Virtually the same?: Online higher education in the post Covid‐19 era

For this special section for the British Journal of Education Technology on the future of online higher education in the post-covid-19 era, we called for research papers to analyse and reflect on the lessons and experiences universities, East and West, have gained over the period of the ongoing pandemic. We intended that the special section would also explore the implications for the future of online university education. The research is, therefore, particularly timely, and provides a good complement to a previous BJET special section: online and blended learning: contexts and conditions for education in an emergency (Greenhow it is also difficult to find evidence of significant sustainable pedagogic or policy changes, or, in most cases, any deep changes other than the move online. Some of the major hopes for online learning (and online life more generally) have included the hope for an increasing democratisation of educational encounters (prefigured already in the writings of Ivan Illich in the early 1970s, Illich, 1971), greater access to higher education from a wider range of as yet underrepresented groups, more flexible accreditation structures, and more collaboration across institutions and between countries. National and international emergencies such as wars and pandemics have in the past often led to rapid transformation in educational systems and practices, but it is difficult, from the articles represented here, to find much evidence for such a transformation taking place. The special section starts with seven original research papers. Three of them focus on universities in Asia, such as Mainland China and Hong Kong, India, and South Korea. The other four focus on western universities in Canada, the UK and the USA. These papers explore the coping mechanisms among the Eastern and Western universities for emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the pandemic, the impact of ERT on students and staff, and also some of the implications for post-pandemic improvement. Ng (2022) analyses the effectiveness of a month-long online aviation programme implemented in Mainland China and Hong Kong universities for undergraduate aviation and tourism students. He argues that even though students were motivated to learn online, and appreciated the collaborative and ‘hands-on’ opportunities offered by online learning, they prefer blended learning, since face to face teaching enables them to have a proper contact and social interactions with their peers, and also industry professionals in a physical environment. The research carried out by Lee and Fanguy (2022) focuses on online exam proctoring technologies. The researchers examine the impact and effectiveness of the technology in a South Korean context on three areas, namely student subjectivities, pedagogical relationships, and educational outcomes. Data on students studying in a top tier South Korean university suggest that online exam proctoring systems currently do not produce positive educational outcomes, and do not encourage students to further develop their high order thinking skills. This is mainly due to tutors' perceived stereotypical view of students as cheaters and the associated unethical consequences. It has been reported in the existing research that university students found it very difficult to study effectively during the ERT (Besser et al., 2020; Greenhow VanLeeuwen et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the pandemic-imposed online learning also provided some opportunities and flexibility for international collaboration between universities and students globally. The next two papers emphasize virtual learning networks. McGregor et al. (2022) report their successful experience in transforming a UK-based face-to-face doctoral summer school to an online event. The researchers emphasize the importance of providing preparatory work (eg, providing appropriate contextual background information prior to the start of the summer school) and also quality communication (eg, discussions relating to their doctoral research, and regular social interactions) for student researchers. Similarly, Logemann et al. (2022) investigate the effectiveness of a Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) project. The project, in 2020, contained over 500 students from 17 universities in seven countries. The authors suggest the need for building and developing emotional belonging in this international collaborative context. They argue that the community feeling can be achieved by using technologies to maintain connections with each other, and also by tutors providing hands-on and ad hoc coaching style support to students. In addition to the seven original research papers, the special section includes two review papers. Salas-Pilco et al. (2022) conduct a systematic review of literature on online student engagement in Latin American higher education. Student engagement is examined in three dimensions: behavioural, cognitive and affective. To help move the digital transformation of Latin American universities forward, the authors recommend improvements in internet connectivity, technology training for academics and emotional support for students. A second review paper, by Zhang et al. (2022), is a bibliometric analysis of literature on the global higher education sector regarding pandemic-imposed online learning. The review explores a wide range of topics in a global context, including the use of technologies, pedagogical approaches, student perceptions and the psychological impact of ERT. The discussion section of the paper highlights a major gap in the literature, that is, the lack of attention paid to students with disabilities. The researchers also argue that technologies on their own do not properly address the educational challenges students and staff face in an online learning environment. They must be used to enable and support innovative digital pedagogies. Our first conclusion is that the papers will help readers gain a better understanding of online learning and teaching in a global context during the pandemic. However, they have not yet reported anything strikingly new, or anything previously unknown to academia. Second, the research focus and related recommendations seem to be mainly on the micro-level (programme and modules), with less attention paid to the meso level (institutional and intra-institutional) or the macro-level (national and intranational). For example, no paper has reported changes to policies and strategic plans at the university- or country-level. Third, although the special section includes research on both the Eastern and Western, Global North and Global South, education systems, there did not appear to be any significant differences in dealing with the digital disruption. In other words, universities all seem to have experienced similar challenges, and adopted similar approaches in teaching and supporting students in an online environment, regardless of their cultural, economic and educational contexts. This surprised us. Perhaps the global tech companies that supply most university systems meant that quickly-implemented increases in online learning were guided by a small number of multinational companies, thus smoothing out local differences? Our fourth conclusion is that the articles indicate how little is known about less ‘mainstream’ student groups, such as international students (onshore and offshore), students with disabilities, and mature students. Is it fair to say that, although everything has changed, everything has really stayed much the same? On balance, this does seem fair, with pandemic-stimulated online learning seeming to have rather predictable advantages and challenges, and few big changes to policy or practice. Of course, time will tell, and there may be more substantial post-pandemic changes to online university education to come in the next few years. But if previous major national and international disruptions are considered, such as the world wars of the twentieth century, then transformative educational policy changes were enacted even as the wars were continuing—in the UK, with major educational legislation (along with other transformative policy changes) enacted in 1918 and 1944, both prior to the ends of those two wars. On the whole, this special section suggests that online university education has increased dramatically during the pandemic, but also that it is, virtually (as it were), much the same. We wish to extend our special thanks to Professor Sara Price, the contributing authors and the reviewers for supporting the development of this special section.