On remote learning technology as a tool in addressing COVID inequities
This blog post does not necessarily reflect the opinions of ACM at UCLA and the UCLA CS department.
UCLA recently announced their decision to resume nearly all in-person instruction January 31st. This decision was met with substantial backlash, with students citing upwards of 100,000 COVID cases in California at present, with more than 40,000 of those cases in Los Angeles County alone. Students also pointed out the irony of UCLA announcing the resumption of in-person learning from a virtual ‘COVID Town Hall’, and even went so far as to say that the decision was driven by plutocratic motivations rather than the wellbeing of the student body.
It should be noted that this article does not aim to critique UCLA’s decision to return to in-person learning, but rather examine UCLA’s technological resources and their role in academics, and, by proxy, the ways in which they can serve to reduce COVID inequities.
One can assume that UCLA justifies the return to in-person instruction with the argument that remote learning is no replacement for being in the classroom. In fact, in a memo sent to UCLA faculty, instructors were told to submit a brief “…learning based rationale…” describing the possible effects of continued remote instruction on “…student learning outcomes” in the context of extended remote learning.
Enter distance learning technology. When we think of what technology lies at the foundation of remote learning, our minds are likely turn to video and streaming platforms such as Zoom or Google Meet. Yet the technology for virtual learning extends far beyond these applications. Platforms such as GroupMe and Discord are utilized as interstudent communication channels, and interfaces such as CCLE, and more recently Canvas (i.e. BruinLearn) are imperative for class interface and coursework.
Of course, in some ways, UCLA is correct. That is, remote instruction does not replace in-person instruction. It comes with its own set of drawbacks and shortcomings, including the impact on students with learning differences, as well as access to reliable technology, though UCLA does have a relatively comprehensive and expansive program to provide technological access to all students. Students may also point to the dampener it places on the social aspect of college.
Mind you, different is not necessarily synonymous with worse. One would not be hard pressed to find a student who will concede that the technological systems of remote learning have created increased flexibility, nor be surprised that the multitude of technological interfaces often provide better communication channels among students as well as between students and faculty. Moreover, this change in course structure is very often better suited to a student’s needs. Commuter students whom I have spoken with have said that not having to commute has allowed them more time and freedom within their day-to day-lives. It should go without saying that these technological capabilities would seem rather far fetched twenty, or even ten years ago. Video and streaming quality has increased exponentially in the last 15 years. Online communication has become practically immediate today. Because of this, the technology we so heavily rely on for remote learning is extraordinarily more comprehensive today than at any other point in time.
The bottom line is that UCLA has the access and the ability to harness the power of technologies that make remote learning possible — whether it be streaming, communication platforms, or otherwise — to continue to offer a remote learning option. Yet they chose to resume seemingly under the assumption that there will be little to no lasting implications for the vast majority of the UCLA community. Or, at the very least, those who are vaccinated and otherwise healthy, will remain largely unscathed, in the sense that they will avoid major health risks due to the Omicron variant.
And honestly, they are not wrong. Omicron’s decreased symptom severity and the vaccine mandate on campus mean that most UCLA affiliated individuals will, for the most part, manage to adapt.
Yet, of course, this does not paint a full picture. Equity, particularly COVID equity, means every individual receives equal treatment with regard to COVID and remains at equal risk of acquiring and getting sick from the disease. UCLA is not an isolated body, but conversely, a part of the greater Los Angeles metropolis, where, like the rest of the United States, COVID trends mimic historic inequalities. COVID prevalence is higher in lower income communities as well as communities of color. Vaccination rates are lower within communities of color, particularly among BIPOC communities, due to a history of medical inequities.
UCLA has long argued — both implicitly and explicitly — that the presence of the ‘Bruin Bubble,’ i.e. that the undergraduate student body will remain an isolated body, will ensure a limit on the spread of COVID-19 within the student body. By the same token, one may assume that this proclaimed seclusion will go both ways, in that the greater Los Angeles area will be protected from potential outbreaks occurring within the UCLA community. Yet this argument rings false, or is a strawman, for many. This virus, specifically Omicron’s less transmissible ancestor, was able to evolve from an epidemic to a pandemic in a matter of weeks — indeed before many of us were even able to differentiate the two terms. UCLA houses an undergraduate population of upwards of 30,000, excluding faculty and graduate students. From its location to its social scene to academia, UCLA is effectively embedded in the greater Los Angeles municipality. To presume that UCLA’s decision to return to in-person learning when this virus has evaded even the most authoritarian of states seems naive, if not outright laughable.
This then begs the question of how UCLA can take advantage of the aforementioned remote learning technologies in order to reduce these inequities not merely within UCLA, but the greater Los Angeles community. Up to this point, there have been three major routes that colleges and universities have taken with regards to classroom format: a fully in-person plan, a ‘hybrid’ option that is composed of both in-person and remote learning components, and a fully remote option.
Striking a balance between ensuring the safety of UCLA and the surrounding population while minimizing the disadvantages of remote learning is notoriously challenging. We know that remote technology is most beneficial when serving as a method of networking between individuals, yet is lacking in the realms of accessibility and providing academic and social support to individuals. So, then, it seems that UCLA should aim to reduce exposures by minimizing in-person course requirements while providing outreach and support.
And that is exactly what students are advocating for. For the past week, UCLA students and student organizations including the Disabled Student Union and the Office of the President, have been striking in favor of a hybrid learning option.
Thus, to answer the question as to how UCLA can harness these technologies, it would appear that providing an amalgamation of in-person and remote options would allow for student needs to be met while ensuring that UCLA limits further spread of COVID-19.
UCLA has the power, as well as the technology, to extend online learning and, as such, has the ability to reduce the prevalence of COVID, and “slow the spread”, effectively combating COVID inequities by making a conscious effort to lower the transmission rates in affected communities.
Remote learning technology by itself is not a way to address complex and ingrained inequities that have surfaced as a result of the pandemic. Yet, simply put, lower rates of transmission, and infection, can alleviate the strain that COVID continues to put on historically marginalized communities. Opting to take full advantage of the technological tools that allow for virtual academia may be the first step in addressing and acknowledging these inequities.
