Adapting to Remote Learning in Higher
Education
Universities and colleges were once buzzing cultural hubs
of research, teaching and learning. This unique ecosystem was impacted significantly
by Covid, forcing higher education providers to pivot online, at least for the
time being.
Tough decisions included cancelling in-person classes, providing
‘on-the-fly’ training for online delivery and learning, all while alleviating
fears and reassuring stakeholders.
These accelerated changes within higher education mean
Covid is considered a "black swan" transition catalyst. For years,
higher education has retained a mostly traditional format through brick-and-mortar
infrastructure and face-to-face delivery. The challenge then is to identify how to
continue delivering high-quality education.
How do we reassure faculty about the channels of teaching,
and students' about the quality outcomes from remote learning?
Higher education providers need to explore solutions for
a smoother learning environment, while thinking of ways to overcome their
current circumstances. The pandemic has opened a gateway for students and
educators to further experiment with different methods when it comes to
learning and teaching.
The following article by Dara Melnyk (University World
News) explores three (3) themes of experimentation in global higher education.
First, the forced and hasty pivot to online; second, institutional survival
strategies for 2020 and beyond; and third, higher education’s blind spot. The
real problem though, experimentation at universities lacks reflection and
control.
Experimentation in Higher Education Must Become
the Norm
Not all universities will survive the COVID-19 crisis.
Many niche institutions will alter their models to stay afloat. Other
vulnerable higher education institutions without effective safety nets may
downsize, consider mergers or declare bankruptcy. New institutions with new
solutions will come to replace them.
We have seen something similar before. In the 1960s and
1970s, the wave of experimental higher education institutions offered new
models and practices, which mainstream higher education could not ignore. This
is how problem- and project-based learning, student-centred education and
individualisation became the norm. Now, universities have come to the point
when they cannot but innovate. To succeed without betraying their values, they
need new solutions.
In global higher education, we can now see three
conversations. The most popular and the most obvious one is the forced and
hasty pivot to online. The second concerns institutional survival strategies
for the autumn and beyond. And then there are the sleeping dogs: old problems
we knew we had but could get away with ignoring. Well, the dogs are wide awake
now.
Rethinking
University Models
The central and established institutions might seem
immobile and inert – a luxury, we assume, sponsored by vast reputational and
financial resources. However, a careful historical analysis shows that the
Cambridges and Lunds out there are anything but static. They have reinvented
themselves many times over.
Central higher education institutions need transformation
to stay in the game. The peripherals cannot enter the game without it. New
ideas can shine brighter when they come from unexpected places.
To maintain the uninterrupted flow of teaching and
research, universities usually try to be as stable and tranquil as possible.
All new approaches, both intellectual and organisational, can cause conflict.
What the current chaos has granted us is a window of opportunity to turn
conflict into a lasting change.
But how can universities walk the line between stability
and innovation? This is where experimentation kicks in. Test-runs save
resources in the long run and are the safest course of action from a tactical
point of view. They also allow for more imagination because if you start small,
you can be bolder.
Experimentation sits between ignorance and knowledge: an
experimenter has an idea of what the outcome will be, but is never certain
until the experiment is over. Yet, they have to proceed if they want to solve
the problems they are facing.
Domains of
Experimentation
Universities are among the most economically sustainable
organisations and even so, they have still taken large hits. Experimentation
with management and financial models could put scenario planning, safety nets
and emergency protocols into long-term institutional strategies.
Universities have multiple stakeholders with diverse and
sometimes conflicting interests. This is why redesigning decision-making
processes may allow them to balance the plurality of arguments and the brute
necessity to make strong decisions before it is too late.
University faculty have historically enjoyed an elevated
professional status. Normally, they perceive their work as less of ‘a job’ and
more of ‘a calling’. This, and academic freedom, make up the basis of HR in
higher education. At the same time, taxpayers expect accountability and a clear
impact for the research they are funding. We need considered thinking about
research funding, employment models and public outreach.
Teaching and learning have the highest number of
stakeholders: national states, local communities and families, industries and,
of course, students, faculty and other university professionals.
Experimentation can affect content, methodologies, evaluation of learning,
formats of delivery, learning environments and more.
Given the many parties involved, educational experiments
can also easily backfire. Is there a way to mitigate the risks? Only up to a
point.
The Blind Spots of Higher Education
Higher learning is experimental in at least four aspects.
First, when students sign up for an educational programme, they never fully
understand the consequences of their choice. Paradoxically, one has to actually
complete the programme to fully assess its impact. Students are not customers
buying a simple service which they know they need. So, as a student, you are
constantly experimented upon – without giving informed consent, so to speak.
Second, educators have no clear solutions to anything.
The context matters too much for any one solution to be universally superior.
Lectures are often declared obsolete and yet, done well, they can provide
unrivalled learning experiences. Groupwork is said to be beneficial, but to
what degree should we push students to collaborate?
The three- or four-year bachelor degree has been called
out as inefficient, but can anything really compare? Problem-based learning is
viewed as a perfect methodology – but only by roughly half of educational
experts.
Third, there is no holistic evaluation of the results of
higher learning. We measure one dimension by disregarding the others, be it
residual knowledge, employability or student satisfaction. We can make
connections between a teaching intervention and student performance within a
specific course, but we cannot do the same for the outcome of the whole student
journey.
Finally, these blind spots – we teach without informed
consent, are fundamentally unsure about the advantages of the techniques we
use, and have no methods for holistically evaluating learning outcomes – are
not considered problematic. Higher education moves along as a series of
large-scale experiments, which involve millions of students, faculty and
administrators.
The real problem is that, in most cases, experimentation
at universities lacks reflection and controls. What we need is a more
thoughtful and careful approach, as well as a more conscientious experimental
mindset.
Experimental Mindset
A proper educational experiment should have a clear
hypothesis, grounded in data and theory. Theory can guide you to go beyond the
conventional and give you the tools to break the rules. Experimentation invites
rule breaking, at least as a possibility.
Of course, breaking the rules is justified only if you
understand them.
There are too many visionaries who declare the end of
disciplinary learning without considering the role of academic disciplines, who
destroy university hierarchies without offering a functional alternative and
who otherwise disrupt traditional formats for the sake of disruption itself.
What we need is an honest, sympathetic and paced dialogue
between conservative principles and new ideas. We need this dialogue within
universities as much as between them.
Some experiments, if not most, will fail. But some will
succeed. We need special ‘laboratories’, which design and test new models, like
EDLAB at Maastricht University or University Innovation at Stanford’s School.
And we need them all around the world.
Historically,
the West and the North have had a monopoly on producing this kind of higher education
innovation. Now, organised experimentation in central and peripheral
universities must become the norm. After all, mutation is how we evolve.
Sources: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200624152437652
No comments:
Post a Comment