introduction
A growing number of faculty teach courses online in addition to teaching traditional face-to-face (F2F) classes. Faculty developing course materials for both environments find they are investing more time learning about how students learn. Learning to teach online can be time consuming (Stern, 2004), and achieving mastery in both modes is quite demanding. To teach effectively in both environments, instructors must think about how to improve student learning outcomes irrespective of the particular setting. Skills needed to help ensure good student learning include the following: selecting effective and emerging pedagogical methods; drafting clear, written materials for students; designing activities that foster active learning; and using principles of sound instructional design, such as the ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation; Dick & Carey, 1978). Faculty who begin their careers in the classroom are refashioning their optimal teaching methods from the F2F environment for use in online courses. As these faculty gain experience online, they often turn the strategy around, refashioning methods that succeed in the online environment to enhance their F2F instruction. For instance, faculty can integrate innovative online activities into traditional courses. (McQuiggan, 2007) The overall process is akin, both in its challenges and benefits, to mastering a foreign language. What results from this synergistic process is more versatile educators who are able to reach students—and more fully realize their own potential as teachers—by using complementary modes of instruction that interanimate each other.
background
The movement of faculty beyond the F2F format into the online environment stems from institutional stakeholders’ desire to cater to evolving student preferences and to enroll more students (Shepard, Alper & Koeller, 2006), as well as from the development of course-management systems that facilitate online learning for teachers and students (Jafari, McGee, & Carmean, 2006). College and university leaders understand that students are accustomed to an increasingly wide array of communication modes with 24/7 access, including the cell phone, text messaging, MySpace and FaceBook. These students expect the same access to their college courses. For some, this means taking a F2F course with an online presence; for others, this means taking a fully online course.
Student expectations for flexible scheduling are one reason that deans and department chairs are asking faculty to teach some of their F2F-honed courses online. Instructors often want the same flexibility; indeed, their reasons for teaching online have begun to mimic their students’ various motives for enrolling in Web-based classes. Like students, faculty want both choices and challenges. One obvious advantage of online courses for both faculty and students is the convenience of teaching and learning from home. Add to the convenience the reality that young instructors are often drawn to teaching online because they are used to communicating and learning via an array of Web-based tools. Meanwhile, veteran teachers are often attracted to online teaching as an opportunity to improve learning outcomes, and to try new teaching activities (Jorn, et al., 2003). Interestingly, new and old faculty alike are not abandoning F2F for online; instead, they are choosing to realize the benefits of teaching in both formats.
Consequently, institutions are tapping into these expectations for flexibility by offering individual courses and entire programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels in traditional, hybrid and online formats. Clearly, the challenge for provosts, deans, and instructors remains to ensure that students achieve similar learning outcomes in the online environment and in the traditional classroom. With the evolution of web-based course management systems and the onset of learner-focused education theory, online education has emerged as a viable alternative to traditional, face-to-face instruction.
Faculty discover that teaching in both environments amplifies the advantages of each. This synergy is most likely to occur when two basic principles are followed: Design instruction to maximize learning in a given environment; then recognize that accommodations made for one environment usually benefit students in both environments. For example, showing students a film with subtitles obviously benefits deaf and hard-of-hearing students; however, the subtitles also can strengthen all students’ reading skills and increase their comprehension of the content. As a result all students benefit. Similarly, students of faculty who teach both online and F2F gain from their instructors’ designing learning activities for students in different environments. While teaching F2F, faculty can watch their students in the classroom to identify visual signs of struggle or flagging motivation. They can clarify misconceptions on the spot, and they can meet with students individually in person. When they switch to the online environment, they can take advantage of different pluses to achieve many of the same things they try to do in the F2F mode, such as the ability to communicate frequently with students to keep abreast of their progress, to provide clear instructions for every element ofthe course, and to design activities that reach students with diverse learning styles.
For years the assumption has prevailed that certain learning activities can be accomplished more successfully either F2F or online. However, informal interviews with faculty teaching at community colleges, and at both public and private universities, suggest this may not be the case. Most faculty believe the online environment cannot replicate the excitement of a lively, in-class discussion. That may be true, but a compelling argument can be made that the perceived “excitement” often obscures the fact that most classes contain a number of shy, relatively passive learners who get little benefit from such discussions, and indeed may find them superfluous and distracting. The online environment may actually offer a better way to draw them into the educational experience of a course than F2F discussions because it provides them with a less socially formidable venue in which to participate (Kubala, 1998).
Indeed, the question of which activities work better in which environments is rapidly becoming trivial as increasing numbers of faculty teach in both. Faculty are developing not only an awareness and respect for the learning that can occur in each of these environments, but also a realization that the effort that goes into teaching both F2F and online results in better teaching and learning.
Chickering and Gamson’s seven Principles – How Faculty Use These Principles in F2F and Online Environments
Since they were first published in 1987, Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles have been used to help classroom teachers design active learning environments and they are now being applied to online learning (TLTG, 2000). These seven principles provide a useful structure for looking more closely at what teaching in one format teaches faculty about teaching in the other.
1. Good Practice Encourages Contact between Students and Faculty.
Few dispute the value of out of class (OOC) communication between students and faculty. Student satisfaction is higher among students who communicate with faculty OOC (Nadler & Nadler, 2000), and faculty can learn about students’ learning styles from OOC. However, faculty teaching F2F often report that they receive few visitors during office hours and have insufficient time to meet with students before and after class.
Faculty teaching in both environments have learned that they need to encourage communication from students at the beginning of the semester. Icebreaker activities – an email message, or introduction submitted through a course management system – convey to students that their teachers expect to communicate with them. Expanding communication via email, online office hours, instant messaging, Skype, discussion boards, or even the telephone dispels the anxiety some students feel visiting a faculty in person, increasing contact between students and faculty (Pollanen, 2006).
2. Good Practice Develops Reciprocity and Cooperation among Students.
Developing reciprocity and cooperation among students “can promote student learning, retention, satisfaction, social skills, and self esteem” (Zhang & Walls, 2006). However, some faculty believe the spontaneity and energy of class discussion and group work in the F2F environment cannot be replicated online. And many faculty believe that of the seven principles, the second is the most difficult to achieve online (Zhang & Walls, 2006).
Faculty teaching in both environments have learned to think beyond activities such as peer review and group responses to questions. Designing activities that mimic real-world research communities can ensure cooperation among students, whether conducted in the classroom or online. Setting up a de.li.cious bookmark sharing application account or links to current events can bring today’s news to a course. Faculty have learned that discussions that “encourage holistic thinking and understanding through challenging ideas and beliefs” (Ellis, Goodyear, Prosser, & O’Hara, 2006) can foster learning, whether F2F or online. While discussions that foster a heated debate among class members and the instructor can increase active learning among participants, not all students may be engaged. Although these lively in-class exchanges may stimulate student enthusiasm for the subject, their more thoughtful, deep comments about it often are elicited online, where everyone can (and, if mandated, must) participate. In-class discussions should be supplemented with online discussions. Online discussions can prepare students for in-class discussions, and in-class discussions can extend discussions that begin in class. When it comes to group work, students can work equally effectively online and in the classroom. Setting up groups online reminds instructors to explain specifically what they want the students to do, and to include specific criteria about how often groups should interact. Watching F2F groups can remind instructors of the importance of the chemistry of a group. It is critical to encourage students in online settings to get to know one another well enough to make the interaction lively and beneficial. This can be done via online icebreakers or introductions, or small team projects.
3. Good Practice Means Using Active Learning Techniques.
Faculty may think they need to develop separate sets of activities for the F2F and online environments, but faculty teaching in both environments discover that authentic, task-based activities that require students to practice and/or apply concepts they are learning work equally well in both environments. According to Salter, Richards, and Carey (2004), “In a task-based approach, the learning tasks and feedback to the tasks serve as the primary vehicles for learning by engaging the student with the course content to solve the learning tasks.” For example, students may be asked to create a “teach and learn” module. Teachers should try to insure that the projects or assignments are iterative, so there is exploration and feedback that students can use as they complete the tasks. When watching students do a project in class, instructors often notice that students value projects that allow them to explore and see results for themselves. Having students reflect online about their experiences will provide similar feedback.
4. Good Practice Entails Giving Prompt Feedback.
While most faculty understand that CMS tools can facilitate giving students prompt feedback, some faculty believe they will lose the ability to clarify aspects of difficult concepts online. Faculty teaching in both environments have learned that whether F2F or online, answering questions about content or assignments on the discussion board provides answers to everyone, including those who may be wondering, but not asking, about certain issues. Using CMS tools allows faculty to give immediate feedback via gradebooks, online quizzes, and discussion forums to answer individual questions publicly. Informing students when to expect feedback will increase student satisfaction. Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, and Duffy (2001) advise that instructors can provide students with both “information feedback,” which evaluates student work and responds to questions, and “acknowledgment feedback,” which lets students know materials have been received and when they will be reviewed/graded.
5. Good Practice Includes Emphasizing Time on Task.
Faculty sometimes feel that because online learning is more independent, it is difficult to determine how much time students are spending on course work. Experienced faculty have learned to break tasks into manageable chunks and inform students in both environments approximately how much time should be spent on each task. In a F2F class, an instructor may be able to watch students doing a project and ask them how much time they are spending on each phase of a project. In an online class teachers may be able to track how much time students spend (via tracking or assessment tools), or ask students to keep notes about their work. Faculty can also use surveys, interviews and discussions either online or in the classroom to determine how students are spending their time (TLT group). Faculty can then help students manage time spent on course work.
6. Good Practice Means Communicating High Expectations.
Most faculty assume they convey clearly their high expectations for course work. By teaching in the online environment, faculty realize quickly the importance of clear, written communication, including distributing course objectives, schedules, grading standards, etc. Providing access to concrete examples of exemplary work also benefits students (Graham, et al., 2001). Giving periodic informal assessments, on paper or online, that conveys to students individually and, as a whole, helps drive home that the bar for achievement is set high.
7. Good Practice Involves Respecting Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning.
Many faculty struggle to reach students with different learning styles. Faculty teaching in both environments have learned that students can work at their own pace in the online environment. It makes sense to design activities that allow the F2F student to do the same. The challenge is to develop projects that do not simply benefit students with one learning style over others (Moallem 2007). One way to address this is to provide content in a variety of media. Faculty have also learned the value of designing projects with flexibility in the format; providing links to materials online that may contain audio, video, animation, or some form of interactive learning, and offering several different types of assignments that require different skill sets and allow for different approaches to the same assignment.
challenges
Instructors seem to perceive the challenges of teaching both online and F2F differently. Some prefer F2F discussions because of the immediacy and energy of the interaction, while others feel that online discussions offer deeper and richer explorations of the topic. Some instructors enjoy the performance aspect of F2F, while others prefer to serve as coaches and “let the students do the work.” And finally, some instructors feel they develop a better rapport with students they meet while others report that having established communication online means they stay connected via email to students long after the class is over. However, as noted above, faculty agree that designing effective courses is time consuming. The flexibility and change of pace of online teaching motivate faculty to teach in this environment, but the fact that learning outcomes are not consistently better in one format over another (Herman & Bannister, 2007; Zimitat & Chen, 2004;) may result in some faculty returning to teaching solely in the classroom.
According to Maguire (2005), a survey conducted by the National Education Association in 2000 found that fifty percent of faculty who responded “conveyed negative or uncertain feelings towards distance learning.” In the years following the survey, more faculty have been attracted to online teaching, most often motivated by the desire to meet student expectations (Harrington, Staffo, & Wright, 2006). Institutions that want to help faculty satisfy student demand should provide professional development opportunities to teach faculty to design effective courses that reach the ‘Net generation’ (Moore, Moore, & Fowler, 2005). Faculty who have been trained by instructional designers to follow the ADDIE model find that instructional design principles work well in the online and F2F environments. However, for faculty who do not receive training, the workload of developing courses in two formats can seem daunting.
FUTURE TRENDs
The Horizon Report is an annual publication that lists new technologies that will likely have an impact on teaching and learning, both F2F and online, in higher education. The 2007 edition describes Web 2.0 technologies, which include web-based applications that allow users to easily share digital content. The report identifies several trends that have already begun to impact teaching and learning, both F2F and online.
• “User created content” includes videos, photos, music and text, often shared through collaboration software such as YouTube, Flickr, Blogger.com, and del.icio.us bookmarking software. Instructors who formerly had students submit paper journals can now have students keep blogs to reflect on their experiences. Via these online blogs, instructors can connect more frequently with students, and provide prompt feedback. The good practice for online teaching—encouraging students to think more deeply about topics—also deepens in-class discussions.
• Social networking tools such as MySpace and Facebook connect people with common interests. Instructors who teach large F2F introductory classes can use Facebook to connect with students, view common interests and even create a digital photo roster for their classes. By meeting students online in their own environment, instructors show students they respect diverse talents.
• Mobile phones, the all-in-one portable technology-of-choice, take photos and video, send email, text message, organize calendars and store music, all of which make them “personal digital repositories.” One language-instruction provider even offers English tutoring via mobile phone (3iMobile).
• Virtual worlds are 3 -D immersive environments in which students can create second selves, “avatars,” that interact in real time with other avatars, virtual objects, and even virtual money. In a Suffern, N.Y., middle school heath class, students explore body images by creating a series of avatars representing themselves in a variety of ways: as they are, as they think others see them, as they would like to be. Students reflect on their experiences via personal blogs, which help prepare them for lively in-class discussions (Sheehy, 2007).
• Massively multi-player online (MOO) games are complex 3D games played online simultaneously or asynchronously by many, many participants. One community college learning community, which has blended history, science fiction and psychology, requires students to chronicle a hero’s journey by participating in World of Warcraft. According to Cady, Kalivas, Margulis, and Olsen (2007):
Immersive virtual worlds are providing a new frontier for online learning by expanding the kinds of interaction possible online. Virtual environments are being developed specifically for education while some innovative schools and colleges are experimenting with the educational applications of existing commercial virtual worlds like World of Warcraft. (p.XX)
These new technologies will allow faculty and their students to extend and enrich their classes; to create, manipulate and share content easily; to interact in virtual worlds, and to comment on their experiences F2F or online through a discussion board, blog or wiki. This mirrors the way we work – connecting the time we spend alone exploring, creating and reflecting to time we spend together sharing, and ideally, refining our work.
conclusion
A strong case can be made that faculty improve as teachers when reinvigorated by the experience of trying new approaches. Teaching online can improve organization; encourage faculty to be clear (in writing) about expectations, requirements, dates and timelines and clear feedback; and inspire faculty to pay attention to different learning styles. Teaching in both environments can remind faculty to recognize and nurture the different ways students can learn as a community of minds, and to make the most of the energy that springs from a shared, synchronous experience.
KEY TERMS
ADDIE: Developed in 1975 by Florida State University, the ADDIE model of instructional design is the process for developing instruction. ADDIE refers to the five phases of the process: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.
Avatar: Originally, the incarnation of a Hindu deity, especially Vishnu, in animal or human form, in popular culture, avatar has come to mean a graphical representation of a user, often in an online game or virtual world.
Chickering & Gamson’s Seven Principles for Good Practice: Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson published their “Seven Principles For Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” in 1987 in the American Association of Higher Education Bulletin as guidelines to improve teaching and learning.
Course Management System (CMS): A set of tools designed to allow instructors to manage communication and the distribution of materials, assignments, grades and other aspects of instruction for their courses.
Learning Management System (LMS): A set of tools designed to organize and manage users learning experiences and to facilitate communication and access to learning materials.
Hybrid Learning: Also called blended learning, hybrid learning is training or instruction that combines online and F2F, or classroom, instruction.
F2F: Face-to-Face learning that takes place primarily in a classroom setting.
Instructional Design: Theory and practice of analyzing learning needs and goals, developing a delivery system to meet those needs, and measuring the system’s effectiveness.
Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG or MMO): A video game capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously, which is played in a virtual world on the Internet.
Social Networking Tools: Small Web applications that allow users to connect and collaborate. Examples include FaceBook, MySpace and LinkedIn.
User-Created Content: Media contributed to social networking and collaboration sites by users of those sites, often via small and easy-to-use Internet tools. Examples include Wikipedia, YouTube and URL sharing resources such as del.icio.us
Virtual World: Computer-based simulated environment in which users interact via avatars.
Web-Enhanced Course: A F2F course that provides supplementary Web-based resources.
Webcast: A digital media file, such as a pre-recorded lecture or video, which is distributed over the Internet.
