Robert Zaretsky’s recent opinion piece bemoaning the increase of asynchronous online courses paints a distorted picture of online education—both asynchronous and synchronous—as it should and often does exist today. Zaretsky’s description of accepting a last-minute request from his chair to teach a course in an asynchronous format may sound like a familiar experience to instructors recalling the early crisis days of the pandemic, when many found themselves needing to make the transition from in-person teaching to emergency remote teaching with inadequate time and institutional support. Instructors who were rushed to teach online without resources may have felt justifiably disenchanted with the growth of online learning in higher education. However, in 2024, this view of online education appears not only outdated but inaccurate.
Many institutions now offer effective online teaching support, and where there is demand, more should be provided to online instructors (especially within institutions seeking to increase online teaching formats and options for students). For example, at Clemson Online, we provide tailored professional development support for online instructors, including regular training sessions and consultations. However, for those who find themselves set to teach in an unfamiliar modality without institutional support or with limited time to prepare, there is a wealth of available resources, including online pedagogical research and current best practices.
As instructors with experience teaching in a variety of in-person, online and hybrid/HyFlex modalities, we find the issues Zaretsky is critiquing are not inherent to asynchronous courses but instead reflect the challenges that arise from rushed and unsupported online course design. A well-designed online course takes a significant amount of time and energy to design before classes start, regardless of whether it is an original course prep or an adaptation of an in-person course. While discussion boards and recorded lectures are often important components in online courses, active online learning is more successful for instructors and students when the course is also designed to maximize the strengths of the online format (such as collaboration, multiple modes for interaction, multimodality and accessible design).
Zaretsky is highly concerned about the possibility of meaningful interactions online, especially the relationship between instructors and students in the virtual space, where students “may never meet their professors.” He describes his online course as one where students primarily interact with each other by “tossing a comment into the discussion board once a week,” often seemingly with the unapproved assistance of AI.
Zaretsky states, “Apart from the discussion board … these classes offer no possibility of contact or connection between students and teachers.” When transitioning from in-person classes to online spaces, instructors often struggle to design effective discussion boards. However, well-designed, intentional discussion boards can enhance learning in online courses, including through knowledge application, concept exploration and reflection and by helping students connect course material to their lives.
Traditional discussion boards are also not the only way online instructors can and do meaningfully engage with online students. Online classrooms provide exciting opportunities to increase instructor-student interaction and student-student interaction through a wide variety of online tools. Advances in software integration with learning management systems provide a range of options for assessment and content delivery where authentic interaction, collaboration and discussion can occur, including audio/video assignments, collaborative presentations and whiteboards, and assignments using social media–like software, among many other possibilities.
Connecting lecture videos more explicitly with course activities and assessments can also address issues with student engagement with these materials. For example, one of us, Mary, found that adding banks of discussion questions at the end of recorded lectures and having students select a few to address as part of their discussion response dramatically increased engagement with lecture videos and comprehension of the material in her asynchronous courses.
Zaretsky’s claim that many online students never even meet their instructors implies that meeting another person can only happen through sharing physical space. However, relationships and mentoring occur through many modes of digital communication. When an instructor sends a student video feedback on a draft, the student revises based on this feedback and the instructor grades and comments on the final project based on how the student applied their feedback, is there really no opportunity for the student and instructor to get to know one another? Many lecture-based in-person courses may have less meaningful interaction from the perspective of a student who attends class and takes exams but never receives personalized feedback from their instructor.
At the core of Zaretsky’s argument is the concern that higher education is growing increasingly transactional and less transformational. This concern is valid, though asynchronous courses are not the cause (nor symptom) of the issue. While in-person courses can be rich and valuable opportunities for student engagement and learning, Zaretsky’s assumption that the transformational aha learning moments only take place in person (when the class can be “in sync”) is unfounded and overfocused on an instructor’s observations. As instructors, we relate to the excitement an instructor feels when they see a student having an “aha” moment in the synchronous classroom.
But just because an instructor cannot read online students’ expressions as they engage with a lecture, activity or discussion doesn’t mean they aren’t learning. Regardless of modality, a great deal of learning happens outside of the instructor’s limited perspective. Many aha moments occur as students spend hours working through assignments, course concepts and learning materials, and these insights may only be visible to instructors when they have designed activities and assessments that invite learners to apply, show or reflect on this new knowledge.
While in-person courses can be incredibly rich and valuable opportunities for student engagement and learning, this modality also has its limitations—particularly for students experiencing barriers to their education as the result of family circumstances, learning differences and temporary or permanent disabilities. For many learners, increasing the availability of online educational spaces actually opens the door to transformational learning. Online educational options can be more affordable, accessible and flexible for a wide variety of students.
In many ways, the asynchronous versus synchronous/in-person debate is a distraction from the more pressing issues facing higher education today, including product over process in learning (we agree with Zaretsky that education should be transformational) and the emergence and rapid proliferation of generative AI. When generative AI exploded in 2022, many instructors struggled to define the role of AI in their own courses while awaiting clear guidance or support from campus leadership. Inside Higher Ed’s recent survey showed that only 9 percent of chief technology/information officers “believe higher education is prepared to handle” the rise of AI. Higher education is still actively working to identify and promote the best policy and pedagogical approaches to AI in education.
However, we are at a moment when pedagogical guidance and best practices for teaching with AI are emerging alongside institutional support and direction from leadership. Many institutions have developed AI policies and best practices; some have developed training opportunities for instructors on how to best integrate AI for active learning. While AI continues to evolve rapidly, institutions should seek to increase training opportunities, provide clear and coherent guidelines and secure AI tools for instructors and students.
While there are exciting possibilities about the role of AI in learning, the dynamic and still-evolving nature of AI means there is a real danger that poorly incorporated AI could result in course design practices that are less accessible, disengaging for students and more labor-intensive for instructors, degrading the quality and impact of higher education. Many instructors remain concerned about environmental impacts, intellectual property, FERPA compliance and equity of subscription-based AI services. Although some of these concerns can be mitigated with adequate institutional support, AI integration still needs to be informed by best practices and deliberate course design.
In fact, thoughtful course design is key to meeting the challenges and opportunities AI presents. AI incorporation can potentially increase accessibility and engagement while decreasing instructor labor, all of which have particular relevance to asynchronous education. When integrated with haste and a lack of consideration, AI can certainly further the emphasis on product and transactional teaching practices and learning objectives. However, when approached with forethought and intention, it also has the potential to recenter process and help make the implicit connections among assignment objectives explicit.
In 2024, asynchronous education and AI are integral to the landscape of higher education. As educators, our focus should be on mitigating the real challenges our students face and maximizing the unique benefits our teaching modalities offer, not lamenting the results of ineffective course design. In the asynchronous online classroom, this means taking full advantage of the exciting possibilities for active and interactive learning that accessible online courses can foster.
