Basic and applied disciplines rooted in ecology and evolution traditionally rely on experiential field instruction to teach key learning outcomes representing natural history, study design, field methods, and the process of scientific inquiry (Fleischner et al., 2017; Herman, 2002; Tewksbury et al., 2014). Other disciplines, such as the geosciences, similarly rely upon field activities in instruction (Whitmeyer & Mogk, 2009). Field activities, defined here as educational activities that occur outside and involve interaction with the natural or built environment (Fleischner et al., 2017), can provide unique and engaging instruction that is often vital to learning outcomes of postsecondary courses, even when they represent a relatively small portion of instruction (Harland, Spronken-Smith, Dickinson, & Pickering, 2006; Hole, 2018). Potential impacts of reduction and elimination of field activities and natural history education from undergraduate curricula have been previously recognized (Tewksbury et al., 2014) as have potential solutions (Fleischner et al., 2017). Despite its potential importance, biology education research appears to have paid relatively little attention to postsecondary field teaching compared to classroom teaching (Singer, Nielsen, & Schweingruber, 2013) or relative to other disciplines (e.g. geography; Boyle et al., 2007). The COVID-19 pandemic (Fauci, Lane, & Redfield, 2020) has clearly posed a unique set of challenges to higher education