I am writing a series of blog posts about the effects of Covid-19 on higher education. In this post, I explore the effects of Covid-19 on Instructional Technology departments, on instructional design practices, and on perceptions of online learning more broadly.
Overall, the pandemic has created a great boom for instructional technology like video conferencing and exam security, and it has increased the demand for instructional technologists and instructional designers. However, as remote, virtual, hybrid, and online learning has become more mainstream, it has also become distorted into something that is not supported by learning science.
Big Boom for Video Conferencing
2020 was the “Year of Zoom.” The video conferencing platform became a household name, and “to Zoom” became synonymous with “to participate in a virtual conference session,” much like “to Google” has come to mean “to search online.” Zoom’s stock price soared in 2020 from about 65 in January to about 570 in October.
But it wasn’t only Zoom. Other video conferencing platforms, particularly Google Meet and Microsoft Teams, also became more popular as institutions transitioned to remote, virtual, or online learning, and they turned to video conferencing platforms that were part of their Google or Microsoft package. Interestingly, though, Skype, which was part of the Microsoft family, lost its popularity, as Microsoft made several unsuccessful product redevelopments, according to Tom Warren at The Verge.
Video conferencing platforms also became more rigorous and user-friendly. It seemed like Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams were adding new features every week. These included customized and blurred backgrounds, recording, increased multi-person displays, closed captioning, and more.
And Video
The greater availability of video conferencing also encouraged virtual learning. If the pandemic had happened years ago, there would have been no way for so many instructors to meet with students virtually. They may have been able to use Skype, but each person would have needed to create an account and share their User ID, plus few people would have had the internet data package, webcam, and microphone to handle live video streaming with the quality we have now. (I agree with James Altucher that internet bandwidth and other technology capabilities made virtual, remote, online learning, and work-from-home possible in 2020.) Several years ago, we would all be distributing paper packets.
Not everyone could attend live virtual sessions, so demand for recorded sessions and video storage platforms also increased. Some instructors used virtual sessions for discussion and question-and-answer instead, and they pre-recorded their lectures using screen capture software such Screen-Cast-O-Matic, Loom, Camtasia or Snagit, or they used a video conferencing platform.
The use of instructor-generated videos also encouraged the greater adoption of video for instructional content and assessment. Academic programs that could no longer use labs, clinicals, and other experiential learning components purchased academic video libraries – particularly in the sciences and health professions – and they transformed experience-based assignments into video case studies. Many courses also required that students submit their speeches, group presentations, clinical demonstrations, and even conference sessions as live video presentations or as recorded videos.
Integration with External Platforms
Academic programs adopted more than video packages. They also adopted more Online Educational Resources, eBooks, and online course packs through educational companies such as Pearson, Elsevier, McGraw Hill, Lumen Learning, and many others. These platforms provide online instructional content, interactive activities, online exams, and downloadable exam question databases.
Many of these platforms also offer integration with the learning management system. These integrations allow students to use their institution’s single sign-on, and courses can embed instructional content and assignment grades directly in the LMS’s learning materials and gradebook.
Exam Security and Online Assessments
As courses moved online, and testing centers closed to in-person testing, academic programs needed to find ways to ensure exam security for online testing. Many institutions purchased or expanded their existing contract with exam security providers such as Respondus or Proctorio.
These platforms “lock down” a student’s computer so they can’t access other online materials while they are taking the exam. They also record students and their desktop via webcam as they take an exam to ensure students’ identity and ensure they are not using resources such as a textbook or cell phone while taking an exam. Some of these platforms also allow live video proctoring.
(FYI – There are many critics of these exam platforms because they violate student privacy rights and use student data for data mining and profit purposes.)
The use of online assessments has also encouraged the use of online grading tools, such as the Turnitin Feedback Studio, which allows instructors to add comments to a document. Turnitin is also famous for its “originality check,” which matches text from a student’s essay to a database of essays and other online resources. This tool is often used to detect plagiarism. (Turnitin was valuable even before the Covid pandemic. It sold for $1.75 Billion in 2019.)
Support and Training
The greater use of instructional technology also meant a greater need for technical support and just-in-time user training.
Support was especially needed to ensure access and basic functionality. In the past, a closed or unpublished course shell caused an inconvenience; students could not see their grades or download the syllabus and PowerPoints from online, but they could get this information by asking the instructor or another student. Now, an unpublished online course causes a major accessibility issue; students have no other way to access instructional materials and submit assignments. Not being able to access the course means they will be behind on their work.
The quick adoption of new technology platforms also caused other technology problems. For example, students who could use a Chromebook to complete assignments at home could not use the Chromebook to take online exams with certain exam security software. A student’s desktop computer at home may not have had reliable internet or a webcam, so they kept getting kicked out of the online exam, or they couldn’t proceed beyond the facial recognition step on the online exam.
And, suddenly, everyone wanted training for everything. Many Information Technology, Teaching & Learning Centers, and Instructional Design departments offer new employee onboarding and professional development workshops for regularly-used software such as PowerPoint and basic features of the LMS such as announcements, assignments, exams, discussions, and the gradebook. Suddenly, though, everyone wanted to learn all of the features of technology tools that were primarily used by instructional designers in the past.
As a result, one of the greatest demands for instructional technology departments has been just-in-time training, virtual workshops, and online resource centers. There is now an abundance of “how-to” videos and written documentation. And instructional technologists now have headline speaking opportunities at all-faculty convocations that were reserved for strategic planning and other invigorating keynotes about student success in the past. Monthly workshops, which had an attendance of three to five regulars in the past, now have well over 40 attendees, plus they request access to the recording and a follow up email conversation.
Distorted Perception
Unfortunately, all of this heightened attention on instructional technology has shifted the role of instructional technologists to technology support.
Traditionally, instructional designers have been partners in curriculum development. Instructional designers helped create student learning outcomes, module objectives, assignments, grading rubrics, and engaging online activities. Instructional designers also recorded and embedded videos, created video transcripts, add alternative text descriptions to images, integrated content from external learning platforms, designed effective content pages, organized learning modules, setup assignments and exams, ensured alignment of content and assessment to student learning outcomes, and more. In short, instructional designer helped build courses.
Now, though, instructional technologists provide quick support with the LMS and other technology platforms. Examples include scheduling a virtual conference session and sharing the link with students, sharing a recorded virtual conference session with students, reviewing exam and assignment settings, investigating why students can’t see a particular assignment or submit a particular file, fixing integration problems with external platforms, and troubleshooting for personal devices.
Instructional designers and technologists have always struggled against the perception that they are IT – and many times the department does report to the IT division instead of Academic Affairs – but the perception that instructional designers and technologists are actually technology support staff has increased dramatically, and it has created a misunderstanding about the role of instructional designers.
Fewer Standards and Processes
Unfortunately, in the quick rush to adjust to virtual, remote, and online learning, many institutions abandoned established processes for new technology adoption.
Typically, new technologies are adopted after rigorous pilot testing and training. It takes years to identify a technology need (that cannot be met with existing software), research technology platforms, watch demo presentations, organize a pilot study with a limited number of users and courses, survey pilot uses and analyze results, secure funding for a broader adoption, integrate the platform across the university, create documentation and train all users, and promote and support integration of the new software throughout the academic programs.
This process was abandoned as instructors and administrators determined – without testing – that they needed to have certain software or online platforms and that it needed to be available across the university for anyone to use.
Instruction design and online learning standards were also dismissed or abandoned. Typically, online courses are developed according to a set of instructional design quality standards, such as Quality Matters or other best practices the college has adopted. Online courses are proposed, developed, reviewed, and approved before they are presented to students; some academic programs also require a separate accreditation for online programs.
During the Covid pandemic, however, in-person courses were transitioned to virtual and online formats without adhering these quality standards. Accrediting organizations and state education departments “waived” the requirement for approval of online programs, and they gave temporary approval for all academic programs to be taught in online, hybrid, virtual, and other distance learning formats.
As a result, students and instructors now believe that anything goes in the online environment. They believe that any course that is administered online – even if it is not developed according to a set of quality standards – is an example of “online learning.” Instructors are also requesting stipends for “developing an online course” even though all they have done is populate the course shell with in-person learning materials such as PowerPoints, PDF readings, a few links to videos, and online assignments and exams.
These courses are still very far from the intentionally-designed online courses that follow a set of quality standards, yet many instructors and students now believe that these courses represent “online learning” because it’s what they have been exposed to for the last year. This perception of instructional design and online learning sets back both areas. Instructors believe that they create online courses without the collaboration of an instructional designer and without having to meet a set of quality standards. And students are already reacting against the low quality of this “online education,” and they are demanding that schools offer more in-person and hybrid class sessions, where they have more direct access to instructors, clearer explanations about course content, more support and opportunities to ask questions, and more engagement with classmates.
It’s no surprise that students are requesting better learning experiences in a different learning format. For the last year, they have been experiencing online or virtual versions of in-person classes, as instructors have tried to replicate components of in-person learning (such as live lectures, group discussions, and simultaneous timed exams) with video conferencing and LMS platforms. What students have been experiencing is ineffective online versions of in-person classes, they have not been experiencing what’s best in online learning.
Lirim Neziroski, Ph.D., MBA is a higher education administrator, education consultant, and previous faculty member with expertise in higher ed leadership, instructional technology, curriculum development, academic assessment, program leadership, and strategic planning. Contact Lirim for speaking, consulting, and writing opportunities.
Lirim Neziroski 
Leave a comment