Today in class, we talked about multi-access learning and the benefits or challenges of new technology like videoconference.
Obviously, videoconference has a lot of benefits since it increases access to learning opportunities for remote schools, students who are too sick to come to class, or even students who have struggle with coming to class.
However, we looked at the requirement of face-to-face experience in the classroom and I (kind of) agreed that it was somewhat preferable for connection, personalized learning and a more engaged classroom. We know how it is difficult to have a classroom conversation with many people on the same conference call since the communication cues are not as natural and obvious on a screen. I have learned that some conference rooms can have a microphone and a button for each desk and that every time you want to talk the camera is zooming on you and you can talk with everyone’s attention.
Should an instructor’s preference override student accessibility?
That is another difficult question because the first instinct is to say no. Yes, modality should be chosen according to the student’s need, not the teacher’s preference. But with the precedent question, it is hard to say that because we know how much we value face-to-face interaction and how much we see benefits from it.
Does or should modality biais exist?
For me, it is obvious that they exist. There is no concept in this world that is free of biais (almost). And when it comes to technology, it is dividing so many people it is almost impossible that we do not have biais around modality even through the lens of accessibility.
Should we allow flexibility in modality accessibility?
Yes! But I wonder if we can do this while still putting value in face-to-face interaction. I do believe in the power of a classroom community and face-to-face connection. I believe that I can be more present and supportive if I am physically present in the classroom. However, if the need would arise, I would be totally open to have multiple modalities in my classroom. I think that video-conference are a great tool to help bridge the gap between students who have a difficult access to education. But, I wonder if the cost of it could be a deterrent for some: phones and computers are expensive. Would that be the responsibility of the student to have one?
But it can be simple
Because if you don’t make it accessible for people to get a higher education, it comes down to reserve education to a privilege group of people who are healthy, live without anxiety, live in a big cities, have the mean to get to go to a class physically (transport, etc).Since it is a human right issue, there has to be an openness about the different modalities. You have to be open to share your slides, have the students in an audio or a video-conference. You have to find their needs and try to meet them. You can have different pods : remote online with face-to-face together, on-campus pod, remote only individuals, blended who are moving back and forth.
So to better capture that new reality of open learning, Multi-Access seems like more appropriate because it includes, face-to-face, video-conference, online, and all kinds of different ways to make your class more accessible to everybody.
