International experts discussed the quality, accessibility and regulation of blended learning, advocating approaches based on hard data, learning outcomes and inclusion, rather than on rigid restrictions regarding compulsory physical attendance.

On June 25, 2026, University World News, WAHEN, and ABET organized a webinar titled “Innovating to Expand Access to and Success in Higher Education,” bringing together four leading international experts to discuss student equity, inclusion, and success in higher education systems around the world.

The committee included Professor Graeme Atherton, Associate Vice-Chancellor at the University of West London, Vice-Dean of Ruskin College Oxford and Founder and Director of the World Access to Higher Education Network (WAHEN); Dr. Jamil Salmi, former Coordinator of Tertiary Education at the World Bank, Professor Emeritus at Diego Portales University in Chile and Research Fellow at Boston College’s Center for Higher Education — economist who has advised governments and universities in over 105 countries; Dr. Roberta Malee Bassett, Global Lead for Tertiary Education and Senior Education Specialist at the World Bank, where she leads reform initiatives in finance, governance, quality assurance and access; and Professor Pamela Zibuyile Dube, Rector and Rector of the Central University of Technology, Free State, South Africa, and Co-Chair of the Association of Commonwealth Universities’ Network for Higher Education and SDGs.

During the session, Sergio Passariello – CEO of Malta Quality Education – raised a question on an increasingly relevant topic for the regulatory frameworks of different jurisdictions: whether mandatory minimum thresholds for physical attendance in blended programmes, introduced without a pedagogical rationale or a stated evidence base, create a tension with the goal of inclusive higher education and what policymakers should do if they want to ensure quality without restrict access.

Three of the four panellists responded. Their answers, taken together, offer both an authoritative and directly relevant perspective on the current regulatory debate in the field of blended and online learning.

Three perspectives from the international community

Graeme Atherton: nuanced regulation, not general rules

Professor Atherton began by acknowledging that online learning has created real opportunities for participation and expanded access, while also raising legitimate concerns about the risk of a two-tier system, where students with more resources have access to in-person services, while those with fewer resources find themselves with online-only options. This is a real strain that anyone working in the field of educational equity needs to take seriously.

However, its central argument was unequivocal: the regulatory frameworks governing delivery arrangements cannot be designed as uniform and universal instruments. He noted that technological developments are enabling behavioural change among students more rapidly than regulators can adapt, a structural lag that affects the quality and adequacy of regulatory responses.

More specifically, Atherton drew a clear distinction between the subject areas. Physical presence may be really necessary in some disciplines, for example in the physical sciences, where experiential learning has an intrinsic pedagogical value. But in the humanities, he noted, individual, independent study is not only compatible with online environments, but in some cases can be better served by them. A mandatory threshold of physical attendance that applies uniformly to all disciplines, to all EQF levels and to all student populations cannot reflect this complexity. What is needed, in his opinion, is evidence-based regulation that is disciplinary in its design, not administrative and numerical in its application.

His final recommendation was equally direct: the priority for those working in this field is to support a solid evidence base, allowing regulators to understand that the goal is to create opportunities for all students in all contexts.

Jamil Psalms: It’s about results, not delivery methods

Dr. Salmi offered the most direct and concise answer. He noted that in many countries, there is a pattern of over-regulation, where authorities seek to control the evolution of online and blended learning through prescriptive administrative measures that focus on inputs and processes rather than educational outcomes. He cited, as a demonstration of this trend, a case in which a national regulator had tried to impose minimum specifications on the size of presentation screens in classrooms, a regulatory detail so far removed from educational quality that it was clearly disconnected from its stated purpose.

Its central argument was clearly stated: what matters are the results, not the methods of delivery. It observed the availability of good and poor quality in both face-to-face, online and hybrid formats. The relevant question is not which modality is used, but what the students learn, if they are really involved and if they acquire the skills that the institution has committed to providing. Regulation that focuses on the proportion of delivery modalities, rather than these substantive educational issues, replaces a measurable administrative proxy for the true goal of quality assurance.

Dr Salmi’s view on blended learning – that outcomes, engagement and the acquisition of skills are the appropriate focus of regulatory attention, reflects a position widely held in the international literature on quality assurance and is consistent with the approach set out in the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015), which many authorities recognise as a fundamental reference framework.

Roberta Malee Bassett: Understanding the regulatory challenge

Dr. Bassett offered a more contextualized perspective, acknowledging the real difficulty regulatory agencies face in navigating a rapidly changing environment. He acknowledged that regulators are trying to walk a fine line between embracing technological evolution and protecting the cultural and community value of institutions as physical learning spaces, a particularly acute concern for established universities with strong local identities.

However, what is crucial is that he also affirmed the agreement with Dr. Salmi’s central argument and added a consideration that in fact reinforces it: if the quality of supply is not adequate, the market will respond regardless of regulatory intervention. This observation emphasizes precisely where the international literature places it: on quality as a substantial determinant of educational value, not on the administrative form of its delivery.

It is worth noting that the regulatory concern it describes, protecting the cultural integrity and community value of established local institutions, concerns a specific type of institutional context. It does not apply directly to new providers nor to internationally oriented institutions that are building their physical and pedagogical presence from scratch.

The wider European context

The perspectives expressed in this webinar are consistent with a broader movement at the European institutional level. On 20 May 2026, four Commissioners from the European Commission issued a joint statement reaffirming the European Union’s commitment to academic freedom as the cornerstone of democratic society. The statement recalled that Article 13 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is directly applicable in all EU member states, stipulates that scientific research must be unconstrained and that academic freedom must be respected.

The same statement announced that the Commission is preparing a formal recommendation on the use of scientific evidence in public policy-making, building on the 2020 Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research. The direction at the European level is therefore towards evidence-based regulatory practice, institutional autonomy and the protection of academic freedom from undue interference, principles that the international panel at the University World News webinar independently reflected and affirmed.

What this means for the sector

The convergence between the perspectives expressed by leading international experts during the webinar and the principles affirmed by the European Commission is not incidental. It reflects a growing consensus in the international higher education community on several points directly relevant to how the quality of blended and online learning should be assessed and regulated.

Quality in blended learning is a function of the coherence of pedagogical design, the real involvement of students and the measurable acquisition of the expected learning outcomes, not the proportion of hours spent through a particular modality. Regulations that replace these substantive criteria with a numerical threshold of attendance do not promote quality assurance; He replaces him with an administrative delegate.

The regulatory frameworks governing the delivery methods must be disciplinary in their sensitivity and evidence-based in their design. A uniform threshold applied across all disciplines, all levels of qualification and all student populations cannot reflect the real diversity of educational contexts and learners’ needs.

The legitimate concern that blended provision should not become a mechanism for reducing true educational engagement is entirely valid, and it is a concern that can and should be addressed through a qualitative assessment of the substance and integration of the learning design of each programme, rather than through administrative measurement of attendance proportions.

For providers operating in Malta, or considering doing so, these perspectives reinforce the importance of building programmes whose quality is based on sound pedagogical foundations, clear learning outcomes, consistent assessment strategies, genuine student engagement mechanisms and systematic quality review processes, regardless of the delivery mode adopted.

MQE’s position on blended learning

MQE follows the international debate on quality assurance, blended learning and regulatory practices as part of its ongoing work in the Maltese higher and higher education sector. The perspectives of leading international experts and the evolving European institutional framework are relevant reference points to understand the direction in which quality assurance practice is developing globally and to inform the regulatory dialogue in which the QM is actively involved.

Providers who wish to discuss the implications of the current regulatory environment for their specific delivery programs and models are encouraged to contact MQE for a regulatory orientation session.