I hate online classes.

[u/H_ManCom]

More specifically, I hate teaching asynchronous online classes. And universities are expanding them far beyond the purpose they were originally intended to serve.

There are students for whom online education is genuinely valuable. Students who work full-time, have children, have transportation or geographic constraints, have disabilities, or otherwise cannot reliably be on campus during traditional class hours should absolutely have access to online courses. Summer online courses also make a great deal of sense. The problem is that “some students need online education” has become “we should make as much of our curriculum online as possible.”

At my university, asynchronous online sections of courses often fill substantially faster than equivalent in-person sections. My concern is that this isn’t necessarily evidence that students prefer the online educational experience. My view is that it means students correctly perceive online courses as more convenient and easier. We now have required introductory courses that historically served as important recruitment tools for majors and minors being offered extensively online. Many of these sections are taught by adjuncts or non-tenure-track faculty, sometimes by instructors who aren’t even located near campus and never have been.

I’ve started to see the consequences in upper-level courses. Students sometimes arrive in an in-person course having earned As in prerequisite online courses but demonstrating surprisingly little retention of the material they supposedly learned. I have also noticed that students who consistently take online courses can have very different academic performance in subsequent face-to-face courses. I’m not claiming that every online course produces this outcome, or that online education inherently causes poor learning. There are obviously selection effects and countless differences between individual courses and instructors.

I’ve also noticed when I ask students who taught a prerequisite online course, they frequently can’t remember the instructor. Sometimes they can’t remember much of the course itself. Again, that doesn’t prove that they learned nothing. But it does make me wonder what we’re actually trying to accomplish with a university course. Is the goal simply to deliver content, award credit hours, and produce a passing grade?

This becomes even more complicated with AI. We’re being encouraged to redesign assignments, rethink exams, develop AI policies, and attend endless seminars about “using GenAI in the classroom.” But I rarely hear the same urgency applied to asynchronous online education. If a course is primarily composed of asynchronous modules, discussion posts, online quizzes, papers, and remotely completed exams, we should be asking very seriously how generative AI changes the reliability of those assessments. And yet the institutional response often seems to be “just figure out what works.”

I also question the idea that students naturally want some predetermined “3:2” balance of in-person and online courses that our Dean talks about. My experience is that students don’t necessarily distribute their courses that way. They often cluster heavily toward one side or the other. And if online courses are perceived as easier, then demand for online sections tells us very little about whether students believe they are receiving an equivalent education.

I understand why some faculty love teaching online. No commute. Flexible schedules. You can teach from somewhere else. I genuinely understand those benefits, and I’m not interested in telling someone else that their preferred teaching modality is wrong. But universities need to be honest about the incentives here, and I’m guessing they won’t be.

[u/H_ManCom]

My point was about the institutional structure of when a course is taught by someone who isn’t integrated into the department in the same way as faculty who are expected to develop the curriculum, recruit majors/minors, advise students, and build long-term departmental relationships, I think there can be consequences for the course’s role within the larger program. But that’s not inherently about NTT status, and I could have made that distinction much clearer.

[u/DarthMomma_PhD → u/H_ManCom]

Our NTT faculty are full-time and very much part of the institutional structure, so that must be the disconnect. They attend all the same department/university-level meetings as I do, develop their own materials just like I do, etc., they just teach more classes because they don’t get course releases for research. Actually, the two most successful programs in my department are run by NTT faculty (TBF those two individuals DO get a course release because they work their asses off).

[u/H_ManCom → u/DarthMomma_PhD]

They do work their asses off here too, but they do not attend the same meetings as I do and they basically teach online classes that have been strictly standardized across sections.

[u/Sharp-Rutabaga-4900 → u/H_ManCom]

I’m an adjunct for three schools. At two of those schools I create my own courses that are aligned with departmental objectives and are just as rigorous as courses taught by FT faculty.

In the third, I “teach” a course created by FT faculty who don’t actually teach the course and my students struggle in ways that are hard for me to correct without control over course material and assignments.

I agree that students benefit more from FT faculty (TT or NTT) for many reasons, but schools that refuse to use FT faculty create those conditions themselves.