The Covid approach to education must not become standard practice

The COVID approach to education must not become standard practice.

Australian universities are facing their day of reckoning. Punch-drunk, they have been facing a seemingly unrelenting barrage of unfavourable market conditions, public criticism and policy change. Regrettably, this has been exacerbated by a narrative that has focused acutely on the financial impact to the sector.

One could be considered remiss for thinking it is all about economics and not Australia’s aspirational and upwardly mobile youth. Now is the time to re-examine how the sector ended up in this quagmire, as well as how students can be firmly put back into the equation.

Like most service organisations caught in the spotlight of COVID-19 universities have been forced to compromise their service offerings at very short notice. By and large they have done their best in an extremely difficult situation. The pandemic has led the sector to engage in constructive discussions of what students learn, how they learn, as well as the tools, training, models and mechanisms to support this.

These are beneficial learnings. Mechanics matter, but mechanics alone are not enough to support student success. Imagine being one of the international students returning on the pilot flyback scheme only to rattle around on an empty campus devoid of staff and students, with limited course component offerings and social distancing preventing any normality.

Or think of one of the 17,200 extra students signing up to enrol next year for a cool $45,000 only to receive in return, a degree that is delivered significantly online and without a fulsome alma mater campus life experience. Add to this a less than certain income to pay the rent and put food on the table thanks to the recession, plus a dicey prospect of future employment, and it’s looking rather grim.

Worse still, put yourself in the shoes of a passionate humanities, law or commerce student driven to pursue their intellectual dreams, facing a bill hike of up to 113 per cent to subsidise other disciplines — the penalty for exercising choice. Selective degree price cuts will no doubt drive behavioural change, however pricing knowledge and offering a bargain basement sales table of cheap degrees next to the full priced rack seems a little distasteful. And at what cost to long-term societal, intellectual and cultural capital?

Much of the sector discourse to date has been pragmatic. But from a communications and public relations perspective targeting future students it is arguably shockingly tone-deaf. Commentary has been replete with statements such as the need for universities to “tick all the boxes for re-entry of international students,” and to be “prudent to manage risk through diversification”. If students didn’t feel like a number before this, they sure will now.

Other commentators have suggested that we pitch Australian universities as safe, trustworthy and affordable places to study amid COVID. But aren’t the real motivators the thrill of university life, social and intellectual growth, aspiration, increased confidence and a feeling that you’re finally on the way and headed for success? What ever happened to the idea that universities exist to educate our future generations and philosophically broaden their development? What happened to focusing on the ingredients for an outstanding, memorable university experience? Aren’t these factors more important for the relevance, reputation and sustainability of the sector?

It is not about the parchment, it’s about the experience. What isn’t needed is marketing spin, and I say this as a marketer, but a genuine strategic rethink and positioning that demonstrates that students aren’t just cogs in the money-making wheel. It is not any good having one foot on the accelerator, the other one on the brake, but no hands on the steering wheel.

We have entered a new reality. Paradoxically it has taken a global pandemic to turn the notion of the higher education experience on its head. Traditional physical lectures with their poor attendance have temporarily ceased to exist. Universities have had to ‘pivot’ to deliver their education in new synchronous and asynchronous formats online. There now exists an ‘edu-snack’ smorgasbord of bite-sized chunks of curated content. The new ‘drive-through’ education model has shattered the old and it will be here to stay.

But one has to wonder whether it is the case that everything and nothing at all has changed. How successful has this pivot been? Will the sector further enhance the current approaches post-COVID? And perhaps most importantly of all, are these approaches meeting the needs of students’ and their holistic university experience?

To frame this as a marketing issue, product and service sectors outside of the tertiary sector have engaged in constant, independent and deep market research with their customers during COVID to understand their markets. The higher education sector is perhaps more guilty of looking inward for solutions to its problems. For example, during COVID there has been a tendency by education institutions to adopt a technical product focus, rather than seeking to really understand the student and their psychological, emotional and functional needs as buyers

of educational services and to deliver upon those.

This begs the question, what should happen next?

The online pivot approaches adopted by the tertiary sector have accelerated by perhaps a decade, the changes that were already slowly occurring in terms of a shift to online. However, further innovation and careful strategic thinking is needed if the sector is to survive and deliver a value-added, enriching educational experience. The current COVID approaches cannot remain as the modus operandi for delivery in 2020 and beyond. Blunt zoom conferencing tools and tokenistic recorded lectures alone are no substitute for an interactive class experience where students do not feel inhibited to chat freely to the person sitting next to them in class.

An online breakout room cannot replace the conversations about study, life, and work that are had at the refectory. A digital platform by itself is no substitute for the microcosm of life that exists in a vibrant campus environment with all its cultural and intellectual richness. You can’t curate intellectual, social and emotional engagement.

While many students have found the temporary approaches to online learning convenient and flexible, sector surveys have found that even more students perceive the shift to online to be destabilising, isolating and disenfranchising.

In the transition towards online learning, how students engage, and why they engage is evolving. Physical markers of engagement such as participation, and citizenship behaviours may not have direct digital analogs. Social markers such as belonging may not be as quickly, deeply or organically established. Emotional markers such as student happiness may occur in response to different stimuli within online environs.

Certainly, during COVID-affected online delivery of education, emotional support and empathy have played a critical role in supporting student success. Finally, the process of learning itself may differ in online modes due to the role of self-regulation and the parallel impact on self-efficacy.

There is a pressing need for the sector to reconsider plans for online delivery moving forward. A balance needs to be struck between achieving a fulsome, rich and connected university experience, ensuring core delivery of educational content and providing flexible options for learning. To continue ‘as is’ in the status quo as some quarters have recently suggested, risks student dissatisfaction and disengagement and spells disaster for retention, success and ultimately graduate employment.

The upshot of this new normal is that universities will need to rethink the experiential value

of university.

Jana Bowden is chair of ethics, and associate professor of consumer behaviour at the Macquarie University Business School.