Week 3 Reflection
Dr. Irvine closes her lecture with the quote, “The distance is nothing when one has a motive.” While this captures an important idea, I think education systems often reverse it. Motivation is rarely the barrier; access is.
The program description she shared illustrates this issue:
“The cohort will include face-to-face instruction in courses taught in a centrally located Vancouver site, and flexible, blended formats that mix onsite and online learning.”
Even after careful reading, it remains unclear whether a student could complete the program without attending in person. The reference to face-to-face instruction suggests required attendance in Vancouver, while “flexible, blended formats” implies online options without confirming their scope. As Dr. Irvine notes, “blended” has become so broad that it no longer communicates meaningful information. For students who cannot relocate due to financial, geographic, or health constraints, this ambiguity can act as a barrier rather than a neutral description.
Dr. Irvine shares a case that clearly illustrates the consequences of rigid modality decisions. A student with lupus needed to complete a required course but was told that in-person attendance was the only option. No alternative pathway was offered. For a student whose health makes physical attendance inaccessible, this is not a minor inconvenience. It effectively blocks access to a credential and the opportunities that depend on it. What stands out is that the barrier was not technological. As Dr. Irvine emphasizes, alternative delivery methods already exist. The limitation was institutional rather than logistical. The system had the capacity to adapt but chose not to.
Dr. Irvine’s data on modality preferences also highlights the limits of a single default approach. While 54% of students preferred face-to-face learning, nearly half favored hybrid, multi-access, or fully online options. Preferences varied widely across groups. Caregivers and rural students leaned toward online formats due to flexibility and access. First-generation, EAL, and international students tended to prefer face-to-face environments, often for support, interaction, or policy reasons. Students with disabilities showed diverse preferences depending on specific needs, and Indigenous learners demonstrated meaningful interest in both online and land-based approaches. These patterns reinforce the idea that no single modality serves all learners effectively.
The broader implication is that choosing one dominant mode will inevitably exclude some students. Flexible, multi-access models offer a more inclusive alternative by allowing learners to engage in ways that fit their circumstances. There is also a financial case for this approach, as accessible programs are more likely to reach full capacity than those limited to in-person delivery.
From an economics perspective, the shift toward flexible learning mirrors trends in remote work. Institutions have already demonstrated that distributed access is possible; the challenge now is designing it well. In fields such as business and economics, this likely means prioritizing multi-access, interactive formats over fully asynchronous models, since discussion and engagement are central to learning outcomes.
Ultimately, the issue is not simply modality but design. A course’s effectiveness depends on how it is structured, not where it takes place. The traditional binary between in-person and online learning is no longer sufficient, and institutions can no longer rely on it as a default framework.