GLOBAL

PRESIDENTS'
FORUM 2022
Summary Report

Author & Editor: Neil Fassina

CC-BY 4.0 ICDE, MARCH 2023
Published in 2023 by the International Council for Open
and Distance Education
Pløens gate 2B
0181 Oslo, Norway

ISBN: 978-82-93172-55-0
Illustrations/pictures by: ICDE unless otherwise stated

This publication is available under an Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of ICDE concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation
of its frontiers or boundaries.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication do not

necessarily reflect the views of ICDE.

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"Building Future Resiliency in OFDL
Environments"

At the ICDE President Forum on November 15, 2022, leaders from

within the Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning (OFDL) community
convened in an online symposium to discuss how to build future
resiliencies in OFDL environments.

The briefing that follows summarizes the key themes from this forum.
The summary is organized into three sections, each addressing a key
discussion question presented at the forum. Part 1 and 2 focus
primarily on the context and potential vulnerabilities of future OFDL
environments. Part 3 focuses on potential futures adaptations and
routes to strengthen futures OFDL environments.

2
FOREWORD

Neil Fassina Torunn Gjelsvik

ICDE President ICDE Secretary General

The ICDE Global Presidents’ Forum 2022 was organized as a virtual, half day event in
two different time zones on 15 November. Under the theme: “Building future
resiliency in Open, Flexible and Distance Learning Environments”, the ICDE President
and Board members invited Presidents, Vice-Chancellors, Principles, and Rectors of
ICDE members and partner institutions to attend this annual, exclusive leadership
forum, which attracted more than 100 registered delegates from all world regions.

The International Council of Open and Distance Education’s vision is to achieve the
potential of open, flexible, and distance learning created through its members and
learning communities. As a UNESCO Partner, ICDE amplifies and fosters the
perspective that learning is not only a specific goal, but also a fundamental
contributor to the achievement of the full suite of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. ICDE members and partners recognize that Open, Flexible, and
Distance learning (OFDL) environments are a key contributor to achieving inclusive
and equitable access for learners globally and a necessary complement to in-person
and on-campus learning environments.

The COVID-19 pandemic enshrined distance and remote learning as a permanent

part of the higher education landscape broadly. Potentially more impactful, the
pandemic highlighted the fragility of in-person and on-campus learning solutions
because of their reliance on the underlying assumption that in-person learning, and
physical classrooms would always be available – something that simply was not true.

Although OFDL environments demonstrated great resiliency during the pandemic,

they themselves are not immune to future threats. In part, the vulnerability of OFDL
environments emerge because of its own underlying assumptions.

3
FOREWORD
This formed the backdrop for the discussions taking place at the ICDE Presidents’
Forum 2022, where delegates were challenged to discuss the following questions:

1. What does the future balance between in-person/on-site and remote/on-line

learning look like?

2. Based on that future balance, are there assumptions that the OFDL
community makes about modern day OFDL environments that create
vulnerability? How do those assumptions create risk, threaten the resiliency,
or undermine the potential future of OFDL?

3. With these assumptions in mind, what do future OFDL environments need to

integrate to protect against vulnerabilities and ensure resiliency long term?
What fundamental changes need to be made to OFDL environments to
integrate those changes?

The forum discussions were chaired by the ICDE President and Board members, and
took place in a mix of plenary and breakout sessions. The following summary is
condensed from the two virtual forum sessions that took place. It is written by the
ICDE President, with contributions from other ICDE Board members.

The ICDE Secretariat and the ICDE Board wish to thank all the delegates for providing
valuable input and suggestions to the questions addressed. The concrete
suggestions will be taken into consideration for further development of ICDEs
strategic goals and operational activities in the years to come.

Neil Fassina Torunn Gjelsvik

ICDE President ICDE Secretary General

4
PART 1
The future balance of non-OFDL and OFDL in
creating resilient learning environments
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of in-person learning environments
and disrupted equitable access to learning for millions of people globally. In
response, countless learning systems rapidly engaged “emergency remote learning.”
Reflecting on experience, education leaders are developing contingency plans to
mitigate an unknown and uncertain risk caused by future disasters. These leaders
seek to create a strong and resilient learning system to ensure ongoing equitable
access to learning on a global scale, regardless of emergent disruptions.

In hindsight, the pre-pandemic debates about the overall effectiveness of in-person

versus remote learning environments seem somewhat meaningless given the
challenges we have overcome. Instead, our experience has taught us that our futures
are not defined by singular approaches, but rather by a pluralistic and
complementary approach to learning systems. More specifically, one may anticipate
that the futures strength and resiliencies of global learning systems will require the
coexistence of: a) in-person/on-site and remote/off-site learning environments, b) on-
and off-line learning experiences, c) synchronous and asynchronous learning
opportunities, and d) open and competitive entry learning spaces.

When considering the blending of different forms of learning modes, perhaps the
question should not focus on an appropriate “balance,” but rather on ensuring that
within complementary and diverse systems there are sufficient “functional
redundancy” to respond to disruption. A balance implies that a disruption will offset
said balance. Having sufficient functional redundancy in a system, on the other hand,
enables and empowers a system to shift resources rapidly toward the functional
portion of the system in the face of disruption without having to concern itself with
balance. In effect, the goal is to create an ecosystem of learning that can adapt both
functionally and naturally when one element of that ecosystem is disrupted.

Regardless of the balance or functional redundancy in learning ecosystems, the focus

must remain on the goal of ensuring the continuity of learning environments for all
learners, and to embrace diversity – regardless of their background, learning style, or
other factors that may influence their capacity and capability. To this end, future
learning ecosystems will need to amplify the focus on curricular and instructional
design that seamlessly integrates across various learning environments without
simply attempting to replicate a learning experience in all learning environments.

5
Design must be purpose built for specific learning environments. To this end,
learners should be empowered to traverse between learning environments
seamlessly. Nevertheless, the learner experience should not be identical in all
learning environments, as different learning environments empower and facilitate
different perspectives, pathways and approaches.

Just as learners should have the ability to traverse between learning environments,
so too should the staff that support students’ learning journeys (i.e., instructional and
student support staff). Regardless of their role in empowering learners, a learning
ecosystem implies that one will need to think differently about the various jobs at an
institution, how employees are developed and trained over time to succeed in those
jobs, and how those jobs are applied within the ecosystem to empower learners
most effectively.

To achieve a strong and resilient balance within learning systems,

novel or unique learning environments need to become part of the
culture or ethos of a system rather than a stand-alone department
or team working on something unique.

Beyond the fragility of in-person learning environments, the COVID-19 pandemic

exposed the gaps in learning infrastructure. In particular, the absence of reliable
connectivity and broadband. As learning systems grapple with future ecosystem
designs, focused attention will need to be given to the design and implementation of
infrastructure. This includes physical and digital infrastructure as well as the policies
and procedures that systems operate within. To achieve a strong and resilient
balance within learning systems, novel or unique learning environments need to
become part of the culture or ethos of a system rather than a stand-alone
department or team working on something unique.

A final point of consideration related to the application of an ecosystem lens of

educational design is the inevitable need to adapt the narrative and terms that are
used to describe the futures ecosystem. Current narratives tend to focus on
identifying the differences between learning systems (e.g., in-person vs. mixed
modality vs. on-line). With the development of future integrated systems, new
terminology will need to be adopted.

An emergent question when considering an ecosystem approach to the design of

learning systems is at what level does the ecosystem need to be designed to
effectively achieve strength and resiliency. For example, does each institution need
to create an ecosystem or should the system be created at the regional or national
level? Each option has inherent benefits and drawbacks. Regardless of the level at
which the ecosystem is created, challenges to resilience need to be addressed at that
level.

6
PART 2
Assumptions about OFDL & how those
assumption may reduce resiliency of OFDL
Digital Infrastructure. A necessary assumption for digitally enabled OFDL
environment is the presence of reliable power and connectivity. Although this
assumption is regularly violated in parts of the world with low or unreliable power
and connectivity, the assumption nevertheless creates a vulnerability to the ongoing
presence of digitally enabled OFDL environments.

Physical Infrastructure. For offline (and, off-site) OFDL environments, one may rely
on the assumption that physical transit of learning materials through services like
postal mail is available to reach learners in all regions of the globe. If
distribution/shipping services are neither available nor affordable, this assumption
places off-site and off-line learning environments at risk.

Learner Capability. As noted in section 1, OFDL environments require purposeful

design to enable effective learning experiences. Similarly, OFDL environments
necessitate, at some level, a different approach by the learner too. An assumption
that can create limitations for OFDL environments is that learners have the readiness,
ability, and aptitude to learn through an OFDL environment.
This assumption stretches from experiences like comfort level operating a digital
device through to cultural differences in students’ willingness to reach out to a
facilitator for support. If this assumption does not hold true, learners’ ability, capacity,
and readiness to learn may be limited.

Quality. A drawback of the large-scale global shift to emergency remote learning (ERL)
during the COVID19 pandemic is that digitally enabled (i.e., distance) learning is of
lesser quality than in-person learning – primarily because ERL is not equivalent to
purpose designed and built OFDL environments. This assumption extends into
employability opportunities if the broader public continues to believe, falsely, that off-
site learning is of lesser quality than in-person learning. Without dispelling this
assumption, progress toward the large-scale adoption of proper OFDL environments
will be limited.

On-site to off-site interface. If both on- and off-site learning experiences are
available, an assumption may be that learners are capable, ready, and willing to
navigate both an in-person and off-site (either on- or offline) learning environment,
including the interface between the two learning environments. Furthermore, there is
an assumption that educational systems can effectively design and create a seamless
transition between in-person and off-site learning environments. If either angle of this
assumption proves to be false, the process of learning will be hampered.

7
Hybrid, mixed-modality, or otherwise. There is an assumption that the interface
between in-person and off-site learning environments will be some formulation of
hybrid or mixed-modality learning environment. Hybrid or mixed modality learning
environments, however, rely on foundational principles of current in-person and off-
site learning environments. There is a further assumption that hybrid or mixed
modality learning environments are expensive and capital intensive. It may be
possible that an alternative interface may be created between in-person and off-site
learning environments.

Technology driven OFDL. Given the reliance on digitally enabled ERL across large
global regions during the pandemic, there is somewhat of an assumption that OFDL
environments are inherently technology driven. This assumption immediately
excludes purposefully designed non-digital and off-line OFDL solutions – key
elements of the OFDL portfolio. Without inclusion of all OFDL opportunities, limits
are inadvertently placed on the potential breadth and scope of OFDL learning
environments.

A limiting assumption to creating universal equal access to education is

that there is always a choice to be made by learners when determining
to participate in one learning environment over another.

Policy will follow design. A significant assumption, and in some cases a hope, is that
government or institutional policy will be adapted to empower more robust OFDL
environments globally. Regrettably, without significant policy change in many
regions, the application and distribution of OFDL environments remains significantly
limited. As a result, the optimized role of OFDL in learning ecosystems is artificially
limited.

Equity and Equality of Access. A limiting assumption to creating universal equal

access to education is that there is always a choice to be made by learners when
determining to participate in one learning environment over another. The reality
being that there is not currently equity or equality of access to learning, let alone the
personal agency to choose one learning environment over another. A learning
ecosystem that embeds the assumption of choice in its design is inherently likely to
disadvantage certain groups of learners.

Discipline versus modality. In creating a learning ecosystem bridging on- and off-site
learning experiences, one must consider the potential applicability of offsite learning
to each learning discipline. To assume that all disciplines are equally adapted to
offsite or remote learning may create ineffective learning environments through to
large scale safety concerns.

8
Pathways. When conceptualizing a tertiary learning ecosystem spanning on and
offsite learning experiences, one cannot safely assume that there is a seamless
transition from secondary education into a tertiary learning ecosystem. Without
considering the design of the secondary learning system, tertiary education leaders
may inadvertently reduce students’ learning simply due to having to adapt to a new
learning environment or new discipline.

Social interaction. Specific to the OFDL space, one should not assume that online
learning is the same as other forms of distance learning. Specifically, consideration
needs to be given to the social needs of a learner and learning regardless of the
learning modality. Without doing so, the learning system risks disengagement by
learners.

PART 3
Future adaptations for OFDL to strengthen
resiliency

In responding to the fragility of in-person learning exposed during the COVID19

pandemic, learning systems globally demonstrated how focus could be turned to
alternative education delivery models (e.g., emergency remote teaching, distance
education, etc.). In doing so, educational systems inherently discovered the need to
consider learning environments as ecosystems in which learners could readily move
from one learning environment to another. Despite this learning and the widespread
consideration for non-in-person learning opportunities, educational systems
remained focused on a very narrow element of the broad OFDL environment.

OFDL environments include experiences that are on- and off-line, synchronous, and
asynchronous, open and closed, local and distance, as well as technology driven and
technology absent. To fully develop this robust spectrum of learning opportunities,
the OFDL community has a series of things to consider going forward. Beyond having
the non-OFDL environment understand this breadth, the OFDL community needs to
further describe and refine this complexity. Without a global adoption of equality in
digital device and connectivity, the OFDL community needs to adapt and create
mechanisms to bridge the gap.

At the core of education, there is a need to dispel the assumption that OFDL is a
mere extension of synchronous classroom-based learning. Without efforts to dispel
this assumption, a significant risk exists that in-person institutions will simply adopt

9
rudimentary forms of OFDL environments built on the belief that OFDL
environments are simply the digitization or offsite version of a classroom. This path
will inevitably harm the reputation of the OFDL community as fundamentally
different design and pedagogy is required to create effective, engaging, and
authentic OFDL environments. While on-site and in-person learning institutions may
never acquire the true DNA of OFDL, they must come to understand and respect the
DNA of OFDL environments if they wish to avoid failure.

Like any other mode of education, OFDL is an identity

with a unique DNA.

Related to the DNA of OFDL is the potential need for a ’brand refresh’, as many
institutions do not understand its value as a foundation for education and assume
that online means a synchronous extension of the classroom. The OFDL community
needs to consider a different approach to advocacy.

A key learning for the OFDL community during the COVID19 pandemic is the
importance of what might be referred to as the DNA of OFDL. OFDL is not simply an
extension of classroom learning. Nor does it exist on its own, completely removed
from classroom learning. Rather, it is a series of well-founded curricular, pedagogical,
and learning design principles applied purposefully to a series of learning
environments that one may define as everything except in-person classroom-based
learning. Like any other mode of education, OFDL is an identity with a unique DNA.

Adopting OFDL practice is difficult – it requires a transformation more than a

transfer, a holistic approach more than a piecemeal one, an integrated and
purposeful infrastructure that brings about effective analytics over a fragmented one
that consists of multiple systems, and deliberate change management.

There are many ideas and theories central to OFDL that need to be promoted for
those who have never encountered them. The equation that defines quality OFDL is
robust and not a simple translation of quality frameworks from in-person learning
environments. The wellbeing of our learners and staff must not be overlooked,
including the ability of staff to meaningfully engage with the potential for OFDL. Not
only does the OFDL community need to consider how best to create informed
practice for those new and growing in the OFDL space, but perhaps also create a
guide for deliberate change management to support non-OFDL institutions in
creating informed OFDL practices.

10
Our institutions, nations, contexts – and our students – differ by region and over
time. We must be careful not to over-generalise or assume things about one
another’s setting. Simultaneously, we are all eager to share and make education
more accessible and extend its reach. To that end, two outcomes are critical to the
future of robust OFDL environments. We must ensure that we have contextual
awareness when creating and participating in collaborations for OFDL environments.
Further, we need to offer educational choices appropriate to the requirements of
learners that recognizes the theory and practical requirements of the curriculum.

Adopting OFDL practice is difficult – it requires a transformation more

than a transfer, a holistic approach more than a piecemeal one, an
integrated and purposeful infrastructure that bringsabout effective
analytics over a fragmented one that consists of multiple systems,
and deliberate change management.

In short, we need to adapt. We need to consider how new models are possible across
OFDL. By recognizing that OFDL is not simply an extension of classroom-based
learning, the OFDL community needs to consider how best to create the point of
exchange between and OFDL environment and an in-person or classroom-based
learning environment. In doing so, the OFDL community needs to consider an
adapted and strengthened quality framework.

Consideration ought to be given to how the OFDL community could create a

deliberate response protocol in the event of emergencies. At the onset of the
COVID19 pandemic, numerous OFDL institutions were asked to support the
transition of in-person institutions. While this response was coordinated through
communities of practice, it did not necessarily follow a consistent and organized
transition protocol. A potential area related to the guide for deliberate change
management to support non-OFDL institution could be an emergency response
guide for non-OFDL institutions to use in the event of an emergency rather than a
planned adoption of OFDL into their environment.

Finally, nothing is possible in isolation. In all forward creation, adaptation, and

resilience in OFDL environments, partnership and collaboration remain key to our
collective success. The context being navigated is complex and uncertain. Through
working together, the OFDL community will significantly amplify its agency and
achievements.

11
 ICDE - International Council for
Open and Distance Education,
Pløens gate 2B,
0181 Oslo, Norway

Email: [email protected]
Telephone: +47 22 06 26 32

Enterprise Registry Number: NO971286512