.4. Workload
A greater workload was complained about by ten lecturers. The reasons given for
the greater expense were greater time and stuff commitment in lab courses. Furthermore,
learning the video software (e.g., editing and downsizing the files); creating screencasts,
slideshows, or the script; making recordings; learning the functions of the learning manage-
ment system; and selecting video material for the lab course were time consuming. Finally,
it was mentioned that it was twice the effort to offer a lab course hybrid.
3.6. Implications for Further Courses
In this subchapter, implications for future courses are described that provide an
answer to research question 3. The results are divided in implications concerning the
format, methods and materials, and interaction.
3.6.1. Format
Most of the university teachers want to return to full in-person lectures, tutorials,
and lab courses. Another lecturer said there should be at least a quarter of the students
in person to be interactive. Streaming can be continued, as was mentioned twice, if it is
accompanying an in-person lecture. One of them could further imagine continuing to
record the sessions, but another did not want hybrid solutions. Reasons for the wish to
return to in-person learning were in each of the several cases once mentioned: The lack
of direct feedback from students and the fact that physical contact is not substitutable for
teaching, motivating students to take part actively is no longer wanted, and the content
is more compressed if it is created in an online mode. Furthermore, a benefit of in-person
learning is that the discussion of solutions is more beneficial; many interactive capabilities
are lost, and the teaching content cannot be recovered in virtual labs. In addition, it is
perceived to be nicer when the students ask a lot of questions in person.
Six lecturers want to continue the use of the web conferencing system, either to give a
lecture while traveling or to invite external guests. Another could imagine recording the
lecture in case of traveling.
According to one lecturer, it should be discussed whether asynchronous formats are
better than in-person teaching. A useful advantage was listed that students do not have to
be on-site, which allows students from other universities to take part and, thereby, more
freedom of choice is possible.
One lecturer wanted to stay flexible to offer something digital.
Concerning the learning goals in lab courses, it was mentioned six times that returning
to the original ways is wanted, but three lecturers could imagine adopting rethought
structures as well. The online attempts could be used as backup (e.g., for catch-up days
because of illness) by another.
3.6.2. Materials and Methods
It was generally said by one lecturer that the material generated could be reused. Fur-
thermore, recordings could be offered additionally by four chemistry lecturers. Moreover,
the currently available script of the lecture could be reused. Others did not want to use or
keep recordings.
The use of the tablet computer as a writing tool for the lecture hall instead of the
chalkboard will be continued by one lecturer.
The videos of the demonstration experiments were perceived as a nice backup, because
there were some losses of quality with the camera in the lecture hall. Therefore, subtle
effects were more visible in the video. Nevertheless, the experiment should be shown in
the lecture hall and the video should be only used as backup, according to one lecturer.
The use of the learning management system has to be maintained, according to the
opinion of one lecturer.
Two mentioned that the online submission of exercises should be maintained, but if
the digital delivery is maintained, sample solutions should not be kept.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 13 of 18
Blended learning formats are wanted by two lecturers. Both want to provide the
material in advance; students could then either create 10–15 slides on a topic or deal with
three to four more in-depth questions, and then the topic and the questions would be
discussed in an attendance hour. Another lecturer could imagine outsourcing some content,
but it was already done before the pandemic. A fourth was thinking about teaching the
lecture well once, recording it, and then planning what to offer to support the recording,
using the free capacities for a problem-oriented concept.
Further videos for work instruction sections were wanted by a lab manager, but these
were not so easy to find on the internet. It would be desirable to have time to produce them.
A lab course manager was positively surprised that by not teaching a number of skills,
they were able to teach more learning content. The virtual part had to be shortened for
further courses to promote the handcrafted parts again, but the repertoire of tasks had
simply become larger.
3.6.3. Interaction
Several individual aspects were mentioned to be maintained. One lecturer wanted to
include more pulls in future courses. Another said that online communication should be
improved, but a third did not think that a seminar atmosphere could be reached online.
A further lecturer wanted to keep a 10 to 15 min discussion time in a lecture, because
the discussion was very valuable and the ability to ask and answer questions still needed
to be practiced. Another also wanted to encourage active discussion: critical questioning,
learning to doubt, and not trusting what is said but in a more informal way.
4. Discussion
4.1. Main Findings
A diverse picture emerged with respect to all research questions, but also, common-
alities could be found across all three sciences regarding lab courses and demonstrating
and conducting experiments. In particular, no satisfactory solutions were found by the
participants of the study to implement laboratory courses in distance learning. This could
be because lecturers do not have sufficient competencies to profitably convert their lab
courses to a digital version. Additionally, it was found that the differences between indi-
vidual teaching formats (lecture, tutorial, and laboratory courses) were greater than the
differences between individual natural sciences.
It is possible that the disadvantages associated with the changes in teaching also out-
weighed the advantages seen in lectures and tutorials because the use of new methods was
necessary in many places (e.g., replacing chalkboard lectures). The frequently mentioned
higher workloads suggest that these methods had to be found first and, finally, trained.
Another issue often mentioned in the study was difficulty engaging students, which
may also be because lecturers lacked the knowledge or ability to use digital media to
interact with students or to promote interaction among students.
Benefits that might be expected from the use of digital media, such as anonymity
leading to higher participation or the use of digital methods being seen as easy by students
as digital natives, were not observed.
A great amount of diversity was also found with regard to attitudes towards digital
media in teaching, although it emerged that lecturers were very concerned about whether
parts of distance learning should be retained (e.g., lecture recordings for follow-up work
and the possibility of not having to be on site).
When it comes to changes in teaching, more digital media were used, indeed. However,
solutions were often sought to translate existing structures 1:1 into online teaching. There
were few reports of new methods being possible when using digital media. The potential
of digital media is not being fully exploited at this point.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 14 of 18
4.2. Limitations of the Data
The interviews were conducted at the University of Konstanz. In physics and chem-
istry, three quarters of all undergraduate lecturers participated, and in biology, approxi-
mately 40 percent. Therefore, it represents the situation at the University of Konstanz very
well. Nevertheless, the results are only transferable to other locations to a limited extent
since the total sample was only 25.
Another aspect was that the data were based on self-assessments by the lecturers.
There were no participant observations, but the lecturers reflected on their own actions.
For the sample size, it was necessary to resort to self-assessment in interviews since
participant observation was not technically feasible (25 times, at least 90 min per week,
with time overlaps).
The lecturers reflected on their own behavior over an entire semester and drew con-
clusions for the future, which is why it can be spoken of as a long-term observation.
Re-surveying in a few semesters is necessary to verify the occurrence of the implica-
tions mentioned above for the future, keeping in mind that the changes may be attributable
to both the COVID-19 pandemic and a general digital slide in teaching.
4.3. Data in Relation to Current Research
It is consistent with other research that most courses could be offered without content
changes [
28
]. As a main drawback of online synchronous teaching, the limited exchanges
between students was considered by Dietrich et al. [
49
], which was constated as a huge
disadvantage in this study as well.
Analogous to this sample, problems with students who turned off their cameras in
web conferencing systems were also found [
8
,
50
], and it was stated that the workload was
higher [
8
]. It was shown before the pandemic that asynchronous learning can be associated
with problems in student engagement [
51
]. Analogous to the cohort described in this article,
these problems also occurred in Burnett et al. [
28
]. In addition, participants in this study
reported that there were also problems with student engagement in synchronous online
lectures or tutorials. Other research projects have also identified a lack of visual feedback
to adapt teaching to the audience [50].
Some instructors spoke of concerns that students learn less because of a purely con-
sumptive attitude in online live sessions or watching lecture recordings. If students learn
in a purely passive role, the fear coincides with the ICAP model [
52
], which states that
planning and design of media-enhanced instruction is goal-oriented when student learning
activities are primarily more active, constructive, and interactive. Following the model in
performing this way, deeper cognitive learning processes are stimulated, which increases
the likelihood that learning will be more effective.
A further concern regarding the use of online teaching was also that students may be
less likely to learn because of the less dimensional approach. If the Cognitive Theory of
Multimedia Learning (CTML) according to Mayer [
53
] is consulted, it can also be found
there that communication takes place in two ways, the auditory and the visual. Each path
has only a limited capacity, which is why, conversely, if only one channel is used, less
content can be transported.
Both of these concerns can be addressed by ensuring that neither channel is overused
in the design of the teaching and that the work assignments are designed to involve students
in a more active, constructive, and interactive way, even in lectures, which was pointed out
by the results of [50].
While Chans et al. developed an online chemistry laboratory course using real-time
demonstrations conducted by the teacher, videos of laboratory experiments, experiments
carried out by the students at home, and virtual simulations [
54
], it remains unclear in
this sample which method was used in the distance laboratory course, but the concerns
whether such a course can be implemented can be destroyed. In their study, a generalized
positive attitude towards the implemented modes and an appreciation of having earned
meaningful knowledge were shown.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 15 of 18
In the case of chemistry lab courses, the tendency to eliminate in-person lab courses
and to offer instead old data from previous courses can also be seen by Dietrich et al. [49].
5. Conclusions
The study we conducted fills a gap in previous research; unlike other studies, ours
is a long-term perspective that extends beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and completely
includes the period when there were restrictions on teaching at universities. In addition,
for one site, we were able to survey the majority of the faculty, not just a few. The study
also shows similarities and differences in the three experimental sciences, while most other
studies only focus on one science at a time. In addition, we examined all teaching formats
(such as tutorial, lab course, and lecture) and did not just focus on short-term impacts
on one format. We have made a small contribution with our studies, which makes it
possible that in the future the departments of chemistry, biology, and physics will work
more closely together on similar problems in similar formats—even in times of crisis—and
solve problems together.
In particular, after the acute ad hoc measures, structured competence building should
be sought for the future. The DiKoLAN competence framework can be used for this pur-
pose, for example, as it has already been shown that this promotes structured competence
development for university teaching. Further subject-specific and digitalization-related
training measures for teachers at the university are still needed.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic can clearly be seen as a catalyst for the digital
transformation of university teaching, many lecturers would like to see at least a partial
return to the forms of teaching that were commonly used before the pandemic. Most
lecturers feel that they have increased their technology-related skills, and the technical
hurdles that had to be overcome at the beginning of the pandemic are no longer in the
foreground. Nevertheless, many lecturers still find it difficult, for example, to actively
engage students in distance learning. In addition to the more general, subject-independent
issues of digital teaching, there are also problems specific to the natural sciences, e.g.,
how experiments can be demonstrated in online teaching and how students can be given
the opportunity to actively conduct experiments themselves. According to the available
insights, it cannot be assumed that all science lecturers are aware of all the possibilities
for digitalizing science teaching at universities. Since lessons could be learned from the
experiences during the pandemic and both the students’ desire and the lecturers’ general
willingness to digitalize university teaching in the natural sciences is apparent, there is an
urgent and sustained need for competence-oriented professional development in digital
didactics for lecturers in the natural sciences. The DiKoLAN framework, which has already
been successfully used in the training of science teachers [
55
,
56
], can provide a useful
starting point for planning, structuring, and categorizing such training measures. However,
adaptation to the university context will certainly be necessary.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, A.H., P.M. and J.H.; methodology, A.H. and L.-J.T.; vali-
dation, A.H.; formal analysis, A.H.; investigation, A.H.; data curation, A.H.; writing—original draft,
A.H.; writing—review and editing, A.H., P.M., J.H. and L.-J.T.; visualization, A.H.; supervision, J.H.
and L.-J.T; project administration, J.H.; funding acquisition, J.H. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (project
“edu4.0” in the framework of the joint “Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung”, grant number 01JA2011)
and the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) (project “Digitale Werkzeuge für den Chemie-
unterricht”). The APC was funded by the University of Konstanz.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
All participants were lecturers at the University of Konstanz.
They took part voluntarily and with informed consent. Pseudonymization of the participants was
ensured during the study. Due to all these measures in the conduct of the study, an audit by an ethics
committee was waived.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 16 of 18
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the ongoing study.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would especially like to thank the faculty who voluntarily and
willingly participated in the interviews, providing us with a decidedly diverse view of how their
teaching was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Marinoni, G.; Van’t Land, H.; Jensen, T. The Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education around the World: IAU Global Survey Report;
International Association of Universities: Paris, France, 2020; p. 48.
2.
Watermeyer, R.; Crick, T.; Knight, C.; Goodall, J. COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances
of emergency online migration. High. Educ. 2021,81, 623–641. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Núñez-Canal, M.; Obesso, M.l.M.d.; Pérez-Rivero, C.A. New challenges in higher education: A study of the digital competence of
educators in Covid times. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022,174, 121270. [CrossRef]
4.
Verma, G.; Campbell, T.; Melville, W.; Park, B.-Y. Science Teacher Education in the Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Sci. Teach. Educ.
2020,31, 483–490. [CrossRef]
5.
Scull, J.; Phillips, M.; Sharma, U.; Garnier, K. Innovations in teacher education at the time of COVID19: An Australian perspective.
J. Educ. Teach. 2020,46, 497–506. [CrossRef]
6.
Zhao, Y.; Pinto Llorente, A.M.; Sánchez Gómez, M.C. Digital competence in higher education research: A systematic literature
review. Comput. Educ. 2021,168, 104212. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Rodríguez-García, A.-M.; Cardoso-Pulido, M.-J.; La Cruz-Campos, J.-C.d.; Martínez-Heredia, N. Communicating and Collaborat-
ing with Others through Digital Competence: A Self-Perception Study Based on Teacher Trainees’ Gender. Educ. Sci.
2022
,12, 534.
[CrossRef]
8.
Akerson, V.L.; Carter, I.S. Commentary: Teaching University Science Content Courses During COVID-19. In Science Education during
the COVID-19 Pandemic: Tales from the Front Lines; Akerson, V.L., Carter, I.S., Eds.; ISTES Organization: Monument, CO, USA, 2021;
pp. 143–144.
9.
Barrio, F. Legal and Pedagogical Issues with Online Exam Proctoring. Eur. J. Law Technol.
2022
,13. Available online: https:
//ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/886 (accessed on 19 March 2023).
10.
Aristovnik, A.; Keržiˇc, D.; Ravšelj, D.; Tomaževiˇc, N.; Umek, L. Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Life of Higher Education
Students: A Global Perspective. Sustainability 2020,12, 8438. [CrossRef]
11.
Salta, K.; Paschalidou, K.; Tsetseri, M.; Koulougliotis, D. Shift From a Traditional to a Distance Learning Environment during the
COVID-19 Pandemic: University Students’ Engagement and Interactions. Sci. Educ. 2022,31, 93–122. [CrossRef]
12.
Lepp, L.; Aaviku, T.; Leijen, Ä.; Pedaste, M.; Saks, K. Teaching during COVID-19: The Decisions Made in Teaching. Educ. Sci.
2021,11, 47. [CrossRef]
13.
Drozdikova-Zaripova, A.R.; Valeeva, R.A.; Latypov, N.R. The Impact of Isolation Measures during COVID-19 Pandemic on
Russian Students’ Motivation for Learning. Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 722. [CrossRef]
14.
Maini, R.; Sehgal, S.; Agrawal, G. Todays’ digital natives: An exploratory study on students’ engagement and satisfaction towards
virtual classes amid COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2021,38, 454–472. [CrossRef]
15.
Lahme, S.Z.; Klein, P.; Lethinen, A.; Müller, A.; Pirinen, P.; Sušac, A. DigiPhysLab: Digital Physics Laboratory Work for Distance
Learning. Didaktik der Physik—Beiträge zur DPG-Frühjahrstagung. 2022, pp. 384–390. Available online: https://ojs.dpg-physik.de/
index.php/phydid-b/article/view/1250 (accessed on 19 March 2023).
16.
Gamage, K.A.A.; Wijesuriya, D.I.; Ekanayake, S.Y.; Rennie, A.E.W.; Lambert, C.G.; Gunawardhana, N. Online Delivery of Teaching
and Laboratory Practices: Continuity of University Programmes during COVID-19 Pandemic. Educ. Sci.
2020
,10, 291. [CrossRef]
17.
Weiszflog, M.; Goetz, I.K. Transforming laboratory experiments for digital teaching: Remote access laboratories in thermodynam-
ics. Eur. J. Phys. 2021,43, 15701. [CrossRef]
18.
Haller, K. Über den Zusammenhang von Handlungen und Zielen: Eine Empirische Untersuchung zu Lernprozessen im Physikalischen
Praktikum; Logos-Verl: Berlin, Germany, 1999; p. 255.
19.
Hucke, L. Handlungsregulation und Wissenserwerb in Traditionellen und Computergestützten Experimenten des Physikalischen Praktikums;
Logos-Verl: Berlin, Germany, 2000; p. 216.
20.
Theyßen, H. Ein Physikpraktikum für Studierende der Medizin: Darstellung der Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Adressatenspezifischen
Praktikums nach dem Modell der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion; Logos-Verl: Berlin, Germany, 1999; p. 51.
21.
Sander, F. Verbindung von Theorie und Experiment im Physikalischen Praktikum: Eine Empirische Untersuchung zum Handlungsbezogenen
Vorverständnis und dem Einsatz Grafikorientierter Modellbildung im Praktikum; Logos-Verl: Berlin, Germany, 2000; p. 285.
22.
Thoms, L.-J.; Girwidz, R. Virtual and remote experiments for radiometric and photometric measurements. Eur. J. Phys.
2017
,38,
055301–055324. [CrossRef]
23.
Heradio, R.; La Torre, L.d.; Galan, D.; Cabrerizo, F.J.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Dormido, S. Virtual and remote labs in education: A
bibliometric analysis. Comput. Educ. 2016,98, 14–38. [CrossRef]
24. Kirstein, J.; Nordmeier, V. Multimedia representation of experiments in physics. Eur. J. Phys. 2007,28, S115–S126. [CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 17 of 18
25. Kuhn, J.; Vogt, P. Smartphones as Mobile Minilabs in Physics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022.
26.
Lyall, R.; Patti, A.F. Taking the Chemistry Expoerience Home—Home Experiments or “Kitchen Chemistry”. In Accessible Elements;
Kennepohl, D., Shaw, L., Eds.; Issues in Distance Education Series; Athabasca University Press: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2010.
27.
Al-Shamali, F.; Conners, M. Low-Cost Physics Home Laboratory. In Accessible Elements; Kennepohl, D., Shaw, L., Eds.; Issues in
Distance Education Series; Athabasca University Press: Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2010; pp. 131–145.
28.
Burnett, J.W.; Burke, K.A.; Stephens, N.M.; Bose, I.; Bonaccorsi, C.; Wade, A.M.; Awino, J.K. How the COVID-19 Pandemic
Changed Chemistry Instruction at a Large Public University in the Midwest: Challenges Met, (Some) Obstacles Overcome, and
Lessons Learned. J. Chem. Educ. 2020,97, 2793–2799. [CrossRef]
29.
Thoms, L.-J.; Meier, M.; Huwer, J.; Thyssen, C.; Kotzebue, L.v.; Becker, S.; Kremser, E.; Finger, A.; Bruckermann, T. DiKoLAN—A
Framework to Identify and Classify Digital Competencies for Teaching in Science Education and to Restructure Pre-Service Teacher
Training. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference; Langran, E., Archambault, L., Eds.;
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE): Waynesville, NC, USA, 2021; pp. 1652–1657.
30.
Kotzebue, L.v.; Meier, M.; Finger, A.; Kremser, E.; Huwer, J.; Thoms, L.-J.; Becker, S.; Bruckermann, T.; Thyssen, C. The
Framework DiKoLAN (Digital Competencies for Teaching in Science Education) as Basis for the Self-Assessment Tool
DiKoLAN-Grid. Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 775. [CrossRef]
31.
Del Molero Jurado, M.M.; Del Simón Márquez, M.M.; Martos Martínez, Á.; Barragán Martín, A.B.; Del Pérez-Fuentes, M.C.;
Gázquez Linares, J.J. Qualitative Analysis of Use of ICTs and Necessary Personal Competencies (Self-Efficacy, Creativity and
Emotional Intelligence) of Future Teachers: Implications for Education. Sustainability 2022,14, 12257. [CrossRef]
32.
Große-Heilmann, R.; Riese, J.; Burde, J.-P.; Schubatzky, T.; Weiler, D. Fostering Pre-Service Physics Teachers’ Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Regarding Digital Media. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 440. [CrossRef]
33.
Kotzebue, L.V. Two is better than one—Examining biology-specific TPACK and its T-dimensions from two angles. J. Res. Technol. Educ.
2022, 1–18. [CrossRef]
34.
Thoms, L.-J.; Colberg, C.; Heiniger, P.; Huwer, J. Digital Competencies for Science Teaching: Adapting the DiKoLAN Framework
to Teacher Education in Switzerland. Front. Educ. 2022,7, 802170. [CrossRef]
35. Demkanin, P. The Ways the Theory of Physics Education can Evolve. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2020,19, 860–863. [CrossRef]
36.
Diepolder, C.; Weitzel, H.; Huwer, J.; Lukas, S. Verfügbarkeit und Zielsetzungen digitalisierungsbezogener Lehrkräftefortbildun-
gen für naturwissenschaftliche Lehrkräfte in Deutschland. Z. Didakt. Nat. 2021,27, 203–214. [CrossRef]
37.
Zimmermann, F.; Melle, I.; Huwer, J. Developing Prospective Chemistry Teachers’ TPACK–A Comparison between Students of
Two Different Universities and Expertise Levels Regarding Their TPACK Self-Efficacy, Attitude, and Lesson Planning Competence.
J. Chem. Educ. 2021,98, 1863–1874. [CrossRef]
38.
Becker, S.; Meßinger-Koppelt, J.; Thyssen, C.; Joachim Herz, S. Digitale Basiskompetenzen: Orientierungshilfe und Praxisbeispiele für
die Universitäre Lehramtsausbildung in den Naturwissenschaften, 1st ed.; Joachim Herz Stiftung: Hamburg, Germany, 2020.
39.
Meier, M.; Thoms, L.-J.; Becker, S.; Finger, A.; Kremser, E.; Huwer, J.; Kotzebue, L.V.; Bruckermann, T.; Thyssen, C. Digitale Trans-
formation von Unterrichtseinheiten—DiKoLAN als Orientierungs- und Strukturierungshilfe am Beispiel Low-Cost-Photometrie
mit dem Smartphone. In Digitalisation in Chemistry Education. Digitales Lehren und Lernen an Hochschule und Schule im Fach Chemie;
Graulich, N., Huwer, J., Banerji, A., Eds.; Waxmann: Münster, Germany, 2021; pp. 13–27.
40.
Pokhrel, S.; Chhetri, R. A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning. High. Educ. Future
2021,8, 133–141. [CrossRef]
41. Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Rotman Management Magazine, 1 September 2016.
42. Collins, A.; Brown, J.S.; Holum, A. Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible. Am. Educ. 1991,15, 6–11, 38–46.
43.
Myyry, L.; Kallunki, V.; Katajavuori, N.; Repo, S.; Tuononen, T.; Anttila, H.; Kinnunen, P.; Haarala-Muhonen, A.; Pyörälä, E.
COVID-19 Accelerating Academic Teachers’ Digital Competence in Distance Teaching. Front. Educ. 2022,7, 770094. [CrossRef]
44.
Johnson, L.; Becker, S.A.; Cummins, M.; Estrada, V.; Freeman, A.; Hall, C. NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition;
The New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2016.
45.
Mercader, C.; Gairín, J. University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: The importance of the
academic discipline. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020,17, 4. [CrossRef]
46. Kvale, S. Doing Interviews, 1st ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2007; Volume 2.
47.
Marczuk, A.; Multrus, F.; Lörz, M. Die Studiensituation in der Corona-Pandemie. Auswirkungen der Digitalisierung auf die
Lern-und Kontaktsituation von Studierenden. DZHW Brief 2021,1, 2021.
48.
Kirstein, J. Interaktive Bildschirmexperimente; Freie Universität Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2023; Available online: https://tetfolio.fu-
berlin.de/web/980458 (accessed on 19 March 2023).
49.
Dietrich, N.; Kentheswaran, K.; Ahmadi, A.; Teychené, J.; Bessière, Y.; Alfenore, S.; Laborie, S.P.; Bastoul, D.; Loubière, K.; Guigui,
C.; et al. Attempts, Successes, and Failures of Distance Learning in the Time of COVID-19. J. Chem. Educ.
2020
,97, 2448–2457.
[CrossRef]
50.
Broad, H.; Carey, N.; Williams, D.P.; Blackburn, R.A.R. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Chemistry Student and Staff
Perceptions of their Learning/Teaching Experience. J. Chem. Educ. 2023,100, 664–671. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51.
Roddy, C.; Amiet, D.L.; Chung, J.; Holt, C.; Shaw, L.; McKenzie, S.; Garivaldis, F.; Lodge, J.M.; Mundy, M.E. Applying Best
Practice Online Learning, Teaching, and Support to Intensive Online Environments: An Integrative Review. Front. Educ.
2017
,2, 59.
[CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 319 18 of 18
52.
Chi, M.T.H.; Wylie, R. The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educ. Psychol.
2014,49, 219–243. [CrossRef]
53.
Mayer, R.E. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed.; Mayer, R.E., Ed.;
Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 43–71.
54.
Chans, G.M.; Bravo-Gutierrez, M.E.; Orona-Navar, A.; Sanchez-Rodriguez, E.P. Compilation of Chemistry Experiments for an
Online Laboratory Course: Student’s Perception and Learning Outcomes in the Context of COVID-19. Sustainability
2022
,14, 2539.
[CrossRef]
55.
Henne, A.; Möhrke, P.; Thoms, L.-J.; Huwer, J. Implementing Digital Competencies in University Science Education Seminars
Following the DiKoLAN Framework. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 356. [CrossRef]
56.
Müller, L.; Thoms, L.J.; Möhrke, P.; Henne, A.; Huwer, J. Erprobung neuer Konzepte in der universitären Lehrerbildung für den
Erwerb digitaler Kompetenzen nach DiKoLAN—Entwicklung und Untersuchung der Wirksamkeit eines Lehr-Lernmoduls im
Bereich Simulation und Modellierung. Chemkon 2022,29, 349–354. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.