This document summarizes a presentation by Dr. Valerie Irvine on multi-access learning. It discusses how higher education needs to adapt to increasing online learning options and declining domestic enrollment. Dr. Irvine proposes a model of multi-access learning that gives students more choice and control over how they access courses, either face-to-face, synchronous online, asynchronous online, or open. A pilot of this approach saw high student satisfaction and preference for the flexibility. Dr. Irvine argues that multi-access learning can help universities increase revenue streams and better serve student needs.

1. Beyond Blended:
Re-aligning Higher Ed for
Multi-Access Learning
Dr. Valerie Irvine
@_valeriei
Flickr@Wonderlane
#multiaccess October 30, 2013 for UVic

2. Dr. Valerie Irvine
Assistant Professor, EdTech
Co-Director, TIE Lab
University of Victoria
http://edtech.uvic.ca/virvine
http://tie.uvic.ca
@_valeriei
virvine@uvic.ca

3. Access
Control
Learner Agency

8. Irvine, V. (2013). Multi-Access Learning

9. Four Tiers of Multi-Access
1. Face-to-Face
2. Synchronous Online
3. Asynchronous Online
4. Open

10. Grand Yellowhead School Division, Alberta

11. The Technology Integration and
Evaluation (TIE) Research Lab

12. Irvine, V. (2011). Multi-Access learning

15. Seems Like A Lot of Effort?

16. Our Success
 100% increase in
meetings year/over/year
 1,697 meetings last year
 860 meetings in first 4
months this year
 $334,000 in total savings
last year

17. Online Learning
• 25% increase in Higher Ed e-learning market in
2012-2017 (Education Sector Factbook, 2012)
• Full-time students are in the minority (Bates)
• Brick-and-Mortar Universities are sleeping
giants in online learning (Irvine, 2013)

18. Revenue
• 90-95% controlled by government
• 50-60% in grants
• Remainder in regulated domestic tuition

19. Decreasing 18-22 demographic nationally.
USask, (2009). Managing enrollment strategically at the University of Saskatchewan 2009 Report.
Available online: http://bit.ly/Ik8ypY

20. Student Tuition Income
• Demographic decline a significant issue
• Domestic numbers unlikely to increase before
2030
• International student numbers will drop
quickly after 2020
• Ability to increase resources is about
increasing net tuition

21. ISSUES FACING BRICK &
MORTAR UNIVERSITIES
Current PSE Landscape demonstrates
1. Diminishing funds/cutbacks from the provincial
government;
2. Increase in colleges with degree-granting status
provincially
3. Increase in online programs globally

22. Increase in online programs
world-wide…. or
Everything we provide is now offered by
someone else.
-- David Wiley

23. Meeting Future Revenue Needs
•
•
•
•
Governments… not
Undergraduate students… not much
Graduate students… yes
International students… yes, but now competitive

24. ISSUES FACING BRICK &
MORTAR UNIVERSITIES
What students want:
Flexibility in their learning options
• Many have to work FT/PT jobs to be able to
afford PSE
• Reluctant to leave their positions in this
economic climate

25. SOLUTION to Increase
Revenue
Top ways cited to increase revenue are to:
1. Recruit international students; and
2. Deliver course-based master’s programs.

26. A 3rd SOLUTION…
Change access
and registration
options

27. SOLUTION:
Multi-Access Learning

28. Current Face to Face Option

29. Current Online Option

31. Destination in Place and Space

32. LEARNER ACCESS:
Promoting Student Agency
• Emergence of choice - expanding “anytime,
anywhere”
• Social media/personalized learning networks
expanded this to “with anyone”
• I would like to expand this to “in any way”

33. MOST IMPORTANTLY
Transfer locus of control of how to access
courses to the learner.

35. Reassembling the Building Blocks
has RISK…but we otherwise risk irrelevance

36. Pilot of 2-Tier Multi-Access
•
•
•
•
•
Petition
26 learners in the course
17 remote learners
9 F2F
Survey administered at the end with openended responses included

37. Pilot of 2-Tier Multi-Access
• 16 consented to participate
– 11 women, 5 men
– 10 from remote group, 6 from F2F group
– 8 had taken an online course before
• 7 women and 1 man

38. Learner Preferences for Modality
• 9 out of 15 (60%) ranked multi-access as top
choice
• 3 selected blended
• 2 selected F2F
• 1 selected online

39. Learner Preferences for Modality
TOP CHOICE
• 9 out of 15 (60%) ranked multi-access as top
choice
• 3 selected blended
• 2 selected F2F
• 1 selected online

40. Learner Preferences for Modality
TOP CHOICE
• 14 out of 15 (93.3%) chose multi-access (F2F
or remote) as 1st or 2nd choice

41. Learner Preferences for Modality
BOTTOM CHOICE
• 9 out of 15 (60%) ranked online as lowest rank
• 4 (25%) selected F2F as lowest
• Last two participants chose blended and
multi-access remote

42. Importance of Choice
• 4.67 on a 5.0 scale for importance of choice in
delivery mode
• 73.3% of learners reported a score of 5.0 (very
important)
– All of these were students who had previously
taken an online course before
• Consistent across both F2F and remote groups

43. Perceptions of Quality
• 8 students (57%) reported quality of learning
increased
• 6 students (42.9%) reported it stayed the
same
• No pattern between group membership as F2F
or remote group

44. The REAL test of success.
INITIAL STUDENT
FEEDBACK

45. Multi-Access Remote
Student
• I think the quality of teaching and learning was not affected
by the course being online. The instructor was effective in
delivering the material and giving appropriate wait times after
asking questions. It was a very interactive course which I
believe would have the same impact if the course was fully
F2F. We are going towards an online community, and it is
great to know that there are already professors out there
that are equipped with the skills and knowledge to
effectively teach in any setting. Great experience. I wish
more people this year had had the same opportunity.

46. Multi-Access Remote
Student
• I would say that it enhanced it. I felt like I was in
the class with live video and audio feeds, but at
the same time I had access to review the
teaching materials on my own computer and
expand with my own research during the class
without disrupting the flow of the lesson. For a
long class (3 hours +) the opportunity to access
from home was a huge advantage because the
comfortable setting allowed me to hold focus
and breaks were more refreshing.

47. Multi-Access Remote
Student
• I really enjoyed the multi-access experience. I had
ongoing conversations on instant messenger with a
classmate whilst listening and taking in a presentation for
example. If you're in a face-to-face class you can't just
pull out your laptop and start typing because it's rude,
but when you're using multi-access, you can immediately
check out any thought tangents online whilst keeping up
with the presenter. This makes the learning experience
fuller, because you can check things out as you think of
them instead of forgetting them and not getting around
to it after the class is done. I did feel part of the class as
well.

48. Multi-Access Remote
Student
• I also experienced the class from the other side
of the monitor, and I have to say, it feels better
on the technology. I felt the pace of the class
was much slower when I was in the classroom
F2F.
• hmmmmm. Personally I am an auditory learner
so this was exponentially better than any
previous online learning courses I have taken.

49. Multi-Access Remote
Student
• It was fairly neutral, overall. I didn't feel like it
was any better or worse in terms of learning
quality, but I did feel that it was light years more
convenient for me. Grow this opportunity!
Offer these kinds of course mediums as often as
possible! They really do make the grade, and it
makes life for people in rural areas so much
easier and more affordable!

50. Multi-Access Remote
Student
• I commend the individuals who designed
and implemented this course. It was
extremely successful, and accommodated
many students who would have otherwise
faced serious challenges regarding their
living situations.

51. •
Multi-Access Remote
Student
If I lived very close to campus year round, I think I would have
preferred to be in a F2F class or a multi-access class in which I
was in the room. However, I lived in [a town on the outskirts]
and avoiding the 45 minute drive saved me a lot of money
and valuable time that I could spend being more productive.
On top of that, the flexibility that the multi-access course
provided allowed me to move to another city to prepare for
my practicum much further ahead of schedule than a F2F
course would have permitted. I went to my practicum city 3
weeks before my start day; while a F2F class would have given
me a long weekend to pack up and move, meet with teachers,
supervisor, and admin, and plan my lessons with no time to
observe.

52. Multi-Access Remote
Student
• I think it contributes to the quality of learning
because it's differentiated instruction. By having
a multi-access course, students can choose how
to participate. I felt like my needs were met and
the video enhanced the quality of the teaching
and learning. Without video, I wouldn't be able
to concentrate for 3 hours.

53. Multi-Access F2F Student
• I would have also appreciated the opportunity to
choose whether I would be an online or F2F
student, even though I reside in *university’s
city+.”

54. Multi-Access F2F Student
• I know that the remote group benefitted from
the online aspect of the class for monetary
reasons, which I fully support. University is
expensive, saving money any way that
individuals can, should.”
• “I think [multi-access] would be ESPECIALLY
important for professional development courses
that full-time teachers would want to take.

55. Multi-Access F2F Student
• Multi-access allowed me to talk and discuss
with students and hear their actual voices
and their thoughts rather than just written
comments. From other online classes I've
taken there was very little student-student
participation, with this class I felt like these
peers were right there with us. It enhanced
the experience.

56. Multi-Access F2F Student
• This course was amazing. It allowed for
freedom of life - the ability to participate
online and face-to-face was essential in life
as a parent, caregiver for an ailing parent
and a full time student.

57. Next Steps
•
•
•
•
Infrastructure
More n and research
Registration system
Policies & Governance

58. VALERIE IRVINE, PH.D
virvine@uvic.ca | @_valeriei
http://edtech.uvic.ca/virvine
http://tie.uvic.ca/ | @TIELab

59. References
• Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (in press). Realigning higher
education through multi-access learning. MERLOT Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2).
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/irvine_0613.htm
Temporary link till published:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4616169/Irvine-CodeRichards-2013.pdf
• Irvine, V. (2013, July). Multi-access learning. Invited talk to
Blendsync.org. Retrieved from
http://connect.csu.edu.au/p6wu6ey0fhq/
• Irvine, V. (2013, May). The 21st century university. Keynote to
TLT13. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/HZ_msR7YHwY (multiaccess part at 49:36)

60. References
• Irvine, V., & Richards, L. (2013, January). Multi-access learning:
Overview and preliminary project data. Presentation to the
Canadian Institute of Distance Education Research. Retrieved from
http://cider.athabascau.ca/CIDERSessions/irvine2013/sessiondetail
s
• Irvine, V., & Code, J. (2012, May). The 21st-century university:
Implications and benefits of choice of learner access and openness.
Paper presented at the BCNET-HPCS Annual Conference,
Vancouver, Canada.

61. References
• Irvine, V. & Code, J. (2011, January). The 21st Century University.
Presentation to the Change11 MOOC. Retrieved from
http://change.mooc.ca/week16.htm
• Irvine, V. (2009). The emergence of choice in “multi-access”
learning environments: Transferring locus of control of course
access to the learner. In Proceedings of World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications
2009 (pp. 746–752). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.