The Social Mediatization of Higher Ed and AI

The new normal

Since the supposed end of the pandemic (I say this as COVID cases are rising in our state and a WHO leader says we're still pandemicing), workplaces nationwide have been grappling with what is the new normal--mostly face to face (f2f) before 2020, mostly online for many professions through 2021, and now--hybrid with some f2f, some online.

Many companies and institutions as we know have been pushing everyone to come back to brick and mortar buildings--employees have resisted. The many benefits of doing work at home, uninterrupted with commute time, are something most don’t want to give up.

In higher education, the same--faculty and staff want some online, while administration would prefer full buildings. 

At Lansing Community College, administration now require full-time faculty to attend meetings f2f, teach some classes f2f, and wish students would take f2f classes.

But students are not cooperating. Sure, there are more on campus, but many, if not the majority of students, want online classes at least as part of the mix.

Administration claim that students want online classes that are fully asynchronous. I actually don’t see much evidence of that. The last couple semesters I’ve been forced to teach at least one asynchronous class, and I’ve surveyed them, asking why they chose this mode over online real time (ORT), or f2f. Most students say they chose the class because they don’t want to come to campus. So online over f2f, not asynchronous over ORT class sessions. A few do recognize that the class is asynchronous and choose for that purpose (usually because fitting a weekly class session into their busy schedule is too difficult--which alone is a bad sign--or because they experience social anxiety in meeting real time). But many more actually expected real-time class sessions with their online classes, especially those entering college for their first semester. They had just left pandemic high school where online meant real-time sessions on video conferencing.

But let’s say that administration do have evidence that students are looking for asynchronous courses over ORT. (If they do, it’s curious they haven’t shown us.) Why would that be?

Too Busy

One reason, again, could be students who are too busy. This has been an issue since the beginning of online classes offered at LCC. As I think I’ve mentioned before, the college once on their schedule book advertised taking classes in your slippers. Or "No time for school?" Take a class on the Internet...." Students got the idea that online was easier, and hence were surprised when the work was as challenging, if not more so, than in a f2f class. 

This is also known as the butts-in-seats syndrome. Keep enrollment up, letting students take whatever attracts them rather than counseling effectively to fashion a schedule that they can really succeed in. We continue to do butts-in-seats practices like allowing students to enroll up to a week late without talking to a soul, or having faculty approve such, which we used to do. But when enrollment is down, administration overlooks what enhances learning for what enhances enrollment. If you’re an administrator and you think I’m being unfair? Oh well, I’ve seen it happen way too often over the last thirty years. You’ll not persuade me otherwise.

Social anxiety

Another reason--social anxiety. I don’t think we acknowledge enough the effect that f2f schooling has had on a good number of students. Educators often think f2f class interaction is superior to any other because we succeeded with such. But many students I’ve had over the years really struggle with f2f interaction, and if given a choice to avoid it, will do so. And video conferencing is not a real-time solution to this aversion. They will not turn on their cameras and should not be required to do so, even though faculty prefer seeing faces. Cameras zoom in on a student’s face, and the screen presents a grid of faces staring back, both of which exacerbate rather than reduce social anxiety. Zoom fatigue is a real thing, I’m sure you all recognize. It’s worse with those dealing with anxiety. And I won’t even get into the problematic nature of invading a student’s space rather than meeting in a neutral space. (See my previous post “Learning Online during a Pandemic.”)

Incompetence

Third reason--incompetence. When we were all slammed into online-only in 2020, students (and faculty) had to acclimate to video conferencing. Many in both camps did poorly with it, and once we got back to buildings reopening, faculty who didn’t adapt well with Zoom/WebEx disparaged the mode and either went back to f2f or settled with asynchronous. Administration--seeing some faculty do poorly with it, and some students as well--have decided it’s just not worth offering ORT sections, are convinced that students only want asynchronous online, and so have starved ORT. I had one section offered out of all Composition I sections last semester and it filled. And the one section we offered for Composition II this spring semester? Canceled due to low enrollment.

Social mediatization

And one other possibility: the social mediatization of education. Current students have had years of experience with Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and so on. They’ve spent many hours asynchronously scrolling through posts/videos/audio of others, have made their own posts/memes/videos, have replied to others positively or negatively. So when they get to higher education and want to take an online class, avoiding the need to come to campus, they will often do so with the asynchronous experiences they’ve had for a decade back of mind. 

I do see a number of students really excelling at discussion boards today, more so than in previous years, where they present thoughtful, well developed responses, and often use research they glean from searching online to back up what they say. Yes, some of this in the last year has been from ChatGPT. But not usually the good stuff. There is a real sense that young students have been interacting asynchronously much more than we saw, say, ten years ago.

The asynchronous trap: generative AI

But faculty--you’re falling into a trap. If you think that the administrators are right, that most students want online asynchronous classes, and you didn’t care for faceless Hollywood Squares WebEx or Zoom, and you’re all in with expanding our asynchronous offerings--have you heard of generative AI? It’s certainly not ready for prime time, but very soon, it will be good enough to teach your asynchronous classes. Or at least take over much of the work you do.

Last semester, during a meeting, a faculty member on WebEx shared how she was using ChatGPT for lesson planning. The administrator in the meeting asked, “How long did you take to complete the lesson?” She said a half hour. He asked how long it would take without ChatGPT? Two and a half hours. 

I don’t think yet it’s conscious with most administrators, but as AI advances and enrollment struggles, what do you think will save money to keep the college going? Reducing faculty. I’m not sure when AI will be able to teach fully an asynchronous class, if ever. But very soon, the pressure to raise current seat levels is going to build. And administrators will find it eminently reasonable to take a first-year English composition class that is already too full at 23 students to 50 or 75 or 100 students with the aid of generative AI. Will it be as good as a professor with 23 students? Maybe. Maybe not. But I’ve learned over the years that administrators find “good enough” good enough, if money can be saved.

Real-time interaction in education

Anyone who has taught any length of time will recognize the value of real-time interaction in education. It need not be all that a student experiences. In fact, in higher education, it never has been. Most work students do has always been asynchronous. What do you think the old rule of thumb--2-3 hours of work for every hour of class--consists of? Some study groups, sure. But mostly reading/writing/researching alone. And very soon the enhancement of asynchronous work by AI will be a real thing. In fact, if you’re paying attention, it already is.

What we as faculty can do that AI cannot is real-time interaction. Discussing, reading aloud, answering questions, having students share their work, working in small groups, doing presentations to the whole class. And this should be a part of most classes. Students want online? Great. But they need to meet in real time with the professor and with the class to create most effectively a community of learners. Can it be done well with web conferencing? It can. Though as I’ve noted before, WebEx's lack of neutral space is a problem, and its enhancement of social anxiety weakens its value (as is the case with f2f interaction).

ORT whole-class interaction in a neutral space with embodied representation not disembodied faces--virtual spaces like Second Life, as I’ve been arguing for over a decade in this blog--are currently the best way to have class online.

"A bumpy night"

Faculty really do need to reconsider online learning, to incorporate interaction that is most inclusive and most engaging. I’m almost done with this adventure. Those of you who have a decade or two ahead of you? You need to argue for real-time, whole-class interaction in online courses during department meetings, at whole college gatherings, in academic senates, and in union meetings and negotiations. And pester IT for support. If you capitulate to asynchronous only, as Bette Davis once said as Margo Channing in All about Eve, “Fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy night.”