How to Use MOOCs with Traditional Education

By Lisha Ye, Brock University

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are innovative approaches for distance learning in higher education and proliferated during the past decade universally. Research shows that MOOCs are especially beneficial for degree holders with employment, or more broadly, for mature students (Bayeck, 2016). However, MOOCs gained extensive attention from post-secondary students and institutions worldwide due to the recent COVID-19 outbreak, which made online learning more widespread and recognized (Dhawan, 2020). Most of the previous research has focused on the differences between MOOCs and traditional education. Several attempts have been made to implement MOOCs to formal higher educations to explore more learning options for students (Albelbisi & Yusop, 2020; Bralic & Divjak, 2018; Dhawan, 2020; Littenberg-Tobias & Reich, 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Wang & Zhu, 2019). By analyzing and examining the effects of MOOCs in current higher education, I hope to provide solutions and implications for better using MOOCs with traditional learning methods in the future.

Features of MOOCs

There are several attractive aspects of MOOCs. Firstly, MOOCs are easily accessible and flexible to students, preventing them from the effects of geographic restrictions or time unavailability (Dhawan, 2020). Secondly, MOOCs are open economically and academically with low or no cost and no pre-requirements for taking courses, which is different from traditional online courses (Belleflamme & Jacqmin, 2016; Pursel et al., 2016). However, not all arguments about MOOCs are positive. Instructors are questioning whether MOOCs can provide the same quality of learning as conventional brick-and-mortar classroom learning (Zhu et al., 2018). Moreover, learning in MOOCs requires strong self-regulation skills and voluntary personal engagements, potentially resulting in a high dropout rate with an average of 90% (Vitiello et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2018;). Besides, the relationships between MOOCs and faculty educators’ underemployment, including professors, are controversial. According to Kim, 58 million learners have signed up for MOOCs in 2016, potentially resulting in displacing professors in nondegree programs (Kim, 2017).

Use of MOOCs in Traditional Higher Education

Before the sudden outbreak of COVID-19 forced instructors to shift to fully online teaching, an increasing number of instructors have been integrating MOOCs in traditional higher education courses with a blended learning model (Dhawan, 2020). Wang and Zhu (2019) found that students can gain a deeper understanding and consolidation of knowledge by studying in a MOOC-based flipped learning environment. Accordingly, students’ academic performance is improved (Wang & Zhu, 2019). UK lecturers also indicated several positive effects of adopting MOOCs into teaching, including students absorbing global perspectives in academia and acquiring transferable skills regarding technology (De Lima Guedes, 2020). Research also shows that students tend to have positive learning experiences with MOOCs’ implementation in learning (Bralic & Divjak, 2018). In addition, incorporating MOOCs with traditional on-campus learning offers more opportunities and diversifies the pool of students, which potentially expands students’ access to higher education (Littenberg-Tobias & Reich, 2020).

Although many positive effects were indicated by integrating MOOCs, there are also several challenges. First, MOOCs requires instructors to pay particular attention to the course design to meet the needs of students and maximize the learning efficiency (Wang & Zhu, 2019). Second, students are rarely self-motivated in learning or voluntarily completing online tasks, which hinders them from succeeding in MOOCs. Furthermore, language barriers are the main issues for students, especially in non-English speaking countries. A great majority of MOOCs are in English, which adds a potential language requirement to students that good command of English is foundational for completing MOOCs (Bralic & Divjak, 2018). Lastly, extra cyber structure support is required by students, exacerbating the pressure on technical teams in post-secondary institutions (Albelbisi & Yusop, 2020).

Possible Solutions to Better Integrate MOOCs into Traditional Higher Education

There are two suggestions for instructors when designing MOOCs-based courses. Additional resources such as problem-solving exercises with detailed feedback are necessary to complement the MOOCs (Bralic & Divjak, 2018; Wang & Zhu, 2019). Second, it is essential to estimate students’ workload in advance to prevent them from being overloaded, especially with first-time MOOCs learners and students who suffer from language barriers (Bralic & Divjak, 2018). In addition, for the purpose of advancing MOOCs into a conventional classroom learning environment, institutions should provide more support to both students and instructors and increase investments in innovative information technology.

If we can apply a more pedagogically driven MOOCs to higher education, especially amid COVID-19, more opportunities for learners will be created. 

References

Albelbisi, N., A., & Yusop, F., D. (2020). Systematic review of a nationwide MOOC initiative in Malaysian higher education system. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(4), 288-299. 10.34190/EJEL.20.18.4.002

Belleflamme, P., & Jacqmin, J. (2016). An economic appraisal of MOOC platforms: Business models and impacts on higher education. CESifo Economic Studies, 62(1), 148-169. https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifv016

Bralic, A., & Divjak, B. (2018). Integrating MOOCs in traditionally taught courses: achieving learning outcomes with blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0085-7

De Lima Guedes, K. (2020). Integrating MOOCs into traditional UK higher education: lessons learnt from MOOC-blended practitioners. In K. Borthwick & A. Plutino (Eds), Education 4.0 revolution: transformative approaches to language teaching and learning, assessment and campus design (pp. 29-36). Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2020.42.1084 

Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018

Kim, J. (2017, May 16). Why haven’t MOOCs eliminated any professors? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/why-havent-moocs-eliminated-any-professors

Liu, M., Zha, S., & He, W. (2019). Digital transformation challenges: A case study regarding the MOOC development and operations at higher education institutions in China. TechTrends, 63, 621-630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00409-y

Littenberg-Tobias, J., & Reich, J. (2020). Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: a case study of a MOOC-based blended professional degree program. The Internet and Higher Education, 47, 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100759

Pursel, B., K., Zhang, L., Jablokow, K., W., Choi, G., W., & Velegol, D. (2016). Understanding MOOC students: motivations and behaviours indicative of MOOC completion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 202-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12131

Vitiello, M., Walk, S., Chang, V., Hernandez, R., Helic, D., & Guetl, C. (2017). MOOC dropouts: A multi-system classifer. In: É. Lavoué, H. Drachsler, K. Verbert, J. Broisin, M. Pérez-Sanagustín (Eds), Data driven approaches in digital education (pp. 300-314). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_22

Wang, K., & Zhu, C. (2019). MOOC-based flipped learning in higher education: students’ participation, experience and learning performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(33). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0163-0

Zhu, M., Bonk, C.J., & Sari, A.R. (2018). Instructor experiences designing MOOCs in higher education: Pedagogical, resource, and logistical considerations and challenges. Online Learning, 22(4), 203-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1495

Using Formative Assessment as a Means to Enhance Student Success in Higher Education

By Aynsley Maves, Brock University

When considering assessment in higher education, it is likely that many envision large gymnasiums, wherein students sit to write final exams. These types of assessments are commonly used in higher education for the purposes of determining what an individual has learned throughout their time in a course and can be referred to as summative assessments (Klenowski, 2009). Although this type of assessment is arguably the most frequently employed method of assessment in higher education (Yorke, 2003), it should not be the only method of assessment that is used. This blog post will introduce readers to another method of assessment which can be referred to as formative assessment. Formative assessment will be defined, its importance explained, the inadequacies will be acknowledged, and suggestions will be made to address the inadequacies presented. Ultimately, I will argue that to augment and enhance student success, higher education institutions must support the use of formative assessment.     

Defining Formative Assessment

When conducting a formative assessment, information must be collected to determine students’ progress in the learning process (Wiliam, 2011). This information can be collected through observation, dialogue (Klenwoski, 2009), or through the examination of a product. It is used to uncover if and where there is a gap between a student’s learning and their learning goals (Heritage, 2016). The assessor will then provide feedback to the learner to assist them in determining how to reach their learning goals (Heritage, 2016; Wiliam, 2011). When the assessor is the learner themselves, they must reflect on their learning goals and success criteria to determine what they must do to grow their learning and then be willing to take that risk in their learning to achieve success (Wiliam, 2011).  

To ensure that this method of assessment is formative, the feedback must be applied by both the student and the educator (Heritage, 2016; Klenwoski, 2009; Wiliam, 2011): the student must apply the feedback they receive to adjust the learning strategies that they are using and the educator must modify their instruction to meet the determined needs of the student (Gijbels & Dochy, 2006; Wiliam, 2011).

Importance of Formative Assessment

As formative assessment shapes both teaching and learning, it is of the utmost importance to include in education (Wiliam, 2011; Yorke, 2003). In fact, the importance of this method of assessment is recognized in countries around the world, including those in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific (Klenwoski, 2009).

To be more specific, formative assessment shapes teaching and learning by aiding educators in developing a better understanding and catering instruction to match students’ Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Yorke, 2003). A ZPD is the area between a student’s current level of ability and the level that they can attain with additional support from a peer or educator (Shabani, 2010; Yorke, 2003). 

Formative assessment also “motivate[s] students to study, [as it] makes them aware of what they have learned and where they need to study more” (Weurlander et al., 2012, p.747), which confirms that formative assessment has “unprecedented power to increase student engagement and to improve learning outcomes” (Wiliam, 2011, p. 13).     

Current Inadequacies of Formative Assessment in Higher Education

Although it is evident that formative assessment is integral to both teaching and learning, the use of formative assessment in higher education is often inadequate. Educators argue that this is because it is challenging to conduct formative assessments while balancing their time between the demands of teaching and research (Henderson et al., 2019; Yorke, 2003). In addition, when educators do conduct formative assessments, it has been found that students often fail to apply the feedback provided (Henderson et al., 2019).

In my experience as a student at a mid-sized university in southern Ontario, Canada, I have found that few educators dedicate the time to conduct formative assessment. In fact, I have completed a few courses that have not provided a single grade or piece of feedback prior to the end of the course; my peers at other universities and in other faculties have had similar experiences. We may complete a diverse range of tasks (such as papers and examinations) to be assessed however, feedback and the opportunity to improve is seldom provided.

Students in Australia have found similar inadequacies (Henderson et al., 2019). In their experience, feedback is often not provided in a timely manner, is unclear, and fails to be constructive (Henderson et al., 2019). Thus, although schools in Canada and Australia may recognize the importance of formative feedback (Kelwoski, 2009) and promote the diversification of assessment (Brock University, 2020), it is not mandated that any assessment is formative.

Suggestions to Resolve Inadequacies

To resolve these inadequacies and to increase the use of formative assessment in higher education, change must come from the level of the institution. First, policy should be updated to mandate the use of formative assessments, as opposed to solely emphasizing the diversification of assessments. Moreover, professional development courses should be offered to educators to aid them in developing their abilities to conduct formative assessment (Heritage, 2016). Furthermore, students should be taught how to apply the feedback that they are provided. In addition, institutions should reduce class sizes to provide educators with more time to dedicate to conducting formative assessments. With more time to dedicate to these assessments, feedback should be constructive, detailed, and timely. As well, instruction should be catered more closely to students’ needs. If higher education institutions take these steps to support the use of formative assessment, the success of their students should be augmented and enhanced.

References  

Brock University. (2020, September 26). Faculty handbook section 3: Academic regulations. Brock University: The Office of the University Secretariat. https://brocku.ca/university-secretariat/faculty-handbook/section-3/#10.1_Duties_of_the_Instructor

Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690600850354

Henderson, M., Ryan, T., & Phillips, M. (2019). The challenges of feedback in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1237–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815

Heritage, M. (2016). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900210

Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice: Assessment for Learning Revisited: An Asia-Pacific Perspective, 16(3), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319646

Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237-248.

Weurlander, M., Söderberg, M., Scheja, M., Hult, H., & Wernerson, A. (2012). Exploring formative assessment as a tool for learning: students’ experiences of different methods of formative assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.572153

Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023967026413

The Struggle of Mental Health for Higher Education Students

By Katlyn Van Bommel, Brock University

Over 65% of post secondary students report dealing with anxiety and struggling with their mental health (Achille, 2019).  Students often report experiencing this anxiety due to an increased pressure to do well in school and the that worry they will receive bad grades. Many students also reported feeling an increased sense of anxiety when taking tests (Pascoe, 2019). It is important that higher education institutions recognize the number of post secondary students struggling with mental health issues continues to grow and the need for support from post secondary institutions is higher than ever. Of these students who struggle with their mental health, many report impacts on their academic success along with a decrease in their quality of life (Pascoe, 2019). It is important to also consider the effects the current pandemic on student’s mental health.

COVID-19’s Effects on Mental Health

As seen in the studies done by Ontario Universities, many students struggle with their mental health throughout their time at university and college (2019). COVID-19 is only making this struggle worse. Students are feeling lonelier than ever and it is crucial that in these times universities provide opportunities for them to connect with one another. In a study done of students in the United States, 71% indicated they were feeling increased anxiety and stress (Son, 2020). Some of the reasons for this increased anxiety included worrying about their health and their friends and family’s health, worrying about their grades, and their lack of social interaction (Son, 2020). According to a study completed by the American College Health Association and the Healthy Minds Network (2020), 60% of students feel that the pandemic has made accessing mental health services more difficult. Along with this, 78% of students reported feeling supported by their professors, compared to only 40% of students feel their campus mental health services have been supportive. With this in mind, what can universities do to provide students the mental health services they need and ensure they are easily accessible?

How can Universities Help Students Struggling?

In a study done by Jack.org looking at why students aren’t using the mental health resources available to them, over half said they don’t think they would meet their needs (2019). This illustrates the importance of including students in decisions on the services needed. It is important that post secondary institutions evaluate their current mental health services and receive students input on how they can improve their offerings. It’s also important for students to advocate for their needs and for universities to give students the opportunity to.

Another important initiative that universities need to consider is implementing mental health training for all staff and professors. As mentioned in the American College Health Association (2020) study, many students feel supported by their professors during the pandemic. Clearly students are leaning on their professors, and although they should not be providing mental health services to their students, it would be beneficial for professors to be informed when it comes to students’ mental health. This way they will be able to properly support students, as well as refer students to the proper resources. Having professors and administrators trained in mental health can also help towards early intervention. Higher education institutions that are able to intervene early are more effective in meeting struggling students’ needs (Jaworska, 2016).

Another issue that students encounter when accessing services on campus is extended wait times. As mentioned in the study done by Jack.org, on average students wait four weeks for counselling. Though some students need and want one-on-one counselling, others could benefit from other services, like support groups and other peer support services. With most counselling services now online, students are more likely to access these services (Glasheen, 2015). Though this is a positive that more students are likely to reach out, it can provide an increased demand on counselling services that some schools could struggle to meet. This is when other options like student support groups and online resources and tools could come in handy to students who may not want to wait for appointments.

I don’t think there is a simple answer regarding what higher education institutions need to do in order to support the high volume of students struggling with their mental health. I do think there are many steps they can take, starting with evaluating their current services and listening to their student’s needs. Mental health struggles and anxiety among students continues to grow and it is crucial that post secondary institutions take steps to provide the support their students need.

References

Achille, K. (2019). A closer look: Anxiety among Ontario university students. https://ceric.ca/2019/05/a-closer-look-anxiety-among-ontario-university-students/

Glasheen, K. J., Shochet, I., & Campbell, M. A. (2015). Online counselling in secondary schools: Would students seek help by this medium? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 44(1), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2015.1017805

The Healthy Minds Network & American College Health Association (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on college student well-being. https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/Healthy_Minds_NCHA_COVID_Survey_Report_FINAL.pdf

Jack.org. (2019). Youth voice report. https://jack.org/getattachment/Youth-Voice-Report-2019/2019-YVR-Website.pdf.aspx?lang=en-CA

Jaworska, N., De Somma, E., Fonseka, B., Heck, E., & MacQueen, G. M. (2016). Mental health services for students at postsecondary institutions: A national survey. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 61(12), 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743716640752

Ontario Universities (2019, January 9). Mental Health. https://ontariosuniversities.ca/issues-priorities/student-supports

Pascoe, M. C., Hetrick, S. E., & Parker, A. G. (2019). The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823

Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States: Interview survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e21279. https://doi.org/10.2196/21279

---

The Switch to Online and What it Could Mean for ESL Learners

By Montana Brown, Brock University

Due to the COVID-19 order to stay home, many adults enrolled in English as a subsequent language (ESL) programs are now faced with the new dilemma of learning how to navigate the technology used to study online. This is an issue for those learning English as a new language since they must decide if learning online is the right path to meet their end goal and if not, can they wait until in-person classes resume again. For example, many second-language learners do not have a choice on whether they want to learn the language, but instead need to in order to survive. While language skills may not be considered essential to life, it is much more difficult to acquire basic needs without the language to do so (Millikan, 2005).

This is what inspired me to investigate the differences between online and in-person ESL learning and the impacts it may have on those who have no choice but to learn online. A study conducted since COVID in Pakistan showed that 80% of the post-graduate ESL students selected at random from the English department of Khawaja Freed University of Engineering and Technology, as well as from multi-disciplines at Islamiyah University Bahawalpur preferred face-to-face lessons over online learning after both universities closed and moved all in-person classes online (Shahzad, 2020). That is a substantial percentage suggesting that something must need to be changed in online ESL teaching for these students. However, the statement the students were responding to in this study was very vague: “face-to-face learning is better than online learning,” (Shahzad, 2020, p. 5) more research is need on what constitutes ‘better’.

In Ontario Canada, free online English classes are available for newcomers through the LINC program funded by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). However, there are some requirements that must be met in order to enroll; one must be a resident of Ontario, be 18 years of age or older, and have a minimum Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) score of 3 for listening and speaking and 2 for reading and writing. However, to determine the CLB score the person must take a test at an assessment centre in person, which due to COVID has reduced availability (LINC, 2016). Thus, those who wish to start their English lessons may have been/will be delayed due to this factor, even though the program is offered online after the CLB test. There is an online self-assessment, but this cannot be used for employment, academic, immigration or citizenship purposes (Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2019).

In addition to these basic requirements to enroll, there are also the requirements of the program. The Language Education at a Distance (LEAD) website states that approximately 5-7 hours a week of personal study time, a computer with highspeed internet, and a telephone are mandatory for course enrollment. This is a lot to ask of new immigrants and refugees as highspeed internet and owning a phone can be costly. Therefore, already two downfalls of the online LINC program have been identified: the in-person CLB assessment and the costly nature.

Another downfall of online ESL is that the interactions between individuals will only be online which may have audio delays or not be as clear audio as in-person interaction, which makes it harder to learn the pragmatics of the language. Pragmatics is the context of language that contributes to the overall meaning and makes up about 80% of meaning in conversations which is very important for a new language learner to grasp (Hummel, 2014).

Another cause of concern with online learning argued by Hara (2000) is that mental health issues cannot be properly monitored; or can even be caused by an online setting due to isolation, confusion and frustration. There are, however,  also many upsides to online ESL learning such as being able to study and complete tasks on one’s own time and pace, being able to re-listen to lessons, a large focus on reading and writing, and learning how to navigate in an online environment (Anna, 2013). Smith and Hardaker (2000) even suggest that interaction in an online environment better promotes student participation, student centered learning, and produces discussions that are more perceptive and comprehensive in a face-to-face classroom setting.

In order to try to keep the positives and mitigate the negatives of ESL online learning, especially during an unprecedented time, there are three changes I would recommend be made to the LINC program. First, the CLB test needs to have another method of completion during COVID times. Second, webcam and video imaging should be used as much as possible to try to incorporate the pragmatics of the language as it is a vital part of communication one needs alongside the verbal for better comprehension (Millikan, 2005). This should help both the mental health issue and the pragmatic issue of online learning (Michael Cleave, 2017). Third, a resource that provides or helps acquire a telephone and high-speed internet should be included (i.e., rentals, subsidized costs if use is solely for course). Lastly, further research into the matter post COVID-19 should be conducted to show if the learning is equal to in-class and what further steps can be taken to improve ESL online learning.

References

Yi, A. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education: J-PAE., 19(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2013.12001730

Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (2019, March 26). Do you want to understand your english or french language skill level prior to taking an official language test or pursuing further education or employment?  Retrieved September 15, 2020, from https://www.clb-osa.ca/FAQ?LanguageID=7&PageID=168

Chamorro, M. (2018). Comparing online English language learning and face-to-face English language learning at el bosque university in Colombia. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002

Hummel, K. M. (2014). Introducing second language acquisition: Perspectives and practices. Malden, MA: Wiley & Sons.

Kubik, L. (2020, April 12). The pros and cons of teaching ESL online vs. in a classroom. Retrieved September 13, 2020, from https://www.goabroad.com/articles/teach-abroad/pros-cons-teaching-esl-online-vs-classroomLINC Home Study Ontario.

Language Instruction for Newcomers (LINC). (2016, July 12). Can I take LINC classes at home?  Retrieved September 13, 2020, from https://settlement.org/ontario/education/english-as-a-second-language-esl/linc-program/can-i-take-linc-classes-at-home/

Cleave, M. (2017). What are teacher beliefs about social emotional learning in a synchronous webcam-enabled online higher education learning environment. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Millikan, R. G. (2005). Language: A biological model. Oxford University Press.

Shahzad, S. K., Hussain, J., Sadaf, N., Sarwat, S., Ghani, U., & Saleem, R. (2020).Impact of virtual teaching on ESL learners’ attitudes under COVID-19 circumstances at post graduate level in Pakistan. English Language Teaching, 13(9), 1. doi:10.5539/elt.v13n9p1

Smith, D., & Hardaker, G. (2000). e-Learning innovation through the implementation of an Internet supported learning environment. Educational Technology and Society, 3, 1–16.

Pandemic Pedagogy: Accessible Learning for Students with Disabilities?

By Melanie Extance, Brock University

 The response to the COVID-19 pandemic for Canadian Post-Secondary Institutions (PSI) prompted a shift to online instruction that led to immense discourse among educators, researchers, policymakers, and students – especially students with disabilities. Students with disabilities saw the move to online instruction as a marked advancement to post-secondary education that has been requested for years: increased accommodations and supports and the removal of academic barriers to success. However, there are a few questions that remain in contention. First, why did it take a pandemic for PSI to become more accessible? Second, how accessible is pandemic pedagogy?

Students Identifying with a Disability in Post-Secondary Institutions

The term “disability” may encompass a wide range of visible or invisible impairments or illnesses (Baur, Parker, Duffet & Williams, 2015). In the context of post-secondary education, students with disabilities are a unique group of individuals whose needs are complex and multi-faceted compared to their homogeneous counterparts (Baur et al., 2015). The way in which society views disability is often through a medical model, assuming that “disability” is an intrinsic quality of an individual (Haegele & Hodge, 2016). In post-secondary education, students with disabilities may be viewed as objects to be “fixed” rather than individuals prompting re-evaluation of program design (Baur et al., 2015). Thus, the lack of disability inclusion in post-secondary education has many students requesting academic accommodations to be successful (Magnus & Tøssebro, 2014). Unfortunately, the process of receiving academic accommodations starts with students disclosing their disability and meeting the “gatekeepers” of accommodation (Lindsay, Cagliostro & Carafa, 2018; NEADS, 2018).

The Gatekeepers of Accommodation

According to Corra and Willer (2005), gatekeepers “control access to benefits they do not own. When granted access, their clients incur obligations that take the form of fees owed to the gatekeeper” (p. 181). For students with disabilities, gatekeepers represent the institution, disability support staff, and/or faculty. This means when a student with a disability requires academic accommodations, they need permission before access is granted (NEADS, 2018). According to the National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS) (2018), gatekeepers often make large demands on students seeking accommodations like medical documentation to validate their needs which can be a lengthy, expensive and often a demeaning process for students (pp. 43-44). Unfortunately, accommodation requests are not always fulfilled with the institution claiming they are unattainable or not tangible to implement (Belch & Barricelli, 2004; Baur et al., 2015; NEADS, 2018). Yet, in the face of a pandemic, PSI were able to by-pass gatekeeper methodology and implement campus wide pedagogical designs that matched technological advancements (Frumos, 2020) students with disabilities have been requesting for years and were often denied (Lindsay et al., 2018).

Audits of Pandemic Pedagogy

Many students with disabilities have found the transition to online instruction a win for post-secondary education as it removes several academic barriers to success. Such barrier removal includes “increased flexibility and choice, fewer physical, sensory, and for some, social barriers, anonymity navigating accommodations and services, and innovation” (Pichette, Brumwell & Rizk, 2020). Yet, researchers continue to have doubts as to whether this perception of barrier removal encapsulates all students with disabilities or just a small sample. The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario found that students with disabilities are not having the same accessible experiences and, in some instances, the online instruction their institutions are providing is creating more challenges (Pichette et al., 2020).  Some challenges include the use of inaccessible online platforms, inadequate access to accessible material, inequitable assessments, and uncertainty for students accessing further academic supports (Pichette et al., 2020). While pandemic pedagogy appears to be accessible to some, that may be due to the removal of the gatekeepers and nothing more. How do we ensure moving forward that we provide equitable and accessible education for students with disabilities as the COVID-19 pandemic may be here for the long haul?

How Pandemic Pedagogy Can Go Beyond the Pandemic

Online instruction is undeniably a timely and effortful process requiring many different stakeholders’ cooperation for implementation (Hodges, Moor, Lockee, Trust & Bond, 2020) but there remains a large difference between emergency remote teaching and accessible online learning (Frumos, 2020). While the removal of gatekeeper methodology is a step in the right direction for post-secondary education, more inclusive measures need to be implemented as the pandemic continues. Such measures that can create better pandemic pedagogy are the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Pichette et al., 2020; Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, & Abarbanell, 2006). UDL pedagogy suggests that instructional practices that are beneficial for some, benefit all. For example, if PSI invested in disability approved software to deliver their online content to its students, it provides the accessibility needed for some and an added feature of learning for all. This would continue the removal of gatekeeper methodology, ensure the use of accessible technology, ensure disability inclusion, and provide better academic experiences of success for all students in the face of a pandemic.

References

Baur, K., Parker, B., Duffett, E. M., & Williams, J. (2015). Disable the label: improving post-secondary policy, practice and academic culture for students with disabilities.  StudentsNS. 1–111. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c8fe398809d8e5b9847fe6e/t/5cf021b4f49a910001dc4a13/1559241141771/2014-12-03-disable-the-label-final-report-accessible-3.pdf

Belch, H. A., & Barricelli, J. (2004). Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 107–110.

Corra, M., & Willer, D. (2002). The gatekeeper. Sociological Theory, 20(2), 181–207.

Frumos, L. (2020). Inclusive education in remote instruction with universal design for  learning. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 12(2,1), 138–142.            https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.2Sup1/299

Haegele, J .A., & Hodge, S. (2016). Disability discourse: Overview and critiques of the medical and social models. Quest, 68(2), 193–206, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2016.1143849

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Retrieved from https://medicine.hofstra.edu/pdf/faculty/facdev/facdev-article.pdf

Lindsay, S., Cagliostro, E., & Carafa, G. (2018). A Systematic review of barriers and facilitators of disability disclosure and accommodations for youth in post-secondary education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(5),  526-556, DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2018.1430352

Lipka, O., Khouri, M., & Shecter-Lerner, Ml. (2019). University faculty perceptions about  accommodations for students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1658812.

Magnus, E. & Tøssebro, J. (2014). Negotiating individual accommodation in higher education, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 16(4), 316-332, DOI: 10.1080/15017419.2012.761156

National Educational Association of Disabled Students. (2018). Landscape of accessibility and accommodation in post-secondary education for students with disabilities. https://www.neads.ca/en/about/media/AccessibilityandAccommodation%202018-5landscapereport.pdf

Pichette, J., Brumwell, S., & Rizk, J. (2020). Improving the accessibility of remote higher education: Lessons from the pandemic and recommendations. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.heqco.ca/enca/Research/ResPub/Pages/Improving-the-Accessibility-of-Remote-Higher-Education-Lessons-from-the-pandemic-drecommendations.aspxbclid=IwAR13w4fIsQxTNe08Q3kw_IVat5Zs8tyu6whfa7RqFOJVa4an5il3ZlikuAE

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guardia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity.  Postdigital Science and Education. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y

Rose, D., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in post-secondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Post-Secondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 135–151.

Sessional Instructor Participation in Professional Development at Ontario Universities

By Adriana Brook, Brock University

Although university instructors undergo no mandatory training, postsecondary institutions in Ontario, Canada and internationally have developed robust professional development (PD) offerings for tenure-track faculty, graduate students, and sessional instructors. Research shows that all three constituencies perceive value in PD (Dimitrov et al., 2013; Kenny et al., 2014; Messina, 2011; Potter et al., 2015; Taylor, 2019) and that teaching improves through participation in PD (Chism et al., 2012; Dawson et al., 2014; Dimitrov et al., 2013). Despite this, sessional instructors – casual employees paid per course – often participate less than other instructors (Lowenthal et al., 2012), raising the question of what might support better attendance.

Two areas emerge as opportunities to encourage sessional participation in PD. First, and most important, is the degree to which sessionals feel part of the university community. Here, I set aside graduate students, who have different modes of community formation as both students and employees, and whose relationship with the school is, by definition, finite. Research clearly shows that both tenure-track faculty (Chism et al., 2012; Shafiei, 2005; Shagir, 2017) and sessionals (Messina, 2011; Taylor, 2019; Wells, 2015) are most incentivized to participate in programming when they perceive that the institution values and rewards good teaching and when participation provides opportunities to collaborate and network. In other words, both types of instructors value opportunities for short-term community formation. However, because of the contingent nature of sessional work, these instructors may feel more tenuously connected to the institution and to their colleagues in the long term. Tenure-track faculty tend to favour workshops that address issues that have impacted the campus for several years (Burdick et al., 2015) or that emphasize technologies that the school will continue to use (Lowenthal et al., 2012). Sessionals have less incentive to attend such contextually specific workshops without the guarantee of long-term employment or lasting relationships.

A second important consideration is credentialization. Formal recognition of PD (e.g., certificate programs) is a strong incentive for graduate students (Dimitrov et al., 2013; Kenny et al., 2014) as well as sessional and tenure-track instructors (Lowenthal et al., 2012; Taylor, 2019; Wells, 2015). The strength of motivation, however, varies because credentials do not offer the same benefits to all constituencies. Tenure-track faculty, and especially permanent teaching-stream faculty, can cite participation when applying for tenure or promotion; graduate students can prepare for the job market at an early career stage when smaller investments in PD carry more weight. Sessionals gain neither benefit. The credentials may count for less on their CVs than for graduate students, particularly for experienced instructors; they are perceived to have little importance for contract renewal (Lowenthal et al., 2012; Taylor, 2019); and, if very context-specific, they may not be relevant to future employment opportunities.

Some community colleges have addressed these discrepancies between sessionals and other instructors in ways that universities can emulate. In treating sessionals more like tenure-track instructors in salary, benefits, job security, resources, and incentives for good teaching (Burnstad, 2002; MacDonald, 2013), they promote greater sessional instructor investment in the institution in both the short and long term. In Canada, community colleges have also led the way on the issue of transferable credentials. The Instructional Skills Workshop, initially developed for B.C. community college instructors but now employed internationally at various institutions (Dawson et al., 2014), and the provincially-recognized training available to sessionals at all 22 schools of the Ontario Colleges of Arts and Technology (Jones & Geis, 1995) offer credentials that travel.

In order to enact similar changes at Ontario’s universities, we must take advantage of existing structures. The faculty unions that represent sessionals have already achieved gains in pay, benefits, and job security – including right of first refusal policies at some institutions (MacDonald, 2013) – and are well-positioned to advocate for policies that put sessionals on more equal footing with tenure-track instructors, at least in some respects. Similarly, existing networks of educational developers in Ontario (Council of Ontario Educational Developers) and Canada (Educational Developers Caucus) have the expertise and capacity to support the standardization of credentials by establishing equivalency between the workshops and certificates already offered at most universities (Garbove et al., 2012).

Ultimately, creating the conditions in which sessional instructors are encouraged to participate in PD does not require vast structural change. Following the model of community colleges, modest policy changes can ensure that sessionals gain useful credentials through participation and feel a more integral part of the institutional community.

References

Burdick, D., Doherty, T., & Schoenfeld, N. (2015). Encouraging faculty development at professional development events. To Improve the Academy, 34(1-2), 367-405. https://doi-org.proxy.library.brocku.ca/10.1002/tia2.20019

Burnstad, H. M. (2002). Part-time faculty development at Johnson County Community College. New Directions for Community Colleges, 120, 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.85

Chism, N. V., Holley, M., & Harris, C. (2012). Researching the impact of educational development. To Improve the Academy, 31(1), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2012.tb00678.x

Dawson, D., Borin, P., Meadows, K., Britnell, J., Olsen, K., & McIntyre, G. (2014). The impact of the instructional skills workshop on faculty approaches to teaching. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Formatted_UWO_Ryerson.pdf

Dimitrov, N., Ackerson, T., Baker, N., Boulos, P., Kustra, E., McIntyre, G., Meadows, K., Potter, M., & Prada, L. (2013). Assessing graduate teaching development programs for impact on future faculty. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Formatted%20Windsor-Western.pdf

Garbove, V,. Kustra, E., Lopes, V., Pottter, M. K., Wiggers, R., & Woodhouse, R. (2012). Teaching and learning centres: Their evolving role within Ontario colleges anduUniversities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/TL%20Centres%20ENG.pdf

Kenny, N., Watson, G. P. L., & Watton, C. (2014). Exploring the context of Canadian graduate student teaching certificates in university teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(3), 1-19. https://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/186035

Jones, G. A. & Geis, G. L. (1995). Faculty development structures and activities in Ontario’s colleges of applied arts and technology. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25(1), 41-61. https://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/183204

Lowenthal, P. R., Wray, M. L., Bates, B., Switzer, T., & Stevens, E. (2012). Examining faculty motivation to participate in faculty development. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development, 3(3) 149-164. https://patricklowenthal.com/examining-faculty-motivation-to-participate-in-faculty-development/

MacDonald, M. (2013, February). Sessionals, up close. University Affairs.

Messina, L. S. (2011). Examining an adjunct faculty professional development program model for a community college [Dissertation, Johnson & Wales University], ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Potter, M. K., Kustra, E., Ackerson, T., & Prada, L. (2015). The effects of long-term systematic educational development on the beliefs and attitudes of university teachers. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Teaching%20Certificate%20ENG.pdf

Shafiei, M. (2005). Factors contributing to participation in faculty development and integration of computer technology in the community college. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston], ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Shagir, L. (2017). Teacher educators’ professional development: motivators and delayers. In P. Boyd & A. Szplit (Eds.), Teachers and teacher educators learning through inquiry: International perspectives. (pp. 159-180). Wydawnictwo Attyka.

Taylor, S. C. (2019). Exploring non-tenure-track faculty motivation to engage in faculty development: An expectancy theory perspective. [Dissertation, Wilmington University], ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Wells, C. (2015). Adjunct faculty experiences in a comprehensive development program: A single-site case study. [Dissertation, Colorado State University] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.