As you may or may not be aware, BC has developed a digital learning strategy. Here’s an earlier draft, and some earlier thoughts. With its release coming soon, I thought I would post a final set of thoughts that apply to this policy, but to other policies as well. I am only posting this because I saw that the University of California recently closed a loophole that allowed learners to fully complete their degree online. Such decision reminds me once again that decisions which are laser-focused on modality miss the bigger picture. Which then reminded me of the BC digital learning policy.
My reading and analysis of the guidelines coming to BC is that they raise quality standards for online and hybrid learning. This is a good thing. But, they are silent on the quality standards for in-person learning, and might therefore have inadvertent effects.
Because of the focus on a specific modality, the strategy creates a de facto level of standard for digital learning courses/programs/efforts that is higher than that for in-person courses/programs/efforts. While the document focuses on guidelines for “technology-enhanced learning,” it’s not explicit that these guidelines ought to apply to ALL courses.
In other words, the policy presumes that guidelines are unnecessary for in-person courses, or at the very least outside of the purview of the policy . As one example, note how the following important guideline specifically focuses on the digital but not the in-person context:
“Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…”
What I’d rather see is this:
“Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…”
Or this:
“Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. Technology-enhanced learning provides risks and opportunities towards these goals, and in this context, institutions should… To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…”
Setting a higher standard for digital learning compared to in-person learning is a problem for two reasons.
First, a different levels of standard produces the very real possibility of stifling innovation in digital learning and prioritizing in-person learning. Institutions which are considering digital learning will need to account with these guidelines, especially if they need to highlight how they are meeting them in QA and new degree approval processes. Yet, it’s unclear whether in-person offerings need to account for them. By raising the bar for one kind of approach, we might be inadvertently guiding institutions into the alternative modality.
Second, a different level of standard will impact the sector unevenly, and will disproportionately impact institutions and disciplines which are predominantly digital/online. The impacts that the strategy will have on in-person trades programs are limited compared to the impacts that it will have on education programs, which are typically blended. The impacts that it will have on smaller institutions which are exploring expanding their digital learning offerings are greater that the impacts it will have on predominantly in-person institutions.
What is a possible solution?
This is a difficult one. One approach might be to clarify and be explicit that these guidelines apply to all courses/offerings regardless of modality. Designing education with ethics, equity, and decolonization in mind ought not be limited by whether the course takes place in-person, online, or in blended fashion. Further, any change in QA and course approval policies at the Ministry level will need to apply to all programs – not just “digital” ones.
