Is modality a Human Right?
Professor Valerie Irvine presented an insightful perspective on modality. She approached it not as a simple technical choice but as an issue of equity and human rights. I agree with her philosophy that all learners should have the right to choose their preferred mode of participation, and that the Multi-Access Learning model can support such flexibility. However, I believe it is important to examine this model critically and identify the practical challenges it faces in higher education.
1. The Gap Between Structured Experience and Autonomous Choice
The multi-access model emphasizes learner autonomy, but this autonomy does not always lead to positive outcomes. Most students, including myself, have spent more than twelve years in highly structured educational environments with fixed schedules and physical classrooms. When suddenly placed in a flexible system that requires strong self-regulation, many learners can easily feel lost or disoriented.
This issue is closely related to the concept of cognitive overload. According to an online resource published by ELM Learning (2023), when blended learning environments present too much information or too many media types at once, studentsâ cognitive capacity can become overwhelmed, resulting in lower learning efficiency (ELM Learning, 2023). It is also linked to the psychological concept of choice overload bias, which suggests that too many options can actually reduce the quality of decision-making (The Decision Lab, n.d.). As a result, students with weaker motivation or time management skills may engage in surface-level learning, widening the gap between high-achieving and low-achieving students.
2. The Quality of Interaction and the Problem of Social Presence
Accessibility is the main strength of multi-access learning, but it often comes with a trade-off in interaction quality. Instructors face a structural limitation: it is realistically impossible to give equal attention to both in-person and online participants. Consequently, online students may become passive observers rather than active participants.
This limitation affects what researchers call social presenceâthe feeling of being present and engaged with others in a shared learning environment. Although students are technologically connected, most of online participants can still experience psychological distance and isolation. Uneven interaction undermines the sense of community and weakens relationship-building, which represents the essence of education itself.
3. Inclusion Is More Than Access
Inclusion should not be reduced to simple technical access. True inclusion happens when all learners feel a sense of belonging and can form meaningful relationships with others. This challenge becomes even more visible in university classrooms where students from diverse age groups study together. For example, senior learners who are less familiar with digital technology often struggle with online tools or complex learning platforms. They might be technically âincludedâ in class but relationally and educationally excluded. Such cases remind us that inclusion must address both technical participation and emotional engagement within the learning community.
4. The Dilemma of the Human Rights Discourse
The statement that âmodality is a human rightâ sounds powerful and ethical, yet it creates institutional challenges.
When a student requests a specific modality due to mental health reasons, it becomes difficult for the university or instructors to deny the request. While this policy helps protect vulnerable learners, it also raises a question: how can institutions balance individual accommodation with academic responsibility?
If inclusion policies are interpreted without limits, they risk blurring accountability. Some students may misuse these rights to justify low engagement or repeated absences. To prevent this, universities need clear standards and systematic procedures that distinguish between genuine need and misuse. Inclusion should operate within the boundaries of shared responsibility and fairness rather than unrestricted freedom.
5. Conclusion
Professor Irvineâs philosophy highlights the inclusive values that higher education should pursue. However, the success of multi-access learning depends not on technology alone but on balanced educational design. Educators must intentionally create opportunities for equal participation and social presence while also offering flexibility. At the same time, universities must build a support system that prevents learners from being excluded either technically or socially.
From my perspective, multi-access learning works best for motivated and self-directed students. For others, especially those unfamiliar with autonomous learning or those who take online courses only to complete graduation credits, this model could make their learning more superficial and reduce the educational value of the experience. Therefore, the idea of modality as a human right must go hand in hand with responsibility, engagement, and structure. When education preserves both accessibility and relational depth, the ideal of âmodality as a human rightâ can evolve from theory into a meaningful practice within inclusive higher education.
References
ELM Learning. (2023, June 21). Balancing stimulation and overload with blended learning. https://elmlearning.com/blog/cognitive-overload-blended-learning/
The Decision Lab. (n.d.). Choice overload bias. https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/choice-overload-bias
