Issues: blending online and face-to-face teaching.

Abstract

While technology allows us to provide varied modes of instruction to students, the dilemma of how much is too much should not be ignored. The responsibility that university teaching brings with it includes maintaining the integrity of the experience for students and not just adding technological hoops for them to navigate. Five specific issues involving the use of technology to take the place of face to face in class interactions in blended formats are discussed. Caution is recommended even as the benefits of technology are recognized.

Introduction

As I move through the adoption of teaching methodologies in our teacher education program that involve the use of more and more technological mediation, it becomes clear that there are serious consequences that not only affect students and their learning but also affect that which makes up the central feature of a teaching professor's professional life. Teaching is a social enterprise that is dependent on active interactions that include opportunities for the teacher to get to know students, observe them and make adjustments that will clarify expectations and maximize learning. As Creed (1997) maintains, "Electronic communication without student learning in mind can be just one more technological hoop for students to jump through" (p. 170). It's that hoop jumping that is problematic, not only for my students, but for myself as well. So as demands and commands to use more technology, more online components, and take up less of the classroom space required when meeting students regularly face to face increase, concerns mount regarding potential consequences for everyone involved. These concerns are echoed in the literature by Al-Bataineh, Brooks and Bassoppo-Moyo (2005), Bennett and Lockyer (2004), Bibeau (2001), Burge (1999), and Maheesh and McIsaac (1999) and McShane (2004).

There is no shortage of proponents of technology as valuable, sensible and useful in meeting the needs of many students, reaching students for whom travel to campus is difficult, or who need learning opportunities at times that transcend traditional course schedules (Creed, 1997; Miller & Mei-Yar, 2003). As I become familiar with techniques and processes that the latest technological advances on my campus afford me, I can see some of these benefits even as discomfort remains, but as semester after semester rolls by, the same issues nag in my teacher mind.

Five major ways that the use of technology to take the place of in-class interactions make teaching more difficult and much less satisfactory can be readily identified. They are issues that have occurred to me as I teach courses that are "blended", that is, a combination of traditional face-to-face time with online discussions and exchange of documents and information that takes the place of face-to-face time because of the need to flexibly use resources and space. The combination of processes and techniques that is confounding to a feeling of the integrity that is the successful teaching process is discussed elsewhere also. Bennett and Lockyer (2004) describe the "added layer of complexity" that on-line components add and that become pervasive in "ways that both extend and limit practices" (p 242). McShane's (2004) study reports that a main focus for faculty is to maintain effectiveness as online teaching spotlights the choices they make. The five issues present major concerns as I've identified them but also as they are supported by others in the literature on online teaching.

First, and something that is particularly important in teacher education, is the loss of modeling. When most of the opportunity I have to interact with my students is by email or course discussion forums, the teaching techniques I can model are severely limited. No longer can I specifically demonstrate how to deal with sensitive issues, jumpstart a flagging discussion or manage transitions between activities when time is critical simply because the opportunities to interact together in the same place at the same time is limited. Modeling is well established as an effective means by which to promote learning. The very limited opportunities to do that are compounded by the difficulty in establishing a comfortable class climate where everyone knows each other and develops a level of comfort from seeing and talking to others in class. Student engagement and the opportunity to model are decreased even during then times class does meet because we simply don't have the time to get to know each other in the same way and even fun and effective online interactions don't always translate into the face to face environment.

Second, the empathetic connection that develops between students and teacher is compromised. It is more difficult to know the learner and capitalize on interpersonal interaction to forward learning. It's harder to put names with faces and learning styles and peculiarities with individuals. I can learn only what they can, or are willing, to share in writing online. The benefits of observing body language, reactions to others and the confused looks that direct me to intuitively switch tactics or change the pace or direction of a discussion are lost. Online discussion can be good but with many learners needs to be shaped and nurtured. Switching from in class to online confuses students and limits response in either mode. If instructor memory fails in the switch, a sensitive student may be lost, regardless of how talented a teacher may be otherwise.

Third, the momentum of learning is lost with the time gap between postings, responses and an instructor's ability to read and respond. Sometimes, by the time other responsibilities allow access what students have posted, their interest has evaporated. The shaping mentioned earlier can also be interrupted by class meetings. In some cases, students hold discussable issues until actual class time or wait until the online environment to mention them. Flow is compromised and momentum is lost. There may be techniques and scheduling tricks I've yet to master to answer this issue but my professional life doesn't allow perfect response time and any kind of insurance that the technology will not fail at any time has yet to develop.

Fourth, the process part of the learning equation is lost to the product. There are many students who are not fully invested in the rich process of cognitively wrestling with concepts to broadening their understanding and the value of considering multiple methods of learning and expressing new understanding. The disconnect between them and me because of the limits of technology interferes with my ability to pull them into the process and push new ways of knowing and applications beyond what is familiar, comfortable and, often, more rote. While the classroom situation can often be manipulated into one that engages all students and push them into even uncomfortable areas of discussion by personal means without compromising them, the switch to online and then back again seems to result in more reliance on "how much" instead of the deeper thinking they should explore and develop. There are techniques and processes to overcome some of this and with more hours and less preps it's possible to build those in to my classes. Up to now time is the enemy, not the friend--both for faculty and for students. It is not more efficient to put parts of courses online because of the increased amount of time that is needed to monitor and respond to students individually and often repetitively (a point echoed by Cavanaugh as reported in his interview with Distance Education Report, 2006). When students read the writings of others, it's my responsibility to ensure that what they read is correct which means that everything needs to be monitored carefully--even, for example, jigsawed material. The jigsaw technique is used as a method to help students master material cooperatively by sharing learning and teaching among a small group membership that can substitute for lecture. It can work as an online technique also but just as when one uses jigsaw in the face-to-face environment, the teacher can pay attention to what students are teaching each other by "eavesdropping" on the conversations of the groups to make sure that the best information is what each student is exposed to, then correcting or re-teaching right away. The same kind of monitoring and correcting is much more time consuming in the online environment so efficiency may be lost as well as good learning.

Fifth, the opportunity for the rich interaction that face-to-face class time provides is missing. The incidental learning that occurs during class discussion, small group activities and peer editing and that can be picked up and used at the time it occurs is one of the most rewarding parts of teaching. When students take an idea and go with it, true teaching joy can be found in standing back and listening to the learning happen. In a recent meeting of an undergraduate course I taught the students took off on a topic for 34 minutes during which I spoke not a single word. They talked to each other. They brought up examples from their readings, their field experiences, and their other courses. While I'd like to say that happens in very class I teach, I have to admit that it doesn't. But it is a good example. I've yet to hear anyone who teaches a course that blends in technology share a description of such a glowing moment during the technology phases of their courses and very few during the face-to-face phases. Again, the disconnect comes from the lack of continuity. Even so, I'm not sure an entirely online course organization can overcome this problem either. Those who describe online course with synchronous class meetings and discussions may have such successes. Most of us who blend technology into our teaching don't have that kind of luxury.

Conclusion

In the process of taking training in the extensive use of the technologies available on my campus, the search for ways to overcome these issues goes on so that students who take courses that include a lot of the kinds of technological applications that replace class time are not shortchanged. There are some things to try and more effective techniques seem to appear daily if one has time to look for them and learn how they're accomplished. But there is also my own satisfaction that is important. I pursued teaching at the college level as a career because it's the teaching that gives me energy and hope that I can affect better learning in the students I encounter and, ultimately, see that better teaching in the schools my students work in as teachers themselves. At this point, technology in the blended format we have hasn't given me the satisfactory results I need to justify its replacement for in class face-to-face time with students. The modeling I have provided in the past is not now as consistently present, I don't know my students as well or in the same ways, timing and momentum are compromised, more complex and valuable tasks give way to the rote and in-class interaction is replaced by online activities that are nowhere near as satisfying or edifying to me or my students.

There is a happy medium here, and, as with most new ideas, the technology we have will take it's proper place in our repertoire of methods to reach students and inspire learning. And new technologies will take their place to offer even better ways. But there is worry that higher education is being convinced that more technology is simply better, without critically examining what made higher education unique and purposeful before technology entered the scene. MacFarlane (2004) reminds us of the privileges of teaching at colleges and universities that include curriculum design and teaching methods that also demand great integrity and should not be taken for granted. Adding electronic methods should enhance the experience not add those "technological hoops" for us or for our students.

We should be cautious. We owe it to ourselves and to our students. The successful teachers we inspire students to become in teacher education can blend knowledge with skills, abilities, and positive attitudes. Modeling plays an important role in that development as does the ethic of continuous learning. The wide availability of technology for most of us gives us the chance to model change and development and career long learning. But we should also model good choices for students to maximize learning and provide the conditions for every student to succeed. As Simpson (2001) reminds us "What we need now is the wisdom and judgement to make reasonable choices. We also need the courage and good sense to be able to say no to some technologies and yes to others." (p. 5) Wholesale adoption of anything into the learning environment is never good, technology included. The five issues included here are presented as points of caution and consideration in hopes that the dialogue about the use of technology in higher education will continue.

References

Al-Bataineh, A., Brooks, S.L. & Bassoppo-Moyo, T.C.(2005). Implications of online teaching and learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 285-295.

Bennett, S. & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changing environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Retrieved from Educational Media International. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals.

Bibeau, S. (2001). Social presence, isolation, and connectedness in online teaching and learning : From the literature to real life. Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems, 15(3), 35-39.

Burge, E.J. (1999). Keeping our balance in times of techno-turbulence. Viewpoints, 120.

Creed, T. (1997). Extending the classroom walls electronically. In Campbell, W.E. & Smith, K.A. New Paradigms for College Teaching. Edina: Interaction Books.

Distance Education Report (2006). Comparing online time to offline time: the shocking truth. 10 (9), 1-3.

MacFarlane, B. (2004). Teaching with integrity. London: Routledge Fahner.

Mahesh, V. & McIsaac, M.S. (1999). Distance education: Learner-teacher interaction time and time spent by teaching. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, USA, 21.

McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: academics' role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9 (l).

Miller, M.T. & Mei-Yan, L. (2003). Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments: Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Retrieved from Educational Media International. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals.

Simpson, R.D. (2001). The marked transformation in learning and teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 26(1), 3-5.

Darlene V. Habanek, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater 

Habanek, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Education, in the College of Education