A few weeks ago, an interesting debate unfolded on LinkedIn about whether degrees completed online should have ‘online’ written on the certificate. The idea behind it seemed to be about distinguishing online and face-to-face (F2F) degrees—apparently so employers could decide which ones they could trust more when hiring. The discussion originally stemmed from a closed-door dialogue held among some higher education leaders in Australia. Funny enough, it reminded me of a similar debate I was part of a decade ago in the Maldives.
Around 2015, my team and I at the then-Centre for Open Learning at the Maldives National University faced the same debate—but in relation to blended learning. In our blended courses, about a third of the learning happened in-person through intensive block classes at Outreach Centres (usually classrooms in nearby island schools), scheduled strategically two or three times a semester. The rest of the learning took place online through a learning management system (Moodle), allowing students to stay on their home islands while continuing their studies. These courses, mostly in education, business/management, and nursing, were a game changer. They opened the doors of higher education to hundreds of students in remote regions—people who would have otherwise had little to no chance of getting a degree.
But despite how successful and popular blended learning became, its value was still debated, both inside and outside the university. Some argued that the mode of delivery should be stated on student certificates, suggesting that blended courses might be of lower quality. Fortunately, that argument didn’t gain traction—the university already had a published policy that explicitly prevented mentioning the mode of delivery on testamurs or transcripts. But even with that in place, the negative perceptions about blended learning continued!
The takeaway from the Australian debate felt all too familiar to me: traditional F2F learning is still seen by many as superior to online or blended learning. But I’ve always had the same question—is that really the case?
Using the mode of delivery as a primary indicator of an academic program’s quality isn’t just flawed—it’s dangerously misleading. Firstly, the real measure of learning quality isn’t about whether a course is delivered F2F, online, or in a blended format. It’s about learning outcomes, learning design and delivery, and whether assessments are valid and secured, among others. A well-designed online or blended course, built on sound pedagogical principles, can be just as rigorous—if not better—than a traditional F2F one. In my two decades in higher education, I’ve seen F2F courses with vague learning outcomes, poorly aligned assessments, assessments that don’t actually measure what they’re supposed to, and little to no useful assessment feedback. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not saying F2F interactions aren’t important in the learning process. But the key point here is that ‘where’ learning happens doesn’t tell us much about its quality. What really matters is ‘how’ learning takes place. Whether it’s F2F, online, or blended, the way a subject or course is designed and delivered has far more impact than the mode of delivery itself. So, does putting ‘online’ on a certificate tell us much?
Secondly, labelling online or blended learning as ‘less’ completely ignores the critical role they play in making education more accessible. In the Maldives case I mentioned before, almost all students who joined blended courses were working professionals—teachers, nurses, and government employees—living on remote islands. For many of them, attending a traditional F2F course in an urban centre just wasn’t an option. Some had been relying on diplomas they earned 20 or even 25 years ago, with little opportunity to update their skills and knowledge. Now, imagine this being the case for two-thirds of the population of a small country like the Maldives, and then we turn around and say flexible learning methods aren’t credible—that’s just unfair. I’ve seen firsthand how incredibly determined these students were, juggling work, family, and studies all at once. But still they achieved so much in their studies, because they knew the value of education. So, in my opinion, using a blanket approach to label all online or blended programs as ‘low quality’ isn’t just short-sighted—it’s also immoral.
Leave a Reply