Missing the Bigger Picture on Flexibility and Online Learning

Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up, and get your own copy of the news that matters sent to your inbox every week. Sign up for the On EdTech newsletter. Interested in additional analysis? Try with our 30-day free trial and Upgrade to the On EdTech+ newsletter.

Last week, EDUCAUSE published their 2025 Students and Technology Report. I have to admit, I have a bit of a soft spot for this report. Back in 2003–2004, I played a small role in the early stages of this survey, though it has evolved significantly over the years, as it should.

The survey touches on a number of important topics, including student perspectives on campus technology, AI usage, and preparation for the workforce. But in this post, I want to focus specifically on the sections that explore student preferences for learning modalities.

There’s a lot of valuable information in that part of the survey as there is throughout the report. However, due to some inconsistent framing and a lack of broader context, the findings risk creating a misleading impression about trends in online learning in the U.S.

I touched on this briefly in my Saturday post, but I wanted to dig a bit deeper here and share some thoughts with a broader audience. It is because this report is so valuable that I am calling for better analysis on the modality preferences.

Has online learning preference increased or decreased?

At the beginning of the report, the authors note a shift in modality preferences but emphasize that this should be understood in the context of students still valuing flexibility.

But that balance between student preferences and their appreciation for greater flexibility gets lost in the body of the report. The shift toward a preference for on-campus experiences is highlighted without sufficient context and with little mention of competing priorities like access and flexibility. At first glance, the data appears compelling, but it's incomplete without that broader perspective.

That figure included a number of course activity questions, after which Educause provides a summary description.

Educause then doubles down on this point, arguing, erroneously in my opinion, that the shift reflects a broader trend of students preferring on-campus learning, except for those who deliberately choose fully online institutions for the sake of flexibility.

To support this argument, they cite a January 2024 Inside Higher Ed article that interprets IPEDS data to suggest students are retreating from online learning.

That interpretation of IPEDS data is at odds with what many on campuses are seeing and what the data show. A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education describes in detail the ways that many different kinds of institutions have embraced online learning because of demands from students, faculty and the need to attract more students.

As the Chronicle points out, this shift is reflected in the IPEDS data summarizing Phil’s recent analysis.

The number of students taking at least one online course dropped after the peak of the pandemic as things returned to a more typical pattern, but they’re settling at a higher baseline than pre-pandemic. Not only has the number of students taking online courses increased over time, but that growth has outpaced what we likely would have seen had COVID not pushed everyone into emergency remote instruction.

Why did they get it wrong on online learning?

Apart from relying on an incomplete interpretation of IPEDS data, EDUCAUSE makes several missteps in how it emphasizes student preferences for on-campus learning.

First, it misconstrues the role of online learning in higher education. Increasingly, it’s not a binary choice between online and on-campus learning, many students engage in both, often within the same semester.

That said, most students study on campus, and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon. So it’s hardly surprising that a majority express a preference for in-person learning. What’s more interesting is that this preference didn’t spike immediately after the pandemic; instead, it has been trending upward gradually, a shift that deserves further exploration.

Second, by breaking the question into component parts of a course, lectures, labs, discussions, etc., EDUCAUSE effectively tips the scale in favor of on-campus modality. A well-designed online course isn't just an on-campus class moved online; it's a fundamentally different experience, requiring different design principles. Lectures, for example, are increasingly being questioned even in traditional settings, and they’re deadly when simply transferred online. Honestly, the more surprising finding isn’t that 64% of students prefer in-person lectures instead of 100%.

In addition, the modality preference questions were based on “categories of synchronous learning activities,” a limitation that implies on-campus classes simply moved online. This context was called out, but Educause analysis ignored its implications.

A better approach would have been to first ask whether students prefer online or on-campus courses overall, and then explore which elements of each modality they find most positive or negative.

Third, preference doesn’t equal retreat. I might prefer going to the gym later in the day, but sometimes my schedule requires me to go earlier. Similarly, students can prefer in-person learning while still valuing the convenience and flexibility that online courses provide. Research consistently shows that students appreciate the ability to take online classes, whether to resolve scheduling conflicts, take courses while home for the summer, or manage work and caregiving responsibilities. Online learning often helps students stay on track when life gets complicated.

Fourth, as EDUCAUSE’s own data make clear, preferences for in-person versus online learning are heavily influenced by age. Traditional and nontraditional students often have very different needs, constraints, and priorities when it comes to modality.

Finally, EDUCAUSE loses sight of its broader point about flexibility. Even though the report’s subtitle is “Shaping the Future of Higher Education Through Technology, Flexibility, and Well-Being,” flexibility is barely mentioned beyond the introduction. Considering how central flexibility is to understanding student behavior around course-taking and modality, this issue should have played a larger part in the analysis.

The data not shown

The lack of context and nuance around student course-taking behaviors could have been improved with additional data that did not make it into the report. For example, the survey used in the report included the following question, but the results were not reported in the final publication.

I don’t think it’s a particularly well-structured question, as there’s too much overlap between the categories. However, the responses could still have offered valuable insight into why students’ preferences broke down the way they did.

Why this matters

The EDUCAUSE survey is rightly regarded as a reliable and authoritative source on student technology use. Given that, it’s problematic that the report emphasizes a shift away from online learning without acknowledging that online enrollment rates are still rising, that student behavior often diverges from stated preferences, and that preferences vary significantly by factors like age and institutional context.

The survey has already been cited as evidence that universities offering online learning options are somehow doing students a disservice and failing to meet them where they are. That’s a troubling conclusion, and one EDUCAUSE member institutions should be concerned about, especially in today’s climate.

The main On EdTech newsletter is free to share in part or in whole. All we ask is attribution.

Thanks for being a subscriber.