Tracing Successful Online Teaching in Higher Education: Voices of Exemplary Online Teachers

Abstract

Background

Although advances in distance learning have shown signs of a reconfiguration of the teacher's role in online environments, a large number of online teaching practices still do not show many signs of this shift. Given the need for a change in pedagogies, investigating how exemplary teachers transfer their thinking, pedagogical knowledge, and beliefs to successful online teaching is critical to understanding new online learning and teaching practices. The research on online teacher roles and practices, however, has been limited in terms of bringing teachers’ voices into the research process and empowering them as autonomous professionals who constantly engage in a dialogue about solving complex problems and making decisions about online teaching.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this research was to look at exemplary online teachers’ transition to online teaching with a focus on their successful practices. The research investigated two central questions: (1) What are the successful practices that exemplary online teachers employ in their online teaching? (2) How do exemplary online teachers make a transition to online teaching in such a way that they create successful practices?

Research Design

The study followed a qualitative multiple-case study approach examining six different cases of exemplary online teachers and their teaching contexts within a large research university in the Midwestern United States. Using multiple cases allowed for comparison of similar and contrasting online teaching situations and conditions within the university's different colleges.

Participants, Data Collection, and Analysis

The data sources of the study consisted of (1) semistructured interviews conducted with six online program coordinators to collect contextual information and gather nominations for successful online teachers in each college, and (2) ethnographic interviews conducted with 6 online teachers nominated as exemplary to gather teacher-expressed needs, knowledge, and successful practices. Within- and cross-case analyses were conducted to generate codes and identify the similarities and differences across the cases as well as common themes.

Conclusions/Recommendations

The findings of this study indicated that when teachers described their successful practices, they often linked them to their changing roles and new representation of their “selves” within an online environment. Their portrayal of the teacher self, both built on a plethora of previous experiences and reformed with the affordances and limitations of the online environment, went through a process whereby teachers were constantly challenged to make themselves heard, known, and felt by their students. This study showed that it was critical to listen to teachers’ voices and give them a participatory role in the creation and use of their knowledge and experience in order to form their online teacher personas. As a result, programs that prepare faculty to teach online may need to encourage teachers to reflect on their past experiences, assumptions, and beliefs toward learning and teaching and transform their perspectives by engaging in pedagogical inquiry and problem solving.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

, & Seaman

(2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: Sloan-C Consortium. Retrieved fromhttp://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/online_nation

Anangnostopoulos

, Basmadjian

K. G.

, & McCrory

R. S.

(2005). The decentered teacher and the construction of social space in the virtual classroom. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 1699–1724.

Anderson

, Rourke

, Garrison

, & Archer

(2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.

Baker

, & Woods

(2004). Immediacy, cohesiveness, and the online classroom. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(2), 133–151.

Baran

, & Correia

A. P.

(2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30(3), 339–361.

Baran

, Correia

A. P.

, & Thompson

(2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439.

Bennett

, & Lockyer

(2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed environment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International, 41(3), 231–248.

Berge

(2009). Changing instructor's roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 407–415.

Berge

, & Collins

(2000). Perceptions of E-moderators about their roles and functions in moderating electronic mailing lists. Distance Education, 21(1), 81–100.

10.

Conceição

(2006). Faculty lived experiences in the online environment. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(1), 26–45.

11.

Conrad

(2004). University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 31–44.

12.

Coppola

, Hiltz

, & Rotter

(2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169–189.

13.

Cormier

, & Siemens

(2010). Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning, and engagement. Educause Review, 45(4), 30–39.

14.

Dennen

V. P.

(2007). A chorus of online voices: Reflections on the future of online instruction. In Spector

J. M.

(Ed.), Finding your online voice: Stories told by experienced online educators (pp. 183–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Garrison

, & Anderson

(2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

16.

Goodyear

, Salmon

, Spector

, Steeples

, & Tickner

(2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72.

17.

Gorsky

, & Blau

(2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two instructors. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/712

18.

Graham

, Cagiltay

, Lim

, Craner

, & Duffy

(2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source. Retrieved from http://www.technologysource.org/article/seven_principles_of_effec-tive_teaching/

19.

Guasch

, Alvarez

, & Espasa

(2010). University teacher competencies in a virtual teaching/learning environment: Analysis of a teacher training experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 199–206.

20.

Hativa

, Barak

, & Simhi

(2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699–729.

21.

Hislop

, & Ellis

(2004). A study of faculty effort in online teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 15–31.

22.

Kanuka

, Collett

, & Caswell

(2002). University instructor perceptions of the use of asynchronous text-based discussion in distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 151–167.

23.

Knowlton

D. S.

(2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A defense and delineation of a student centered pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(84), 5–14.

24.

Koehler

, & Mishra

(2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Kreber

, & Kanuka

(2006). The scholarship of teaching and learning and the online classroom. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32(2), 109–131.

26.

Laat

, Lally

, Lipponen

, & Simons

(2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multimethod approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35(3), 257–286.

27.

Lao

, & Gonzales

(2005). Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and studentsí experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 459–474.

28.

LaPointe

, & Gunawardena

(2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer-mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83–106.

29.

Lee

M.-H.

, & Tsai

C.-C.

(2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21.

30.

Levine

, & Sun

(2002). Barriers to distance education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

31.

Lincoln

, & Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

32.

Major

(2010). Do virtual professors dream of electric students? College faculty experiences with online distance education. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 2154–2208.

33.

Markoff

(2011, August 15). Virtual and artificial, but 58,000 want course. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/science/16stanford.html

34.

McKenzie

, Mims

, Bennett

, & Waugh

(2000). Needs, concerns and practices of online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/fall33/mckenzie33.html

35.

McShane

(2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–16.

36.

Mehrabian

(1971). Silent messages. Wadsworth, CA: Belmont.

37.

Miles

, & Huberman

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Natriello

(2005). Modest changes, revolutionary possibilities: Distance learning and the future of education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1885–1904.

39.

Perlman

H. H.

(1986). Persona: Social role and personality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

40.

Richardson

, & Swan

(2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to studentsí perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.

41.

Russo

, & Benson

(2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 54–62.

42.

Salmon

(2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.

43.

Samarawickrema

, & Stacey

(2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education, 28(3), 313–333.

44.

Schrum

, & Hong

(2002). Dimensions and strategies for online success: Voices from experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 57–67.

45.

Smith

(2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction. Journal of Educators Online, 2(2), 1–18.

46.

Spradley

(1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

47.

Thurmond

, Wambach

, Connors

, & Frey

(2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 169–190.

48.

Van der Werf

, & Sabatier

(2009). The college of 2020: Students. Washington, DC: Chronicle Research Services, Chronicle of Higher Education.

49.

Visser

(2000). Faculty work in developing and teaching web-based distance courses: A case study of time and effort. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 21–32.

50.

Yin

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.