As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, college and university faculty have been tasked with moving their courses toward online modalities with minimal notice. This environment challenged faculty in unique ways, but the need for transparency and communication became more important than ever. To improve the student experience, faculty should consider adapting their strategies to accommodate the online space. Using critical analysis, this piece addresses specific steps faculty can take to improve the transition toward online teaching. These steps include increased access to the instructor and online learning materials, adapting course materials and syllabi, and acceptance of perceived failure.
ArbaughJ. B. (2001). How instructional immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 42–54.
2.
ChesebroJ. L.McCroskeyJ. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59–68.
3.
DalsgaardC.PaulsenM. F. (2009). Transparency in cooperative online education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–22.
4.
DixsonM. D.GreenwellM. R.Rogers-StacyC.WeisterT.LauerS. (2017). Nonverbal immediacy behaviors and online student engagement: Bringing past instructional research into the present virtual classroom. Communication Education, 66(1), 37–53.
5.
DumbrăveanuA. (2019). The metamorphoses of media communication in the digital age. International Journal of Communication Research, 9(2), 159–165.
HartZ. P. (2014). Hybrid online teaching: Pathway to success for “traditional” universities. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 33(1), 40–51.
8.
hooksb. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
9.
KleinmanS. (2005). Strategies for encouraging active learning, interaction, and academic integrity in online courses. Communication Teacher, 19(1), 13–18.
10.
LoseyJ. (2015). Surveillance of communications: A legitimation crisis and the need for transparency. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3450–3459.
11.
LuB.FanW.ZhouM. (2016). Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 225–237.
12.
McGeeP.ReisA. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16, 7–22.
13.
RichA. (1979). Claiming an education. In RichA (Ed.), On lies, secrets, and silence (pp. 608–613). W.W. Norton.
14.
SamarasA. P.Adams-LeggeM.BreslinD.MittapalliK.Magaha O’LooneyJ.WilcoxD. R. (2007). Building a plane while flying it: Reflections of teaching and learning self-study. Reflective Practice, 8(4), 467–481.
15.
ShortJ.WilliamsE.ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.
16.
TuC. H.McIsaacM. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 131–150.
17.
VandenbergA. (2005). Learning how to engage students online in hard times. Education and Information Technologies, 10(1/2), 31–47.
18.
VanHornS.WardS. M.WeismannK. M.CrandallH.ReuleJ.LeonardR. (2019). On teaching (communication) through active learning. Communication Research Trends, 38(3), 3–4.
19.
VioletteJ. L.FitchF. (2006). Teaching hybrid communication courses online: Like riding a wave. The Kentucky Journal of Communication, 25(2), 201–213.
20.
WorleyD. W.ChesebroJ. W. (2002). Goading the discipline towards unity: Teaching communication in an internet environment—A policy research analysis. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 171–191.
