In Defense of Asynchronous Learning (Opinion)

Recent work by Robert Zaretsky opinion laments over the rise of asynchronous online courses paint a distorted picture of online education—both asynchronous and synchronous—as it should be, and often is, today. Zaretsky’s description of accepting his department’s last-minute request to teach a course in an asynchronous format may sound like a familiar experience to educators recalling the early crisis days of the pandemic, when many faced the need to transition from in-person instruction. education emergency distance learning with insufficient time and institutional support. Faculty members who rushed to teach online without the resources may have felt justifiably frustrated by the rise of online learning in higher education. However, in 2024, this view of online education will not only be outdated, but also inaccurate.

Many institutions now offer effective support for online learning, and where there is demand, more should be provided for online teaching (especially at institutions looking to expand online learning formats and options for students). For example, at Clemson Online, we provide personalized professional development support to online instructors, including regular training sessions and consultations. However, for those considering teaching in an unfamiliar form without institutional support or with limited time to prepare, there are many resources available, including online pedagogical research and current best practices.

As educators with experience teaching in various forms of face-to-face, online, and hybrid/HyFlex, we believe that the problems Zaretsky criticizes are not inherent to asynchronous courses, but instead reflect problems arising from rushed and unsupported online course development . Developing a well-designed online course requires a significant amount of time and energy before classes begin, whether it is original course preparation or an adaptation of a face-to-face course. Although forums and recorded lectures are often important components of online courses, active online learning is more effective for instructors and students when the course also designed to leverage the strengths of the online format (e.g. collaboration, multiple modes of interaction, multimodality and accessible design).

Zaretsky is extremely concerned about the possibility of meaningful interaction on the Internet, especially the relationships between teachers and students in a virtual space where students “may never meet their teachers.” He describes his online course as one in which students primarily interact with each other by “posting comments on a discussion board once a week,” often with seemingly unauthorized AI assistance.

Zaretsky states, “Other than the discussion board…these activities do not offer any opportunity for contact or communication between students and teachers.” When transitioning from face-to-face classes to online settings, educators often struggle to create effective discussion boards. However, well-designed, thoughtful discussion boards Maybe improve learning in online courses, including through application of knowledge, exploration of concepts and reflection, and helping students connect course material to their lives.

Traditional discussion boards are also not the only way online instructors can and do effectively interact with online students. Online classes provide wonderful opportunities to improve teacher-student interaction and student-to-student interaction using a wide range of online tools. Advances in software integration with learning management systems provide a range of opportunities for assessment and delivery of content where genuine interaction, collaboration and discussion can occur, including audio/video assignments, collaborative presentations and virtual whiteboards, as well as assignments using software like social networks. among many other possibilities.

More clearly linking video lectures to classes and course assessments can also address problems with student interaction with these materials. For example, one of us, Mary, found that adding sets of discussion questions at the end of recorded lectures and allowing students to select some to answer during the discussion dramatically increased engagement in watching video lectures and comprehension of the material in her asynchronous delivery. courses.

Zaretsky’s statement that many online students do not even meet their professors implies that meeting another person can only happen through a shared physical space. However, relationships and mentoring occur through many forms of digital communication. When an instructor sends a student video feedback on a draft, the student makes changes based on that feedback, and the instructor evaluates and comments on the final draft based on how the student applied the feedback. Is there really no way for a student and a teacher to get to know each other? Many lecture-based face-to-face courses may have less meaningful interaction from the perspective of a student who attends classes and takes exams but never receives personalized feedback from their instructor.

At the heart of Zaretsky’s argument is the concern that higher education is becoming more transactional and less transformational. This concern is valid, although asynchronous courses are neither the cause (nor symptom) of the problem. While face-to-face courses can be rich and valuable opportunities for student engagement and learning, Zaretsky’s assumption that transformational moments of learning only occur in person (when the class can be “synchronized”) is unfounded and overly focused on instructor observations. As educators, we feel the excitement a teacher feels when she sees a student have an “aha” moment in a synchronous classroom.

But just because a teacher can’t read students’ online expressions during a lecture, class, or discussion doesn’t mean they aren’t learning. Regardless of the modality, much of the learning occurs outside the teacher’s limited field of view. Many a-ha moments occur when students spend hours working on assignments, course concepts, and course materials, and these ideas may only be visible to instructors when they have designed activities and tests that invite students to apply, demonstrate, or reflect on this new knowledge.

While face-to-face courses can be incredibly rich and valuable opportunities for student engagement and learning, this method also has its limitations, especially for students experiencing barriers to their education as a result of family circumstances, learning differences, and temporary or permanent disabilities. For many students, the increased availability of online learning spaces actually opens the door to transformative learning. There may be more online learning options accessible, accessible and flexible for a wide range of students.

In many ways, the debate over asynchrony and synchronicity/personality is a distraction from the more pressing issues facing higher education today, including the primacy of product over process in learning (we agree with Zaretsky that education should be transformational) and the emergence and rapid spread of generative AI . When generative AI exploded in 2022, many faculty struggled to define the role of AI in their courses, awaiting clear guidance or support from campus leadership. Inside Higher Education‘s recent survey showed that only 9 percent of chief technology and information officers “believe higher education is prepared to handle” the rise of AI. Higher education continues to actively work to identify and promote the best policy and pedagogical approaches to the use of AI in education.

However, we are in a moment where instructional guidance and best practices for teaching with AI are emerging along with institutional support and leadership guidance. Many institutions have developed AI policies and best practices; some have developed capabilities to train educators on how best to integrate AI for active learning. While AI continues to evolve rapidly, institutions should strive to expand learning opportunities, provide clear and consistent guidance, and safe AI tools for educators and students.

While there are exciting possibilities regarding the role of AI in learning, the dynamic and still evolving nature of AI means that there is a real danger that poorly implemented AI could result in course development practices becoming less accessible, distracting for students and more labor-intensive. intensive training of teachers, which reduces the quality and efficiency of higher education. Many educators remain concerned about environmental impact, intellectual property, FERPA compliance, and the fairness of subscription-based AI services. While some of these challenges can be mitigated with adequate institutional support, AI integration must still be based on best practices and careful course planning.

In fact, thoughtful course design is key to addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by AI. The introduction of AI has the potential to increase availability and participation while reduction of instructor laborall of which have particular relevance to asynchronous education. Coupled with the rush and lack of focus, AI can certainly contribute to the emphasis on product and transactional learning practices and learning objectives. However, if approached with foresight and intention, it can also refocus the process and help make explicit the implicit connections between assignment goals.

In 2024, asynchronous education and artificial intelligence will become an integral part of higher education. As educators, we should focus on mitigating the real challenges our students face and maximizing the unique benefits that our teaching methods offer, rather than lamenting the results of ineffective course design. In an asynchronous online classroom, this means taking full advantage of the wonderful active and interactive learning opportunities that accessible online courses can provide.