**2. Teaching and learning**

The initial plan was to follow a blended learning approach. Pillay and Gerrard [4] citing Garrison and Vaughan, [5] describe blended learning as "the thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning experiences" (p.965). Stacey and Gerbic [6] also share Pillay and Gerrard cited description. An unexpected decision to use online teaching and learning approach was due to the COVID-19 disruption. Facilitators for teaching in the program were minimally prepared for using the online mode. Yet, using online teaching and learning approach is a process that requires designing a course using a credible approach. Most importantly, good teaching in the new era of online teaching would benefit from practicing reflection systematically.

#### **2.1 The program duration**

The initial plan was to offer the program for a period of 2 years. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic disruption, a decision to change to one year was proposed, approved, and implemented. This meant negotiating with the Council on Higher Education to change the mode of delivery. Although CHE agreed, the decision caused the university M30 000. Agreeing to change a mode of delivery was costly since the university had already paid M100 000 for initial accreditation. Yet, ensuring that the new decision was properly articulated was not assessed. The situation means that professional experience could not bear the new developments.

Nevertheless, this development meant implementing the program using a different mode, but most importantly, ensuring that those who teach in the program receive training for e-learning. However, equipping the teaching staff with e-learning skills was not catered. In this regard, besides offering a shortened program in terms of time, expertise was minimized. Each course was, regardless of the number of credits, taught for a period of 3 months with an allocation of 2 days a week for the 15 credits courses and 3 days a week for the 20 credits courses. The students who were enrolled in the programme were employed in their institutions as teachers. Hence, challenges inflicted by studying online. Sharing their experiences in their portfolio of evidence, students revealed that time allocated for their studies was insufficient. Most significantly, the study workload was too heavy, especially coupled with their teaching workloads. This means a tool to measure their views could have been developed in order to measure the students' feelings. Measuring their feelings could help with reflections both at the facilitators and the institution levels.

#### **2.2 Teaching online**

Teaching online was a new encounter for a majority of the facilitators and the institution. The facilitators had to teach online using the university platform; *Thuto* or *Sakai* (developed by lecturers in the University's Faculty of Science and Technology and adopted from the University of Cape Town). Both participants, on the one hand, and facilitators on the other, had to learn how to learn and how to facilitate online effectively. The actual teaching, especially for synchronous lessons, took place in the evenings. Most significant is that teaching online entailed embracing the new terminology: synchronous and asynchronous sessions. Bailey and Card [7] purport that using technology when teaching online requires adapting pedagogical practices that are compatible with the technology. According to these authors, online facilitators have to be cognizant of a number of key areas, including creating, developing, and managing their online courses, as well as how to effectively communicate with their students. Another significant message shared by Alman and Tomer [8] is the time since, in their view, time has different patterns. The participants' views about workload refer to time and seeking their views through assessment could reveal the consequences of time on their part.

#### *2.2.1 Asynchronous sessions*

Asynchronous sessions entailed assigning participants to engage in the task at their own time. In practice, unless one was able to determine how participants were spending time allocated for asynchronous sessions, it was difficult to measure how the participants were engaged in such sessions regardless of the schedule and readings allocated to them. Reflection-in-action came as a result of low participation in such sessions. A test was through asking participants to share their views on articles read and low participation by some of them. A solution to address the challenge had to be found through engaging in reflection-in-action. Reflection-in-action is described [9] as an interaction with a live problem as it unfolds. In such an incidence, Schön argues that the capacity to reflect-in-action assumes that the problem-solver has the capacity to illustrate their *knowing-in-action*. In real practice, this means hidden or tacit knowledge that practitioners use to deal with particular tasks [9], Hawkridge, [10]. Reflection-in-action also refers to thinking about what one is doing while doing it; it is

#### *Perspective Chapter: Lessons from Implementing a Higher Education Program in Lesotho DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109291*

typically stimulated by surprise, which sometimes puzzles the practitioner concerned [11]. Schön [9] further argues that this gives the practitioner a chance to redesign what is being done while it is being done.

In addressing the problem and in preparation for asynchronous lessons, participants were assigned tasks of reading on specified areas in preparation for the different sessions that were to follow. However, an advanced tool for monitoring the use of time during asynchronous sessions could help. In search for potential solutions, it was discovered that there are technological ways of establishing the extent to which participants are engaged in assigned activities during an asynchronous session. This strategy that would use a specific tool is yet to be explored. Exploring the new technologically developed tool using course-specific strategies might be necessary and there has to be a strategy to use for establishing the extent to which participants undertake assigned activities, such as reading an article, and indicating the time used for doing so during an asynchronous session.

#### *2.2.2 Synchronous sessions*

An opportunity for meeting participants virtually was during scheduled synchronous sessions. Specifically, the availability of platforms, such as ZOOM, were used to facilitate synchronous sessions. Lessons presentations were carried out during scheduled ZOOM sessions. Participants participated by responding or asking questions and through group work assignments. As an internal facilitator, there were moments of reflection on challenges encountered using the various platforms. These included WIFI service provision, which was unreliable. Schön [12] and Hawkridge [10] describe reflection-on-action as the process that takes place after an event. In such an occurrence, the practitioner explicitly evaluates an action used to solve a particular problem.

According to Fitzgerald [13], this form of reflection refers to the retrospective contemplation of practice undertaken in order to uncover the knowledge used in practical situations, by analyzing and interpreting the information recalled. It is also believed that this kind of reflection not only increase one's knowledge but it also challenges the theories and concepts held by a person [14]. There were moments during which the internet connectivity presented serious problems and did so during some sessions. This meant failing to present some scheduled lessons and making up for the lost time. Yet, participants fully enjoyed synchronous sessions, particularly the break-away sessions, whereby they discussed topics in groups and presented the outcome of their group work in plenary sessions. Going forward and reflecting for-action; questions such as other than using the service provider's Wi-Fi is there any other formal technical facility that the institution can provide for its part-time facilitators? are asked. Reflection-for-action is a concept which, according to Killion and Todnem [15], Grushka et al. [16] was developed from Schön's work. Reflectionfor-action is thinking about future actions with the intention of improving or changing practice. The disruption caused by the internet facility could affect good teaching practice.

Good teaching benefits from making professional choices about teaching. It also benefits from having participants' input on one's teaching. Therefore, good teaching in the program could have benefited from designing a tool and asking participants to have input on potential improvements for the program. This missing point impinges on the modules used in the program.
