Abstract
As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been an involuntary shift to online learning – in its many manifestations. In turn, this has highlighted and facilitated a range of alternative modes of delivery for international students. These are sometimes referred to as flexible modes of delivery and at other times as alternative modes of delivery. The traditional face-to-face mode has been overtaken (certainly for a period of time) by a range of alternative arrangements that cater for lockdowns and community restrictions. Arguably, the most challenging part of these restrictions has been their unpredictability, making planning and strategy difficult. The option of having alternatives to face-to-face delivery ready and available is a most-valued commodity at present.

Introduction
Prior to the pandemic, international education (onshore in Australia) was in face-to-face mode, with strict regulations around: the percentage of classes allowed to be completed online by international students; attendance at face-to-face classes; the extent of employment hours permitted on a student visa; and progression rates (mostly 5 percent) needed to maintain a student visa. Much of this was dictated by the Australian ESOS Act 2000 and the supporting National Code. Then, of course, everything changed!

In truth, there has been a slow and determined movement in the regulations over a period of time. Matters such as attendance have been downplayed for a number of years, for example. Working hours have been redefined (quite significantly in recent times) and even matters of progression have been either suspended or made more flexible to provide the support and compassion required when dealing with students under duress.

The so-called alternative (flexible) modes of delivery – Blended Learning (bLearning) as described by West (2021), Online Learning (eLearning) as outlined by Chanda (2021), Hybrid Learning (hLearning) as illuminated by Whateley (2021) and Mobile Learning (mLearning) were viewed previously as essentially domestic options with little if any application for international students studying in Australia – certainly those onshore. International students were provided with some of these options at the more progressive institutions – but usually under conditions and other restrictions. This, too, is no longer the case! The rapid shift to online learning in 2020 created a precedent (some say a lightning rod) that is likely to stay with us for some time. The prediction is that even with a return to face-to-face learning in the years ahead the percentage of study permitted online for international students will grow to 50 percent of the load. This represents a significant shift in thinking and would be consistent with developments in other countries around the world.

Tertiary institutions were required to move rapidly into eLearning – it was a matter of survival during the pandemic. Some of the better-prepared organisations (and many had been dabbling in alternative/flexible options for some time) managed to deviate even further and utilise the other modes with varying degrees of success. Sector reports suggest that the more flexibly inclined have fared best during the so-called international student crisis. There are several reasons for this. When the Australian Government regulations softened on the number of paid hours that international students can work in country, for example – from 40 hours per fortnight to unlimited – the demand for flexibility increased significantly. This will be a very difficult situation to reverse in the coming years. It is highly likely that flexibility will remain a constant feature as we move forward.

The perils of enforced eLearning
The sudden switch to online (eLearning) caused a considerable amount of distress for many institutions and in particular for academic staff. For many of the latter, this was the ‘end of the world’ as they knew it. Understandably, for those who had been teaching international students for many years in the traditional face-to-face mode, this was indeed a precarious and uninvited demand – they were in fact ‘digital convicts’ (Whateley, 2020). For others, it was an opportunity to put in place a variety of modes that could still maintain high levels of student engagement. Learner engagement (coupled with the student experience) – remember - is perceived as the end game.

The author’s own institution appears to have fared well, with the most recent Student Feedback on Units (July 2021) scoring 4.4/5 (the highest score since record-keeping commenced in T1, 2016); Staff Satisfaction scoring 4.3/5; and 92 percent of students stating that they would prefer to stay online for the duration of their studies. Sector feedback suggests that the aggregate is lower than this.

Given the commitment made to technology upgrades and capital investment in lecture studios, these indicators are satisfying and to some degree a relief. Classrooms were quickly converted to lecture studios with roaming cameras, monitors, an upgraded learning management system, and a ‘live’ studio look and feel – all at considerable cost.

Staff training also became a priority. The notion of simply throwing staff online (and from remote locations) was not seen as either appropriate or viable. The key issue was a focus on learner engagement, and this could best be achieved with high quality delivery from a familiar environment. This again came with a cost – but the dividend has been worth it.

This approach is by no means the standard approach. Many institutions were thrown into chaos from the outset, have struggled with home delivery, and have reaped significant disapproval from students throughout the country. The notion of recycling low-end presentations has also met with considerable criticism and disappointment across the sector.

The pitfalls associated with returning to face-to-face classes on campus
The return-to-campus movement has taken quite a few hits with flash lockdowns across the country. Some of the enforced lockdowns (Victoria has had six to date) have varied in length from 10 days to four months. The key issue has been the unpredictability of closures (and durations), especially in some States with hair-trigger border closures accompanied by circuit-breaker lockdowns – both with very short fuses – and very little time to prepare. In this context, face-to-face options seem dim - in truth doomed for the short term at least.

The very notion of opening-up to face-to-face operations and then having to do an about-turn several weeks later in response to restrictions makes the task at best stressful, and at worst unmanageable. The process also creates unnecessary uncertainty for students. This is less an issue with business students than it is for applied science students.

Several providers have recently formally announced that they will continue online learning for the rest of 2021, some even predicting throughout 2022. The news has not been well received in many quarters. What the decision has done though, is provide a degree of certainty and consistency – which is not a bad development in itself. It would appear that online learning and its associated variations are here for some time. Some predict that they will endure well into 2022, possibly 2023.

The future of hybrid learning
Hybrid Learning (hLearning) appears to be the future - or certainly the mode for the next couple of years. The model is based on delivering live sessions online with the option for students to attend face-to-face by choice. It is not unlike the concept of ‘live-to-air’ television. Drawing from the analogy of the hybrid car – the driver makes the decision on the mode, and this can change as required along the journey.

The enormous advantage of the hLearning mode is the quick (and relatively easy) response mechanism to future lockdowns and restrictions. The acceptance of the notion of high-end hygiene and COVID safety are also well accommodated in this mode. The worst-case scenario is that the option of sitting in a classroom during a live delivery is suspended for a given period – but teaching and learning continue online without interruption. It is important to remember that the author’s own institution has gauged through student survey that currently only 8 per cent of students are even interested in physically returning to campus.

The mode also provides students with the all-important option of on-campus/off-campus delivery. This is well received by students. For staff, it requires delivery on site throughout the trimester/semester. This is less well received by staff – but for many, it is regarded as a necessary evil. The issue of staff teaching onsite is all about ensuring a quality output complete with the necessary technology standard and IT support. This standard and consistency of delivery are difficult (if not impossible) to replicate in the home-studio environment.

The impact on multiple site/campus delivery is now up for debate. In the face-to-face environment international students at multiple locations would receive dedicated, campus-bound delivery. This has changed significantly with a more centralised online delivery plus additional campus support required (face-to-face) as needed. This provides an extra swing on the notion of hybrid learning.

Staff and student perceptions
At the heart of the COVID-19 scenario is the impact that the changes have had on the international student experience. There is a mixed response to online learning – and this is not surprising. At the same time, there has been considerable acceptance of the mode not only in Australia but internationally (Klebs et al, 2021). This has been accompanied by an acknowledgement of the validity and currency of online learning (along with its variations).

There has been a considerable focus on student and staff response to online learning and teaching – and the outcomes vary from institution to institution. Mechanisms such as student feedback on unit surveys; staff satisfaction surveys; student satisfaction with online learning surveys; national QILT surveys relating to the overall student experience (the 2021 data collection commenced in July 2021 and will be published in early 2022); industry group surveys; and a plethora of research surveys (both private and public) are all useful tools for gathering intelligence on and around student/staff satisfaction.

The essential issue is gathering the data – and most importantly using the findings to improve delivery. Keeping abreast of state and national trends is important. The best source of meaningful feedback though is internal survey. It is essential that all providers have a clear understanding of their own student/staff needs and respond quickly and appropriately to the needs expressed. Acting on national feedback can be useful, but nothing beats listening carefully to your own cohorts and acting quickly and decisively. If supported appropriately, the outcomes and levels of satisfaction can be highly credible and satisfying for all stakeholders.

Using the ongoing data collected provides a genuine opportunity to enhance both the student experience and learner engagement. The author’s School is an independent business school. It appears that onsite activities are currently not a high priority for students. Lecturer engagement and eResourcing, on the other hand, have become vital elements in the learning and teaching effort. This may not be the case with other institutions – but the important fact is that it is the key to this Institution’s success.

What does international student learning and teaching look like moving forward?
Online learning will be with us for some time – well into 2023. With the likely opening of international borders in mid-2022 (still speculative) there will be a significant return of student numbers – some say a tsunami-like event. Others are more conservative, but most agree that there will be a return in solid numbers.

The prediction, though, is not a return to the ‘way things were’ but rather to a more mixed-mode approach to learning and teaching. This mix will likely include up to 5 percent online, a partial return to face-to-face (as it was) and alternative options (blended, hybrid and mobile) changing the international education landscape for the better.

This may impact significantly on the notion of completing the full degree onshore. Students may opt for the online option offshore (for example) with only partial completion onshore. This will require a rethink in terms of visa regulations – but may in fact be a viable approach. A number of institutions – forced by the pandemic conditions – have significant numbers of students currently offshore studying online. To some degree this has changed the thinking around the issue.

References

• Australian Government, Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2021) Retrieved from
  • https://internationaleducation.gov.au/regulatory-information/Education-Services-for-Overseas-Students-ESOS-Legislative-Framework/National-Code/Pages/default.aspx.
• Chanda, A. (2021) The efficacy of online studies. Retrieved from
  • https://www.ubss.edu.au/media/2695/the-efficacy-of-online-studies.pdf.
• Klebs, S. (et al) (2021) One year later – COVID-19’s impact on current and future college students. Retrieved from
  • http://thirdway.imgix.net/pdfs/one-year-later-covid-19s-impact-on-current-and-future-college-students.pdf.
• West, A. (2021). What is meant by blended learning? Retrieved from
  • https://www.ubss.edu.au/media/2716/what-is-meant-by-blended-learning.pdf.
• Whateley, G. (2020) Full marks for educators - the digital convicts of COVID-19. Retrieved from
  • https://www.campusreview.com.au/2020/09/full-marks-for-educators-the-digital-convicts-of-covid-19/.
• Whateley, G. (2021) Understanding hybrid delivery. Retrieved from
  • https://www.ubss.edu.au/media/2670/understanding-hybrid-delivery.pdf.

Biography
Emeritus Professor Greg Whateley is currently the Deputy Vice Chancellor, Group Colleges Australia (GCA). Formerly, he was Chair of the Academic Board at the Australian Institute of Music and Dean of the College at Western Sydney University. He has been keenly interested in alternative modes of delivering education since 2000 when he co-invented ‘The Virtual Conservatorium’ and has since found himself involved, some twenty years later, in the development of the virtual school.