One of the greatest current questions in higher education (and perhaps in other sectors) relates to whether study (and work) should be done on campus, or whether this no longer matters – anything goes.
Most people argue for maximal flexibility.
It’s hard to disagree with that because one size never fits all. We should avoid rigid rules.
But it is dangerous to leave the question completely open.
My view is that we should set an expectation that coming to campus has benefits, while accepting that different students, and indeed staff, will have different abilities to come, and we should be reasonable in accommodating everyone’s needs.
But we should never send the message that the campus doesn’t matter.
Place does matter. Coming together in particular places builds community, and community matters.
In the digital age, and particularly during COVID, we learnt that it was possible for students to learn remotely. Staff could also work remotely. Academic conferences were held online. But most of the conferences are now primarily face-to-face again, with ‘digital back up’ for registrants, who for one reason or another cannot be there in person.
This is the model that I believe should be the default for many universities – face-to-face learning with digital back up (but perhaps with that digital back up ramping up to 100% in some courses, in order to expand education to students who can never come to campus).
We need digital back up because many ad hoc or ongoing factors impair students’ abilities to attend, e.g. part-time work, caring responsibilities, and costs of transport. These should be taken into account and reasonable adjustments made, but the benefits of attending in person should also be articulated. Coming together often provides a richer experience, deeper memories, helps students stay on schedule, and can drive motivation for learning.
Fully online options can be introduced for students who can never attend. Such courses can work because the academics carefully design courses that work remotely, students know what to expect, and staff and students work together to ensure the best possible virtual experience.
The motivations for talking up online learning and flexibility are often laudable. Online learning can reach disadvantaged students who live remotely or are in full time employment. It can be all inclusive. From a management perspective growing the size of a university via online teaching both increases the contribution the institution can make to the world via teaching, and can also bolster the financial stability of the university by expanding and diversifying its student markets.
However, a ‘seamless integration of face to face and online learning’ with full flexibility is hard to achieve. Things fall between two stools. The face-to-face experience is sometimes compromised by the need for special attention to those online, and the online folk miss out on some things that are happening face to face. With careful planning this sort of ‘hybrid’ teaching can work, but it is naïve to think that it will work without special measures being taken, and it remains important to set expectations.
Whenever one aims for ‘everything’ or for ‘more, more, more’ specific things that are important tend to be neglected. Aiming for both online and face to face, or for ‘any old’ mix of the two, risks under investment in the campus, and in the infrastructure and effort required to make hybrid teaching work.
Ultimately though, my expectation is that practical realities will drive this debate in many disciplines. In lab-based courses the campus will always be important. But other disciplines will face a choice. My belief is that those that make the harder choice of articulating the importance of the campus will end up delivering the most for their students, although setting firm expectations will not always be popular.
I have long noticed that my Indigenous colleagues talk a lot about place and community. I think this captures something fundamental – that people have a basic need to come together for learning and work. I think we should articulate this more.
There is a wonderful short story written by E. M. Forster in 1909 that many regard as a remarkable prophesy of the internet age – When the Machine Stops. It is not a happy story. He explains the trap that society falls into when technology allows people to bring things to them rather than having to make an effort to travel to obtain things…
“And of course she had studied the civilization that had immediately preceded her own — the civilization that had mistaken the functions of the system, and had used it for bringing people to things, instead of for bringing things to people. Those funny old days, when individuals went out for a change of air instead of changing the air in their rooms!”
Information and knowledge are digital and can delivered anywhere, but universities are about more than just information, they are about growth and transformation. As we plan for the future, remembering the importance of place and community will serve us well, and celebrating the importance of getting out of our homes and seeking a change of air and perspective among fellow travellers, who may well become lifelong friends and colleagues, is something that we should not neglect.
Professor Merlin Crossley is Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic Quality at UNSW.
