Less is More in Online Learning

By Zainab Cheema

In our post-COVID 19 world, online learning has introduced us to a long menu of digital tools and applications. A whole host of specialized applications for particular subjects and activities have also appeared to expand this never-ending variety. But the question remains, is less more when it comes to digital tools in online learning?

As we know, online learning hasn’t necessarily met student expectations of quality. In February 2021, the Barnes and Noble College released a report called College 2030 that included polls from students on their online learning experiences. According to the BNC, “44% of students said the value of college has declined due to the pandemic.” Moreover, 94% of students felt that colleges should charge less for online education than for in person learning. As a March 2021 Forbes article on the report pointed out, students have sued schools for reduced tuition for online learning on the grounds that it represents less value.

Teachers are also not entirely sold on online education. A March 2021 report released by McKinsey & Co. polled teachers from eight countries about the e-learning they had to administer following school shutdowns in 2020. As the report points out, it mostly came down to resources. Private school teachers in the United States rated online leaning 6.2 out of 10. Public school teachers rated it 4.8. Teachers based in high poverty areas in the United States rated the online experience a dismal 3.5 out of 10. The trend of these statistics replicated globally. On the whole, wealthier countries could embrace the possibilities of online learning. Poorer countries found it immensely challenging.

Rick Reis observes that less has to be more when it comes to online learning. Reis is a Higher Education Consultant in Stanford University’s Office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education. As Reis notes in his June 2021 blog post: “We have all been engaged in a digital learning revolution over the past 30 years whether we noticed or not, but what we largely have done with it is ask more of our students and not necessarily of ourselves.” Reis also observes the downside of digital tools: they have increased the number, length and complexity of the assignments for students. The explosion of information, online accessibility to research materials, and databases and platforms for knowledge production and sharing has shifted our expectations of what students can and should do. Before the digital revolution, assignments were limited to the research stored in a particular library and fewer tools (the type-writer, anyone?).

Exploding rates of stress experienced by students can partly be traced to the fact that while teachers’ expectations for them are changing, the resources of time and money that they have to spend on schoolwork is steadily shrinking. As Reis notes, outside the class space, “students have more extracurricular activities, more part‐time jobs to pay for exponentially increasing tuition and more pressure from an economy that didn’t recover from the 2008 crash for far too many people. The list goes on and on.”

Many online teaching workshops for instructors and students have focused on personal management. We all know the buzzwords of this approach. Mindfulness. Stress reduction. Compassion. Giving leeway and allowance when necessary, for oneself and others. All these are deeply important. But we also need to do audit of student capabilities for online assignments of greater complexity. The digital world should be an aid to students, not a burden of endlessly expanding expectations. This is a conversation that needs to happen socially and collectively, involving all the major stakeholders of education. In the brave new world of online learning, how can we decide what students can and should do?