1. Introduction
2. Practical Components
3. Offline Versus Online
4. Mental And Physical Health Concerns
5. Three-Test Framework
6. Malpractice
7. Studying Environment
8. Comprehensive Examinations
9. Grading
10. Professors’ Opinions
11. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

With a semester having gone by after the shift to completely online classes, many issues in the academic process have become apparent. There is a general feeling of inadequacy among students regarding the Institute’s response to these issues which has been voiced multiple times. This article aims to give an overview of the academic issues faced by students in the first semester 2020–21, along with a few professors’ perspectives, and discuss the possible causes of the issues faced.

PRACTICAL COMPONENTS

Regular lectures were conducted over video conferencing platforms, mainly Google Meet and Microsoft Teams. A different approach, however, was taken for practical courses and components. Many online laboratory components—like those in Electrical Machines, which is a core disciplinary course (CDC) for A3 and A8 students—involved watching a pre-recorded video presentation and submitting scanned pages of observations and calculations based on the demonstration. A common criticism of this method was the lack of practical experience gained in the process. Some other courses, like Digital Design for A3, A7, and A8 students, conducted their practical components using simulation software.

Students of Civil, Mechanical, Pharmacy, and the branches of pure sciences which rely heavily on the practical application of theory taught, reported that their courses were affected significantly by these changes. Furthermore, Lab Oriented Projects were restricted to simulation software and other forms of computational research.

There are concerns that this lack of practical understanding could have an impact on the employability of graduates. The validity of this claim, however, remains to be seen.

OFFLINE VERSUS ONLINE 

There was a notable disparity noted in the level of student-professor interaction between online and offline lectures. The lack of consistency in the platforms employed by different instructors was also an issue for students. In an offline semester, professors who wished to provide relevant academic resources would use Nalanda, be it for lecture recordings or study material. That was not the case this semester, as different professors preferred to conduct their courses via different online methods. This left students in the predicament of having to adapt to multiple platforms, including Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams, Canvas, and Piazza at the same time to attend classes and access resources.

There was also no consistency in the platform used for evaluations. Professors either employed Canvas, Google Forms, or Microsoft Teams for online evaluatives or had students scan answers written on paper and upload them to a platform of choice. Since in most cases, the professors had not conducted sample tests and had assumed that every student had a stable internet connection, there was much confusion in the early part of the semester regarding evaluatives. For instance, tutorial quizzes would sometimes have different submission deadlines for different tutorial sections in the same course. Consequently, many students reached out to their Instructor-in-Charge about the issues they faced, which resulted in multiple retests.

Another notable aspect of criticism was the conduction of classes themselves. Classes—which are supposed to last 50 minutes—would often be extended to an hour, leaving no breathing room for students between consecutive classes. This extension would also result in students revisiting lectures, which reduced the value of attending them live. Some professors also refused to share recordings of lectures or other resources to encourage attendance despite a notice from the AUGSD to that effect at the beginning of the semester.

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH CONCERNS

Through many online outlets, students reported a definite deterioration in their mental and physical well-being over the course of the semester. Students would be required to spend more than half of their day on smartphones or laptops reading study material, completing assignments, or watching lectures. Furthermore, given the frequency of evaluation, students often found themselves hard-pressed for time to pursue co-curricular activities, the difficulty of which was exacerbated by not being able to meet each other in person. 

THREE-TEST FRAMEWORK

Many students felt that the new framework of conducting three tests to replace one mid-semester examination was an increase in academic load. This system appeared to be derivative of a similar system which was prevalent a few years ago, although it could be argued that regular evaluation had previously been less frequent and more lenient.

Exams for each course were scheduled over ten days three times in the semester. Additionally, classwork was not suspended in this period. Responding to students’ requests for some respite from the academic rigour, the Institute granted a four-day break post-T2. However, many extra classes and evaluations were scheduled during this period, regarding which many students raised objections.

Near the end of the semester, the gap between T3 and the comprehensive examination was initially scheduled to be ten days. However, most of it was also occupied by assignment submission deadlines and wrapping up other evaluative components in many courses, leaving very little time to cover the entire course syllabus. After many students voiced concerns over the workload, the Institute reduced the syllabus to 70% of the course subject to professors’ discretions and later postponed the comprehensive examinations by a week.

The following graphs show the number of evaluatives conducted only in the CDCs of each branch. “Evaluatives” include the TXes, laboratory components, assignments, projects, quizzes or class tests, and retests, if any. They do not include comprehensive examinations. Due to the variance in students opting for electives as well as the sheer number of courses, the data shown below is restricted to CDCs only. Hence, the numbers only represent the lower limit.

MALPRACTICE

Malpractice was one of the major concerns for professors and students alike this past semester. After the initial scores revealed abnormally high averages in most (if not all) courses, it was left to the professors to make questions that could withstand malpractice and the use of unfair means in examinations. By all accounts, there was a significant difference in the method of conducting evaluatives in most courses this semester.

In many cases, instructors proctored tests by making students turn on their cameras and microphones. Other methods included questions based on ID numbers, making most evaluatives open-book, and using tools available on the different platforms to allow for fair evaluations. Nevertheless, there were credible and persistent reports throughout the semester of students having found ways around these checks. This was reflected in unusually high average scores, leaving most students at a disadvantage. Indeed, students who did not indulge in malpractice would find themselves severely disadvantaged, leading some to resort to malpractice themselves.

STUDYING ENVIRONMENT

The campus environment plays a massive role in academics. Every student has access to the same resources and conditions on campus, which could be considered a level playing field. The same could hardly be said for students in different home environments. Some students may have familial expectations in their everyday lives or have other issues to deal with at home. Students lamented the lack of a stable internet connection, frequent power cuts, or noisy external conditions such as construction sites or a loud household.

With little to no control over these factors, students living in such areas felt that being subjected to the same standard of evaluation as those living in more comfortable settings was unfair to them. In certain cases, students said their requests for more flexibility or accommodation were declined by professors in the interest of academic fairness. In addition, the pandemic affected the home environment of students and professors alike, jeopardising their pace of work and taking a toll on their mental health. Some also reported to be affected by the economic effect of the lockdown.

COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATIONS

Owing to the volume of evaluations conducted throughout the semester, a majority of the students felt strongly against holding comprehensive examinations. An initial email from AUGSD outlined that the online comprehensive examinations would be conducted using a proctoring software called ‘BITS Exam App’ developed by Ppyrus India Pvt. Ltd. Some of the major concerns raised against it were: 

1. Specific device requirements which a large section of students could not fulfil.
2. Data privacy concerns.
3. Disruptive network in tier-2 and tier-3 cities causing connectivity issues.
4. Inefficiency in scanning answers through a webcam.
5. Inexperience in dealing with the software.
6. Inconsistent face detection AI which could raise false alarms.

With these issues made public and taking precedent from the students of Manipal University, the students of BITS began a movement against the use of this software. They initially faced resistance from the Institute, which held that the software’s concerns were either unfounded or would be addressed in due course. However, after some communication between the Student Unions (or equivalent) of the three campuses and the Institute, the AUGSD decided against using it and discussions on the mode of the examination were held afresh.

Eventually, professors were instructed to conduct comprehensive examinations using their platform of choice, and the dates were postponed by one week. With most professors taking student feedback into consideration while choosing their method of conducting the examination, this approach received an amiable response and the comprehensive examinations were conducted as scheduled. However, it was evident that allowing comprehensive examinations to be conducted along the same lines as the other evaluatives would be subject to similar instances of malpractice and result in similarly higher average marks. Now that results and grades for the semester have been finalised, most students agree that this has been the case.

GRADING

A set of grades equivalent to mid-semester grading was released post T2. Some courses awarded only letter grades and altogether skipped the intermediate minus grades, whereas others did not allot any A or A- grades at all. For students who expected that grading this semester would be lenient in light of all issues pertaining to the online semester and evaluatives, this came as a shock. 

Post-comprehensive grading, however, has been divisive. Some courses are reported to have followed a grading scheme stricter than even a regular semester, with C grades awarded at scores double digits above average. On the other hand, students in some other courses have expressed gratitude to their professors for adopting a lenient grading scheme. Since the spectrum of grading seems to be sufficiently wide on both sides, the only consensus that the student body seems to be coming to is that some students have been unfairly disadvantaged by their professors for no fault of their own. The sentiment that the pressures of an online semester should have merited a more lenient grading system standardised across all courses is also similarly prevalent among the student body.

PROFESSORS’ OPINIONS

When the English Press Club spoke to certain professors across various departments, they shared some of their common experiences of the online semester. 

Professors have had to swiftly adapt to teaching with the aid of tablets and presentations in the absence of blackboards. Some professors initially faced technical challenges with platforms like Google Meet and Microsoft Teams. They also echoed the sentiment that flexibility in the platform options available led to non-uniformity in the teaching-learning process. They believed that a central platform provided by the Institute could have streamlined online classes. A trial run to test platforms with a smaller set of students would have helped spot potential problems and ensured a far smoother semester. 

Multiple professors struggled while conducting laboratory components. They felt that while the theory could be explained online, it was nearly impossible to give students a genuine experience of the course without actual laboratory sessions. Certain professors relied upon shooting in-house videos and using resources like the Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE)—a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes experimental methods in video format.

A major challenge for faculty members was identifying plagiarism, especially in quantitative courses. This led them to adopt presentation-based evaluatives along with take-home assignments. Professors also stated how they expected BITSians to adhere to a certain code of honour while writing these exams and not resort to unfair means.

Nevertheless, going through the motions of conducting an online semester has been an enlightening experience for many professors. Some feel that they would like to continue with certain practices of the online semester even after college reopens. Now that they have adapted to online methods and learned new ways to use technology while teaching, there is a general plan to use online resources more efficiently to augment offline learning as well. One professor ventured that doubt-clearing sessions over video call remove issues of approachability that would otherwise prevent students from getting their doubts clarified.

CONCLUSION

This semester, students have demonstrably had to deal with the added struggles of having online classes, along with increased evaluation and unreasonably high averages most probably owing to malpractice that is almost impossible to detect and safeguard against. There have also been numerous instances where the Institute has taken decisions or responded to student concerns in a manner that seems indifferent. More often than not, measures such as online protests to broadcast concerns against dangerous software or inconvenient fee demands have resulted in acceptable compromises between students and the Institute.

The second semester 2020-21 is also scheduled to start online. It is expected that many of the issues outlined in this article will persist as long as academic activities are conducted online, but there are also concerns that the Institute could address. As it currently stands, there is hope that all parties involved will have learned from the consequences of this semester and will make more informed decisions moving forward.