Modality as strategy

While of course online schools have long used distance learning to reach large and perhaps otherwise untapped student populations, we might consider how modality could help strategically build academic programs on a more granular level in traditional institutions.

The almost complete pandemic-induced shift to online and hybrid classes has meant that programs have a broader modality range when offering courses, and modality can certainly be a more prominent factor in strategic approaches to program development.

All venues that cover higher ed are discussing the impending enrollment "cliff," a significant drop in traditionally aged students that is projected to start in about 2025 (1). But I think many have submitted to a hyper-focused hand-wringing about these students while forgetting about the vast populations of other people who would be extremely well served by a college education. 

In developing courses of study, we consider what kinds of courses we offer, when we offer them, and who teaches them. Considering modality can be part of fine-tuning ways we grow and develop our programs. Of course, we also do consider where students are and many places offer distance courses for this reason, but online includes not just meeting needs of the distance learner who cannot come to campus.

Remember, while not all faculty may be in a hurry to return to online teaching, almost all faculty indeed are trained veterans in online and hybrid teaching, and we can adjust our scheduling to account for their talents as well as our students' needs. In conjunction with this, students are now experienced at studenting in different modalities. I know, some of it has been a real struggle, but students have online and hybrid experience we can build from--and non-traditional students have developed similar skills and experiences in their increasingly virtual work lives.

This kind of thinking has obvious implications when, for instance, trying to meet large populations like adult learners who may have full-time commitments but want to further their education.

But modality can shape more nuanced enrollment strategies. If you are growing a new program and hoping it can serve as a double or dual major, time flexibility may open that door for many students. The same goes for minors. In either case, scheduling issues can be an obstacle, especially on small campuses where course offering cycles can be tight and inflexible.

The flexibility of synchronous remote learning is one component. Course availability really opens up when we have asynchronous courses that remove time constraints.

Conversations about flexible scheduling often centers on students, but faculty can get the same benefits. Pushing classes into evening hours, at least on the campuses I have worked, is usually not popular. But offering courses that require no evening travel because they are remote synchronous or don't have evening hours at all because they're asynchronous can accommodate faculty.

We account for numerous factors when designing courses of study, but modality may not be prominent enough. We can use modality as part of strategic approaches to building curricula--and broaden our vision of the audiences we wish to serve.

Note:

1) For example, see the CHE's "Will Your College Survive the Demographic Cliff?" or Capture Higher Ed's "How to Climb Higher Ed's Impending Demographic Cliff."

What do they really want?

In my new position as Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, I have a renewed perspective on issues facing a university.

Our past two year's experiences with COVID-induced remote learning raised many questions, to put it mildly. A primary question we faced was what people really want from education, divided into stakeholders: What did students want? What did parents want? What did teachers want?

Seeking answers often led to difficult conversations, because, although this should be obvious, none of these groups had monolithic views of educational delivery and modality. Hearing the news, you might want to have a knee-jerk opinion and say, "Parents want their kids back in school" or "Students want to return face-to-face" or "Teachers don't want to go back into the classroom."

In truth, we saw wide variations within these populations. No question, our administration heard from parents who feel the price paid for college includes an in-person experience, even if these were "squeaky wheels" (at times it felt that every unhappy parent seemed to know our provost if not our president, and would they go right to the top with complaints). Yet other parents didn't want their students on the ground, in classrooms, dorms, and other shared spaces, while any remnants of the pandemic existed.

As I learned last fall in my own course, when we finally returned face-to-face, many students were exuberant about being back together in person. But some students have been among the most mask-conscious people I know and have been articulate about their own health concerns. Also, while some students loudly objected to they what they viewed as the lesser experience of online learning, some students loved the flexibility online and remote learning offered.

Many teachers were wary of returning to classrooms, especially being compelled to do so, but others were tired of teaching through masks and longed for the face-to-face experience that had drawn them to teaching in the first place. In terms of technology, while, sure, some instructors bumbled around in Zoom, many have learned, in ways that often surprised themselves, the advantages of remote, online, and hybrids, especially the "chrono-hybrids" I discussed previously.

COVID-19 is ongoing and will continue to present modality-based challenges. I do think we got a lot right. For instance, tough as it was, through the year we have tried to reduce the number of modality shifts after courses were listed on our term master schedule (TMS). Students are often surprisingly accommodating about these changes, but I think it is reasonable that the modality listed on the TMS should provide some level of assurance as to how a given class will be offered.

Simply, we can offer education in more ways now, so we shouldn't be surprised when it's more difficult to determine what people want. Students and faculty both realize that the old ways of teaching and studenting can yield to improved approaches. It's worth noting that I think that we have not done a great job communicating these things clearly to parents.

Education is multi-faceted and complex. Giving people what they proclaim to "want" isn't always the best solution. Part of the contract of education, one that makes it unusual, especially higher education, is that you pay someone to teach you content and in ways that challenge you. You cede to their expertise in ways that are supposed to help you be a more fulfilled person.

In general, for all demographics, we have to be clearer about articulating what it is we are doing and why, so that when our actions are not aligned with peoples' "wants," we can explain that course of action. Will this make everyone happy? Of course not! But it will help resist one overarching problem: When people feel decision-making is happening in a black box.