What Online Learning Actually Demands

Online learning plays an important role in making college possible for students who would otherwise struggle to attend. I view online learning as positive because it provides access for students with work, family, athletic, and other responsibilities, while also requiring instructors to be more intentional about course design and support. Teaching at community colleges has shaped this view, as many of my students rely on online or hybrid courses simply to stay enrolled.

From both a teaching and learning standpoint, flexibility does not make courses easier. One issue I see consistently is that students underestimate the time required for online courses and try to add them onto already overloaded schedules. In Chapter 2 of Minds Online, Miller describes this as the “third shift,” work that occurs after work and family responsibilities. Online learning is often assumed to be more manageable because it is flexible, but in practice it requires strong time management and self-regulation. When students misjudge this, it can lead to late work or disengagement, not because they lack ability, but because expectations were unclear. This makes it essential for instructors to be explicit about workload, pacing, and time commitment, and to design predictable weekly structures.

Our class discussions reinforced how much online learning depends on instructional choices rather than labels. We explored definitions of online, distance, and distributed learning and noted the lack of a single agreed-upon definition. Distance learning generally refers to physical separation, online learning emphasizes technology use, and distributed learning focuses on how resources and experiences are spread across time and tools. Across these distinctions, instructor feedback and course structure consistently emerged as critical factors. We also discussed the strengths and limitations of online learning, including flexibility and accessibility alongside challenges such as reduced networking and hands-on learning. This reinforces that online learning is not a replacement for all instruction, but a tool that must be used intentionally.

Chapters 1 and 2 of Minds Online supported these ideas with research. Miller argues that cheating in online courses is primarily an assessment issue rather than a modality issue and that well-designed assessments reduce both opportunity and incentive for academic dishonesty. She also challenges the assumption that online courses are cheaper or of lower quality, noting that effective online courses require significant faculty time and planning, and can be as effective, or more effective, than traditional courses.

One example that stood out was an upper-level histology course in which online students outperformed face-to-face students on higher-order learning outcomes. Having taken histology myself, I found this compelling. The course required repeated study of detailed microscope images, and I struggled to spend enough time in in-person labs. In hindsight, I wonder whether an online or distributed environment—with asynchronous access to images and the ability to revisit and annotate slides—might have better supported my learning.

Overall, I see online learning as effective when it is treated as a deliberate design practice rather than a convenient alternative. When access is paired with structure, clear expectations, and strong instructor feedback, online and hybrid courses can support students with complex lives while maintaining meaningful learning outcomes.

Reference:

Miller, M. D. (2014). Minds online: Teaching effectively with technology. Harvard University Press.