The COVID-19 pandemic of 2019 meant higher education was forced to delivering education online. For most, the transition to emergency remote teaching was a natural next step to support continuity of education. However, there were some examples where education remained on campus. Where after taking all COVID-19 safety measures of social distancing, hand hygiene measures and other health protocols, institutions decided to continue to deliver face-to-face on-campus offerings with limited capacity. The COVID-19 and higher education literature have focused primarily on rapid digitalisation. This manuscript adds value to the literature by focusing on three case studies of on-campus delivery for face-to-face teaching in the classroom and practical lessons during the pandemic in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan. The changes to the learning process affected students’ interactions with the lecturer, other students, and the equipment they were learning to use. Also, it affected interactions with each other in practical activities due to limited numbers of participants, motivation in learning and achieving learning outcomes. Not only the students, but the lecturer’s capability in delivering the course was affected by fatigue due to spending more time teaching within a ‘COVID-19 safe’ environment. This study will provide important documentation on the effect of COVID-19 on on-campus delivery, as well as opportunities to support greater student engagement in class environments through the sharing of learning equipment, fostering positive motivation, managing learning outcomes, and self-monitoring of lecturer capability in more highly stressful teaching and learning environments practical training affected.

Practitioner Notes

  1. COVID-9 affect the on-campus study. Institutes changed most of the curses online during a pandemic. In the maritime institutes, changed online all main courses.
  2. The institutes followed safety protocols to start face-to-face teaching with safety measures such as social distances, screening, using hand sanitisers and following all safety instructions.
  3. There were fatigues for lecturers due to teaching with all safety protocols and spending more time teaching with fewer students. Lecturer reduced fatigue by frequent breaks, splitting lectures of the day with other lecturer half and half, Managing workload by student-centred teaching and giving homework to students.
  4. Students’ learning outcomes were managed by mixing highly able student with a low able student in practical, video recording in a laboratory experiment, acting as role by a lecturer in simulator due to a smaller number of students allowed.
  5. Wellness for lecturers and students was maintained by institutes arranging safety and well-being seminars, batch advisors for student ‘counselling, safety and wellness modules, and providing grants to students to help pay grocery, electricity bills, buying laptops for study purposes etc.