Why Do Online Classes Have Such A Bad Reputation?

I don’t give a damn ‘bout my reputation
Living in the past, it’s a new generation
“Bad Reputation” — Joan Jett

Online courses are not a new concept, their popularity has risen as recent events have turned up the volume. In the face of quarantine-induced learning, a landslide of quarantine-weary students and teachers are grappling with the sudden shift from physical classrooms to online-driven instruction. With this comes a loud consensus: online learning sucks! Higher education is notably reeling after a dramatic shift from terrestrial courses to online delivery. While many universities are projecting a return to more traditional physical courses this fall, online classes are becoming a material component of university degree programs and students (and teachers), are collectively gnashing their teeth at the prospect. Why? In large part, online classes are not the same as physical classes in delivery, quality, and outcomes for students. If we peel the onion of the dissent, we can dissect the broad criticisms into a constructive analysis that leads to improving fundamental online learning practices.

My experience with online education as both an adult learner and a teacher has shown me many aspects of online education. Sitting on both sides of the screen provides perspective and insight into the good, the bad, and the downright ugly. The screen is a two-way window but today it is fogged with technical and administrative legacy. I’ve taken and given tests, completed and graded assignments, listened to, and delivered lectures. The online experience can be lonely and self-made. I’ve routinely consumed every piece of content in a given course sweating tests and final grades, not because I didn’t know the subject but because there was little engagement with teachers or other students. Many online courses leave it up to students to teach themselves and they pray the testing components match what they’ve studied. This experience has informed and inspired me to imagine a better experience for both students and teachers, an experience where the benefits of online education as a platform match the incredible potential of the channel to create a new normal for education. Today there is a mismatch in the parity between terrestrial and online learning that impacts learning outcomes for students. Online learning is harder than it should be, and if it is to become deserving of mainstream status, we must make improvements.

There is an abundance of progressive systems and approaches for improving the mechanics of delivering online instruction and yet the plaint of students and teachers has only increased as society struggles to incorporate social distancing into education. Here is where we find the root of the problem: we are distancing teachers and students through bureaucracy and ham-fisted models that make learning difficult. Rather than diving into the rabbit hole of innovative instructional design techniques, let’s examine the current state pragmatically. If we examine the differences between terrestrial and online class environments, we can distill root causes, which must be addressed before even established innovation can help carry online education into the mainstream.

Terrestrial and online learning share some equivalency, mostly in obvious areas centered around more autonomous activities that help students acquire and apply learned concepts such as textbooks, tests, and assignments. Differences quickly materialize when engagement becomes a factor, and while these differences might appear to be a shortcoming of online as a platform, it really boils down to lack of engagement. One of the loudest lamentations heard during the quarantine has been the quality of interaction with courses, teachers, and content delivery. Video sessions in lieu of live lectures are different channels where traditional lecture methods don’t always translate to an equivalent, much less superior, experience for students. With that in mind, there are also aspects where either channel can simply fall flat from lack of engagement. There is room for both channels, they can coexist but if online education wants to sit at the folding table during holiday dinner, it’s going to have to improve in engagement.

Engagement

In its most elementary scope, the Glossary of Education Reform characterizes student engagement as “the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or being taught.” When learning, students need intellectual, emotional, and behavioral engagement at a minimum. The key component for learning, either in person or online, is about learning alongside being taught. The idea is to accomplish both, so assuming terrestrial is doing this (at least sometimes), then what is the Rubicon for online learning? Students, regardless of the teaching platform, are susceptible to barriers to learning. Online learning is especially sensitive to these barriers in the form of outside distractions which can impact attention in class and participation outside of class towards a course’s objectives.

How Should Online Delivery Change?

Low Equivalency, High Outcome

My online vs. in-person analysis identifies several areas for improvement where changes in how online components are delivered can equate or eclipse outcomes derived from terrestrial methods. This approach also suggested that some components, regardless of their channel, can improve, which will be discussed in part two of this series, a third installment will address the opportunities where improvements in both online and in-person delivery must be sought. Focusing on online areas first, three popular components of instruction become candidates for change. These components are routinely used online, however, they are shoehorned in using terrestrial mindsets around content and delivery. Learning requires connections to thrive and disengaged teachers begat disengaged students. Herein lies the crux of the engagement challenge for online learning; teachers cannot be disengaged, and online as a channel is doing just that.

Lectures allow teachers and students to engage intellectually, emotionally, and even socially. Lecture content is delivered verbally, often with visuals and (hopefully) reinforces other components such as textbooks and labs. Lectures allow a teacher to interpret and explain concepts and demonstrate how they should be applied towards course objectives and in practice as the student works towards their chosen degree. Online lectures are typically relegated to recorded videos that often aren’t refreshed and can leave students feeling disconnected from the class, their peers and learning objectives. More importantly, students can’t interact with videos and often view them in isolation from other students. A potential remedy are live lectures where an in-person style is used. While better, this still isn’t enough to raise engagement into a balanced state. Online offers a wealth of methods to engage audiences with content, people, and especially teachers. Video (Zoom, MS Teams, Google etc) sessions are a start however, more investment in methods and technology is necessary to facilitate true engagement through discussion and inquiry.

Discussion and inquiry are a staple of every learning environment. For in-person classes, it is the essence of synchronous learning. Online learning can be asynchronous as well as synchronous however, discussion about concepts and learning objectives become susceptible to distraction. Participation in a class relies heavily on synchronous activities where discourse and collaboration occur. Many students in an online environment feel they are more self-teaching as opposed to receiving authentic learning where engagement with teachers and classmates connects students to real-world issues, problems, and applications. Discussion and inquiry can exist in almost any component discussed here and is most effective when enabled through synchronous activities. In class discussion for instance, discourse is ‘replaced’ with discussion boards in an online setting. Here students can read, consider and reply and while this does facilitate learning, it loses the fidelity of live, person-to-person interaction. For students to successfully navigate, say the Bloom’s Taxonomy, discussion and inquiry must be present.

Learning Labs also are heavily dependent on location, such as a classroom or dedicated learning environment, where students can convene to receive academic support or practically apply concepts in a given class. Again, a synchronous dependency exists for labs to be successful which leads them to be almost non-existent in the online environment. Often, they are replaced by asynchronous assignments, again, leading to potential disconnects for students. This is true largely because labs need dedicated people to support a synchronous environment. Some educators feel learning labs aren’t the optimal use of teaching resources, and others advocate it actually liberates teaching resources. The issue becomes further obfuscated when labs are poorly designed and administered, and typically when implemented online, they fail to produce the desired improvements in student achievement.

So Now What?

From my own experience as an online student and faculty associate (the bottom of the uni totem pole) that teaches virtually, my conclusion is that resources are key. Online classes often lack the very engagement advocated here because universities aren’t investing enough in course design and content creation that the platform needs to thrive. Why? Perhaps because it’s easier to port existing terrestrial course design and content into an online offering, which generates income at a much lower cost. Engagement is the first thing to hit the cutting room floor. Universities also suffer from a rigidity found in the form of rules and policy that become a stone-mill on the creative process required to redesign content and delivery for online classes. Realistically, one course should have two completely different approaches, syllabi, and teaching practices to be successful. This dichotomy demands resources that many universities aren’t willing to commit, much less codify a separate instantiation of rules and policy which in turn demands a level of flexibility that is nascent at best today. If you think tuition is expensive now, brace yourself for a much higher number if universities only leverage legacy capabilities to implement effective online offerings.

It’s my belief that much of higher education still views .edu as a side hustle to monetize terrestrial curriculum (albeit poorly). I’m afraid that tactically, as universities tighten to address corona-influenced budget constraints, this scenario won’t improve. Course design, content creation, and other improvements are on the table but require investment and commitment. Strategically, leaders are present and more will emerge however, the pace is slow compared to the demand. The long play must (and should) include online classes having a seat at the adult table, so how does that happen?

• Resources (people, process and technology) must be dedicated and be composed of tenured educators alongside practitioners outside of teaching. Building a compelling offering in online education will need educators who are willing to work outside the university box to design and deliver curriculum successfully.
• Universities must value online education enough to invest in the channel appropriately. Gone are the days where universities can dictate the experience, choices are becoming broader for students and eventually, old school won’t be so cool.
• This doesn’t mean that tuition costs should increase, economies of scale should be leveraged to make education accessible for all. Heretofore this scale has been used to increase profit margin instead of student outcomes.
• Students and teachers must be included in the mainstreaming of online education.

Resource dedication is perhaps the biggest contributor between success and failure for universities. In the movie Other People’s Money, Danny DeVito’s character declares, “You know, at one time there must’ve been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I’ll bet the last company around was the one that made the best buggy whip you ever saw (sic).” Universities deploying online course without engagement are buggy whips. What are they going to change in light of online learning needs? Organizations that don’t equip online classes for success will eventually fail their students.

What are your thoughts? What is your view of the state of online education? Please leave comments, suggestions and ideas.

Jeff Heinzelman is the founder of MostlyWest with 25+ years of experience in leadership, business process, customer experience and product innovation. I have led teams in many sectors, relying on a personal philosophy of people, process, and technology to deliver innovative products. I am an advocate of customer-focused product management connected to data-driven results. I am also a husband and father of two boys, and live in Austin, Texas where I enjoy Tex-Mex, BBQ, and football. Not necessarily in that order.