Online instruction: new roles for teachers and students.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate how instructors design and deliver online courses in higher education. One hundred four instructors (response rate of 69%) responded to the survey. Online instructors described how teacher and student roles are changing in the online environment, the ways in which they can personalize a course to include all students, the demands of online teaching that differ from traditional classes, and the difficulties they encountered with technology.

**********

Online delivery of college-level courses is rapidly becoming the modal approach to distance education. This boom has been fueled by the advent of the Internet and the exponential increase in computer use in the past decade (Maloney, 1999). These courses range in characteristics from those that are little different from correspondence courses, including little or no student interaction, to those that are interactive and innovative, utilizing Internet resources, video and audio clips, threaded discussions, email, and the like. This paper deals with the design and delivery of interactive online courses being offered today. It focuses on questions such as: What tools do instructors use? What strategies do they use in their teaching? How effective do they perceive their instruction to be compared to traditional courses? What do they like and dislike about online instruction?

Background

Distance delivery of courses in higher education has been widely practiced in the United States since the turn of the twentieth century (Rumble, 1986). As early as 1891, the University of Chicago offered credit courses in which correspondence between students and faculty was done by mail. Since then, institutions of higher education have explored a variety of methods offering instruction at a distance. These methods have included satellite broadcast, broad-band broadcasts, home-video courses, two-way compressed video, audio conferencing, text-based correspondence courses, and slow-scan television broadcasts (Ritchie & Hoffman, 1996). Many traditional as well as virtual colleges and universities are now offering online courses using the Interact, and students are responding with increasing interest (Bjorner, 1993; Thormann, 1999; Veldsmid, 1997). In fact, according to PC World (1999), more than two million people will have taken at least one online college course by 2002.

Several recent studies have shown that online students learn at least as much as their traditional classmates (i.e. Gubernick & Ebeling, 1997; McCollum, 1997; Schulman & Sims, 1999; Smith, 1999). Other studies have been critical of the online approach to delivering instruction. For example, Maloney (1999) found that some instructors expressed concern that student work received via email attachments may not be the student's work at all, although this may also be true of papers in a traditional class. In another study, students reported that although they like the flexibility of when and where work is done, they have concerns about the daunting amount of email, their dependence on technology, and the lack of visual cues from instructors to gauge their success (Thormann, 1999). Zhang (1998) analyzed approximately 500 email messages generated in his online course and found 70% of them to be equally authored by the students and himself. He raised questions about the increased amount of instructional time needed to deliver highly interactive online courses.

With regard to another aspect of online delivery, the asynchronous, interactive environment of the online classroom may even enhance the collaboration and conversation between students, as opportunities for participation become more equal and democratic (Burge, 1994; Eastmond, 1997; Halsted, Hayes, Reising, & Billings, 1995; Klemm, 1998; Lauzon, 1992; Maloney, 1999). Students report that they experience increased ownership of their learning as well as increased opportunity and motivation to participate in classroom discussion. However, it may be that online students differ from traditional students in learning style, motivation, and a number of other factors. For example, while Schulman and Sims (1999) found that online students were similar to traditional students on posttests in five undergraduate level courses, the online students scored significantly higher than the traditional students on pretests for the same courses.

In this study, we surveyed online instructors to get additional insights into specific advantages and disadvantages of online instructional delivery. We were especially interested in these instructors' perceptions of the effectiveness of their approach to online teaching with respect to student learning. We specifically addressed what these instructors reported about how their roles differed from a traditional classroom, personalization and inclusiveness, personal demands of online courses, and use of technology.

Method

We surveyed interactive online course instructors using a web-based protocol. We contacted 154 online instructors in higher education who were teaching at five universities in the western United States. Contact was made by email; we invited them to participate in the study and included a link to the survey. One hundred four instructors (response rate of 69%) responded to the survey. The survey contained both open-ended and fixed-response questions.

Respondents represented 12 disciplines including such areas as health, special education, statistics, research methods, psychology, and adult education. 64% of the courses taught were graduate courses; 36% were undergraduate courses. Approximately 50% of the instructors were teaching online for the first time. 18% had taught the course twice and the remainder had taught it as many as 11 times. Most instructors (85%) reported they had taught the same course in a traditional classroom. The average class size for the online courses was 22.1 (SD=10.7).

We asked instructors about the course pace and instructional tools used in the online course. Most instructors said that they used interval deadlines throughout the course, rather than offering a self-paced course or one that was tightly controlled. All instructors used email and 94% of the instructors used threaded discussions. Other tools used were: webliographies (66%), slide shows (55%), chatrooms (52%), audio clips (49%), document sharing (47%), video clips (42%), searchable databases (27%), and web boards (21%).

Results

Instructors responded to our queries by discussing issues regarding changing roles, personalization and inclusiveness, and the personal demands of online courses.

Changing Role of Instructors

Instructors reported that the flexibility inherent in online courses had both positive and negative effects. Most instructors (n=74) appreciated the flexibility that delivery of online courses offered for their own time management. They liked the freedom of communicating with students when and where they wanted rather than keeping regular office hours. One instructor commented, "I like the autonomy I have as I teach it (online course). I can go on vacation, be at home, in my office, work in the middle of the night and still be teaching." Flexibility in online teaching also allowed instructors to arrange for large uninterrupted time blocks for research. However, some

instructors (n=24) viewed the broad flexibility of communication as a burden. Most instructors (n=84) reported spending slightly to significantly more time preparing for online courses than for traditional courses. A few (n=9) reported they felt as if they were "on call" all day, seven days a week and that the students seemed to expect immediate responses to their email communications.

Personalization and Inclusiveness

Instructors reported that they facilitated individual learning to a greater degree in online courses than traditional courses. One instructor reported, "I became more of a facilitator and trouble shooter. Students were encouraged to learn more on their own." Another stated, "I am much more of a guide rather than one who shares knowledge-I had to give up control." A substantial number of instructors (n=61) commented that online courses put the students much more in charge of their own learning. One instructor put it this way, "I became more of a facilitator and a lurker. I just designed the environment-the course became much more the students'." Many instructors (n=55) seemed comfortable with this changing role and even felt it was easier to monitor student progress and guide learning in an online environment.

Instructors (n=90) agreed that the lack of face-to-face interaction with students was a problem. They struggled to communicate certain things: a sense of humor, concern for student learning, warmth and friendliness, and motivation to learn. They felt that the online environment is "cold and distant" and that instructors "need to work harder to humanize online courses." Yet, they appreciated the personalization that seems to be a natural outcome of the asynchronous instructional environment.

Many instructors (n=48) reported that the frequency and intensity of one-to-one contact was much higher in online courses compared to traditional courses. Even though the interaction between students and instructors appeared to be focused more on the substantive nature of the course material and less on building instructor-student and student-student relationships, instructors felt that online courses are very student oriented. In fact, because students received more personalized feedback, instructors perceived that learning is about the same when online students are compared to traditional students.

Threaded discussions are superior to traditional in-class discussions if planned carefully and moderated thoughtfully, according to many instructors (n=39). They can elicit more thoughtful comments (more detailed, insightful, and thought-out) as well as more inclusive participation. Many instructors (n=31) felt that the online environment encourages normally reticent students, such as international students, to express themselves more openly. They felt that ALL students can be, and usually are, involved in the discussions. When instructors were asked about how they would rate the amount of student interaction, compared to a traditional class, they felt that interaction was much greater in the online environment.

Personal demands of online courses

According to the instructors we surveyed, both students and instructors must be acutely aware of their responsibilities for student learning within the online environment. Some instructors (n=27) discussed the difficulty of giving up control in the classroom. They could no longer deliver lengthy lectures, choose the direction and timing of discussions, or make significant changes in the structure of the course after it had begun. They noted that if they did a thorough job of preparation prior to the start of the course and created a structured environment, the students took ownership of the course and became active learners. Unfortunately, this did not work for every student. Some students were unable to be self-motivated, assertive, or prepared to keep up with the demands of an online course. Some instructors (n=11) reported that they had to constantly remind students of their responsibilities every step of

the way and that students had to be encouraged to work on their own. Others (n=15) said that students were naturally more independent and that much of the learning was assisted by other students.

A major demand of online courses is the volume of email communications. Most instructors (n=89) reported extensive use of email in their online courses and saw it as "both a curse and a blessing," according to one instructor. They liked the speed of communicating using email and the convenience of receiving student assignments as attachments, but disliked student expectations that grading be done quickly. According to one instructor "[it takes] too much time to answer all the questions and keep people feeling like they are getting sufficient reinforcement."

Meeting the demands of an online course appeared to be a primary issue for the instructors. While they agreed that it was important to interact one-on-one with students, they also felt discouraged by the amount of time this required, especially writing and responding to email. Instructors repeatedly emphasized the importance of developing the entire course before it begins, yet felt overwhelmed by the task. The outcome of excellent planning in advance is that, during the course, the instructor can concentrate efforts on facilitating student learning. However, some instructors questioned whether the long-term rewards were worth the enormous time commitment.

Use of Technology

A number of instructors (n=40) lamented the lack of technology skills on the part of some students, such as sending attachments via email or searching for websites. One instructor suggested including detailed instructions and examples for such processes early in the course. Being able to locate a source for technical help is crucial for students. Another instructor advised that it is "critical to solve individual problems and glitches in the delivery system."

Advice about technology use was similar for both students and instructors who are considering online courses. While it seems obvious that participants in the online learning environment should be competent in their use of technology tools, have up-to-date equipment, and have resources to help with problems, the online instructors felt that many students and instructors did not consider these issues sufficiently before choosing to participate in an online course.

Conclusion

Online instructors described how their roles are changed in the online environment, the ways in which they can personalize a course and include all students, the demands of online teaching that differ from traditional classes, and the difficulties they encountered with technology. Nearly all instructors reported that asynchronous electronic communication was both an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage was the convenience of communication being able to take place at any time. The disadvantage was that communication was often one-on-one and was extremely time consuming. At the same time, the one-on-one communication helped to personalize the instruction for students. Student participation often increased (more students and more involvement from each) as students enjoyed the personal interaction with the instructor. The online classroom provided increased equal opportunities for student participation; the online environment was seen as a more democratic and inclusive learning context compared to the traditional classroom. Additionally, the ability to offer immediate feedback, such as tests that are scored online, allowed the students to feel much more in control of their own learning. Instructors discussed the difficulty of completely developing a course prior to delivery, as well as trying to balance the time demands for both instructors and students. Technology problems contributed to the difficulty of teaching and learning in the online environment. Students and instructors need to use up-to-date equipment and need to know how to use it before attempting an online course. Finally, the role of the instructor in an online learning environment has shifted from a teacher-lecturer to a teacher-facilitator. The instructors reported that students are increasingly engaged and involved in their own teaching and learning.

Our study extends the findings of others, such as Burge (1994), Eastmond (1997), Halsted, Hayes, Reising, and Billings (1995), Klemm (1998), Lauzon (1992), and Maloney (1999). The online environment can produce learning on par with learning in traditional courses. Students can be much more in control of their own learning. Instructors who plan well to create a structured course will very likely enjoy the benefits: students will appreciate the organization and they will experience success in their learning. Seemingly, the greatest disadvantage of online coursework is the issue of time. Clearly, online instruction demands a huge time commitment from instructors and students. However, the benefit of flexibility seems to balance this negative consequence. In addition, technology problems can completely prevent an online course from being effective.

The online instructors in our study strongly recommended that online course participants be technologically savvy and up-to-date. They reported that their courses were effective when they:

   1. thoroughly developed the course up-front;

   2. communicated with students frequently, consistently, and individually;

   3. used the flexibility inherent in an online course to their advantage;

   4. allowed students to be in control of their own learning;

   5. encouraged consistent and high quality participation and interaction.

The instructors in our study also had concerns and advice about teaching online. They suggested that instructors or students who are considering teaching or learning in the online environment consider the following issues:

   1. Be prepared to assume a different role than in a traditional classroom.

   2. Develop a plan to facilitate email communication without it becoming an
   undue burden to the instructor and students.

   3. Deal with technology problems early or prior to beginning the course.

As the demand for online courses continues to increase, more pressure will be placed on higher education institutions to support their effective delivery. An effective online course requires a different approach to its development and delivery than a traditional course. Instructors and students are finding their roles changing and new skills are required to be successful in the online environment.

References

Bjorner, S. (1993). The virtual college classroom. Link-up, 10, 21-23.

Burge, E.J. (1994). Learning in computer conference contexts: The learners' perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9 (1), 19-43.

Eastmond, D. V. (1997). Alone but together: adult distance study through computer conferencing. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Incorporated.

Gubernick, L. and Ebeling, A. (1997). I got my degree through E-mail. Forbes, 159, 84-92.

Halstead, J., Hayes, R., Reising, D., and Billings, D.M. (1995). Nursing student information network: Fostering collegial communications using a computer conference. Computers in Nursing, 13 (2), 55-59.

Klemm, W. R. (1998). Using computer conferencing in teaching. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22 (5), 507-518.

Lauzon, A. C. (1992). Integrating computer-based instruction with computer conferencing: An evaluation of a model for designing online education. American Journal of Distance Education, 6 (2), 32-46.

Maloney, W. A. (1999). Mortar campuses go online. Academe (85), p. 19-24.

McCollum, K. (1997). A professor divides his class in two to test value of online instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education, 43, 23.

Online educational opportunities boom with the Internet (July, 1999), PC World, Internet/Web/Online Service Information.

Ritchie, D. C. & Hoffman, B. (1996). Using instructional design principles to amplify learning on the world wide web [On-line]. Available: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/DCD/WWWinstrdesign /WWWinstrDesign.html.

Rumble, G. (1986). The planning and management of distance education. London: Droom Helm.

Schulman, A. H. & Sims, R. L. (1999). Learning in an online format versus an in-class format: An experimental study, THE Journal, 26 (11), 54.

Smith, S. B. (1999). The effectiveness of traditional instructional methods in an online learning environment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (09A), 3330, [Electronic Retrieval].

Thormann, J. (1999, February). Rewards and regrets: An on-line technology in Education Master's Degree Program. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Velsmid, D. A. (1997). The electronic classroom. Link-up, 14, 32-33.

Zhang, P. (1998). A case study on technology use in distance learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30 (4), 398-419.

Suzanne, Associate Professor, teaches research methods, statistics, and measurement courses in the College of Education. Pamela, Assistant Professor, teaches mathematics and science methods courses in the teacher education program and research methods at the graduate level. Dale, Professor and Department Head, Department of Applied Statistics and Research Methods, teaches research methods and statistics courses in the College of Education