Conclusion

Leading, Not Following, the Reform in Canadian Higher Education

Jennifer Lock and Michael Power

Charles Darwin is remembered for the many powerful concepts that he introduced to the scientific community, foremost among which was the evolutionary link between adaptation and survival. This book has been about how Canadian institutions of higher education have constantly been adapting to the ever-changing social environment, blending in as it were, negotiating with new stakeholders, new needs, new pressures, and, over the past century, doing so by leveraging educational technology. Intelligently integrating online and blended learning models into course delivery and modulating the use of text and voice in new and creative ways mark a departure from earlier models of distance education as deployed by single-mode, distance education universities. Appropriation and integration of new learning technologies (e.g., online collaborative apps, social media, virtual reality, and artificial intelligence) are redefining how contemporary universities are positioning themselves both locally, in regard to their traditional student populations, and nationally, in regard to their sister institutions. Technology appears to be fostering a sense of academic pan-Canadianism that is already a fait accompli in terms of research pursuits but only just starting to assume a tangible form in terms of pooling university teaching and potential interinstitutional expertise. Understanding the potential of integrating current and emerging technologies and assuming the structural limits of their institutions, universities are forging new models of online and blended course delivery that might well herald a new generation of technology-enhanced voice and text components in course design, development, and delivery.

The Changing Landscape

Higher education is challenged in providing greater flexibility in and access to learning for students throughout their lives. This is a catalyst transforming the higher education landscape from traditional face-to-face learning to blended and online learning. Bates (2015) described the “continuum of technology-based learning” (p. 366) that at one end is face-to-face learning with no technology and at the other is “fully online learning with no classroom or on-campus teaching, which is one form of distance education” (p. 365). In between is what Bates refers to as blended learning, which includes various forms (e.g., flipped classrooms, where activities occur during class time and learning of content learning occurs outside of the class time and percentages of learning time both on campus and online). As instructional designers and faculty members continue to design and facilitate learning across Bates’s continuum, it provides a rich and innovative learning landscape.

There has been a change in the perception of online learning “in its favor as more learners and educators see it as a viable alternative to some forms of face-to-face learning” (Adams Becker et al., 2017, p. 18). There continues to be a demand for anytime, anywhere learning not bound to being on a campus or in a classroom at regular intervals. Current trends show that more institutions of higher education are increasing their online course offerings (Allen & Seaman, with Poulin & Straut, 2016; Donovan et al.,2019). As noted by Bates (2017), in Canada there is a “strong annual growth rate in online environments and most institutions playing an active role in offering online and hybrid learning” (p. 2). For example, online learning has continued to grow over the past five years, with “approximately 10% per annum in universities and 15% in colleges outside Québec” (p. 17). In Québec, Université Laval leads the way with over 100 programs and 1,000 courses offered online. Furthermore, “blended learning is on the rise at colleges and universities as the number of digital learning platforms and ways to leverage them for educational purposes continues to expand” (Adams Becker et al., 2017, p. 18).

The current demand, along with the evolution of digital communication technologies, is changing where, how, and why students, faculty members, and administrators engage with blended and online learning approaches. In an interview about the future of education, Lock commented, “I think the campus of the future won’t be bound by time, physical space or geography. . . . We’ll be able to work and study around the world, with anyone around the world, without leaving home” (Berenyl & Moore, 2017, p. 38). With such advances, never before have institutions of higher education been able to reach a larger audience through synchronous and asynchronous communication, paced, non-paced, and through MOOC-based resources collected from the best and brightest minds in the world.

Learning from the Canadian Context

From the work shared by the authors of this book, it is evident that there is an ever-expanding pedagogical landscape within technology-enabled learning environments. This book is a testament to the nature of adaptation occurring in relation to teaching and learning in online and blended environments. In addition, it provides specific examples of the advances of such work as well as the research unearthed through various challenges and tensions influencing the evolution and sustainability of university outreach.

Da Rosa dos Santos (2017), in a study focused on developing online teaching capacities of instructors, described the need for “synergetic relationships between online instructors, academic leaders, and educational developers for the development of online teaching capacity-building processes and practices that create the conditions for meaningful student learning” (p. ii). The concept of a synergetic relationship is paramount in terms of the multiple stakeholders who need to be involved in creating the “blend” in terms of voice and text with the design, development, and facilitation of blended and online graduate education programs. Examples from current research are shown in this pan-Canadian collection of current practices informing the evolution and institutional strategy for blended and online learning.

In the first chapter, Power provided a global overview of how universities have tried to increase their outreach capacities through various technologically enhanced blends of voice and text. As he laid out this generational landscape, he demonstrated not only the changes that have occurred in the technology but also how pedagogical practice has evolved. Faculty members have never been bound by the use of one approach or technology, nor should they be. Rather, they must be able to choose from an array of digital technologies to support their pedagogical goals as they create learning environments for students throughout their lives. Across this overview, the evolution of technological engineering is apparent, but so are its inherent challenges, which affect the nature of voice- and text-based learning within blended and online environments.

In Chapters 2 through 5, the authors examined some of the current work affecting the rigour, success, and sustainability of online and blended learning. Through their research, they shared findings from the perspectives of students, instructors, instructional designers, and administrators. Working from the perspective of an administrator in a university setting, Wilson described the practice of mentoring faculty often reluctant to try new pedagogical approaches and technologies. While encouraging them to be risk takers in their practice, senior leaders also need to take risks in supporting innovation and advocating support for resources devoted to design, development, and delivery of blended and online learning using text- and voice-based approaches. Lock and collaborators reported on the development of an online orientation program for students. This program was developed to support students as they begin their online learning journeys. In their self-study, Costello and colleagues showcased the experiences and reflections of instructional designers who worked with content authors in the purposeful design and effective integration of media and technology in teaching and learning. Furthermore, Kraglund-Gauthier reported on participatory action research involving instructional designers and faculty members in terms of the change in teaching practice and pedagogical thinking. These authors demonstrated how changes are being made in terms of fostering teaching practice and student learning in support of blended and online learning. There is a pedagogical commitment to the teaching and learning experiences within these technology-enabled learning environments.

In Chapters 6 to 9, the authors reported on how faculty members and students are engaging in new ways of teaching and learning using voice- and text-based technologies. Lakhal reported on a study examining current practice using a mixed course delivery system (face-to-face and a web conferencing app for students at a distance) and the benefits and challenges experienced by both students and faculty members. Snow’s chapter, on the concept of open, provided insight into the complexities of developing a sustainable institutional strategy for open education where resources are scarce. As institutions of higher education embrace the potential and value of open education, it comes with its own set of challenges. Taylor and colleagues shared findings from a study of current practices of faculty members and students using a blended learning approach. Parchoma and collaborators reported on instructors who design learning in which learners are co-creators of knowledge and learning is represented in text, graphics, and/or video. Access to and use of the technology provide opportunities to learn within a community, yet community members are rarely in the same location. They explore synchronous and asynchronous communication to create interactive and engaging learning environments.

These nine chapters demonstrate the complexity of current work in designing, implementing, and facilitating learning using blended and/or online approaches. This work is not without challenges. Faculty members working in these environments might need to alter and/or refine their theoretical approaches to learning for blended and online contexts. They might need to learn new technologies and take risks in designing innovative practices for voice- and text-based learning environments. They might need to commit more time and resources than they would initially like in developing their confidence and competence in designing and developing courses and facilitating robust learning in blended and online environments.

The authors of this book provide snapshots of current online and blended learning approaches used in eight Canadian universities. The examples shared in the chapters indicate the nature of the research conducted on and informing current practice. Evidence-informed practice is grounding the how and why of this work in relation to instructional design, pedagogical practice, integration of educational technology, and educational development. It is evident from the chapters that various stakeholder groups are working together to increase access to higher education, foster greater flexibility in course and/or program delivery, and enhance quality teaching and learning experiences. As the work of blended and online learning moves forward, it will be critical to maintain robust research agendas and regular reporting to ensure evidence-informed practice and decision making. Parallel is the ongoing inquiry fuelling continual and extended research that will be used to inform practice. We hope that what we have learned through historical and contemporary studies will inform the next steps of the evolution of blended and online learning both in Canada and abroad.

References

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.unmc.edu/elearning/_documents/NMC_HorizonReport_2017.pdf

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J., with Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver, BC: Tony Bates Associates.

Bates, T. (Ed.) (2017). Tracking online and distance education in Canadian universities and colleges: 2017. National Survey of Online and Distance Education in Canadian Post-Secondary Education. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca/

Berenyl, V., & Moore, J. (2017). What might the future hold for education? The macro view: University education at large. UCalgary Alumni Magazine, 38. Retrieved from https://alumni.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/2018-08/2017%20Spring-Summer.pdf

da Rosa dos Santos, L. (2017). The relationship between instructors, academic leaders, and educational developers in the development of online teaching capacity. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

Donovan, T., Bates, T., Seaman J., Mayer D., Martel, E., . . . . Poulin, R. (2019). Tracking online and distance education in Canadian universities and colleges: 2018. Canadian National Survey of Online and Distance Education. Canadian Digital Learning Research Association. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca/publications-2018/