The COVID-19 pandemic upended the traditional academic model that is based on the modality of face-to-face instruction, the desire to have a traditional largely residential student population, distinct separation of the degree and continuing education structures, a significant focus on deselection of students to gain rankings and reputation by increasing selectivity, and a focus on a traditional student population that has been shrinking over the last decade from a high of 21,019,438 at all post-secondary degree granting institutions in 2010 to a new low of 19,637,499 in 2019[1].
While the change in enrollment has often been described as a demographic cliff it is in reality more of a demographic and socio-economic shift from the past with universities having the opportunity to do far more than just educate students within the traditionally considered narrow bounds of 18-24 year old students coming to an institution of higher education directly from high school to one that is often referred to as “non-traditional” but in reality is already a significant percentage of the population[2] at a large number of public non-flagship institutions and has been referenced as the “#RealCollege” population[3]. The challenges and opportunities arising from these developments need to be addressed not just through the lens of changing needs of the nation, but also based on opportunities afforded by the rapid advancements in technology that have opened new vistas of engagement with learners, writ large.
Decades ago the concept of a “connected campus” was related to one that was accessible to the rest of the community through ease of transportation. The last decade of the past century and the first decade of the 2000’s saw increasing emphasis on design for directed flows and gathering spaces within buildings and across campuses to encourage, catalyze, and to an extent even “force” greater social interaction and engagement to enhance “connectivity.” As the power of computer networks and the use of Wi-Fi increased on campus the concept of “connected” moved from one of physical connection alone to one that included a “networked connected campus.” In this case varied functions across the university were connected through a network with the focus being on integrating platforms so that data and services could be easily accessed and used effectively. Initiating from back-office functionality and operations such as registration and payments, networking expanded to “connect” diverse offices and data, enabling some campuses to be largely “digital” in their approach to the collection and use of data and as a means of interacting with constituents on repetitive functions.
The incorporation of cloud services, AI, and IoT devices have already led to significant benefits on some campuses in areas ranging from better learning outcomes and incorporation of mechanisms and interventions that can substantially improve student retention and graduation rates, and improved decision making in non-academic operational areas including smart parking, better classroom usage, more efficient use of power and utilities, digital signage, and smart security. It must, however, be emphasized that most of these are not autonomous but serve as tools to assist, supplement, and augment human interaction.
Thus, while the concept of a “Smart” campus is now common and it is an essential aspect of being “connected” this does not automatically represent being “engaged,” “integrated,” or in increasing “accessibility.” All these, intrinsically, depend on intentional design with the focus of not just linking functions and functionality in digital space, but as importantly, enabling greater connectivity and engagement, augmenting aspects that are already conducted in physical spaces and traditional modes with those now enabled through technology. The focus is on expanding capability and functionality removing the constraints of time and physical co-location and replacing the frustrating cycle of movement from one office to the next to complete even routine tasks to one that is seamlessly integrated and user focused.
Such a campus, representing the merging of digital and physical modalities resulting in an extension of the physical and time-bound environment through the appropriate incorporation of technology provides significant opportunities to re-envision higher education, not only making it more accessible to a far larger population but also enabling the transition from teaching (in the sense of a one-way transaction) to learning, with personalization of offerings and time, and support, to master knowledge based on the individual. It also enables institutions of higher education to offer a continuum of knowledge across previous barriers (real and implied) of location, previous credentials and experience, age, and socio-economic status, thereby greatly enlarging the size of the population served extending from first time students to those returning for reskilling and/or upskilling[4]. The diversity of needs of this range of learners, previously completely separated between the academic and continuing education enterprises, was difficult to address within the strictures of an “8-4” type of institution, not because of the timing of courses offered where there has always been a level of flexibility and choice, but rather because of the lack of true engagement outside those hours, and the unavailability of modules of knowledge as and when needed outside the confines of traditional degree based courses. The adoption of the “connected” campus mode combining physical and digital spaces significantly address the previous lacunae.
Through the use of a range of modalities from face-to-face (the traditional mode) to fully online immersive, and synchronous and asynchronous access, to the use of hybrid, hyflex, flipped, and other modalities, learning is now possible for a much larger number of students unconstrained by the physical infrastructure and physical footprint of a university/college. While there is undoubtedly great value to the social interaction that is made possible through the traditional 4-year residential mode, this was already not possible for an increasing population for reasons ranging from cost and location to family and work responsibilities. If we were, today, to design with a fresh sheet of paper, we might best posit it as a case of how the opportunity of higher education could effectively be brought to the student rather than the other way around.
The current focus on a largely space driven, and location based, campus creates constraints on the flexibility offered to students since uniform and fixed schedules are essential. The use of a digitally augmented options allows not only for terms of different lengths, but also different start dates with the extreme being that a learner/student could begin a course of study when it was convenient to them rather than to the provider, again putting the user/consumer at the center. When combined with the ability of increased access the focus would be on the number of students admitted to programs of study rather than those turned down, changing the focus from “selectivity” to inclusivity. The added flexibility enabled through multiple modes of instruction and engagement also make it possible for larger segments of the population to take advantage of the opportunities afforded through higher education, melding responsibilities, and constraints, of work and even family responsibilities, with study in a manner that best suits the individual and thus better assures their success.
Thus, students would have a palette of options ranging from the traditional mode to that of fully immersed online learning with hybrids and combinations in between, including that of facilitated learning with the actual instruction being online with support being in a face-to-face mode at local centers in a manner that has been successfully demonstrated for years in S. America for rural populations. Multiple modes would exponentially increase the number of opportunities for higher education making access a question of desire and commitment on the part of the student rather than of the chances of birth, geography, or high school. The provision of multiple modes would provide greater opportunity for those who are unable to sync work and class schedules, have family obligations such as children or elderly parents, or have to travel as part of their work/career. At an extreme, student enrollment would no longer be constrained by space since all modalities of offerings including fully online could be implemented by design and even physical infrastructure, at an extreme, could be used through a designed set of schedules that used the space almost 24/7/365 through multiple starts, different term lengths, and even online learning across very different global time zones.[5]
While it does not replace the traditional degree-based concept of an institution of higher education the “connected” campus does expand its scope and its relevance through ensuring dynamic, rather than merely transactional, engagement at all levels. The integration of platforms and data streams, with the appropriate high level of security, not only provides information for more efficient operations but also the context for decisions and for fostering a “data inspired” culture. Rather than constraining student interaction to isolated instances, the engagement can be continuous, proactive, and as needed – even 24/7/365, ensuring that the learner is constantly “in control” and receives the information, knowledge, and support needed in real time This improves sociological contexts in terms of communications, support, and a sense of belonging, all of which are known to enhance student success. In addition, aspects such as student wellness can be effected 24/7 through the use of online student mental health and telemedicine services, augmenting those available on the physical campus but enlarging scope both for students unable to be on campus during regular times of operation of such facilities and those who previously had to wait inordinate time periods to just get an appointment. Similar increases in engagement and intentional intervention can be realized in areas of student advising, tutoring, and career counseling, not only enabling students to receive support as, and when, needed but also proactively based on data collected from their class based and other academic activities. The integration, in real-time, of wrap-around support systems that can be brought to effect in concerted fashion, rather than in isolated single approaches, as well as the ability to stay engaged using technology provides a critical aspect of support that in most institutions has not been available previously. This also catalyzes a much closer integration and partnership between the academic and student affairs enterprises, focusing on the student rather than on what are often (and erroneously) considered as different functional areas of the campus.
The post-COVID environment could well present a unique opportunity for public higher education in the US to re-envision itself as the 21st century analog of the land grant institutions – reaching the widest possible population possible, ensuring dissemination of pertinent knowledge, increasing the transition of knowledge to socio-economic development, and enhancing the ability of communities served to be continuously reskilled/upskilled all through modalities that were not even envisioned when the Morrill, and Smith-Lever acts were signed. The ability to combine the physical and digital worlds to create a phygital reality that not only enhances the ability of higher education to reach and serve a larger population but to also do it more effectively and efficiently, enabling knowledge to be taken to the learner rather than depending on geographical co-location of the learner and source of knowledge, is transformative. It shifts the definition, and focus, of campuses from one built on the concept of physical space to one that combines the best of physical and digital modalities enabling the implementation of a truly connected and engaged campus – one where students and faculty rather than physical infrastructure are at the center. Under these circumstances the concept of a campus shifts from a combination of common spaces, laboratories, offices, residential halls, and services where people are physically collocated to a phygital combination focused on people who could be spread globally creating, disseminating, and accessing knowledge and wrap-around support services seamlessly without constraints of time, space, and location. Although this upends the traditional idea of a campus, it does not per se replace it. Rather it expands and strengthens on the concept of the intrinsic and continuous link between student/learner and the institution focused on people and knowledge rather than space.
For related articles from Dr. Karbhari, see:
7 Keys to Re-Envisioning Higher Ed to Ensure Equity of Opportunity
Vistasp M. Karbhari is a Professor in the Departments of Civil Engineering, and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, where he served as President from 2013-2020. He is a Fellow of Complete College America, and can be followed on Twitter at @VistaspKarbhari and on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/vistaspmkarbhari.