Category: online learning Page 1 of 16

Online, Hybrid, and Multi-Access Learning and Teaching in British Columbia: Post-Pandemic Trends and Intentions (report)

On September 18, 2023

In a new report funded by the British Columbia Council on Admissions & Transfer (pdf) Valerie Irvine, Nicole Johnson, and I examined the evolving nature of online, hybrid, and multi-access learning within the British Columbia (BC) post-secondary education system. Our objectives included assessing potential changes in the scope and nature of online learning in BC, understanding stakeholder insights on learner preferences towards online and hybrid learning, and identifying areas that require further exploration and discussion.

Recent pan-Canadian research indicates that higher education institutions anticipate a future with more online and hybrid options. This aligns with the growing demand for such learning modalities and changing learner preferences, as corroborated by studies in the USA and UK. Understanding these trends in the BC context is crucial since returning to in-person education while simultaneously catering to the growing demand for online learning presents considerable challenges for BC institutions primarily built around traditional, in-person instruction.

To develop a greater understanding of the changing nature and volume of digital learning modes and learner preferences toward them we conducted interviews with twenty-five individuals comprising administrators, faculty members, and staff from the BC Ministry of PSEFS or system support organizations.

Major findings suggest that while in-person education in the province is predominant, participants (a) reported the learners demand more online and hybrid options, and (b) expect that online, hybrid, and multi-access learning in the BC post-secondary system will become more prevalent. We also identified that shifts in learner preferences are shaped by a variety of factors and vary by learner subpopulations, that modality is messy and masks variability, and that the “right mix” of modalities is unknown. Finally, we noted that online and hybrid learning enable access, and provide opportunities for equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization.

Recommendations for BC post-secondary institutions include the following:

Develop criteria for determining course and program modality.
Collect and analyze disaggregated data on learner preferences, choices, and contexts using consistent definitions of in-person, online, hybrid, and multi-access learning,
Support faculty members’ development to teach in online, hybrid, and multi-access contexts.
Increasing capacity for research, teaching, and collaboration
Approach alternative delivery modes with anticipation and foresight.

Please read and share the report. The question of the role of online and blended learning in BC is by no means a settled question, so we’d love to hear you input, questions, and insights!

Are cohort-based course platforms “universities of the future?”

By George Veletsianos

On June 28, 2023

In courses, future education, my research, online course marketplace, online learning, papers

The edtech industry includes numerous learning providers and platforms providing tools, technologies, and resources for course creators to create and sell online courses. These platforms are interesting for very many reasons. What roles do they play in the learning and development ecosystem? How do they measure effectiveness and learning outcomes? What kinds of pedagogical and instructional design practices do they support and advocate for? What education-related claims do they make?

two people working on five laptops. They sit at a table littered with other devices, like phones, headset, and ipads. Photo by Marvin Meyer on Unsplash

In a paper we published a few months ago, we examined one such platform because it describes itself as building ‘the university of the future’ and has recently received significant attention and funding. This makes it a compelling case study to better understand the potential roles and risks associated with education platforms operating outside of and alongside more traditional higher education institutions.

We highlight specific concerns about cohort-based platforms. These include lack of transparency, risk of surveillance, lack of adequate financial support for learners, and over-reliance on social media networks as signifiers of educator/instructor qualification (this last one is a big one). Suggested benefits include adaptability, suitability to changing skills needs, and responsiveness to changing environmental scenarios.

The published version of the paper is here, but here’s a pre-print pdf: Veletsianos, G., & Houlden, S. (in press). On the “university of the future”: A critical analysis of cohort-based course platform Maven. Learning, Media, & Technology.

Issues that hybrid, online, and blended modes of teaching and learning introduce to collective agreements and bargaining

By George Veletsianos

On April 11, 2023

In futures, instructional design, learner experience, online learning, short reflections

A few weeks ago, I was invited to offer input to a committee at a Canadian university examining issues that hybrid, online, and blended modes of teaching and learning introduce to collective agreements and bargaining. I appreciated that the committee identified experts to speak with in order to gain an evidence-informed understanding of the issues they were facing rather than allow their deliberations be guided by assumptions and beliefs (which, to be honest, many of the conversations around modality default to!).

I thought the questions I was asked were relevant to many, and so I am sharing them below. The gist of my responses follows each question.

What is your sense of the future of online, hybrid, and blended course delivery in Canadian universities?
- Necessary, valuable, and growing. Ignore them at your own peril.
How do you see the work, the workload, the rights, and the responsibilities of faculty changing within this shifting terrain?
- Rising workloads at first, but shifting over time (similar to how workload is higher when assigned a new course; opportunity to learn & explore relationship between online/hybrid and pedagogy, which may transfer to other settings). Responsibilities around quality similar, if not higher (which is unfortunate given that conversations around quality are different in relation to in-person courses). Rights: an opportunity for expanding the conversation to encompass in-person practices: reflect on ownership and where the real value of faculty lies – it’s not content.
What would you suggest are the biggest advantages to these delivery modes, and what would you flag as the biggest challenges that institutions face in moving towards these modes?
- advantages: rethinking pedagogy, flexibility, supporting justice and EDI, reaching and supporting different kinds of learners; challenges: institutional infrastructure to support online/hybrid learning quality at the same level as supporting in-person.
What kinds of supports—technological, training, in-class, infrastructural, workload-based, or other – do you see as necessary for faculty to successfully deliver course through online modes?
- This is the right question to ask. It’s not just about individual skills, competencies, and perceptions – it’s about how the institutions will support these learning modalities at the system level. In addition to the ones mentioned in the question, my answer highlighted that online/hybrid learning is a team sport and noted the need for instructional design support.
As part of our own deliberations, we are concerned with the process through which mode of delivery for particular courses is determined. Do you have any advice on how this best happens? Are there any lessons from experiences at other universities about this?
- This is a difficult one, especially at a time of many circulating viruses. I emphasized the need for flexibility and a decision-making process that is based on mutual trust and cooperation, and that is informed by student input. Ideally one where decisions aren’t top-down and aren’t solely guided by individual preferences. Also: the proportion of courses that are online need not be uniform across departments.

BC’s guidelines for digital learning strategy: inadvertent effects?

By George Veletsianos

On April 4, 2023

In online learning, sharing

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.

EdTech, magic mushrooms, and magic bullets

By George Veletsianos

On January 16, 2023

In my research, online learning, scholarship, short reflections

In my inbox, an email says:

Alberta’s new regulations on psychedelics to treat mental health issues come into effect today, making it the first province to regulate the use of hallucinogens in therapy.

Today in The Conversation Canada, Erika Dyck of the University of Saskatchewan walks readers through the new regulations, as well as the history, potential and pitfalls of hallucinogens both inside and outside clinical settings.

Psychedelics — from magic mushrooms and ayahuasca to LSD — are having a moment in the spotlight, with celebrity endorsements and a new generation of research on potential clinical uses. There is certainly a need for therapeutics to treat mental health issues, the growing prevalence of which could place a strain on the health-care system.

“Psychedelics are being held up as a potential solution,” Dyck writes. “But, magic mushrooms are not magic bullets.”

That last line captures so much of what is happening in our field, and education more broadly, that it is worth repeating.

AI is being held up as a potential solution, but it is not a magic bullet.
A return to in-person learning is being held up as a potential solution, but it is not a magic bullet.
Online learning is being held up as a potential solution, but it is not a magic bullet.
Microcredentials are being held up as a potential solution, but they are not a magic bullet.
… and so on

These things – and others – can be solutions to some problems, but they consider them to be part of a Swiss army knife, part of a toolkit. And while sometimes your Swiss army knife will work, this isn’t always going to be the case, especially when we’re considering some of the most major challenges facing higher ed, the kinds of things that we’re not talking about (e.g., precarious employment and and external regulations that encourage and foster conservatism, etc).

And perhaps, that’s the crux of the issue: That these solutions are used to respond to the symptoms of larger problems, of the things we’re not talking about, rather than the root causes of them.

Image credit: Wall-e output in response to the prompt “a magic bullet in the style of salvador dali”

A pan-Canadian certification program for higher education instructors?

By George Veletsianos

On January 12, 2023

In courses, future education, online learning

Tony Bates wrote his five wishes for online learning in 2023, along with reasons why he’s somewhat pessimistic about them being fulfilled. I wanted to spend a few minutes here discussing alternatives to Tony’s second wish: “A national certification program for higher education instructors.” If this wish has a “5% odds of happening” (and I agree with Tony here), what kinds of alternatives might have greater chances of success?

Provincial responsibility for higher education means that (at present) this is the kind of wish that is dead in the water. Some alternatives that might go towards addressing the problems of teaching competence might be the following:

Provincial certification programs for higher education instructors. The BC government has developed a digital learning strategy, which includes a variety of steps, resources, actions, recommendations, and tools to support and expand the effective and equitable use of digital learning in the province. With a strategy in place, developing a provincial certification program makes good sense. Some of the challenges that Tony identifies a federal program facing will still be present in the provincial context (e.g., research-teaching hierarchies, cost, academic freedom issues), but the odds of this are greater than 5%. My guesstimate? 10%. Still poor. And smaller-scale. On the other hand, a provincial program, say in BC, might become a proof of concept for other provinces, especially, if it is openly licensed, is cross-disciplinary, and is flexible enough in its design and assessment.
Institutional and cross-institutional certification programs, such as BCIT’s Polytechnic Academy proposal, which I understand to be similar to the work that Centers of Teaching and Learning at multiple institutions do, such as, for example, the Facilitating Learning Online (FLO) offerings, that are offered by a number of institutions/organizations in the province. There’s a slew of benefits that can come from multi-institutional collaboration on such efforts, like Tony describes. I’m more optimistic on this, especially because there was quite a lot of collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic that might provide the impetus and support for this, and also because I see collaborative-minded institutions coming together for other initiatives (like the new campus that four island institutions are opening in the Westshore).
Institutional certification programs for future faculty. This is close to my heart. Preparing current doctoral students for online/hybrid teaching – and preparing them for teaching in general – is necessary (which, I might add, also prepares them with skills that are relevant outside of the academy, like leading teams in collaborative groupwork). There’s other challenges here to be sure (such as academic departments agreeing that this is topic that is significant enough to warrant a course/certificate/microcredential/something), but this might be an area where the office/school/college of graduate studies plays a pivotal role. Another challenge: this kind of initiative addresses the current problem, but in the future, while remaining unresponsive to the status quo. It’s not a solution, but it’s part of a package for a solution.

If you would like to add more to this, the comments are open!

Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education & collaborating with Suzan and Chris

By George Veletsianos

On November 29, 2022

In my research, online learning

Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education will be published in January 2023. Suzan Köseoğlu, Chris Rowell, and I started working on this open access book <checks notes> around October 2019. It’s an edited volume that includes research and scholarship from many wonderful colleagues from around the world who have stuck with us and entrusted us with the process of trying to publish a book during a pandemic. I’ll be posting about each chapter in January, but here I wanted to share a note of appreciation for my co-editors.

It takes some perseverance to publish a book. But it takes a special of dedication and patience to edit and publish a book consisting of thirteen chapters written by more than 20 colleagues, while in a pandemic, while navigating life, while switching institutions, like both Suzan and Chris did.

Suzan is sharp, thoughtful, supportive, and approaches this work with the critical mindset it deserves. She read through every single manuscript (and countless submissions that did not end up being included in the final version of the book) with an eye to detail and in consideration of the broader work that is being done in the area.

Chris is equally sharp and reliable. He approaches this work with a keen understanding of practice, and that lens adds volumes to this work. He is equally dedicated to critical pedagogy, as well as to mobilizing knowledge in diverse ways (including through a podcast he’s been experimenting with for the book).

While working with them I appreciated their kindness and dedication. I knew I could rely on them, and I know that this work is better because of them.

Editing a book is a lot of hard work, and I don’t know of any academics who do it for the money, because frankly, there’s very little of it in scholarly publishing. Perhaps you might consider inviting Suzan or Chris to speak at your next event?