An Analysis of Digital Education in Canada in 2017-2019

Digital education refers to in-person, blended, and fully online learning efforts, as well as attempts to capture a wide range of teaching and learning contexts which make use of digital technology. While digital education is pervasive in Canada, pan-Canadian data on digital education are relatively scarce. The Canadian Digital Learning Research Association/Association Canadienne de Recherche sur la Formation en Ligne conducted pan-Canadian surveys of higher education institutions (2017-2019), collecting data on the digital education landscape and publishing annual reports of its results. Previous analyses of the data have used quantitative approaches. However, the surveys also collected responses to open-ended questions. In this study, we report a systematic analysis of qualitative data exploring the digital education landscape in Canada and its changes over time. Findings shed light on the growth of digital education, the situated and multidimensional nature of digital education, the adoption of openness, quality, and rigour, and the development of alternative credentials.


Method Participants
The CDLRA national survey was conducted in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The 2020 survey was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was sent to all publicly-funded postsecondary institutions in Canada, including universities, colleges, polytechnics, CEGEPs, and, starting in 2018, all private subsidized colleges in Québec. The number of institutions invited to participate, response rates, and the proportion of the total Canadian student population base represented is shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Responses to the CDLRA National Survey 2017-2019 Year N of HEIs invited to participate Response rate % of the Canadian student population base represented by responding institutions n %

Data Analysis
Data was analyzed in both a deductive and inductive manner, guided by the research questions and sensitizing concepts. Analysis included constant comparison of codes, identification of emergent themes, memo-writing about category and theme development, and iterative analysis. The open-coding process began with two researchers independently reading the data to become familiar with it; first, through an unstructured reading of the narrative data before a second reading, where they wrote open codes. This process allowed for emerging phenomena to arise from the raw data and was guided by Glaser and Strauss' (1967) constant comparative approach. During this process, researchers had access to the narrative data, the survey questions, and the three national reports. The questions and reports, while not original data, drew researchers' attention to contextual issues, important findings, and background ideas which informed the data analysis. These materials served as sensitizing concepts, offering researchers a sense of direction while making sense of the data (Patton, 2015). Through a series of iterative discussions with the entire research team, broad categories with codes and sub-codes were identified and defined for each individual year of survey responses. Next, the researchers refined the categories and developed a codebook with definitions for each category, code, and sub-code. The final codebook consisted of 8 categories and 84 codes, which were eventually collapsed into the themes presented below. To systematically analyze the data for this publication, a further round of focused and selective coding (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;Charmaz, 2006) was conducted independently by the same two researchers who conducted the initial coding. As data analysis continued, reports and tables were generated to organize, synthesize, differentiate, and compare patterns in the data. Where appropriate, themes were compared code by code in order to reach consensus between coders.

Qualitative Rigour
Careful consideration was given to procedures which would enhance the rigour and trustworthiness of findings by addressing accepted standards in the design, data analysis, and reporting of results (Patton, 2015). First, the data are available via CDLRA, enabling others to use and confirm the analysis reported herein. Second, authors ensured an audit trail by systematically documenting processes and materials (Freeman et al., 2007;Patton, 2015). Third, sensitizing concepts were used during the data analysis to organize the data and make informed decisions about the significance and importance of findings (Blumer, 1969). Fourth, to reduce bias in data analysis, team members analyzed data independently before collaborating in order to reduce the possibility of imposing individual biases and influence on other team members' interpretations. Fifth, reliability was addressed through constant comparison of findings at multiple points during data analysis and through discussions between researchers regarding the plausibility of findings (Merriam, 1995). Finally, findings are presented using thick descriptions to allow readers to determine whether findings from this study are applicable to their own contexts (Patton 2015).

Limitations
This study faces some limitations. First, the individuals submitting responses on behalf of participating HEIs could change from one year to the next, limiting not only the generalizability of findings between institutions but potentially the year-to-year comparison within the same institution. Second, the necessary process of de-identification eliminated contextual details, contextual indicators, and opportunities for member checking that could have aided in gaining a richer understanding of respondent comments. Finally, changes in survey items between years, in an effort to address emerging concerns and ensure the relevancy of the survey, limited a more detailed exploration of changes over time.

Findings
We identified six themes and describe these below.

Growth of Digital Education
Findings related to the growth of digital education draw from 185 comments across all three years of the survey. Several respondents noted areas where they see the potential for growth in either online courses or programs, such as in the trades. Many respondents also alluded to increasing interest in digital education among all students, regardless of whether they were studying on campus or at a distance, such as in the case of Respondent 56 (2019), who noted that "about one of every three students at our institution participates in an online course." Respondents also indicated that fully online programs were offered at multiple levels including undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education, in credit and non-credit programs. For example, Respondent 89 commented that their "institution offers fully online courses and programs including for-credit certificate programs" (2019). Institutions deliver their online programs along a continuum of a/synchronicity as evidenced in comments such as this: "Our courses are primarily delivered online in an asynchronous format" (Respondent 91, 2018). We also noted how, for some respondents, online program offerings are a priority, with comments such as these two: "We have committed to strategic investment in online and hybrid course development over the coming three years" (Respondent 126, 2017), and "Our institution will focus heavily on the development of fully online programs for the next three years" (Respondent 59, 2019).
Many respondents shared comments reflecting their intentions to be adaptable, responsive, and relevant to the needs of society, students, and potential employers by offering diverse course and program offerings which employ digital technology with effective pedagogical practices. For example, one institution stated that "online and blended fits with a larger strategy around flexible and authentic learning that dovetails into [our] experiential learning initiative" (Respondent 53, 2019). Another respondent noted that "online learning is particularly important in providing sustainable regional programming" (Respondent 13, 2019).
Numerous comments related to providing access to courses and programs for current and future students.
Some were focused on the flexibility and growth opportunities that digital education can offer: "We see blended/hybrid learning as a key strategy that will allow for more flexibility for students and growth of our programs" (Respondent 9, 2019). Other remarks were about how online courses can enable students enrolled in programs in specific geographic locations to have access to courses or programs that might not otherwise be available to them. "The issue of accessibility of training is very important, and online training is likely to make learning accessible to remote communities that could not otherwise access it" (Respondent 241, 2017).
Finally, responses to questions asking about changes to the ways institutions offer digital education included comments around growth in course enrolments or increases in the types of courses and programs offered in online or blended/hybrid formats. For example, a typical comment was: "The number of students enrolled exclusively in distance learning courses is growing rapidly, as are students who combine classroom and distance learning courses to reconcile education, work and personal life" (Respondent 13, 2017). Some respondents elaborated with details on local circumstance: "As we continue to develop new online courses, our registrations continue to increase. However, we anticipate a leveling off to maintain a balance of online and face-to-face options for our students" (Respondent 112, 2017). Respondents also indicated future directions, as in "our institution will focus heavily on the development of fully online programs for the next three years" (Respondent 59, 2019) and shared explanations of how digital education was allowing them to address particular mandates (Respondent 104, 2019). In some instances, while institutions described having interest and experiencing growth in digital learning, they also noted that few of their offerings were in this modality. For instance, Respondent 92 noted that their institution "has considerable interest and growth in hybrid learning [but] when expressed as a percentage of our overall offerings, the portion is still less than 1%" (2019).

Adoption of OER and OE Practice in Canada is Supported Through Various Means
Adoption of open education resources (OER) and practices (OEP) at Canadian institutions is present and From 2017 and 2018, we identified more comments indicating that institutions were in the early stages of OER use or that they were currently not using or pursuing OER. We noted some comments indicating low interest in OER (Respondent 125, 2017 textbooks are currently being implemented on a small scale/pilot level," and another institution that described the adoption of these resources as "OER via grassroots efforts" (Respondent 77, 2019).

Multidimensional Innovation in the Development of Digital Education
The open-ended comments shared by respondents with regard to innovation in digital education at their institutions suggest that advances are occurring in various ways.

Innovations Remain Focused on Good Practices
Survey responses appear to reflect thoughtful consideration being given to good practices in implementing new pedagogy or technology. Good practices in digital education extend beyond simply employing the newest educational technology or offering a different modality, to include practices which foster "student success and engagement and the adoption of universal design principles [which] are at the forefront of all of our teaching and learning experiences, including our online and hybrid offerings" (Respondent 66, 2019).
There were many comments in all three years of the survey to support this perspective. For example, one respondent indicated that at the crux of these efforts are thoughtful considerations. experimentation and creativity in curricular enhancements in simulation, labs, learning spaces, and course assignments (Respondent 126, 2017). Respondents also shared comments reflecting an awareness of the intersections between pedagogy and technology in the course design and development processes. For instance, sensitivity toward course design was expressed in many comments, such as in the case below: Preparing an online course forces faculty to think carefully about course design and its connection to assessment that often leads to better in-person design as well. Digital affordances of online teaching have inspired greater interdisciplinarity, a wider range of perspectives in a course, and more pedagogical innovation in regards to student contact (Respondent 2, 2018).

Institutional Strategies to Embrace New Technologies
In every year of the survey, respondents described institutional strategies such as strategic, academic, or digital plans which encouraged faculty and staff to adopt new technologies. Although many institutions identified aspects of digital education as a priority at their institution, we noted few comments which reflected substantial progress in implementing these strategies, even though this may have been one of their institution's priorities for multiple years. A typical comment illustrating this from 2017 was the following:

Emergent Digital Education Modalities and Technologies
A variety of course delivery approaches were mentioned by respondents. While the vast majority were variations on blended/hybrid course delivery approaches, multi-access or hyflex (hybrid flexible) options, which offer a variety of educational choices and delivery methods, emerged in a handful of responses, with respondents noting that increased multi-access modalities might "better meet the needs of our students, whether they are here on-campus or living on the other side of the world" (Respondent 192, 2018). Adaptive models were another emergent modality mentioned by respondents as platforms that allow institutions to "build online courses that are more adaptive in nature, where students can enjoy a self-paced experience based on the mastery of learning outcomes and objectives" (Respondent 68, 2017 accommodate the use of iPads and iPhones" (2019). Finally, AI was a prominent technology, mentioned by thirteen respondents. In doing so, respondents often noted some of the different purposes or functions they hoped AI could serve. For example, one respondent stated, "Our institution is developing a framework for assessing prior learning, identifying gaps, and using AI training modules to address the gaps" (Respondent 2, 2019). Other respondents commented on the potential for AI to provide technical support "to help support students (and perhaps faculty) in the use of online technologies" (Respondent 6, 2019) or academic support for student learning by "exploring the use of AI Tutor" (Respondent 82, 2019).

Innovative Teaching in Digital Education in Canada is Situated
While our analysis revealed numerous innovative digital practices, it also showed that such practices are situated within institutional contexts, and that there are substantial variations in the ways that respondents describe innovation. Significantly, what may be considered innovative in one context may not necessarily be innovative in another (cf. Veletsianos, 2016). We coded 180 responses over all three years focusing on innovative teaching practices in digital education.
Typical innovative teaching practices described by respondents across all years of the survey focused on the intersections of technology and pedagogy, pedagogical methods, course delivery formats, and student learning needs. Specific practices were, at times, mentioned, such as: "Using online simulations to provide students with opportunities to apply learning; Using online interactive case studies; Conducting presentations and seminars through synchronous and asynchronous tools" (Respondent 96, 2017); and "integrating active learning, creating gaming opportunities, using badging, producing video segments, building opportunities for reflections, etc." (Respondent 64, 2018). Further, one individual noted that the institution employed: crowd-sourced marking generally, introducing more video conferencing with synchronous meetings for both instructors and students, working to allow more seamless integration of video and audio resources (especially for students) into course work (Respondent 97, 2019).
Respondents generally affirmed the important role of pedagogy in the innovative digital education approaches being developed. Technology was often described as a tool to support and facilitate these new practices, as in "Technology supports innovation when pedagogical considerations drive the use of the technology" (Respondent 6, 2018). Such thinking is also reflected in a number of respondents emphatically stating that "modality does not guarantee superiority" (Respondent 91, 2018). Statements like this revealed that respondents believed that no one course delivery modality was inherently better or worse, and that innovation could not be inferred strictly through the use of educational technology.

Recognition of Quality and Rigour Concerns in the Broad Range of Digital Education Options Offered by HEIs
There were 78 open-ended comments that mentioned quality across the three years of the survey. In responses, we noted that HEIs were looking to make effective use of evidence-based resources to guide the course development process and address quality standards.
Respondents commented on technology and pedagogical decisions and a desire to make the best choices in terms of quality and rigour. This could mean sharing which digital education choices they feel to be the best, concerns with their current choices, re-evaluations, and future digital education plans and considerations.
One of the most frequent types of comments that we coded for this theme was one that made mention of technology choices and the rationale for these decisions. This was articulated by Respondent 110 who wrote: "Our institution has been increasingly moving towards offering more courses using its LMS (Brightspace) to increase accessibility for remote communities, reduce the burden on physical space, provide more flexibility in delivery options, and make training available internationally" (2018). A second category of comments was associated with techno-pedagogical choices to improve rigour, such as the use of learning analytics to improve outcomes (e.g., Respondent 110, 2018). Finally, the third category of responses focused on how various pedagogical approaches that HEIs have identified contributed to the rigour of their digital courses. Respondent 97, for example, wrote: It's true that some employers may value on-campus education more than online education, and it may be true that online education does not reach the standards of on-campus education at some institutions, but that is not our reality; we understand that the courses we deliver online are just as rigourous as the ones we deliver on-campus …. Our student persistence (or retention) rates are remarkably high, [and] both our new and experienced instructors have access to our [Centre for

HEIs are Developing a Broad Range of Alternative Credentials to Serve a Variety of Purposes
Seventy-six comments in the dataset mentioned some form of alternative or micro credential, revealing that Canadian HEIs are exploring a broad variety of credentials which serve various functions. Badges were mentioned 23 times and were the most frequently mentioned alternative credential. While badges were described as being used in both individual courses (e.g., as incentives, Respondent 32, 2019) and as part of a program of study (Respondent 12, 2018), respondents indicated that alternative credentials served many purposes. These included using them as a dual credit with high schools; laddering options to other courses/programs; stackable credentials as a way to reflect updated skills and competencies; and as signifiers of co-curricular options for community-based or service learning experiences. Finally, some respondents noted that alternative credentials are means to other goals. For example, one respondent explained that their institution "is interested in exploring micro-credentialing as a strategy for curricular renewal and enhancing access to higher education" (Respondent 79, 2019). Thirteen respondents also described alternative credentials as a means to advance, pursue, or otherwise enable competency-based education efforts.

Discussion and Implications
These findings reveal common and typical practices and experiences in the Canadian higher education sector that shed additional light on the quantitative results reported by the Canadian Digital Learning Research Association over the years. As such, the implications of these results are broader than those offered by findings during a particular year of study.

Complexity
The increasingly complex nature of higher education is evident in respondent comments from all three years of the survey. Elements of complexity are not confined to technological advances (e.g., AI), but reach into other areas such as institutional and pedagogical processes. For instance, the use of OER and alternative credentials expands not only the number of activities that institutions engage in but also the nature of content and credentialing, and raises a variety of questions around data ownership, privacy, training needs, integration support, quality assurance, and evaluation methods. Further, such activities may include the disaggregation of higher education teaching, learning, and credentialing activities into various smaller components (e.g., course design and development or student support), further complicating higher education. Disaggregation appears to be common in digital education efforts (Czerniewicz, 2018) and is visible in some of the activities described above.
Such developments may speak to a broader willingness amongst HEIs to question established practices.
Despite the likelihood of digital education initiatives raising various concerns, many HEIs appear willing to question institutional and pedagogical practices such as the use of traditionally published textbooks or the focus on typical credentials.
As digital education options grow at the institutional level, HEIs need to consider not just course design and support, but also student support. This may mean evaluating training needs, providing support for adoption, employing learning design and digital learning experts, and verbalizing the role that digital learning plays for the institution. Due to varying contexts, it is difficult to make recommendations for specific actions, but some of these may include the development of institutional policies around data ownership and privacy issues, the establishment of course design teams, the acknowledgement that such efforts may require more resourcing and different kinds of workloads for staff, administrators, and faculty, and so on.

Contextual Innovations and Affirmation of the Important Role of Pedagogy
HEIs reported a number of innovative teaching practices. While there were some commonalities among these, there were also variations. In some cases, what a HEI reported as a highly innovative practice in its setting may no longer be the case in another. Such variations in digital teaching practices may reflect disparities between institutions (e.g., access to pedagogical expertise), faculty training supports across sectors or regions, or even differences in mandate or institutional priorities. Innovations, therefore, need to be seen in context: what may be innovative at one institution may not be innovative in another. One significant implication of this finding is that innovations need to account for local conditions, implying that adopting innovations that other HEIs found worthwhile may not guarantee success. One finding appears to defy this implication. Specifically, as respondents at Canadian colleges and universities appear to affirm the important role of pedagogy in making decisions around the use of technology in their courses, it becomes clear that paying attention to pedagogy is significant across contexts. Pedagogical principles can guide adoption, innovation, and design, and this area offers much room for scholarly investigation.

Contrasts in OER and OEP Support
Respondents made frequent comments relating to OER adoption and the inclusion of OER in institutional policy. In addition to saving students money, OER are often offered as a vehicle to aid faculty in reimagining their courses and potentially impacting the teaching practices of those courses (Hegarty, 2015;Weller et al., 2015). Nonetheless, while participants described supports for OER, there was little to no mention of open educational practices (OEP) and supports provided to foster them. Cronin and MacLaren (2018, p. 137) contend that "expansive conceptualisations of OEP acknowledge the complex, actual and situated practices of teaching and learning," indicating that support for OEP may be necessary given its complicating nature and newness. One approach that HEIs may consider is to assess how OEP are being implemented and supported at their institutions. Again, this is a ripe area for future research.

Variations, Unevenness, and Collaboration
Findings suggest that there are variations and unevenness in digital education practice across Canada.
Variations can be a sign of specialization, such as, for example, when institutions offer blended learning options for working professionals in their region compared to those institutions that employ online learning to reach out-of-region students. Unevenness may reflect a variety of issues, such as inequities in the higher education system (e.g., resourcing, digital literacies, etc.). Regardless of the reasons for the existence of variations and unevenness in the system, what institutional experience with COVID-19 has made clear is that the whole system can benefit from greater collaboration, synergies, and sharing of expertise. Between gaps and unevenness between institutions in terms of digital learning know-how. We hope that such efforts persist beyond the pandemic, and that they contribute to a higher education ecosystem that is more willing to share and collaborate.

Conclusion
The uptake of digital education in Canadian HEIs-partly arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, partly a result of ongoing efforts aimed specifically at online learning-makes the findings of this study timely and important. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend that approaches to digital learning in Canadian institutions be informed by contexts, including local, provincial, and pan-Canadian. Nuanced research of this nature, focused on Canadian HEIs at a time of widespread engagement with digital learning due to COVID-19, can provide evidence that researchers, faculty, and administrators interested in digital learning efforts need.