Depending on what school you're working in, a lot of them have an academic technology office or whatever, that will come and record classes for you: both your s

Depending on what school you're working in, a lot of them have an academic technology office or whatever, that will come and record classes for you: both your screen and you talking, and if you're really lucky, you'll get a camera-person focusing on the person talking when in-class discussion is happening. Absent that, you can get very far by just doing your class on youtube live or google hangouts with recording enabled - and just repeating questions for the mic. Whatever the difficulty in recording though, I really would encourage you to keep that format, as it's much more engaging and also educational than a lecture. When someone in class poses a question and others answer, that causes a natural segue into a thinking and questioning process in every student that otherwise requires a laser-focus and also reasoning while also listening to material. I'll second philip1209's comment elsewhere in this thread though, during my undergrad and my master's, my favourite classes were always very discussion heavy. Some of them required reading up ahead and a menial task to make sure you actually did it e.g. read a paper or a chapter, then summarize it in half a page to a page and submit online. Then the rest of the class is mostly q and a where the professor steers the agenda. In graduate level ones sometimes the students had to present each class and then everyone discusses during. One thing that discourages teachers often is that it's difficult to get students to say anything. Believe me that this changes quickly if it's nurtured. One prof had a goofy question mark face symbol and explicitly said he expected a discussion whenever you saw that logo when he was teaching. The first few times he had to sit and awkwardly wait for a whole minute or two before someone said a word - like a game of awkwardness chicken, where someone eventually can't take it anymore and blurts out something, which is exactly what you want, so you can build the discussion on that. Once someone says something the ball gets rolling. He also did a thing where he'd gradually simplify the question every time no one answered ("ok well how would this work if you didn't have to worry about ..."), to the point where often the question would be something self-evident that was hard to not answer. Another tactic was to never shame a "silly" answer but to pull out a good bit about it and use it to direct the next question. One thing that probably helped was that these were often graduate or junior/senior level classes, so people had mostly chosen to be there. Another thing was that the premise of the class was that it was mostly discussion based with some presenting in the middle, which works a lot better than mostly presenting with a tiny bit of discussion, because of the overhead of effort of getting the ball rolling in a discussion environment. Finally, there was a no laptops or phones rule made very clear during class selection period, which really did do wonders. The justification was "we tried it a million times and it just doesn't work" - apparently it's really hard to maintain attention for an hour and a half when distraction is a glance away, and you don't want to miss anything or it's easy to get left behind.