Many governments, education authorities, university leaders and online learning proponents rejoiced in the pandemic compelled switch to online. The slow conversion to online learning suddenly turned into a torrent. It was as if suddenly higher education finally found the road to glorious lower cost, higher penetration, more access and more personalised education! The excitement was palpable and the euphoria was unmistakable, at least among some.
The truth is that within regulators, HE and QA circles there was deep anxiety about continuity and quality. Webinar moderators usually sneak in this question onto their guest speakers. It is a question on everyone's mind. Students, parents, regulators, educators and quality assurance bodies frequently ask these questions and/or keep hearing assurance that it is under control. Really? I was surprised to hear the Indonesian Education Minister speaking on the sidelines of the Singapore Summit in late last year openly admitted that quality of education has undoubtedly suffered as result of the lock down. The students facing the disruption are also called the Covid Cohort - signifying highly challenged provision.
The planned and promised in-person delivery pivoted to the online. Staff, educators and students were provided a fast tracked module on online teaching and learning. Students whether in campus or at home had to switch to online. It was not pretty. There was inconsistent and often with confusing messaging from the university and authorities. There were plenty of issues with systems, educator inexperience and lack of engagement and peer socialisation. Many student services were not ready or optimised for online. Then there was the digital inequality in developing countries. Getting connected to the class was a challenge to many students in rural and remote locations. We have heard of dramatic stories of students walking miles or climbing up a tree to get better signal. Many universities and governments tried to ameliorate these inequities by providing free data plans and also going back to the airwaves to reach all. This reduced costs but could not expand network to under-served areas.
With all these challenges quality has not suffered? Providers had to face reality. As the Indonesian Minister said, continuity and not quality was the main and immediate concern. Providers were advised and cautioned by the regulators and QA bodies to keep the promised or intended learning outcomes in focus. Facilities, equipment and labs were not easily accessible to online learners. Assessment was a big challenge institutions with high stakes proctored final examination. Some tried replicating the in-person examination, virtually but faced many teething problems. Others just opted for more doable alternatives like assignments or take home exams. Some reports observed that plagiarism was rampant.
The no detriment policy adopted in many countries was an attempt to protect students from their inability to demonstrate learning through conventional means. This attenuation for the pandemic admits to the failure to provide the same learning experience. In UK, the Ofs ruled that students may be entitled to some refund on their fees due to the inability of the institutions to provide the promised learning experience because of the disruption. In all these there is a tacit recognition of the diminished quality. Hence, the amelioration.
It would be hard to say with a straight face that quality did not suffer. How much may be the real issue? But there is one silvering lining to this dark cloud of disruption - students were by necessity exposed to new digital skills (digital literacy), they had to adapt to new learning environment (Adaptability), they had to deal with lots of uncertainty (resilience) and they had really appreciated the value of working with others from afar (teamwork). Its not all doom and gloom for the Covid19 cohort. The pandemic has taught them some highly valued lessons which employers truly appreciate. Go put it down in your resumes!
Comments