Keywords

1 Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the very core of all the world’s economic and social status as we know it. One of the areas worst hit by the subsequent forced and unavoidable lockdowns is the Higher Education (HE) sector. Online education has been recommended as a potential solution to this catastrophe in HE (Paudel, 2020). Although online education was pitched as a disruptive technology several years ago (Christensen & Eyring, 2011), the pandemic has shown the inevitable as the writing on the wall for the traditional education system.

Like most countries, in Pakistan, the challenge of continuing education in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) during the COVID-19 lockdowns was taken up by the HE Commission (HEC), the government’s statutory regulator and responsible for the facilitation and development of higher education in the country. The initial support provided to HEIs included the provision of policy guidelines to continue online education amid COVID-19. HEC delineated three different quality levels of online education, i.e., basic, effective, and exemplary (HEC, 2020). According to the initial assessment by HEC, most of the HEIs were at the basic quality level of online education and encouraged them to at least reach the effective level (HEC, 2020). A quality standard comprising eight areas was developed to assess HEIs’ online preparedness. These areas included university, course, faculty, library, technology, students, evaluation and assessments, laboratory and practical instructions (HEC, 2020). Despite HEC and HEI initiatives, online education remains a challenge due to implementation issues.

2 Background

Online education emphasises “any time, any place” learning and the assumption that the student and the teacher are at a distance from each other (Gros & García-Peñalvo, 2016). With the advent of web 3.0 and advances in ICT, an online education ecosystem has emerged where teachers and students can engage in real-time online learning activities (Ohei & Brink, 2019). With such advancement of learning technologies, the digital transformation of HEIs is a subject that concerns both the learners and educationists. Digitalisation in the HE context has been referred to as “the sum of digital processes necessary to achieve a change process that enables HEIs to successfully leverage the use of digital technologies” (Kopp et al., 2019). Although HEIs are increasingly taking a keen interest in digitalisation, they often lack digital transformation processes.

Recent literature has criticised equating existing emergency response to COVID-19 by the HEIs with online education (Hodges et al., 2020). As Adedoyin and Soykan (2020) point out, online education is simply one of the many characteristics of digital transformation in HEIs. Many ideas and models exist to help plan and develop online education. Still, because of the pandemic, the conversion phase of HEIs to online education is dubious. These processes have encountered a lack of proper planning, design, and online instructional programs (Sadiq, 2020a, 2020b).

Adedoyin and Soykan (2020) highlighted several challenges to a successful transition to online education. They include technology, socio-economic factors, human and pets’ intrusions, digital competence, assessment and supervision, heavy workload, and compatibility. Online education has multifaceted and interacting components that make its implementation a challenge even in normal circumstances (Kebritchi et al., 2017). Therefore, it’s essential to understand it differently, such as from a system thinking perspective.

Online education is a complex system (Peck, 2019). It is essential to identify different components to review online HE as a complex system. Tamim (2020) proposes to use the systems thinking approach to analyse online HE. Adopting a systems thinking approach means looking at the interaction between the components rather than as objects (Tamim, 2020). Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) propose three broad meta-levels of education research, i.e., macro, meso, and micro. The macro-level represents the beliefs and theoretical perspectives of the online education system. Meso level represents the infrastructure and management. While the micro-level represents the online teaching practice and learning behaviour. Alignment between these three levels is the key to implementing the online education system and achieving desired outcomes (Reigeluth, 2019).

3 Online HE in Pakistan and the COVID-19

Higher education in Pakistan is comprised of 217 recognized public and private sector HEIs (HEC, 2020), having more than three million enrolled students. The history of remote learning in Pakistan dates to 1974 when Allama Iqbal Open University started offering open distance education (AIOU, 2020). Since then, other HEIs also started offering distance education programs, such as Virtual University, Preston University, and COMSATS University. Except for a few distance education programmes, the country’s HE system is primarily face-to-face.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 nationwide shutdown, HEC provided several policy guidelines for the HEIs to prepare themselves for the transition, anticipating lockdown extension till Sep 2020 (HEC 2020). However, only a handful of the 217 HEIs could transition to online education as per HEC guidelines. The majority of the HEIs initially struggled to step into unfamiliar territory (Khan, 2020). Accompanying this struggle or involuntary transition to avoid academic and financial losses, HEIs faced multiple barriers. A lack of reliable internet connection, technological skills, inappropriate implementation of online education technology, lack of faculty training, and low interest in online teaching methods were the most commonly cited concerns during the COVID-19 in Pakistan (Sadiq, 2020a, 2020b). These issues and the resulting solutions applied by the HEIs can be analysed through a systems thinking perspective at macro, meso and micro levels.

3.1 Issues at Macro Level

Beliefs and Theoretical Perspectives—at the macro level of online education lies the teacher’s pedagogical beliefs and theoretical perspectives (Tamim, 2020). Teacher beliefs generally refer to “suppositions, commitments and ideologies” (Ertmer, 2005). Teacher’s beliefs impact how they employ technology in the classroom (Tondeur et al., 2017). In addition to pedagogical beliefs, there are beliefs linked with value. The importance instructors place on technology depends on whether or not they believe it can help them achieve their most important educational goals. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, poor and unplanned training interventions and lack of technology capabilities strengthened teachers’ pedagogical and value beliefs towards the conventional education system (Farooq et al., 2020).

Moreover, the impression of online education as a temporary and makeshift arrangement further complicated the transition to online mode. The majority of teachers previously had only experienced teaching face-to-face and had to make tremendous efforts to adapt to the circumstances based on trial and error (Dossa et al., 2020). Although online teaching activities persisted, instructors’ comments revealed a stronger belief in face-to-face teaching. For example, instructors believed that face-to-face teaching allowed them to project their personalities into their classes better than during online education.

In Pakistan, before COVID-19, the theoretical perspective towards HE revolved around the traditional, face-to-face system. Only a handful of the HEIs were offering distance education programs. Therefore, during the initial transition to online education, the instructors replicated the traditional approach during online teaching.

3.2 Issues at Meso Level

The meso-level aspects of online education connect the macro and micro-level. Infrastructure and management translate the macro level’s theoretical perspective into teaching and learning and related policies at the micro-level. Beaudoin (2016) highlights that the primary task is not to manage the technology or infrastructure but rather the change itself. It is crucial to create appropriate conditions for the change (Beaudoin, 2016). Change is often slow and requires adaptation because it doesn’t come naturally.

Education Technologies in HEIs —compared with the traditional instructional system, online education heavily relies upon course technology. Course technology facilitates various online learning facets, including objective specification, curriculum organisation, interaction facilitation, and evaluation results (Aristovnik et al., 2020). Any learner-centric technology that fits with online instruction strategies is critical for student satisfaction (Sun, 2016). During the COVID-19 lockdowns, the HEC Pakistan worked closely with the HEIs to provide relevant guidelines for implementing educational technologies. For this purpose, specialized committees were formed to help arrange IT facilities, software, technical support, and curate online content (HEC, 2020). Course outlines and relevant reading resources were shared with the students through online learning management systems. Although HEC made obtaining appropriate online education tools easier, the shift was difficult because most faculty members had never taught online. The authors found that more than half of the 2814 online courses offered by a private HEI during COVID-19 did not fulfil the HEC guidelines for online course quality. These guidelines included best practices for teaching online. Though the acceptability of instructional technologies has improved over time, it still remains a challenge that needs more focused attention.

Internet Access & Devices—the two most essential elements to enable online education are internet connectivity and the devices through which online education is conducted (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020). This issue can be seen in the context of the internet access rate in developing countries like Pakistan. Access to the internet has never been more widespread than it is today. More than 4.9 billion people on the planet have access to the internet as per internetworldstats.com (2020). While the developed world’s digital divide has decreased, the discrepancy is more pronounced in the developing world. For example, Afghanistan has one of Asia’s lowest internet penetration rates at 18.8% (including mobile and fixed broadband).

Similarly, the internet penetration rate in Turkmenistan is 20.9%, in Pakistan its 32.4%, and in India its 40.6%. Moreover, implementing online education in developing countries like Pakistan is difficult due to substantial socio-economic disparity (Dossa et al., 2020) and a noticeable digital divide. For example, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2016 noted that in Pakistan, the income of the upper quintile grew by 31.7% compared to just 4.1% growth in the incomes of the poorest 20% during the period from 1987–1988 to 2013–2014. Furthermore, a study of 8749 students in a Pakistani private university during the lockdowns revealed that over 43% of them did not have access to a steady internet connection at home (Sadiq, 2020a, 2020b).

Faculty Readiness—Lack of online teacher training is a barrier to introducing online teaching (Tamim, 2020). During COVID-19, the HEIs’ faculty members’ instructions and guidelines differed considerably. The content was disseminated via several platforms. Faculty-focused learning management systems and IT teams were only available within a few HEIs. They used platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams to deliver live courses. Others advised instructors to screen record lectures and share them with students through WhatsApp or Facebook. The authors also noticed an absence of standardised online assessment training for faculty members, such as administering and grading online tests. Instructors were initially unsure of incorporating quizzes, polls, and assignments into online platforms to engage students due to the lack of proctoring mechanisms available to them (James, 2020).

Quality Assurance—The students’ most frequent concern during online classes in Pakistan was online course quality (Khan, 2020), especially since online education requires different levels of effort from students and faculty. Although the HEC provided general guidelines on transitioning from face-to-face to online mode, monitoring the quality of online courses and programs has remained vague and inadequate. Furthermore, the understanding of such requirements by the HEIs also varied to a large extent. As a result, the HEC gave less than 50% scores to several HEIs on online education readiness during its first review. The HEC review parameters covered university, course, faculty, library, technology, students, evaluation and assessments, laboratory, and practical instructions (HEC, 2020).

3.3 Issues at Micro Level

Issues related to instructor—the academicians’ capability to leverage the online tools and provide the learners with a conducive online learning environment has been seen as a challenge (Ramli et al., 2020). Faculty members transitioning to online education often resist change due to required modifications in their teaching methodologies and beliefs systems (McVey, 2019). The multipronged approach required in online teaching makes the job complex. In the pedagogical domain , this complex role is related to instructional design, learning resources, facilitation of student participation, and sustaining motivation. In the professional domain , it is related to ethical compliance, effective communication, and commitment. The evaluation domain is connected to monitoring progress, assessing performance, and evaluating course/program. Similarly, in the technology domain , it is linked with access to technological resources, selecting appropriate learning resources, developing different learning resources, and suggesting resources to students. These complexities in instructor require development and demonstration of relevant competencies according to the role one is assumed to undertake while teaching (Bawane & Spector, 2009).

During the online classes, due to lack of instructors’ preparedness in pedagogical, professional, and technology domains, training and instructions on e-learning methodologies, and lack of student preparedness for adaptation to new learning forms, several student-related challenges were faced, including a drop in participation, poor commitment and attendance, disruption, and no appreciation of their instructions (Ramli et al., 2020). Students often zone out during lengthy, non-interactive synchronous lectures or get irritated about frequent connectivity problems. The instructors’ technology familiarity is an issue of the technology domain and an issue of the pedagogical and professional domain as it concerns their ability to develop and deploy learning resources and communicate online effectively. The advice and training offered in this transformation by non-academic IT departments have been a shortfall for many HEIs.

Issues related to course design—online course design demands consideration of several factors such as content development, multimedia integration, instructional strategies (Kebritchi et al., 2017), autonomy and control, interaction, social presence, access, and cost (Tamim, 2020). The task of generating new course material or tailoring the existing material for online mode is important (Kebritchi et al., 2017). The online teaching pedagogy is more complex than the simple copying of content to a new modality (Kentnor, 2015). The students’ feedback from a large private sector HEI in Pakistan during the COVID-19 lockdown indicated the need to design online courses carefully. Moreover, while highlighting course design issues, several students preferred blended learning (a hybrid of synchronous and asynchronous learning) (Sadiq, 2020a, 2020b).

Issues related to the learner—like the instructors, transitioning to online education requires learners to make necessary adjustments. The problems with the learner during the online learning are often linked with the instructor and course design issues such as engagement, learning gains, satisfaction with teaching, social and cognitive presence, comfort level with technology, learning preferences, and learner transitioning to an online environment.

Some other issues related to learners include low bandwidth due to increased work from home policies, electricity issues, unavailability of personal desktop/laptop and personal dedicated study room, balancing between family life and university, gender inequality and domestic workload, and a feeling of loneliness. Avoiding disruption or diversion of online participants’ attention from family members (for example, unexpected appearance or interruption of family members) during the teaching or learning process has also been identified as an issue (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020). The problem is more relevant for online learners in Pakistan, where families’ social fabric is much denser and more intermingled than in Western societies (Sadiq, 2020a, 2020b).

4 Recommendations

The COVID-19 shutdowns have become a challenge to the students, academicians, and administration of HEIs in general and specifically in developing countries like Pakistan. During these testing times, all of them experienced an intense abnormal situation in HE while transitioning to digital platforms. The macro, meso, and micro-level issues discussed in this chapter showcases online education’s complexity. Most of these components in the online education system are overlapping and interacting while remaining independent. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the interaction among these components apart from looking at them as individual objects. Several methods to improve online teaching efficiency and student involvement can be adopted. These involve specific instructions at the beginning of the classes, actively engaging students, breaking down long lectures into small and manageable sessions, integrating blended learning, providing students with access to online syllabus breakdown contents, etc. (Adnan, 2020). Government’s support to provide access to the internet in remote areas will also improve online education efforts during such catastrophes. A systems perspective is one way to look at the interlinkages of online education components by developing the best strategy suitable to the local context.

Online education is transformative because it extends beyond technology to influence pedagogical patterns, teaching and learning methods, and managerial decisions. The existing solutions applied to the COVID-19 lockdowns are more of an emergency remote teaching strategy (Hodges et al., 2020). The effects of the pandemic are likely to last longer than expected. Therefore, HEIs need comprehensive measures to develop online education systems for long-term sustainability, especially in developing countries like Pakistan. Here, it is imperative to understand the interactions of various online education components and devise tailor-made solutions within the local context. A focused and deliberate effort to collectively address micro, meso, and macro-level aspects of online education, especially in the local context as highlighted in this chapter, could be beneficial and may lead to the desired results.