Course/Program Delivery Preferences:
An Overview of Students’ Surveys and Institutional Responses
#
Organizations
#
Students
#
Reports
Preferences for Course Delivery Modes
Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a rapid shift to online learning, compelling institutions, students, and faculty to rapidly adapt to virtual education. This transition highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of different learning modalities, as well as the evolving preferences and challenges faced by diverse student populations. While online learning offered unprecedented flexibility and accessibility, many students and instructors struggled with the limitations of virtual environments. The preference for in-person classes remains strong among groups that benefit from hands-on or interactive learning, particularly those in STEM disciplines.
Positive Aspects of Online Learning
Online learning provides flexibility, enabling students to balance academic, work, and caregiving responsibilities. For marginalized students, remote learning reduced barriers such as commuting and facilitated easier access to accommodations. “For some students, remote learning enabled them to navigate accommodations more anonymously, reducing stigma and allowing them to engage more fully in their education” (HEQCO, 2020). Furthermore, students valued the convenience of accessing materials asynchronously and the ability to study at their own pace. At Yukon University, “more than four out of five students reported positive online learning experiences in terms of grasping subject matter and receiving timely feedback” (Yukon University Survey, 2021).
Challenges in Online Learning
Despite its benefits, online learning posed significant challenges. Technological barriers disproportionately affected low-income and rural students, with many reported difficulties accessing reliable internet or adequate devices. Studies have shown that “students with unreliable internet or outdated devices reported feeling left behind in their studies due to technological inequities” (OUSA, 2020). Moreover, the lack of in-person interaction contributed to feelings of isolation and hindered student engagement. According to Western University, “the online environment presented unique challenges for student engagement and community-building, exacerbating feelings of isolation” (Western University, 2021). In addition to technological and social barriers, students frequently encounter broader systemic challenges in online learning environments. As highlighted by Morava et al. (2023), “the most salient challenges associated with online learning include poor accommodation from professors and administrators, burnout from little separation between school and personal life, and difficulties forming and maintaining social networks.” These compound challenges were reflected in student satisfaction levels. At UBC Vancouver, satisfaction with online education lagged behind in-person classes, where “77% of students were satisfied with the quality of online education, compared to 91% for in-person learning” (UBC Vancouver, 2022).
Hybrid Learning Models
Hybrid models gained significant traction across institutions as a preferred solution, combining the flexibility of online learning with the engagement of in-person instruction. At Mount Royal University, “49% of students expressed a preference for hybrid delivery formats due to flexibility and accessibility” (Mount Royal, 2021). Similarly, at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, “the desire for blended courses increased from 41% in 2022 to 45% in 2023” (KPU, 2024). These findings reflect a broader trend toward balancing synchronous and asynchronous elements to meet diverse learning needs.
Engagement and Interaction
The lack of in-person interaction during online learning created significant obstacles in building “communities of learning.” According to focus group participants at Western University, students cited burnout and limited interpersonal connections as major challenges in the online environment. They found that “the absence of informal networks and peer-to-peer engagement compounded feelings of isolation and reduced overall satisfaction” (Western University, 2021). At UBC Okanagan, international students preferred asynchronous learning for its flexibility, with 44% selecting it as their top choice compared to 43% of domestic students who favored combination formats. Furthermore, “77% of students found it beneficial to access course materials at their convenience and avoid commuting” (PAIR, 2021).
Preferences for Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning
Students’ preferences for synchronous and asynchronous formats varied based on individual needs and circumstances. In UBC Okanagan’s 2021 survey, “78% of students valued the ability to pause online lectures, and 57% found it beneficial to avoid commuting” (PAIR, 2021). Similarly, “10-15% of students at UBC Okanagan and Vancouver reported that online class availability allowed them to enroll in courses they otherwise would not have been able to access.” At the University of Calgary, students expressed evenly split preferences where “30% preferred online learning, 33% in-person, and 30% hybrid formats” (University of Calgary Graduate Students’ Association, 2020).
Conclusion
The pandemic-driven shift to online learning underscored the importance of flexibility, accessibility, and innovation in higher education. While online and hybrid formats provided critical solutions to logistical challenges, they also revealed significant disparities in technological access and highlighted the enduring value of in-person interaction for engagement and community building. Moving forward, institutions must integrate the lessons learned to create resilient, student-centered learning models that address diverse needs and foster equitable access to quality education.
Student Engagement and Performance
Discussion
This report draws upon data from multiple surveys and reports, including those from Mount Allison, Simon Fraser University (SFU), York University, and Yukon University. These sources provide a comprehensive view of the impact of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic on student engagement and performance. The findings highlight key differences between STEM and non-STEM disciplines, emphasizing the critical roles of learning modality, instructor engagement, and resource accessibility.
Online learning during the pandemic disproportionately affected student engagement and performance. STEM students, while achieving higher academic performance in blended formats, reported lower levels of satisfaction due to the lack of practical, hands-on experiences. As noted by Owston et al. (2020), “STEM students performed 15% higher than non-STEM peers in blended courses but expressed dissatisfaction due to a lack of practical components.”
Instructor engagement emerged as a significant factor influencing student satisfaction and performance in online learning environments. At Yukon University, “95% of students felt their contributions were valued, enhancing overall satisfaction” (Yukon University, 2021). Similarly, at SFU, “instructor responsiveness in asynchronous online formats was cited by 68% of students as a critical factor for satisfaction” (SFU, 2021). Timely and constructive feedback also played a vital role in student success, as “half of students reported receiving enough feedback by late October to understand their performance and areas for improvement” (Macdonald, 2021).
Students at UBC Vancouver and UBC Okanagan experienced gradual improvements in their ability to manage online learning challenges between 2021 and 2022. At UBC Vancouver, the percentage of students reporting difficulty focusing dropped from 79% in 2021 to 72% in 2022, while low motivation decreased from 78% to 69%. Similarly, at UBC Okanagan, difficulty focusing reduced from 77% to 75%, and low motivation declined from 75% to 73% during the same period (PAIR Reports, 2021–2022).
Additional data from the UBC Vancouver campus revealed significant educational challenges in 2021, with 79% of students reporting difficulty focusing and 78% reporting low motivation to complete their courses. By 2022, these figures improved to 72% and 69%, respectively. The preference for face-to-face learning also declined slightly, from 61% in 2021 to 54% in 2022. Technological barriers were a persistent issue, with 37% of students in 2021 lacking reliable internet access at home; this figure improved to 23% by 2022.
At UBC Okanagan, similar trends were observed. In 2021, 77% of students reported difficulty focusing, and 75% reported low motivation. These figures improved marginally in 2022, dropping to 75% and 73%, respectively. Preferences for face-to-face learning also decreased from 60% in 2021 to 56% in 2022. Technological barriers, which affected 36% of students in 2021, improved by 2022, with only 25% of students reporting unreliable internet at home.
The findings underscore the need for a balanced approach to learning modalities. As Owston et al. (2020) noted, “STEM students performed significantly higher than non-STEM students in blended courses; however, they reported lower satisfaction with their learning experiences.” Instructor engagement and adaptability were crucial, as “instructors who adapted brilliantly to online teaching created environments where students felt valued, which significantly enhanced their engagement and learning outcomes” (Macdonald, 2021). Moreover, timely feedback was essential in fostering student success, with “half of students reporting enough feedback by late October to understand their performance and areas for improvement” (Macdonald, 2021).
Conclusion
The transition to online learning during the pandemic had a varied impact on student engagement and performance. STEM students achieved higher academic performance but faced dissatisfaction due to limited practical experiences. Effective instructor support and timely feedback emerged as critical elements for fostering student engagement. While improvements in focus, motivation, and resource accessibility were noted from 2021 to 2022, the data highlights the importance of balancing digital and face-to-face components to meet the diverse needs of students effectively.
Mental Health and Well-being
Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the mental health and well-being of post-secondary students, with social isolation and academic burnout emerging as predominant challenges. Many students experienced heightened anxiety, particularly during the transition to remote learning. At the University of Calgary, “54% of students were nervous about the Fall 2020 term, citing uncertainty as a significant source of stress” (UofC Graduate Survey, 2020). This stress was linked to the sudden and drastic changes in learning environments, compounded by concerns about academic performance and personal circumstances.
Burnout and mental exhaustion were also pervasive issues, as evidenced by focus group discussions at Western University. Participants described the strain of maintaining a balance between academic and personal life while confined to home environments. According to Morava et al. (2023), “students reported significant mental exhaustion due to blurred boundaries between school and personal life.” This lack of separation, combined with increased workloads and limited peer interaction, created a sustained sense of fatigue and disconnection.
Also, students emphasized the need for enhanced institutional support, particularly in financial and mental health services. A survey conducted by the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) revealed that “67% of students reported experiencing a mental health challenge during their studies” (OUSA, 2020). These findings underscore the importance of targeted interventions to address students’ emotional and psychological needs. Suggestions included expanding access to counseling services, implementing flexible academic policies, and providing financial relief to alleviate stress related to tuition and living expenses.
Overall, the pandemic exposed and exacerbated vulnerabilities in the mental health of post-secondary students. The data highlights the critical role of institutions in providing holistic support to help students navigate the ongoing challenges of academic and personal well-being in the post-pandemic era.
Institutional Responsiveness
Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic required post-secondary institutions to adapt rapidly to the challenges of remote learning. However, responses to these challenges were uneven, particularly in areas such as technology access, faculty training, and professional development. This discussion highlights key findings on institutional responsiveness, focusing on technology and accessibility, faculty preparedness, and professional development during the pandemic.
Technology and Accessibility
Access to reliable technology and internet emerged as a critical issue during the transition to online learning. At UBC Vancouver, “37% of students lacked reliable internet in 2021, but this figure dropped to 23% by 2022, indicating gradual improvement” (PAIR, 2022). Similarly, at UBC Okanagan, “35% of students lacked reliable internet in 2021. By 2022, 25% reported inadequate on-campus internet access” (PAIR, 2022).
Programs such as Yukon University’s Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiative provided some flexibility, yet financial barriers persisted, limiting the program’s effectiveness for some students (Yukon University Student Survey Results, 2021). Students also reported challenges beyond internet access, including limited availability of reliable devices, specialized software, and communication tools. While incremental improvements were noted, such as a 10% increase in internet reliability at UBC Okanagan between 2021 and 2022, these changes were not uniform across all institutions and student demographics.
Faculty Preparedness
Faculty preparedness significantly influenced the effectiveness of online and hybrid learning. At UBC Vancouver, “48% of students in 2021 reported instructor discomfort with required technologies, a figure that improved slightly to 41% in 2022” (PAIR, 2022). Similarly, at UBC Okanagan, “50% of students in 2021 felt instructors showed discomfort with required technologies, and this figure remained largely unchanged in 2022, decreasing by only 1%” (PAIR, 2021–2022). These challenges were more pronounced among domestic students, who consistently reported higher levels of instructor discomfort compared to their international peers. For example, in 2021, “54% of domestic and 31% of international students noted instructor discomfort with required technologies” (PAIR, 2021).
Faculty familiarity with digital tools varied across campuses and technologies. As highlighted by Johnson (2023), “only 8% of faculty respondents believed all instructors were competent with multi-access technologies, while 36% felt some faculty could use these tools effectively.” The complexity of the technology correlated with lower confidence in instructor competence, further underscoring the need for systematic training and support.
Professional Development
Professional development opportunities for faculty often fell short during the pandemic. The Canadian Digital Learning Research Association noted that, “most professional development for faculty is voluntary. Faculty who teaches in online or hybrid modalities are not required to undertake more training than those teaching in an in-person context” (Johnson, 2023, p. 5). This lack of mandated training limited progress in building faculty confidence and competence in leveraging digital tools for effective teaching. Incremental improvements were observed, such as a “9% increase in student-reported familiarity with required technologies between 2021 and 2022” at UBC Vancouver (PAIR, 2022). However, this progress was insufficient to fully address the challenges posed by remote learning.
Institutional Adaptations
Institutions made strides in addressing course availability and adapting to student needs. For example, the Justice Institute of British Columbia reported that “67% of students expressed concern about course scheduling and availability during the COVID-19 pandemic” but appreciated the institution’s efforts to ensure continuity of education (JIBC, 2020). At UBC Vancouver, year-over-year improvements in student satisfaction indicated that adaptive strategies were beginning to yield positive results. “Improvements in satisfaction year-over-year indicate that institutions have successfully implemented adaptive strategies to meet students’ evolving needs” (UBC Planning and Institutional Research, 2022).
Conclusion
Institutional responsiveness during the pandemic highlighted significant disparities in technology access, faculty preparedness, and professional development. While some progress was made, such as increased internet reliability and incremental improvements in instructor comfort with technology, these advancements were uneven and insufficient to fully meet the challenges of remote learning. The data underscores the necessity for institutions to prioritize systematic professional development, equitable access to technology, and robust support systems to better address the diverse needs of students and faculty in a post-pandemic educational landscape.
Long-Term Learning Models
Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed significant changes in post-secondary education, accelerating the adoption of blended and hybrid learning as foundational models for the future. These changes mark a paradigm shift in how courses are delivered and designed, emphasizing flexibility, inclusivity, and accessibility to meet the diverse needs of students.
Blended Learning as the New Normal
Blended learning, which combines online resources with hands-on activities, has emerged as a particularly effective model for STEM disciplines. At York University, it was noted that “blended learning improved outcomes for STEM students, combining online resources with hands-on activities” (Owston et al., 2020). This approach allows students to benefit from the flexibility of digital tools while retaining the critical experiential components of their education. However, the transition to blended learning requires a fundamental rethinking of course design to achieve optimal outcomes. As Owston et al. (2020) explained, “blended learning requires a fundamental redesign of courses, emphasizing dynamic interactions to achieve specific student outcomes.”
Student-Centered Innovations
Flexibility in course delivery has become a priority for students navigating academic and personal responsibilities. When institutions offer multiple learning modalities, students can choose formats that best suit their needs. According to the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), “62% of students reported improved ability to balance academic and personal responsibilities when given access to multiple delivery modes” (HEQCO, 2022). This adaptability empowers students to tailor their educational experiences, enhancing engagement and success.
Equity and Inclusion
The integration of Open Educational Resources (OER) has emerged as a cost-effective solution to improve accessibility and equity in education. Despite their potential, “most institutions recognize the value of OER, though formal policies remain rare” (CDLRA, 2023 Pan-Canadian Report). Expanding the use of OER can reduce financial barriers for students while providing institutions with scalable and customizable teaching resources.
Additionally, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles are increasingly recommended for course delivery and design. In a post-pandemic study of first-year Ontario students, Napierala, Pilla, Pichette, and Colyar (2022) emphasized the importance of incorporating UDL principles not only in course design but also in the delivery of services and co-curricular activities. They stated, “all courses should be designed with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles to ensure inclusivity and accessibility across modalities” (Napierala et al., 2022, p. 5). Providing multiple learning formats empowers students to select options that align with their unique learning preferences and needs (Napierala et al., 2022, p. 5).
Course Delivery and Learning Communities
The pandemic disrupted formal and informal learning communities, highlighting the need to prioritize social connections in academic settings. As Morava et al. (2023) observed, “the disruption of learning communities during the transition to online education underscores the importance of fostering both formal and informal networks in academic settings.” Future course delivery models should integrate opportunities for interaction and collaboration to rebuild these communities and enhance the overall learning experience.
Conclusion
The shift toward blended and hybrid learning represents a lasting transformation in post-secondary education. By embracing flexible, student-centered models and integrating equity-focused strategies such as UDL and OER, institutions can create inclusive learning environments that meet the needs of diverse student populations. However, these models require careful design and implementation to ensure that they foster meaningful interactions, support learning communities, and achieve specific educational outcomes. As institutions continue to innovate, they must prioritize both accessibility and quality to create resilient and adaptable educational systems.
Preferences for Course Delivery Final Analysis and Conclusion: Long-Term Impacts on Post-Secondary Education
Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered profound transformations in post-secondary education, with themes such as preferences for course delivery modes, student engagement and performance, mental health and well-being, institutional responsiveness, and long-term learning models taking center stage. This final analysis synthesizes these themes to provide a cohesive understanding of the challenges and opportunities the pandemic presented for students, faculty, and institutions.
Preferences for Course Delivery Modes
The rapid shift to online learning revealed both strengths and weaknesses in virtual education. While online learning provided flexibility, enabling students to balance academic, work, and caregiving responsibilities, it also exposed technological inequities and a lack of in-person interaction. “For some students, remote learning enabled them to navigate accommodations more anonymously, reducing stigma and allowing them to engage more fully in their education” (HEQCO, 2020). However, technological barriers disproportionately affected low-income and rural students, with “students with unreliable internet or outdated devices feeling left behind in their studies due to technological inequities” (OUSA, 2020).
Hybrid learning models emerged as a preferred solution, combining the flexibility of online learning with the engagement of in-person instruction. “49% of students expressed a preference for hybrid delivery formats due to flexibility and accessibility” (Mount Royal, 2021). This model’s adaptability reflects a broader trend toward balancing synchronous and asynchronous elements to address diverse learning needs.
Student Engagement and Performance
Student engagement and performance during the pandemic varied widely based on the learning modality and subject matter. STEM students achieved higher academic performance in blended formats but reported lower satisfaction due to the lack of practical, hands-on experiences. “STEM students performed 15% higher than non-STEM peers in blended courses but expressed dissatisfaction due to a lack of practical components” (Owston et al., 2020).
Instructor engagement and timely feedback were critical in fostering student satisfaction and performance. “95% of students at Yukon University felt their contributions were valued, enhancing overall satisfaction” (Yukon University, 2021). Similarly, “half of students reported receiving enough feedback by late October to understand their performance and areas for improvement” (Macdonald, 2021). Despite improvements in focus and motivation between 2021 and 2022, disparities in resource accessibility underscored the need for sustained institutional support.
Mental Health and Well-being
The pandemic exacerbated mental health challenges for post-secondary students, with social isolation and academic burnout emerging as critical issues. “54% of students were nervous about the Fall 2020 term, citing uncertainty as a significant source of stress” (UofC Graduate Survey, 2020). Burnout from blurred boundaries between academic and personal life was also pervasive, with students describing “significant mental exhaustion due to blurred boundaries between school and personal life” (Morava et al., 2023).
Institutions were called to provide enhanced financial and mental health services. “67% of students reported experiencing a mental health challenge during their studies” (OUSA, 2020). This highlights the importance of targeted interventions, such as counseling services and flexible academic policies, to address the emotional and psychological needs of students.
Institutional Responsiveness
Institutional responsiveness during the pandemic varied significantly, particularly in addressing technology access and faculty preparedness. While incremental improvements were noted, such as a reduction in students lacking reliable internet access from 37% in 2021 to 23% in 2022 at UBC Vancouver (PAIR, 2022), gaps persisted in faculty readiness. “Only 8% of faculty respondents believed all instructors were competent with multi-access technologies, while 36% felt some faculty could use these tools effectively” (Johnson, 2023).
Professional development remained largely voluntary, limiting progress in building faculty competence. “Most professional development for faculty is voluntary. Faculty who teaches in online or hybrid modalities are not required to undertake more training than those teaching in an in-person context” (Johnson, 2023, p. 5). Institutions must prioritize systematic training programs to ensure equitable and effective teaching across modalities.
Long-Term Learning Models
The adoption of blended and hybrid learning models represents a lasting transformation in post-secondary education. Blended learning has proven effective for STEM disciplines, where “blended learning improved outcomes for STEM students, combining online resources with hands-on activities” (Owston et al., 2020). The integration of Open Educational Resources (OER) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles are further enhancing accessibility and equity. “All courses should be designed with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles to ensure inclusivity and accessibility across modalities” (Napierala et al., 2022, p. 5).
The disruption of learning communities during the pandemic underscores the importance of fostering both formal and informal networks in academic settings. “The disruption of learning communities during the transition to online education underscores the importance of fostering both formal and informal networks in academic settings” (Morava et al., 2023).
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed an unprecedented shift in post-secondary education, bringing flexibility, accessibility, and innovation to the forefront while exposing significant challenges in mental health, institutional responsiveness, and technological equity. Institutions now face the critical task of sustaining the benefits of blended and hybrid learning while addressing systemic inequities and fostering student engagement and well-being.
Moving forward, the integration of student-centered innovations such as OER and UDL principles, combined with targeted institutional strategies for professional development and resource accessibility, will be essential in creating resilient and inclusive educational systems. By balancing the strengths of digital and in-person learning, institutions can better prepare to meet the diverse and evolving needs of their student populations in a post-pandemic world.
References
Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA). (2021). 2021 Special Topics Report: The growth of online learning and digital learning resources in Canadian post-secondary education.
Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA). (2023). Pan-Canadian report: Digital learning trends in Canadian post-secondary education. Canadian Digital Learning Research Association.
Johnson, D. N. (2023). A time of digital transformation: Digital learning trends in Ontario post-secondary education. Canadian Digital Learning Research Association.
Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC). (2020). Education and training options during COVID-19: Survey report. Justice Institute of British Columbia.
Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU). (2023). Student delivery mode preferences 2021–2023. Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
Macdonald, D. (2021). Yukon University student survey results: 2021. Yukon University.
Morava, A., Sui, A., Ahn, J., Sui, W., & Prapavessis, H. (2023). Lessons from Zoom-university: Post-secondary student consequences and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic—A focus group study. PLoS ONE, 18(3), e0281438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281438
Mount Royal University. (2020). Fall 2020 student COVID impact survey results.
Mount Allison University. (2021). Student engagement across teaching modalities.
Mount Royal University. (2021). Winter 2021 COVID impact survey results.
Napierala, J., Pilla, N., Pichette, J., & Colyar, J. (2022). Ontario learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of Ontario first-year postsecondary students in 2020–21. Toronto: The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
OUSA (Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance). (2020). Results from the Ontario undergraduate student survey.
OUSA. (2022). Ontario online learning report.
Owston, R., York, D. N., Malhotra, T., & Sitthiworachart, J. (2020). Blended learning in STEM and non-STEM courses: How do student performance and perceptions compare? Online Learning Journal, 24(3), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2151
Planning and Institutional Research Office (PAIR). (2021). UBC 2021 Okanagan undergraduate experience survey. Okanagan Campus.
Planning and Institutional Research Office (PAIR). (2021). UBC 2021 Vancouver undergraduate experience survey. Vancouver Campus.
Planning and Institutional Research Office (PAIR). (2022). UBC 2022 Okanagan undergraduate experience survey. Okanagan Campus
Planning and Institutional Research Office (PAIR). (2022). UBC 2022 Vancouver undergraduate experience survey. Vancouver Campus.
Simon Fraser University (SFU). (2021). Fall 2021 undergraduate student survey: Report of findings.
Simon Fraser University (SFU). (2022). Fall 2022 undergraduate student survey: Report of findings.
University of British Columbia (UBC). (2021). Undergraduate experience survey 2021: Full distribution report. Okanagan Campus.
University of British Columbia (UBC). (2021). Undergraduate experience survey 2021: Full distribution report. Vancouver Campus.
University of British Columbia (UBC). (2022). Undergraduate experience survey 2022: Full distribution report. Okanagan Campus.
University of British Columbia (UBC). (2022). Undergraduate experience survey 2022: Full distribution report. Vancouver Campus.
University of Calgary Graduate Students’ Association. (2020). Fall 2020 survey results.