Recently, I’ve been seeing more posts and articles popping up about the combination of low student attendance at lectures and increased student use of GenAI. The evidence is often anecdotal but it does chime with the experiences that my academic connections have shared with me.
I don’t believe that we can or should focus on policing-out GenAI. We need to concentrate instead on providing learning experiences that are as inclusive, well-designed, and meaningful as possible, so that students want to put in their own effort. Much of what I read still seem to assume that in-person learning is necessary for deeply engaged learning. I think that this is true for some subject areas and some cohorts of students but online learning can often be better. Some of the most richly engaged and meaningful student learning I’ve been involved in, or have observed, has been on fully online courses. So, if students are missing lectures because they need paid work to survive, are commuting, are Disabled, or having caring responsibilities, then offering more online learning can be an excellent answer to poor in-person attendance.
How do we achieve the kinds of online learning that will keep students deeply engaged and persuade them that it’s worthwhile to struggle with ideas rather than offloading to GenAI? There’s no single ‘best’ practice answer but I think there are some key questions I can draw out from the literature and my experiences:
- Do students get opportunities to engage with complex, messy, real-world tasks that relate to their values and interests? Can students imagine futures for themselves using this learning and see others like them in those roles?
- Do students have some say in what and how they learn?
- Does the learning experience start with modest, accessible tasks that help students get to know their teachers and peers? If students miss these early tasks are they followed up supportively?
- Does the programme make good use of what online learning can do for inclusion? For example, are there varied options for creative engagement using different modalities? Both synchronous and asynchronous learning? Cycles of learning iterating over time with feedback?
- Do students get to engage deeply and playfully with the uncertainties and novelties of technologies, without having to know the answer or close off imagination?
- Is there a good assessment and feedback cycle for the programme where students get opportunities to own and make sense of marking criteria? Does this cycle give several opportunities to practice how to succeed with clear and supportive feedback?
- Are there opportunities for early formative feedback in the programme?
- Does the plan for assessment across the whole programme address different functions of assessment? There may be some need for assessments that are more AI-proof but this can’t swamp out assessment focused on the most important forms of learning.
- Do students feel like they matter to the staff who teach them and support their learning? Not everyone wants to belong but feeling you matter is core for motivation.
- Related to mattering, do all students feel that they are welcomed just as they are and that their ideas count? When staff engage with students online do they feel that they’ve been heard fully, that they contributions are valued, and that care is taken over answers?
Do you want work through these questions for your programmes? I’m available for consultancy.
Bibliography
Ashwin, P., Blackie, M., Boud, D., Calkins, S., Coate, K., Hallett, F., Kandiko Howson, C., Light, G., Luckett, K., MacLaren, I., McArthur, J., McCune, V., Mpamhanga, K., Schendel, R. and Tooher, M. (2025). Reflective teaching in higher education. 3rd Edition. London: Bloomsbury.
Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O-Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. and Sinclair, C. (2020). The manifesto for teaching online. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Taylor & Francis Group.
Gravett, K., Taylor, C. A., & Fairchild, N. (2024). Pedagogies of mattering: re conceptualising relational pedagogies in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(2), 388–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1989580
Kreber, C., Anderson, C., Entwistle, N. and McArthur, J. (2014). Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Ross, J. (2023). Digital futures for learning: Speculative methods and pedagogies. New York: Routledge.
wickededucation.blog 
Leave a comment