38 Kristen Paphitis – Anytime, Anywhere: Asynchronous Online Learning & Community College ESL Students
Kristen Paphitis (she/her) is an IU graduate (Graduate Certificate in English Composition, Feb 2024) and Assistant Professor of ESOL at Northern Virginia Community College in Sterling, VA. This paper was written as part of the coursework for ENGW-620: Advanced Argumentative Writing (Writing Project 1, Dr. Kelly Blewett). Professor Kelly Blewett notes, “Kristen’s organization of her argument around misconceptions struck me as pretty brilliant, and I appreciated the narrow claim, well-selected evidence, and careful presentation of the argument from beginning to end.”
Anytime, Anywhere: Asynchronous Online Learning & Community College ESL Students
Change is constant in education, so when the Covid-19 pandemic arrived in Spring 2019, it is no surprise that schools were quick to move classes to remote format for the safety of faculty, staff, and students. Community colleges, like their four-year counterparts, did the best they could to adapt to the demands of an emerging health crisis, and instructors throughout the country (and world) learned what they needed to move their classes from face-to-face formats to virtual ones. In my case, the move online caused a brief period of anxiety, as I hastily tried to learn about Canvas and prepare my students, too. The good news is that we adjusted and carried on instruction even though it didn’t always go smoothly. At Northern Virginia Community College, where I am an Assistant ESL Professor, virtual class modes include asynchronous, synchronous (via Zoom), and Hybrid Flexible (HyFlex) options, where teachers instruct face-to-face in the classroom with some students attending in-person and others via Zoom. During the time that it was unsafe to gather in large groups, these modalities flourished, and today, virtual class options continue to be a mainstay of most educational institutions. Certainly, community colleges feel a unique push to offer a variety of class options to students. They do this to remain competitive with four-year institutions, to retain and recruit students, and to generally keep up with the technological and digital times in which we live. However, there are some student populations at community colleges that have not generally fared well with increased online learning opportunities – developmental learners. More specifically, unlike synchronous and hybrid flexible online courses, asynchronous courses offer no direct instruction component. While some populations continue to benefit from expanded virtual course options, community college ESL students are one group being negatively impacted by the asynchronous, “anytime, anywhere” post-pandemic push. In this paper, I argue that five commonly held misconceptions about the benefits of asynchronous online learning negatively impact post-secondary ESL students and other developmental learners.
The first misconception is that asynchronous classes increase equity through educational access and greater flexibility for non-traditional students. No one would argue that asynchronous class options should be eliminated outright, but students learning English have not adapted well to asynchronous learning environments. According to a 2020 New York Times article, “It takes practice to learn at a distance. There’s a structure inherent to learning on campus, a rhythm and tangibility that keeps students connected to the academic community. Some students easily adapt to the virtual environment. Others don’t” (Carey). Students sign up for asynchronous classes for a variety of reasons, but many base the decision on false or incomplete information, such as all assignments can be turned in at the end of the semester (as in leaving all work until the end) or that online classes are easy. Asynchronous virtual classes, as many ESL students have learned the hard way, demand technological knowhow, a strong academic background, time-management skills, and excellent communication. As Cox (2005) notes, the catchy “anytime, anywhere” slogan “[…] promotes convenience […] not access” (1769). That is what ESL students should be told when they reach out to an advisor for advice about which courses to take.
Another misconception is that all online courses can be as collaborative as traditional modes of instruction. Yes, digital platforms like Zoom offer collaborative options, like Breakout Rooms, that engage students in much the same way face-to-face learning might. However, small-group breakouts that allow for spur-of-the-moment group discussion or check-ins are not part of the asynchronous paradigm. In “Online Learning Is Not the Future” (2020), Inside Higher Ed opinion columnist, Peter C. Herman, writes, “You can’t engage in dialogue, and as Socrates says, it’s in dialogue – teasing out of ideas, challenging them, argument and counterargument – that genuine education happens.” Another reality for ESL students taking an asynchronous class is that the shift from a teacher-centered to a student-centered learning environment is no small adjustment. Students who are used to collaborating with instructors in real-time are suddenly expected to teach material to themselves and initiate contact with their instructor if they need help. With strong prior academic skills, students may find self-teaching accessible, or even enjoyable, but for many ESL students, particularly those enrolled in low to intermediate level ESL courses, self-teaching is overwhelming and defeating. In truth, ESL students largely experience feelings of isolation and a decreased connection with their peers and professors in this format (Sailsman 45). Some digital course options have viable collaborative potential, but in terms of community-building, a key part of any successful ESL classroom, asynchronous classes fall woefully short of student expectations.
I’ve let my concerns be known more than once about offering expanded asynchronous course options for ESL students, but a common response I have heard is students are requesting them, so we are offering what they want. I do not doubt that ESL students, many of whom are part-time, non-traditional learners with families and full-time jobs, find asynchronous classes alluring on paper. However, I firmly believe that fewer ESL students would ask to join these courses (over virtual synchronous and face-to-face options) if they had a clearer picture of asynchronous class expectations before registering. Saying anytime, anywhere is not just misleading, it fails to help developmental students appreciate how much harder asynchronous classes are for learning core academic skills, like writing or speaking in English. For one thing, students must contend with more distractions online. They ought to be tech-savvy, have strong time-management skills, communicate with their instructor readily, and be comfortable teaching themselves new material. Nevertheless, a 2021 Brookings Institute study by Cellini notes students feel they are “being pushed online” because there are a lack of suitable face-to-face and synchronous options, not because they prefer the asynchronous variety. Furthermore, in 2005, a study involving 15 community colleges nationwide found, “[…] the bulk of student enrollment in online courses occurred after on-site sections filled, suggesting that students would have preferred to take the face-to-face versions” (Cox 1770). Clearly, there is a disconnect between what colleges think students want and what ESL students understand about the course modes being offered.
That colleges are struggling with enrollment and consequently feel pressured to offer more virtual class options to retain and attract students is undeniable (Herman). However, it is a misconception that asynchronous classes are helping to improve enrollment numbers among all student populations. The truth is that colleges struggling with decreased enrollment are likely to see increased rates of failure and withdrawal from developmental learners enrolled in asynchronous classes. Regarding student failure rates, a 2013 article from the Journal of College Admissions indicates that, “students [are] failing or dropping out of online courses at nearly twice the rate of traditional courses […]” (Casement 16). Likewise, the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Columbia University published findings that same year suggesting that while online courses are popular among college students, those likely to be academically prepared for asynchronous courses come from “higher income neighborhoods and [are] fluent in the English language.” If this is true, then so, too, is the reverse. The CCRC report, which analyzed withdrawal rates in online and face-to-face formats in southern and western states, found developmental students to be particularly challenged with virtual courses, reporting a failure/withdrawal rate in developmental English courses, for instance, twice as high online (47%) than in person (23%) (“What We Know”). This mirrors what I have experienced historically in my own asynchronous courses, which, since 2013, have seldom concluded with a student pass rate over 50 percent. If colleges are attempting to increase enrollment and retain current students, they should consider these numbers.
Finally, supporters of asynchronous learning say that online courses increase technological literacy and help prepare students for the workforce. Obviously and unavoidably, online technologies “are playing an important role in reconfiguring the postsecondary landscape,” but again, one size does not fit all students (Cox 1755). Students with stronger baseline technology skills aren’t likely to face an additional burden when taking asynchronous courses, but for the typical ESL student, the most basic technological hiccups can seem monumental– a forgotten password, a failed software download or media upload, an unknown error. Certainly, having advanced digital technology skills is what many employers seek in college graduates, and few would argue that we ought to abandon online education altogether, but the cart shouldn’t be placed before the horse. Technological challenges disproportionately affect low-income and students of color, ultimately leading to lower graduation rates, reduced academic growth, and generally an exhaustion of time and resources (Carey). Developmental students neither have the time nor the money to waste on tech-heavy asynchronous courses that do not serve their best academic interests.
I concede that for student populations with stronger backgrounds in the English language, technology, and academics, asynchronous online courses offer increased flexibility and new opportunities for collaboration, but what about the students entering college without some or all these strengths? In sum, the costs of asynchronous remote classes for post-secondary ESL students far exceed the perceived benefits. I believe Cox (2005) is accurate when she writes, “[…] the institutional imperative to provide online education has taken precedence over most considerations of teaching and learning quality” (1779). We must do more to ensure students fully appreciate all that they are registering for when they choose asynchronous course options; better still, colleges ought to make the decision-making process easier by offering fewer asynchronous options and more real-time virtual and face-to-face classes for developmental learners.
Works Cited
Carey, Kevin. “Everybody Ready for the Big Migration to Online College? Actually, No.” The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/upshot/coronavirus-online-college-classes-unprepared.html. Accessed 26 Sept. 2023.
Casement, William. “Will Online Learning Lower the Price of College?” NACACNET.ORG, Journal of College Admission, 2013, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1011796.pdf.
Cellini, Stephanie R. “How Does Virtual Learning Impact Students in Higher Education?” The Brookings Institution, The Brown Center on Education Policy, 13 Aug. 2021, www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-virtual-learning-impact-students-in-higher-education/.
Cox, Rebecca D. “Online education as institutional myth: Rituals and realities at community colleges.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, vol. 107, no. 8, Aug. 2005, pp. 1754–1787, https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810510700809.
Herman, Peter C. “Online Learning Is Not the Future.” Inside Higher Ed, 9 June 2020, https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/views/2020/06/10/online-learning-not-future-higher-education-opinion. Accessed 26 Sept. 2023.
Sailsman, Sonique. “ESL Students Learning Online: A Review of Literature.” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 21(1), 2020, pp. 45-51. ISSN 1528-3518. Accessed 26 Sept. 2023 ERIC.
“What We Know about Online Course Outcomes.” Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, Apr. 2013, ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/what-we-know-about-online-course-outcomes.pdf.