Just taught my first Zoom lecture to 75 International Law Master’s students scattered around Amsterdam & the world. A few thoughts:

1. Let students participate. Out of 75, maybe 8 did, and I was asking one question every 5 minutes or so. There is no reason to create rules for speech unless it objectively gets out of control. (Granted, I got the Monday 9 am slot so many may not have been particularly awake.)

2. Create breakout rooms during the interval and after the lecture so that students get to know their peers. It is easy for us to forget how much education is not about your teachers but about your peers. How do you make friends when people do not have the chance to chit-chat?

(Nerdy addition: there is actual research showing that friendship is built out of being gathered together periodically in an unplanned manner. Friendship is less a choice than an effect of involuntary coexistence https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/fashion/the-challenge-of-making-friends-as-an-adult.html)

3. Give students in breakout rooms something to talk about during the breaks. Especially for the more shy ones who would not just want to talk about who they are or what their life is like these days, having a class-related subject to talk about allows them to express themselves.

3.1. For Foundations of International Economic Law, I gave them 3 open-ended questions, about how international law can coexist with sovereignty, why companies would choose to operate in different countries, and what specific issues arise with regard to transboundary production.

3.2. In terms of groups sizes, I chose groups of 5-6 for the 15-minute interval. Then 8-9 for the after-class groups, anticipating some dropping out. One group chat is still going on (with 4 students) 45 minutes after the class ended.

4. There is a lot of talk about students having their cameras on. I would make this a standard, so it's not awkward to have it on, but not a requirement. You never know what people's personal conditions are. In any case, I wouldn't see 75 cameras.

4.1. Maybe with fewer students you might need to roll-call students (also the American way). I prefer to let them self-select. With 75, it was easy to get 7-8. Hopefully we'll get more students feeling confident to participate as the course moves forward.

5. I tried to make questions non-technical (Q: 'Who is this?' A: Hugo Grotius/The Treaty of Münster). Also means it's harder for students of a non-European background to answer. As we get into more technical issues, maybe ask about issues that are in the reading materials.

6. Create opportunities for (compulsory) interaction. We are giving two group assignments, using large groups of 12. These are to be divided each into 2 sub-groups, to argue for & against a certain proposition. Pass/fail. Everyone has to post something on the Discussion Board.

6.1. The point is not to evaluate knowledge or work but to provide a version of what they would do normally for individual assignments, i.e. asking a peer "what is the answer to Q3?", which gets you bonding (largely by giving you the perception of doing something wrong together).

7. To state the point again: education is maybe 15% about classes - it's, say, 35% about working together & 50% about chatting over coffee/drinks. Our challenge as educators is to find ways to make up for the lost 85% when tempted to do our usual 15% and move on to our research.

8. University staff are working hard to create opportunities for engagement, but these feel artificial. Lecturers should take it upon us to provide students with occasions to organically move from discussing the merits of free trade to talking about the latest show on Netflix.