Six Oversights about Online Students

The oversights presented below most often stem from long-standing generalizations about learners (many of them outdated or overly simplistic) that are then extended to online learners. Consider if any of these oversights have shaped your thinking about and work with online students.

Oversight 1: Online Students Share Similar Approaches to and Perspectives on Learning

As the cultural diversity of our online students increases (Tereshko et al. 2024), we need to think beyond our own frames of reference about teaching and learning approaches and processes. Many of us have designed courses following the models of instructors who taught us, and we have a tendency to teach in the same way we learned or were taught (Mazur 2009). But the reality is that we cannot assume that others will learn in the same way we do, because that assumption can create barriers for students (Messineo 2018, 16). Online students come to the classroom with their own ideas and perspectives about learning—many derived from cultural worldviews that are shaped by their upbringing and their social context. “Culture” is a broad term and can touch on any number of aspects of identity—race, ethnicity, nation of origin, preferred language, proficiency in the target language, religious and spiritual beliefs, and more—but cultural influences play a substantive role in our ideas about education, including teaching practices and specifically about defining the roles of teacher and student.

A student’s cultural background can impact their experiences, feelings, and perceptions of the contexts in which they interact, including ways of thinking and being in the world that relate directly to educational contexts. For example, some cultural groups value holistic, formal reasoning rooted in individual cognitive efforts, while other groups prefer analytic, intuitive reasoning (Nisbett et al. 2001) and cooperation and value of learning in community (Moule 2012). Extending this idea to a diverse, multicultural online classroom, Ke and Chávez (2013) argue that distance learning practices and approaches are often not aligned with students’ life experiences and practices. That misalignment can occur because your students may or may not approach thinking, reasoning, and learning in the same way that you do, possibly creating a disadvantage for students from diverse cultures. Developing an awareness of the ways that cultural differences affect expectations of teaching and learning can help us make a conscious effort to acknowledge that students bring their backgrounds with them to the online classroom, and that those backgrounds have real impacts on how (and if) students engage with instructors and peers. Such an awareness, in turn, can inform design choices that better address the needs of online students and leverage cultural diversity as a positive strength, often called an asset-based approach, in contrast with the (problematic) deficit approach that emphasizes what a student may lack.

Research on how students might interact differently in online courses based on cultural factors has been somewhat limited; there are many frameworks that can inform educational practices, including learning design (which we discussed in chap. 1), but these frameworks may have limitations in exploring people’s behaviors (Långstedt 2018). Ke and Chávez (2013) conducted an important two-year, mixed-methods study at a southwestern university in the United States to explore “the impact of online pedagogies and contexts on the learning processes and perceptions of a diversity of college students living in rural and urban areas, with an emphasis on learners of nontraditional age and minority status . . . across 12 academic disciplines” (13). This study provided a cross-cultural and intergenerational framework for exploring individuated and integrated approaches to teaching and learning (fig. 2.1). The resulting framework is especially relevant for instructors invested in adopting inclusive teaching methods because many of the current practices in college classrooms rarely “include knowledge of activities similar to those in home communities of most students of color . . . Further, these cultural norms are rarely considered strengths or ‘cultural wealth’ that students bring with them into collegiate learning environments” (Ke and Chávez 2013, 21). Importantly, this framework gets at the many ways of being that significantly shape and impact learning, not just student learning “preferences,” and that ultimately influence whether or not a student is set up to succeed in an online course. Not attending to the cultural and individual differences of students could result in online teaching practices that are “at odds with ways of thinking, acting, and being that students bring with them” (Ke and Chávez 2013, 28).

Ke and Chávez (2013) note the following.

• Individuated approaches are common and often dominant in US society, originating specifically from northern European cultural practices (94-95).
• Integrated approaches are more common to Hispanic and Native American groups, and may also be common to Indigenous groups from Southeast Asia, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand as well as Latino groups originating from southern Europe, South and Central America, and Mexico. Some aspects of integrated approaches may be common among African American students as well (96).
• Further exploration into the cultural epistemologies of students originating from the Middle East would likely reveal similarities with the integrated approach (96).

Ke and Chávez’s (2013) framework for online learning can help identify practices and preexisting inclinations across a spectrum of cultural approaches. While many academics and instructors with backgrounds in Western-centric cultures may be tempted to fall into dualistic thinking, or an identification with one side of the spectrum or the other, the most helpful way to use this framework is to see that both teachers and learners may locate themselves somewhere along the spectrum by identifying with aspects of both constructs. Our tendencies and areas of comfort in these aspects of teaching and learning are also contextual and not fixed; for example, we may have grown up learning one way but adjusted and adapted in later learning experiences, perhaps out of necessity because we found ourselves in an educational setting that took an approach that was different from what was familiar to us.

Consider where your inclinations fall on each spectrum in figure 2.1, and identify any consequences they have had for how you design and facilitate online courses. There may be opportunities to vary your approaches to teaching or the ways in which students engage in learning; this is not necessarily a matter of accommodating all learning approaches but ensuring that students feel supported even when you might ask them to engage in an unfamiliar way. Clear instructions and guidance help make the “what,” “how,” and “why” of any task more transparent (much more on this approach in chap. 4). As an additional example, a collaborative, multistage group project could ask students to develop individual parts of the project—allowing them to lean into cultural constructs that value personal responsibility and achievement—while collaborating with peers to create the final version of the project, thereby also facilitating learning in community and with teamwork.

Oversight 2: Online Students Are about the Same Age as “Traditional” Campus Students

Online students can belong to various adult age groups. As we discussed in the introduction to this book, however, many online students tend to be closer to midlife and mid-career than to be just out of high school or nearing retirement. Designing or facilitating an online course under the assumption that students are younger or otherwise more “traditional” or “college”-aged or “younger adult” students (often defined in educational research as 18-25 years old) can feel off-putting for adult students (over age 25 and under age 65) because they are at different life stages and may be seeking different outcomes from their educational experiences.

Age and its specific impact on online learning is complex, and to date, studies have provided mixed results, possibly due to a limited or unclear definition of what constitutes an adult or older student (Decker and Beltran 2016). Some research suggests that age has a limited impact on the online learning experience, but it is relevant to how students interact with their peers. For example, in a study on deep learning, adult students (24-59 years old) self-reported “the same level of learning satisfaction and time/effort on learning tasks” as more traditional-aged students (Ke and Xie 2009, 143). Relatedly, a study comparing three age groups (18-25, 26-35, and 36-55 years old) identified that students in the 36-55 age group felt more comfortable than the other age groups when it came to interacting and disagreeing with peers while maintaining a sense of trust in online discussions (Decker and Beltran 2016).

Yet age does play a role in online learning, for various reasons. Adult students are likely to bring into the online course more significant work experiences than younger, “traditional” students, and adult students often have an intrinsic motivation beyond receiving a grade (Slover and Mandernach 2018). In addition, adult students’ willingness to share and interact more in the online class could be “a function of their maturity that often overlaps with age” (Decker and Beltran 2016, 22). The fact that adult students bring with them a wealth of knowledge, practices, and tools to the online space is worth noting for student interaction, especially when activities and assignments are in groups and integrate student choice. Adult students are more invested in their learning when offered choices or input because they are free to explore topics and activities that are closely related to the course objectives while integrating their own interests and life and work experience. Research shows that student choice leads to increased engagement, effort, and ownership of learning (Marzano et al. 2011; Henrikson and Baliram 2023; Simunich et al. 2023) and can “enable students to be self-directed learners. It can allow students the autonomy to choose methods that are most engaging to them” (Henrikson and Baliram 2023, 17), practices supported by transformational learning (discussed in chap. 1). Courses where this type of flexibility is not available, by contrast, can feel constraining and less engaging to an adult student.

The intersection of age with career and life trajectory can impact how adult students experience the online classroom. Adult students tend to be working professionals, holding part-time or full-time jobs on top of school, and they are also likely to have family responsibilities such as parenting or caring for extended family members (Wildavsky 2021). Instructors may believe that an online class inherently gives students all the necessary flexibility to manage on-time assignment submission, active and early participation in course discussions, and so on, but in reality, adult students are constantly making difficult decisions about which tasks take priority. When they have a work deadline, a sick child, and an essay assignment due, which should they attend to? Even more factors may come into play, such as time management and self-regulation skills, academic preparation, course availability, institutional support at times when they can engage with it, and so on (Kara et al. 2019; Stephen 2023).

Some online learners do fall in the traditional 18-25 age range. They may be campus-based students looking for some additional flexibility in their class schedule, or perhaps the on-campus course section was full at registration time. They could also be pursuing careers that require travel or scheduling flexibility; world-class athletes have pursued their education online at OSU, for example, while engaging in frequent travel for sporting events. It is also possible to have older adult learners (65+) in your course who are looking for a new learning challenge or an intellectual community; OSU Ecampus has served students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees in their 70s and 80s. If you find that these age groups are a part of the population that you are teaching, consider how to account for their needs. The recommendations in this book will generally serve all students well even as they help you to serve 25- to 65-year-old adult online students more effectively.

Oversight 3: Online Students Can Adapt to Rigid Course Structures and Policies

Online students have complex schedules because they are often juggling multiple responsibilities while they pursue school. These students may have many family and work obligations, experience disabilities or chronic illnesses, be located in different time zones, or be responsible for other obligations. In addition, many students have one or more of these characteristics: they may be returning to college at a later time, be part-time students, have a full time job, be financially independent, have dependents, be a single parent, or have a general educational development (GED) credential (Puzziferro and Shelton 2009). Taking online courses is often the best—or only—way that students can weave school into the other parts of their lives. The flexibility that online education affords in terms of when and where students engage does not mean that students have unlimited flexibility when it comes to their participation in an online course.

From a course design perspective, a clear structure is needed to support students and give them a path to follow through the course, but structural elements that are too rigid can undercut the very flexibility that online students rely on. Examples of these structures and their negative effects include:

• Sequences of tasks that are required to be done in a particular order, such that only one activity is available to view at a time; learners may need to look ahead and make choices about which activities to do in the time that they have available on a particular day, for example.
• Mandatory engagement with activities on a specific and short timeline, like watching a lecture video and taking an associated quiz on Monday, posting discussion comments by Wednesday, replying to peers by Friday, completing homework by Saturday, and sharing reflections by Sunday. Learners need maximum (reasonable) flexibility to engage in the content across a week/unit/module, and they may not be able to access and engage in the course as frequently as or with the precision that the above schedule requires.

Likewise, rigid course policies can disadvantage the adult students who are balancing life, work, and school obligations. A common theme in annual survey feedback from OSU Ecampus students is how much a blanket “no late work” policy hampers their ability to successfully manage competing priorities. Students appreciate even a small amount of flexibility when it comes to deadlines (we will consider reasonable options in chap. 4). An online student might be faced with the difficult choice of completing a work deadline on time, taking care of a family member, or completing a course project, and that decision would weigh even heavier if their instructor does not accept any late work, for any reason.

Oversight 4: Online Students Have Excellent Access to and Proficiency in Technology

Individuals involved in online course design (instructors, instructional designers, etc.) oftentimes assume that students have strong broadband access. A course might rely heavily on video content that needs to be streamed and cannot be downloaded, interactive elements that need to load in full to function, large file downloads for assignment templates, exam proctoring apps that require strong and consistent bandwidth, and so on. Courses with multiple strict deadlines each week, as discussed in the section above, also presuppose that students have modern devices and highly reliable Internet access, allowing them to connect most, if not all, days of the week.

Many regions of the world, however, including many rural areas in the United States, still lack broadband Internet access. Infrastructure investments are lessening the gap in availability between rural and urban residents, but as of December 2022, an estimated 24 million Americans were still not connected at home, including 28% of Americans living in rural areas and 23% on tribal lands (Federal Communications Commission 2024). A student living in a rural area who wants to engage in higher education may only be able to attend online, yet that same student may not have reliable access to the Internet at home and may need to travel somewhere with a stronger connection to download course materials and upload their assignments. An online course developed with diverse learner needs in mind might consider Internet access as a design challenge. How might a course be designed effectively if students could only log in a few times a week, and perhaps for only an hour or two at a time?

Students who access their courses from abroad may run into another challenge because other countries sometimes block web access to US-hosted technologies. Lists of what is blocked are not usually maintained and may not be accurate, so students may not discover until they try to engage with a resource or tool that they cannot access it. Offering choices (or being prepared to offer choices) of resources and tools can help to mitigate the risk of a student not being able to complete activities and assignments.

We also cannot assume that students are using any particular type of device to access their online courses. Dello Stritto and Linder (2018) investigated students’ device preferences to access their online courses and multimedia course materials by surveying approximately 2,000 students (undergraduate, graduate, and other) taking at least one online course. The results revealed that 67.7% of students preferred laptops, 19% desktops, 6.5% tablets, and 5.5% smartphones to view video lectures. While the study shows a high preference for laptops, we should also anticipate that, in reality, many students access their online courses from multiple and different devices. For example, students may check messages or grades from their phones. Working adult students may want to listen to lecture podcasts on their phones while they commute or travel, while others might want to post to a discussion board using their smartphones or tablets. These devices could also be older and not able to run the newest versions of applications.

Remember, too, that the complexity of educational technology is an important consideration in online courses because its use is always required. Sometimes online instructors assume that because students are taking an online course, they are fluent with web- and application-based technologies. In reality, online students may have a wide variety of exposure to and experience with technology, with at least some students being less savvy. Students who grew up in a less technology-saturated world may find it especially challenging and time-consuming to troubleshoot an unexpected challenge or error. Even when students can develop transferable digital skills, they may experience anxiety about having to master two sets of knowledge and skills—course topics and new technologies—simultaneously (Safford and Stinton 2016). Care should also be taken if and where social media technologies are integrated into a course. While some research suggests that social media tools offer opportunities to enhance learning through networking and participatory engagement, some students may perceive that these tools offer little value in academic settings and formal learning. Students might also be unwilling to blend their personal, academic, and professional details in social media tools, or they may find them challenging and intimidating to use (Salmon et al. 2015).

Oversight 5: Online Students Have Above-Average Reading and Writing Skills

Asynchronous online courses have traditionally been developed with a heavy emphasis on text-based communication, and with good reason: course and instructor-generated text provides clarity of information and instructions, helps students navigate a course and locate information and supplemental content, and increases accessibility through image-related descriptions (Moore 2021). Moreover, writing is a form of active thinking and learning, and thoughtfully engaging students in reading and writing development activities is a strategy to promote their success (Klein et al. 2016). Even low-stakes writing activities like discussion posts can develop higher-order and metalinguistic thinking (Lapadat 2002). While we acknowledge the important role that reading and writing can play in an online course, we invite you to also think about the barriers that can arise from an overreliance on reading and writing in online courses for students who might prefer to learn and to demonstrate their learning by other means. Casareno (2010), for instance, argues that college courses may unintentionally make success hinge upon a student’s reading ability, and Griffin (2018) cautions that more writing does not necessarily lead to better learning outcomes in online courses.

Consider the means by which content is communicated in your course. Are all learning materials readings? Are there some options for lectures, videos, podcasts, or other multimedia? A course that relies heavily or entirely on readings might benefit from “instructor notes” that guide students as they work through the set of materials for each unit or module. Alternatively, integrating social annotation tools (e.g., Perusall and Hypothesis) can provide students with a collaborative reading space for asking questions and sharing ideas among peers and with their instructor. (Instructors can seed questions and notes on materials ahead of students engaging with them as well.) To support online learners with a wide variety of linguistic backgrounds and academic skills, clarity is critical in course text and can be a lens through which to review external materials (textbooks, books, articles, etc.) as well as text written for and within the course itself. If students are unable to understand complex instructions or are unfamiliar with the jargon used, they will face challenges in meeting the expectations and outcomes. Shapiro and Aull (2023) posit that many students, especially from marginalized backgrounds, might feel alienated when they encounter unclear terminology; therefore using “plain language” can help to communicate with students more clearly and ease their reading processing. These scholars acknowledge that there “may be a role for specialized terminology and dense grammar in scholarly conversations among experts,” but there are opportunities to support students by making “linguistic choices that invite others in rather than blocking them out” (para. 12).

Overreliance on writing to demonstrate learning progress or mastery can disadvantage multiple student groups. Research has shown the prominence of writing anxiety among college students—especially for female students and those who are already experiencing academic challenges (Martinez et al. 2011) as well as students who are learning the language of instruction (e.g., English) and the discipline at the same time. One possible solution is to consider two types of writing prompts that are common in undergraduate and graduate coursework: “writing to learn” activities, where writing is both a process and a product, and “writing to communicate” activities, which simply pose writing as the instructor’s preferred means of communication (Balgopal et al. 2018, 445-46). Activities and assessments that only focus on communication of ideas type can often be revised to offer additional options. Universal Design for Learning, which we discussed in chapter 1, is a useful framework to provide students with multiple means to access content (e.g., video, audio, text, graph), demonstrate knowledge and skills (e.g., videos, presentations, graphics), and engage and collaborate with others (e.g., student choice, peer interactions) (CAST 2025).

Oversight 6: Online Students’ Top Priority Is School

Our discussion of the oversights above have already surfaced some of the many challenges that an online student might face. One final oversight that we want to call attention to is the perception that online students can always make school their first priority when, in fact, they may be involved with many obligations that compete for their time, mental bandwidth, and financial resources. Coursework will not and cannot always be the center of their focus. Payne et al. (2023) point out that “Universities in the United States often reflect middle-class norms and values where students are expected to engage in independent learning separate from their family and focus solely on personal academic and life goals.” Online learners, however, are most often in a much different position. They are usually interdependent with their families and communities, and they are usually not focused solely on personal goals.

Consider, too, what happens when students face not just one challenge but multiple, and when each challenge intensifies the others. A student might be in a precarious financial situation that causes them to choose between groceries and buying textbooks, and then their laptop breaks and they cannot afford to replace it before finishing out the term. Another student might share that they are balancing tending to the family farm, attending school part time, and caring for an elderly parent, and then they suddenly experience catastrophic flooding that wipes out their home. Yet another student might appear and disappear throughout a term with no explanation, only to disclose near the end of the term that they are going through a contentious divorce and both they and their children are struggling with mental health. If you are serving students who are veterans of the US military and are eligible for GI Bill benefits, you should also know that these students receive significantly less funding for their monthly housing allowance when they take online coursework, which may affect their overall financial stability while they are in school (Riggs 2022).

These examples represent just a small portion of the real life challenges that our students face, and all of these examples could compound anxieties about paying for, making time for, and succeeding in school. Students do not necessarily tell their instructors about the array of life challenges that they are facing, so it can be easy to misunderstand and misjudge underperformance. For many of these students, successful achievement means making hard choices when deciding what to focus on in their courses, perhaps attending to activities that allow them obtain passing grades and skipping those worth fewer points. For instance, a student may feel satisfied with a C grade because that is what they are able to achieve within their life circumstances. Online students are incredibly brave and motivated; they (and their families) make sacrifices large and small every day to pursue educational goals, and even small academic achievements (like passing a challenging course) can feel monumental for students when seen in the context of their competing responsibilities.

Instructors may become frustrated when students need additional flexibility or (informal) accommodations to continue in the course. A student who is stressed, tired, and hungry will also become frustrated if they find no support for or understanding of pathways to continue their coursework. If a student shares what is going on and what they need, our first reaction should be to be kind, demonstrating understanding and compassion. Showing kindness involves recognizing the humanity in students, thinking more intentionally about who they are, why they are in the course, what challenges they face, and believing them (Denial 2024). Believing students who come to you for help, having empathy, and recognizing that we can never assume we know what is going on in a person’s life can make a big difference, especially for students who have already made a financial, time, and emotional commitment to pursue their academic goals through online education. Online students really do have full, complex lives and are doing their utmost to take school on, too, to better their own lives and the lives of their families.

Teaching Behaviors That Create Barriers to Online Student Success

In this section, we turn to a discussion of two specific teaching behaviors that can create barriers to success for online students. These behaviors are not necessarily related to any particular oversight about online students or their needs, but they are easy to fall into because of the asynchronous nature of the modality and the high workload of most online instructors. If you have inadvertently used any of these approaches previously, you are not alone. Our intention in this chapter is to raise your awareness of how these behaviors ultimately affect online students and to encourage you to think about alternatives to better support their learning and success.

Appearing Unapproachable

From a student’s perspective, getting to know an instructor in any modality may not feel inherently easy or even appropriate. Academia has long perpetuated a hierarchy that puts novice students at the bottom and creates distance between them and instructional faculty, with instructors always wielding the power of grades (and recommendation letters). But in an online class, that relationship between instructor and student can be further obscured by asynchronous and often text-heavy communication that itself creates distance and a sense of impersonality.

That distance can be compounded by instructors who have, even unintentionally, positioned themselves as unapproachable. Students may perceive an instructor to be unapproachable not necessarily from any one particular event or message, but from a buildup of signals (or a lack of communication generally) that suggest that the instructor has other, more important priorities than teaching the course and is generally too busy to attend to students’ learning needs, answer their questions, or help them be successful. An instructor biography that describes the global reach of their research might sound appealing at the outset, but such messaging, compounded by a slow turnaround time on email questions and conversations, can easily lead to a perception that the instructor prioritizes their research over the online course. An announcement posted with the aim of being transparent that assignment feedback will take a little longer than planned can also contribute to the perception of unapproachability. “I have been working on a research proposal,” “I have been away at a conference,” and “I am submitting my book manuscript” are all reasonable justifications for a delayed timeline, but such statements also emphasize the kind of activities the instructional faculty member is prioritizing over students who are waiting for feedback they can apply to their next assignment. A lack of information about how and when to reach out for assistance—particularly around the topic of office hours—can also suggest that the instructor is not really there to support students. Conversely, being transparent with students about when your high workload interferes with grading or feedback can help you build rapport with your students if you approach that message carefully, and with a clear indication that you want to take the time to give them helpful comments as soon as you can. (We will address this nuance further in chap. 4.)

It is hard to fault students for feeling vulnerable and uncomfortable about reaching out to an instructor whom they may well have never met in person, or even on a video or phone call. When a student is in distress, it will be that much harder for them to reach out if they are concerned that their instructor will respond negatively or may not respond at all. Imagine the consequences that can arise if the student chooses not to take the risk to reach out. There may be missed opportunities to help students who could have been reengaged with individualized support. Perhaps these students could have continued on in the class rather than withdrawn, passed the class rather than failed, or remained in the major rather than switching to another. In chapter 3, we will return to the concept of “instructor presence” that comes from socioconstructivism and the Community of Inquiry theory (discussed in chap. 1) to address considerations for creating and sustaining presence imbued with warmth and approachability. Approachability also has a dimension of care that is much more than just showing up—it means communicating openly and genuinely to students that “Your questions or concerns are worthy of my attention, and I will make time for you.”

Ghost or Shadow Instruction

The sense of immediacy in the online environment is elusive, and many students wonder if their instructors are working alongside them at all. Commonly referred to as “ghost” or “shadow” instruction, it refers to a seemingly absent instructor: one who does not participate in discussion forums, who may irregularly respond to student emails and messages, who takes a week or more to return grades and feedback on assignments, and who rarely use communication tools (e.g., announcements, messages) or other features to interact with the full group of students.

Students may feel like an online course has been left to run on its own because they hardly ever hear from their instructor. Most students genuinely want to learn from the subject matter expert about whether they are on the right track with their answer or a line of thinking or a project. Discussions in particular can feel awkward to students without an instructor actively facilitating them. In Ecampus instructor training, we use the analogy that no (engaged) teacher would ever walk into an on-campus course, write a discussion question on the board, say “discuss, good luck!” and exit the classroom—and yet online students may feel that sense of abandonment whenever they are left to chat only among their peers on the learning management system (LMS) discussion board. Students are eager to know what is going well and what is not, and they will look to the instructor to help gauge and guide their learning during the term. If that guidance and feedback are not available, students may even feel less motivated to participate fully in the course, knowing that their learning experience is already diminished.

Of course, it is possible that a seemingly absent instructor is actually looking through the student discussion posts, skimming submitted assignments to determine what kind of feedback will be needed, managing a high volume of emails by only responding quickly to urgent student requests, and more. But these efforts are invisible to students if there is no concrete engagement. Students could perceive that their instructor is not paying much attention to the course and may not be invested in their success.

Instructors may also undervalue their own facilitation contributions, especially in a robust online course where it can feel like the whole course experience is already available to students in the LMS. If the course was not intentionally designed to be self-paced or automated, however, there will be a true need for thoughtful and engaged facilitation, not to mention that instructor interaction is required if the course or program is subject to the US Department of Education’s “regular and substantive interaction” policy.^[1] Students value their instructor’s presence, availability, and willingness to help (Dennen et al. 2007) as well as their instructor’s interactions through feedback, discussion posts, and responses to questions (Ley and Gannon-Cook 2014). Instructor interactions can motivate students and support learning; conversely, students can be demotivated and isolated by ghost or shadow instruction.