Newcomer Introduction to Classes Online Program (NICO) - Research Report (2019)

The report evaluates the Newcomer Introduction to Classes Online (NICO) initiative run by the Calgary Immigrant Educational Society (CIES). Its purpose is to identify barriers and needs that prevent newly arrived immigrants, especially those at Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) 3 or lower, from succeeding in online English‑language learning.

What do you need to know?

Seventy organizations were approached to participate in or distribute the study. Out of the organizations
that wanted to participate, 84% answered yes to, “Does your organization offer e-learning programs?” and
were able to participate. Less than half of the organizations offered e-learning programs to
CLB 1,2, and 3 students.

This report paints a detailed picture of the structural, technological, and pedagogical hurdles faced by low‑CLB newcomers in online English learning. Its mixed‑methods evidence base supports concrete actions, such as enhanced digital‑literacy orientation, dedicated IT support, and mobile‑friendly LMS design, to improve access, retention, and language outcomes for this vulnerable learner cohort.

Why it matters

Online delivery promises scalability and flexibility, yet evidence suggests low‑CLB learners are systematically excluded from e‑learning because of digital‑literacy gaps, limited hardware, and long wait‑lists. Understanding these gaps can inform more equitable service design.

What did the researchers find?

There is an interesting disconnect in survey findings between Newcomers and staff in terms of where clients/students get their information: "The survey demonstrated that only 17% of students said they found out about online/blended classes through staff. Whereas staff responded that 88% of students found out about online/blended classes through
staff. Also, 23% of students claimed that they found out through friends, and staff said 68% of students found out through friends. Similarly, only 10% of students claimed they found the information through family, whereas staff said 56% of student accessed the information through family. The responses were more comparable for the other categories. 43% of students said immigration counselor/officer told them about e-learning programs and staff estimated 52% of students learnt about programs through immigration counselor/officer. 35% of students found program information online and staff believed 40% of students found programs online."

Ignoring for a moment that what an "immigration counselor/officer" is, is not defined in the report (does that mean IRCC officer, Settlement counsellor? Your guess is as good as mine.) this disconnect is not new, and assumptions about how Newcomers find information and access services remains problematic and unaddressed.

There is much insight in this report, such as:

• Technology‑phobia emerged as a distinct barrier, especially among low‑CLB students who “didn’t know where to put the cursor before entering a password.”
• Lack of systematic orientation – Only 16 of 22 organizations provide any orientation; those that do often embed it within the first language class, consuming valuable instructional time.
• Mismatch between perceived and actual digital competence – While a majority claim they have sufficient computer skills, detailed task analysis reveals persistent gaps (voice recording, mobile access).
• Mobile incompatibility: Only 40% of online‑preference learners could view the class website on a cell phone, highlighting a potential design flaw in many LMS deployments. Moodle and D2L were most used; staff uniformly reported need for IT support with both. Students struggled with navigation, downloading, and mobile compatibility.
• Technical Support Gaps - 84% of staff agreed there is a need for IT support; only 25% of organizations actually budgeted for it.
• Reluctance to report technical problems – Students often “don’t bother” instructors, leading staff to underestimate the prevalence of technical issues.
• Motivations & Preferences - Older learners (51‑60) preferred online/blended formats (75%); younger learners leaned toward in‑person for community. Transportation and work‑schedule conflicts drove online preference.

 How can you use this research?

Program Administrators / Service Providers

• Integrate a dedicated digital‑literacy orientation before language instruction begins (e.g., a stand‑alone NICO module covering keyboard basics, browser navigation, LMS walkthrough, and mobile access).
• Allocate budget for on‑site or remote IT support (e.g., a part‑time tech‑coach) rather than relying solely on language instructors.
• Simplify LMS interfaces and ensure mobile‑friendly design; prioritize Moodle/D2L configurations that minimize multi‑step navigation.
• Implement proactive outreach for wait‑listed learners (regular check‑ins, brief tech tutorials) to reduce attrition while they wait.

Policymakers / Funding Bodies (IRCC, Provincial Ministries)

• Require funded e‑learning projects to include a measurable digital‑literacy component and a minimum IT‑support staffing plan.
• Standardize reporting on wait‑list lengths and dropout rates to monitor equity across CLB levels.
• Provide earmarked grants for mobile‑compatible LMS development and for open‑source curricula like NICO.

Front‑line Instructors / Tutors

• Encourage a “tech‑check” at the start of each session (quick verification of login, audio, video, and assignment submission).
• Create peer‑support networks (student “tech ambassadors”) to reduce reliance on instructor time for troubleshooting.