Higher education and online learning

Online learning and teaching has the potential to offer innovative opportunities for higher education courses for groups of people who have not traditionally attended. It may have limitations for psychology, however, and for successful experiences it requires resources and supports for a more diverse range of students.

In 2016, higher education student enrolments across Australia were over 1.4 million (Department of Education & Training, 2016b). While the vast majority – more than 1 million – studied on campus, 15 per cent were studying online and 12 per cent were studying multi-modally. These last two modes of attendance are increasing: growing by 5.2 and 15.9 per cent respectively since 2015 (Department of Education & Training, 2016b).

While more than a quarter of our students now study online, this does not capture the full picture, as distinctions between on campus and off campus learning are increasingly blurred. The vast majority of all students experience some online learning, as libraries, reading materials, course materials, assessment processes, lectures and interactions increasingly move online. Equally, many online courses offer physical study centres and face-to-face residential schools (Norton, 2016).

Nine universities in Australia currently offer accredited psychology programs taught online (Australian Psychology Accreditation Council, n.d). All of them offer courses for the first three years of study, but offerings drop significantly by postgraduate level as the requirements for practical placements or face-to-face components which cannot be met online increase. Even in the first three years of study, most online courses currently include some face-to-face in the form of residential schools, for example, to meet accreditation requirements. Changes to accreditation, technology, and an increasing desire to offer online courses means that the extent to which psychology is taught online is likely to increase. Whether this is of benefit to psychology as a discipline, or to our students, is something which merits careful consideration.

Diversity of students

The growth of online higher education has made higher education accessible to individuals who might previously not have been able to attend university. This includes an increasing diversity of students as a result of overcoming potential barriers in relation to age, being located overseas, or in regional, rural and remote locations.

Age

Many of my online psychology students are older and have families and jobs which means they are unable to attend weekly face-to-face classes on a campus. Older students represent a substantial fraction of the overall student population: students aged 20-30 years constituted 54 per cent of all students in 2016 and 22 per cent of students were over 30 years of age (Department of Education & Training, 2016b). Online courses can be expected to attract more students of an older age: individuals with jobs and families who don’t have the time or resources to move close to a campus and attend face-to-face classes. However, these same aspects are likely to also make them very time poor. Some students are therefore less able to spend sufficient time on their studies and supporting them to engage can be very challenging. Older students may also in general be less comfortable and familiar with online platforms. Adequate support measures need to be available for students who need to learn how to access some platforms.Location

Students living in remote areas of Australia, or overseas, do not need to leave their community if they are studying online. I have taught students in far-flung places, from Samoa to New York, and the most remote student I encountered in Australia lived 150km from the nearest shop, and used generator electricity, which was too noisy to do homework with once the children were in bed.

Overseas students may need complex forms of support, in relation to language, cultural differences and resource issues which are difficult to achieve remotely. Similarly students living regionally, rurally and remotely in Australia need to be better understood and better served in terms of their needs. These students may experience greater levels of exclusion and isolation while studying: paradoxically their study may significantly combat their existing experiences of exclusion and isolation. Access to the internet, potentially even electricity at times may be more difficult, and providing hard copies of resources and flexibility with deadlines are some ways to offer support.

Socioeconomic disadvantage

Finally, with regards to access, one group whose needs are not easily met by online education are those with a lower income. Not all people have the resources to purchase fast computers and speedy, reliable internet. With the increase in the use of complex technology in online teaching, media such as video lectures and interactive tools require higher bandwidths, which are costly. As with all the aforementioned aspects of diversity, online higher education has the potential to reduce inequality and widen access, but without adequate and meaningful access to resources and support, it can serve to exacerbate.

Overcoming traditions and assumptions

Online education, delivered to a potentially more diverse community of students, offers an opportunity to redefine some of the problematic traditions of university education. It is, however, simultaneously mediated by them. It operates within a context of university traditions and assumptions, and this can create difficulty for the learning and teaching process and students’ experiences of it.

Traditional ideas include the student as a young school leaver, who spends time on a campus, studying quietly in a library. Of course that may well not be the reality, and there are a lot of other assumptions which have nothing to do with studying! However, the assumptions underlying that role include time and space to study in an environment full of markers that position one as a student, and assume that the student is unfettered by later life responsibilities such as work and family. Again, the reality for many on-campus students is quite different, but the disparity between the assumed identity of a student and those who are studying online can be quite large.

For this reason, students can find online learning very isolating and confidence sapping. In research I am currently undertaking with my undergraduate psychology students, some online students report feeling anxious and find academic study difficult to engage in ¹. Being completely isolated from the environment of a campus can make it difficult for students to perform the academic role they need to perform. Sitting alone, without other students, at the kitchen table in pyjamas, does nothing to ease the online student into their role of a confident, academic authority upon the subject they are writing their essay. Adding to this, the various practical concerns of other parts of life which online students are more likely to have more of; work, housework and families, and finding space to ‘be’ a student can be very difficult.

The research I am undertaking at the moment suggests that women who are older might find their expected responsibilities in the household to be particularly difficult when studying online. Vryonides and Vitsilakis (2008) concur, and they offer some very useful suggestions for ways higher education should be creating incentives, support and flexibility (see box above). Burke (2008) characterises the traditional discursive assumptions of higher education, including the formal ways in which academic writing is constituted, as regulating and marginalising, particularly for groups who have traditionally been excluded. This is particularly relevant for diverse groups accessing online education.

One or two other assumptions in higher education contribute markedly to the online experience. Students expect the presence of ‘lecturers’, individuals who are very knowledgeable and experienced. They also expect a relationship with those individuals – time spent interacting with them, learning from them, and an opportunity to receive quality feedback from them. There are some reasons to critique these assumptions, in relation to the student as a passive learner and the teacher as authoritarian teacher that are not relevant to this article (see Fox, 2014). But aside from those, it can be difficult to create quality relationships and interactions in online learning and teaching. Additionally, the growth of online courses has developed alongside desires for efficiency, and universities are increasingly creating larger cohorts, casualisation of the teaching elements, and wider gaps, between the traditional lecturer with specialised knowledge and experience, and their students.

Knowing that the patterns of tradition are going to be disrupted in an online teaching space gives some opportunity for different and potentially innovative experiences. However, both students and teachers enter the space with knowledge of those traditional assumptions which can be difficult to overcome or resist. In some practical terms, creating more intimate online spaces, like small groups, and ensuring social interaction is integrated into teaching can go some way towards challenging the isolation. Making the problematic, traditional assumptions transparent and known to students is also a critical way I challenge them: problematising the educational space with students develops their skills in critically evaluating institutional spaces which can in and of itself increase their confidence and aid in their development as graduates.

In 2016 only 26 per cent of online students gave a positive rating of student learner engagement and in fact, psychology has one of the lowest scores (Department of Education & Training, 2016a). Engagement is a term which is poorly defined in higher education and so a self-report measure is very problematic to draw firm conclusions. However, the low rating certainly suggests that something is not being met for students, and that something around rich interactions and valuable learning experiences is not always working. My research with students on engagement revealed their differing ideas of engagement in online spaces. Ideas varied from more superficial ideas of attending, taking part and doing the activities requested, to deeper forms. These included emotional involvement and commitment, being motivated, passionate and excited, and doing more than what has been requested. These might be principles to aim for, for both students and teachers, but they require an institutional context of resources and support for both sides.

Engagement in learning and teaching online

In some respects I find in my online psychology teaching, that not all students want to or need to engage. Those students who pass their courses and achieve marks that they are happy with, while appearing to not get involved socially or interact, are not students that I feel I need to be concerned with. On the other hand some students need to engage more, but are the time poor students described earlier who have jobs and families and struggle to find sufficient time to engage with me as a teacher or with the learning materials (it can be difficult to know the difference of course between the two types of students). It is difficult to support those students, and sometimes they do not get through the course. Making sure that the value of spending time engaging is communicated well, and providing incentives can help these students: clearly communicating the rationale for activities (and making sure those activities have a clear value), offering attractive activities in terms of rich interaction with peers and/or teachers, or simply giving some marks for participation, are some valuable ways to increase engagement.

Some ways of engaging online are not useful for all students; some prefer or need to be very social and interact, while others are studying online precisely to avoid interaction and to be more private. My research for example suggests that large open forums are intimidating spaces for students, even inside individual classes. Students tend to find these spaces very public, and struggle to ask questions or post their ideas. Many students in that research also report that they are choosing not to interact or engage, either because they are time poor or because it is not how they like to learn. Engagement, such as rich social interactions, is best where it is voluntary, and where there are a variety of different ways in which people can take part. Having an open discussion forum, as well as small study groups (both give an opportunity for asynchronous communication), and live, recorded online meetings (synchronous), are all valuable ways to interact with students online.

While variety is valuable, increasing the use of different and emerging technologies is not necessarily the answer to enriching teaching materials or increasing engagement. Media which require higher bandwidths may be difficult for all students to access as described earlier. It is also important to ensure that the actual content of courses is not diminished over the technological or visual media. It is very possible to start to reduce the content in order for it to fit well into the technological medium: fitting to smartphones or social media platforms, for example. Such mediums don’t have to be reductionist, but can encourage it, and it is important to resist and find ways to retain the complexity of the material taught to students.

Preparing students for psychology and human service professions

The area which raises perhaps the strongest issues for psychology is the extent to which online education might prepare students for practice. Does the online environment sufficiently aid students to learn communication and social skills – are they going to be ready for practising psychology or human service professions? It would seem at present psychology doesn’t think so; in Australia only nine universities teach accredited courses online, and while early undergraduate years (which might involve more theory), are more likely to be solely taught online, third year and beyond tends to involve increasing levels of face-to-face time. This may at first be in the form of short bursts of residential schools, but increases, particularly as postgraduate courses require practical placements. The accreditation council requires even undergraduate courses to meet standards in communication skills, and it is difficult to feel that courses prepare students for professional face-to-face social interaction with others, without being engaged in and teaching and assessing such interactions.

In our teaching of psychology at Charles Sturt University we have found ways to enrich online interactions and engagement in our course as technology has improved and made personal and rich connections to large groups of students more possible. It still has limits however; it is difficult for example for students to practice interviewing one another or counselling one another online. While it is technically possible, the nuances of facial expression, tone and turn-taking for example – nuances well understood in psychology – are lost in translation. The concerns run parallel in some ways to those in practising psychology, where online therapies have emerged and are useful to a point but are still seen as limited for more complex requirements.

Moving forward

There are many ways in which online higher education can offer students, teachers, universities and the profession of psychology opportunities. The chance for many to potentially access the profession who might not have traditionally is encouraging. I find my older students with jobs and families come with life experience and maturity that are excellent skills for psychology. Students who live rurally and are supported to stay in their community for as much of their study as possible can go on more easily to remain and be of benefit to that community. Advances in technology have also enriched online education and have made it possible to engage in richer ways with students.

Students can still often feel marginalised or isolated however, and that isolation and exclusion can be substantially exacerbated by some of the contextual factors in student’s lives, if they are not adequately supported in terms of resources and diverse forms of support from the institution. Online education has the highest rates of attrition and this suggests the complex needs of some students might not be being adequately met.

There are also potentially limits to online education for psychology, particularly in relation to learning social and communication skills. Some of the face to face elements of my online teaching, such as residential schools, have been highly valuable and it is difficult to envisage online teaching which manages to teach very complex or subjective content, and skills in communication and social abilities, without any face to face contact. Some students already have excellent skills in those areas of course, and will do well in their careers without any rich engagement – but those students are more likely to succeed no matter what course they take. Greater attention needs to lie with students who do need more support, so that online higher education can challenge inequality and not exacerbate it.

The author can be contacted at [email protected]