- Part I: Beyond the AI Efficiency Trap
- Part II: All Modalities Are Not Created Equal
- Part III: Orientation: More than a Campus Map
CHLOE10 REPORT RESPONSE (Part two of a three-part series)
To continue our series commenting on the tenth installment of the Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE10), Phil Autrey, Regina Law, Kevin Phang, and Lauren Dukes, EdD, discussed modality selection and whether it is being driven by learning or student demand.
Students and faculty have higher expectations for their university experiences than ever before. Between the advancements in technology and cultural shifts towards diversity and flexibility, institutions are struggling to keep up with the rate of change demanded. In the article, “The Agile Academy: Embracing Dynamic Learning in Higher Education,” Noodle CEO, John Katzman points out that, “Instead of focusing on technology as the end-all, be-all solution to every problem, university leaders must embrace an agile mindset that centers operations around the needs of their students and use technology to support their goals and overcome their obstacles.” This sense of institutional “agility” is critical to providing the optimal mix of flexibility and pedagogical rigor in course design.
Modality by Design? Or Demand?
The pressure to meet the surging demand for digital instruction is unprecedented, but are these modalities always the right fit? We already acknowledge that there are some skills and knowledge that are better gained through direct personal contact and hands-on activities. We sometimes call them “labs.” But beyond traditional laboratory settings, are institutions choosing instructional modalities because their formats are most appropriate for the subject matter and desired outcomes? Or, are they driven more by the pressure to grow online offerings? Our team found the answer to be quite complex, with learner demand and institutional constraints needing to work with pedagogical fit to deliver the unique university experience across any modality.
Student expectations around online, hybrid, evening/night, and on-demand options are at an all-time high, fueled by lifelong learners and traditional undergraduates whose schedules and other responsibilities increasingly dictate a need for flexible enrollment options. Institutions are expanding online offerings “because students want it”, sometimes at the expense of how material is best delivered. Regina Law sums it up: “We’re finally realizing online is here to stay, but it’s almost begrudgingly, like ‘we’re going to have to grow online because students want it’ versus ‘here’s a huge opportunity for us to reach new students and teach more effectively’.”
As traditional and non-traditional learners swell the ranks of online courses, campuses face critical choices about how to ensure flexible access without losing pedagogical alignment. Thankfully, as Regina Law points out, “We believe that there is a path forward where you can have both the agile campus students need while maintaining the academic pedagogy/rigor you want.”
Issues and Challenges
- Learner demand—direct or indirect—remains the top driver – CHLOE10 reports a substantial jump in the weight given to student demand: “While increasing enrollment remains the top driver … existing student demand has become more influential, rising from 54% to 65%, suggesting institutions are becoming more responsive to learner preferences.”
- Faculty preference impacts the viability of a program going online
- Findings from CHLOE10 suggest that, “despite increasing strategic and market pressures, academic units still shape the direction of online program development at most institutions. This influence highlights faculty autonomy and the need to align academic and institutional goals.”
- A COLO quote from CHLOE10: “Part of the faculty contract says they get to choose the modality they teach at, and no admins have been able to change that at any negotiations. This means that a single faculty member in a department can stop a program from going online if they don’t want to teach online and are required for that program to be online.”
- Phil Autrey adds, “The best way to teach has not always been at the center of the conversation, especially in higher ed. I’m going to deliver in the mode that I am most comfortable with.”
- One size does not fit all – As Regina Law points out, “nursing students, students that have very hands-on kind of practical approaches to their programming requirements would prefer in-person versus programs that maybe are more text-based or lecture-based would want the flexibility of online.”
Moving Forward
The growth of online learning represents a landmark step in expanding educational equity. Providing access to students who otherwise would be left behind is enormously valuable to those learners, industry, and society as a whole. That said, the traditional model of online courses—watching lectures and responding to discussion boards—is something universities should revisit as the model for online learning. As leaders of higher education, it falls on us to be “the experts” on learning, and as such, institutions should be deliberate and strategic in determining the appropriate modality for optimizing student outcomes:
- Institutionalize regular reassessment – Conduct regular systematic reviews of course material and student demographics to guide setting or expanding modality.
- Embrace data-driven, student-centered policies – Actively collect data on alignment between modalities and optimal student outcomes to guide course development.
- Equip faculty to make informed decisions/recommendations – Invest in ongoing faculty training so they can make fully-informed decisions about modality selection, thereby supporting innovation and learning, not just compliance or convenience.
- Do not sacrifice quality for accessibility – Accept that digital expansion can support enrollment goals, but set non-negotiable benchmarks for engagement, support, updates, and hands-on learning.
- Embrace hybrid and interdisciplinary solutions – John Katzman points out that, “Agile universities understand the procedural inefficiencies and experiential obstacles of [keeping online and campus-based programs siloed] and instead look to combine these two programs as much as possible to create a space that their students and faculty can seamlessly enjoy and take ownership of.”
Conclusion: From Demand to Design
The expansion of online and hybrid learning is being propelled largely by student demand and competitive pressure (aka, meeting enrollment goals), but universities should see this as an opportunity to create more equitable access to their unique pedagogy. Online and hybrid learning provides institutions a way to enhance the quality of experience by supplementing traditional learning and building new entry points into university systems.
Shifting modalities by design and combining flexibility with purpose helps to deliver the optimal learning experience. This requires continuous assessment of how/where alignment between content, learner, and context can be improved. The challenge and the opportunity is to make sure that learning—not just logistics or demand—is at the center of every modality decision.
Reimagining modality starts with asking the right questions—about purpose, pedagogy, and the learner experience you want to create.
Let’s Talk
