MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching |
Vol. 2,
No. 4, December 2006
|
|
An Examination of Online
Instructor Presence via
Threaded Discussion Participation
B. Jean
Mandernach
Associate Professor of Psychology
Park
University
Parkville, MO
USA
jean.mandernach@park.edu
R. M. Gonzales
Assistant Professor
College for Distance Learning
Park University
Parkville, MO
USA
roxanne.gonzales@park.edu
Amanda L.
Garrett
Graduate Student
Department of Educational Psychology
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
Lincoln, NE
USA
amandalgarrett@gmail.com
Abstract
Central to
the effectiveness of online learning is the issue of instructor
presence and the role of interactivity in establishing this
presence. Though the literature clearly supports the need for
instructors’ active engagement in online courses, concrete
standards and expectations for guiding this interaction are
lacking. The purpose of the current study is to examine faculty
perceptions regarding the extent to which instructor
interactivity, operationalized as participation in online
threaded discussions, should be evaluated and regulated in order
to establish clear benchmarks and expectations for instructor
presence in the online classroom. Feedback from online
instructors revealed little agreement among experienced online
instructors in the extent to which the quality and frequency of
online instructor interaction should be monitored and/or
evaluated. The implications of these findings suggest that
institutions must establish clear standards for instructor
interaction, as well as criteria for evaluation of instructor
engagement, in order to guide faculty concerning best practices
in online learning.
Keywords:
Evaluation
of Online Teaching, Best Practices in Online Instruction,
Faculty Roles, Philosophy of Teaching, Asynchronous Learning
Tools, Discussion Strategies
Introduction
As the
number of online classes continues to grow, increasing numbers
of faculty are engaging in this type of instruction. It is,
therefore, essential to provide guidance to these professionals
on the expectations and evaluative standards for online
instructional activities. One of the unique aspects of online
education is that an instructor’s engagement with a course
cannot be measured by the benchmarks typically used in
face-to-face classes. As there is generally no established
“class time” for an online course, evaluative strategies
relevant to a classroom observation or peer review must be
modified to be amenable to the unique context of asynchronous,
virtual education. The purpose of this study is to examine
faculty perceptions regarding the extent to which instructor
interactivity, operationalized as participation in online
threaded discussions, should be evaluated and regulated in order
to establish clear benchmarks and expectations for instructor
presence in the online classroom.
Instructor
presence is a key element in the distinction between online and
face-to-face education. Online instructors need to be “seen” in
order to be perceived by their students as present in the course
just as do face-to-face course instructors. Traditional
instructors are able to utilize their physical presence as a
signal of their active involvement with a class. This presence
is easily established by physical proximity in face-to-face
settings; once an instructor enters the classroom, their
presence is not questioned regardless of the nature of the
interactions, or the lack thereof. In contrast, online
instructors must actively participate in the course to
avoid the perception of being invisible or absent (Picciano,
2002). Three key issues have
been identified in relation to the idea of instructor presence:
teaching presence, instructor immediacy, and social
presence.
Instructor
Presence in the Online Classroom
Teaching
presence
involves
frequent and effective interaction with the course instructor.
Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer (2001) define teaching
presence as “the design, facilitation, and direction of
cognitive and social processes for the realization of personally
meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (p.
5). Based upon this conceptualization, a three-part model of
teaching presence was created to highlight important components
for establishing teaching presence: 1) instructional design, 2)
facilitating discourse, and 3) direct instruction (Garrison,
Anderson, & Archer, 2000).
Within this
structure, instructional design emphasizes course
organization and includes setting curriculum, establishing time
parameters, and laying out netiquette criteria. Facilitating
discourse centers on the identification of areas of
agreement/disagreement, seeking to reach
consensus and understanding,
encouraging/acknowledging/reinforcing student contributions,
setting the climate for learning, and drawing in participants
and prompting discussion. Supplementing these components,
direct instruction focuses on the presentation of content
and questions, summarizing discussion, confirming
understanding, diagnosing
misperceptions, injecting knowledge, and responding to technical
questions/concerns.
A test of
the three-part model revealed that facilitation of discourse and
instructional design are particularly important for establishing
a clear teaching presence. A visibly active instructor and
quality course design were found to be related to students’
sense of “connectedness” and “learning” in the online
environment. Thus, teacher presence (especially exemplified
through course design and facilitation) has a powerful effect on
student perceptions of support and inclusiveness as well as
overall satisfaction with the course (Shea,
Swan, Li, & Pickett, 2005).
Instructor immediacy
refers to the behaviors that enhance closeness and nonverbal
interaction
with another (Meharabian, 1969 as cited in Hutchins, 2003).
Gorham (1988) further classified instructor immediacy into two
groups, verbal and nonverbal immediacy. Verbal immediacy actions
include humor, frequent use of student names, encouragement of
discussion, encouraging future contact with students, and
sharing personal examples; nonverbal immediacy involves smiling,
eye contact, vocal expression, and gestures/body movements. In
the physically isolated setting of distance education, verbal
immediacy takes precedent and is a key factor in establishing
online instructor presence.
The final
component of instructor presence, social presence,
is the “degree of salience of the other person in the (mediated)
interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal
relationships” (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976, p. 65).
Richardson and Swan (2003) found significant positive
correlations between students’ social presence scores and
perceived learning as well as between students’ social presence
scores and perceptions of instructor presence.
Thus, students scoring high
in social presence felt they gained more from the class and had
a more positive impression of their course instructor.
Additionally, students believed they learned more from the class
when they were satisfied with the perceived availability of
their course instructor.
Instructor
Presence and Student Learning
Regardless
of the learning environment (traditional classroom or online),
the classroom setting plays a role in the overall success of the
learner. But establishing a positive climate in online
classrooms may be more challenging due to the reliance of this
setting on technologically mediated interaction rather than more
personal human dynamics. Galbraith (2004) states that “…it is a
real challenge for teachers to develop an appropriate setting
for learners that allows for full engagement in learning and
encourages persistence toward meaningful action…” (p.15). As
such, online instructors have a responsibility for setting the
tone and climate of the overall learning environment through
their engagement in the course. The active participation of
online instructors fosters increased student participation
which, in turn, enhances and motivates student learning. The
increased activity serves to create a positive attitude in the
classroom, establishes meaning through dialog, and
ensures content competence (Wlodkowski, 2004). An instructor’s
active participation in the online classroom helps establish a
positive classroom environment which becomes a meaningful
learning community.
Learning
communities include all participants, student and instructor;
the instructor however, sets the climate and ensures that “a
community of learning is people-centered, and through dialog,
discussion, and sharing, learners have the opportunity to
connect with others…” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007,
p. 193). Instructor presence affects student learning in the
online environment by assisting in the creation of a community
in which students can “co-construct knowledge and to share
classroom authority” (Bruffee, 1999, as cited in Smith, 2005, p.
193). Online instructor participation is therefore is vital in
the overall success of student learning and development of a
learning community which fosters student growth and a positive
classroom climate.
Enhancing
Online Instructor Presence
Instructor presence can be enhanced through a series of roles
online instructors take on as a component of good
teaching practice. Emphasizing the roles of online instructors
as “multidimensional,” “active,” and “evolving,” online
instructors embody various roles as a part of a “dynamic
continuum” in which roles are progressively developed, malleable
and shifting in response to the instructional demands of the
classroom (Heuer & King, 2004). Heuer and King (2004) identified
five specific roles that online instructors can utilize to
foster a sense of instructor presence in their courses:
·
Planner
emphasizes
course management including clarity of expectations and
technology troubleshooting;
·
Modeling
is used as a guide to
model expected behaviors and interactions;
·
Coaching
provides student encouragement,
motivation, and support;
taking on
the dual roles of teacher and learner to allow others the
opportunity to shamily: Arial">Communicator
responds promptly to student concerns and creates
a climate of open communication.
Savery
(2005) conceptualized a variety of characteristics for
successful online instructors with a model called VOCAL:
visible, organized, compassionate, analytical, and
leader-by-example. While
several of these characteristics are relevant to the
establishment of instructor presence, central to the issue is
the importance of visibility and
leadership. There are a number of strategies for increasing
instructor visibility in the online classroom: inclusion of a
personal website, email messages sent to students, synchronous
chat, announcements on the homepage, updates to the course
calendar, video/audio messages, and active participation in
threaded discussions.
Instructors
can demonstrate leadership in their course by modeling
appropriate interactions, establishing clear requirements, and
setting the tone for the course. Gallimore and Tharp (1990)
suggest the instructor model desired behaviors, reward positive
actions, and provide students’ timely, detailed feedback on
their coursework. Additional strategies for instructor
leadership include course
introductions (instructor shares a personal introduction so
students feel they too can describe themselves to their
classmates), follow-through with promises, and use of both
public and private communication methods (discussions, email).
Instructor
Interaction as a Component of Instructor Presence
As
highlighted by previous research, one of the key means by which
an instructor establishes presence in the online classroom is
via their ongoing interactions. Online interactivity has been
defined in a number of ways: two-way communication, dynamic
interactions, or simply as engagement in learning (Northrup,
2002; Smith & Winking -Diaz, 2004). While there are a variety of
forms of interaction found in most online courses (i.e.,
learner-instructor,
learner-learner, learner-course content, etc.), most
relevant to the discussion of instructor presence is the
interaction between the instructor and the students that occurs
within the online course
(Chou, 2003; Moore, 1989;
Smith & Winking-Diaz, 2004; Su, Bonk, Liu & Lee, 2005).
The
literature has clearly established the importance of ongoing
interaction as a vital component contributing to the quality of
instruction in asynchronous, online courses (Muirhead, 2001 as
cited in Smith & Winking-Diaz, 2004). As such, many online
courses utilize asynchronous discussion boards to facilitate
interactivity and promote active engagement with course
material. To take advantage of the instructional benefits
available through discussion boards, the instructor must fulfill
a number of roles: questioning, listening, and responding. The
importance of an instructor’s active, timely involvement in
discussion boards is a critical component of the online learning
experience (Northrup, 2002) as students gauge the importance and
relevance of the discussion board by the instructor’s level of
participation (Schulte, 2004).
In an
examination of the impact of instructor presence, Blignaut and
Trollip (2003) found that instructors are not responsive enough;
as such, they recommended that online instructors would benefit
from increasing their overall participation in discussions.
Based on these findings, Blignaut and Trollip proposed a
taxonomy of faculty participation in online discussions. The
model categorizes online instructor discussion postings into six
groups: three focusing on course content (corrective,
informative, and Socratic) and three which pertain to other
aspects of instruction (administration, affective, and other).
While the implementation of the various categories of postings
will be determined by the relevant instructional goals and
learning activity, the prevailing message is that active
participation in online discussion threads (regardless of
purpose or intent) increases instructor presence in the course
which can have a positive impact on both student learning and
student satisfaction.
Conclusions
and Purpose
Central to
the effectiveness of online learning is the issue of instructor
presence and the role of interactivity in establishing this
presence. Though the literature clearly supports the need for an
instructor’s active engagement in online courses, concrete
standards and expectations for guiding this interaction are
lacking. Despite the development of rubrics for evaluating the
levels of interactivity as a function of course design and
function (see Roblyer & Wiencke, 2004), little information
exists to provide a guiding consensus on how much instructor
interaction is required to take advantage of the pedagogical
benefits of online threaded discussions. As such, an ongoing
challenge is the establishment of online instructional
interactivity standards and best practices as well as the
relevant evaluative processes to monitor these expectations.
As
highlighted by Northrup (2002), a delicate balance of
interactivity must be struck: too much interaction causes
students to feel
overburdened, whereas too little interaction may make students
feel isolated. Similarly, an examination of student
perceptions of interactivity in online courses are diverse and
may be based on personality traits and learning styles; while
some students request a need for more
interactions among each
other and with their instructor, others perceive themselves
as individual learners (Su, Bonk, Magjuka, Liu, & Lee, 2005).
Online instructors believe interaction (among students and
between students and the instructor) is an important element in
quality instruction. Unfortunately, many instructors do not feel
they have the skills or expertise to increase interactivity in
their courses (2005).
The purpose
of this study is to examine faculty perceptions regarding the
extent to which instructor interactivity, operationalized as
participation in online threaded discussions, should be
evaluated and regulated in order to establish clear benchmarks
and expectations for instructor presence in the online
classroom. It is important to note that an examination of
faculty’s investment in threaded discussions is only one aspect
of instructor presence in an online course; there are
undoubtedly many other ways of establishing instructional
presence (i.e., announcements, online lectures, grading,
feedback, etc.). But, the popularity of threaded discussions as
the primary tool of asynchronous interaction within most online
course management systems mandates closer exploration of the use
of this important pedagogical feature.
Method
Participants
Participants
included 96 online faculty members from a large distance
learning program based in the Midwest. All participants were
experienced online instructors and indicated a minimum of one
year of online teaching experience, with an average of 3.5 years
of online experience. Seventeen percent of participants were
full-time faculty while the remaining participants were adjunct
instructors. Faculty represented a range of disciplines: social
sciences (26%), natural sciences (13%), education (4%), liberal
arts (4%), business (41%) and technology (12%). All instructors
reported teaching a minimum of one undergraduate course online;
11% indicated teaching responsibilities at the graduate level as
well. For the purposes of this survey, participants were asked
to report their attitudes and views concerning undergraduate
online education only. All online classes being taught by
participants were offered in an accelerated, 8-week format. No
information was collected on age, gender or ethnicity of
participants.
Materials
and Procedures
An email
message (asking a series of questions concerning instructor
views on online learning, faculty evaluation and course
standards) was sent to all faculty (N=368) currently teaching an
undergraduate online course. The resultant 96 respondents
indicates a 26% response rate which qualifies as an acceptable
response rate for email surveys (Sheehan, 2001). Relevant to the
purpose of this study, the following questions were selected for
inclusion in the analysis:
-
Should the
university require faculty to actively participate in online
course threaded discussions? Explain.
-
How
frequently should online instructors be required to actively
participate in the online classroom?
-
Should
faculty be evaluated on the quality of their posts in
course-specific threaded discussions? Explain.
Individuals
electing to respond to the online survey questions were
instructed to reply to the email. Responses were not anonymous
as per the nature of email interactions. Upon receipt of email
responses, personal identifiers were removed and data was
compiled into a coded file. A content analysis was conducted to
identify common themes in the data. Following traditional
exploratory content analysis guidelines (Auerbach & Silverstein,
2003), responses were coded and categorized based on emerging
trends.
Results
An
examination of faculty perceptions concerning the requirement of
faculty to actively participate in the assigned threaded
discussions in the online classroom found that 77% of
respondents support mandatory instructor participation, while
23% were opposed to university regulations on their facilitation
of threaded discussions. Of those 23% of instructors who were
opposed to requirements on instructor participation, 62% believe
that instructors should participate in the threaded
discussions but that this interaction should occur at the choice
and discretion of the instructor rather than in response to a
regulation on teaching. A content analysis of the open-ended
responses revealed three themes in relation to mandatory faculty
participation: concerns about university regulation, instructor
freedom, and instructional quality.
Results of
faculty’s perceptions of the ideal frequency of required
discussion postings revealed little agreement among these
professionals. As indicated in Figure 1, great variety existed
in the instructor’s replies. These responses ranged from 23% of
instructors who believed there should be no requirements for
instructor participation to 10% who felt that instructors should
be required to participate in the discussions 2 or more times
per day. Mediating this discrepancy, 23% believed that
discussion interaction should be required daily while 25%
indicated that faculty should only be required to participate 3
days per week. It should be noted that these frequencies were
based on a traditional 7-day, weekly schedule for an 8-week
accelerated course.
Figure 1. Frequency of reported instructor participation
requirements for threaded discussions
An
examination of whether or not faculty should be evaluated on the
quality of their interactions within an online course threaded
discussion revealed considerable variability in instructors’
perceptions with 41% supporting, 24% opposed and 35% unwilling
to take a position either for or against this practice. An
analysis of the open-ended responses found two common trends:
importance of instructional quality and concerns about the
subjectivity of this type of evaluation.
Discussion
Requirement
of Participation
A clear
majority of respondents believe that online instructors’
participation in the online course discussion threads is
essential. Interestingly, while the majority of respondents
supported university mandates to prompt this interaction; even
those opposed to regulated participation seemed to support the
necessity of an instructor’s active participation in the online
course. Rather, the argument was not that instructors shouldn’t
participate, but that this participation shouldn’t have to be
regulated by the institution. This sentiment was summarized by
one instructor, who stated,
Instructor
interaction is obviously a key factor in an effective online
learning experience. As such, my opposition to regulation is
based not on a theoretical disagreement with the need for
instructor participation; rather, it is a philosophical argument
about the role of the university in policing and mandating
instructional expectations of those they have endorsed and hired
as experts to teach the course.
A closer
examination of the open-ended responses provides additional
insight into faculty concerns about institutional standards for
an instructor’s participation in online discussion threads.
Three distinct trends surfaced in the content analysis of the
instructors’ rationale used to support these positions:
university regulation, instructor freedom, and instructional
quality.
The dominant
faculty concern with regards to mandating an online instructor’s
participation in discussion threads is that this type of
scrutiny is an inappropriate level of supervision and
regulation. The driving argument is that an instructor’s
interaction in course discussion threads should not be reduced
to a simplistic mandate or universal standard that is imposed
upon instructors. Rather, faculty who were opposed to the
university establishing standards of participation believe that
university regulations should more broadly address instructional
effectiveness, but not evaluate the activities an instructor
engages in to meet this higher goal.
This concern
is particularly problematic as universities attempt to set
benchmarks to guide effective online education. The challenge in
establishing instructional best practices solely focusing on
student learning outcomes is that faculty are not solely
responsible for what students learn; and, thus, cannot be
evaluated solely on the learning demonstrated by their students.
Faculty evaluation systems are derived from a complex equation
balancing instructional best practices with available resources,
institutional climate, accreditation expectations and a host of
other contributing factors. Central to this issue, faculty
evaluation systems are designed to help the university ensure
the effectiveness of their faculty. Leaving the option of
participation in online discussion threads to the discretion of
the instructor exposes institutions to a variety of problems in
maintaining and monitoring the academic quality of online
courses. As a consequence, it becomes particularly challenging
to ensure continuity of academic and intellectual standards
across various sections of a given course, to handle student
complaints about absent instructors, and to address differing
standards between face-to-face and online courses.
A related
concern of faculty was that mandating instructor interaction in
discussion threads may be seen as infringement upon their
freedom to utilize whatever instructional strategies they find
most effective. Fifty-six percent of the nearly one quarter of
instructors who opposed regulations also endorsed that faculty
interaction should be guided by the instructors’ freedom in
selecting the most effective pedagogical techniques to meet the
educational goals of a given threaded discussion as opposed to a
generalized mandate concerning participation. Reflective of this
position, one instructor stated,
The nature
and purpose of any given threaded discussion is going to dictate
the instructor’s role within the conversation. For example, if
the learning objectives relevant to a targeted threaded
discussion are to examine opinions and experiences, then it may
not be appropriate for the instructor to play an active role in
the discussion. Forcing instructors to participate in
discussions, regardless of the instructional value of this
interaction, undermines the nature of effective teaching as well
as minimizes the value of peer-to-peer learning.
Vella (1994)
states, “The dialogue of learning is between two adult subjects:
teacher and student” (p. 13). This dialogue does not change in
online classrooms. If anything, dialogue, operationalized as
active participation in the virtual classroom, becomes more
important. The challenge, it seems, is determining and defining
“active participation” in an online course. While an
instructor’s active participation in online courses is essential
for maintaining ongoing communication and providing a quality
learning environment (Beck & Greive, 2005), it may be that
discussion threads are not always the appropriate forum for
instructional engagement. Best practices would not dispute that
each discipline warrants its own level of interaction based on
the content and level of a given course; but this variability
challenges the establishment of benchmarks for online instructor
interaction. Thus, while instructor presence is clearly
necessary in the online classroom, there is less consensus of
the necessity of instructors’ presence specifically in the
online discussion threads.
Of the
instructors that supported university requirements on faculty
participation in course threaded discussions, 88% indicated that
concrete standards were essential in assuring consistency in the
quality of instruction across the entire online program.
Included within the instructional quality category were
supportive statements targeting the: 1) role of faculty as
guides within the course interaction; 2) need for students to
have expert feedback within the threaded discussions; 3) power
of faculty to stimulate learning through non-scripted
interactions; 4) spontaneous nature of learning that occurs when
faculty challenge students’ beliefs; and 5) need for
documentation of instructional activities within the online
classroom.
As stated by
one instructor, “When you teach in the classroom, you talk; when
you teach online, you participate in threaded discussions. If an
instructor is not participating in the threaded discussions, the
course becomes a correspondence event rather than an online
learning experience.” The importance of instructor interaction
was reflected by another instructor who stated, “At this point
in higher education, online teaching is still novel to many
instructors. As such, it is only reasonable that universities
provide specific guidance and insight on the expectations for
faculty involvement in a course.”
The
instructor who noted that “online teaching is still novel to
many instructors” provides a valid statement concerning the
realities of the online environment for most higher education
faculty. Although online learning has been active since the
early 90s, it is still relatively unfamiliar to most faculty and
is undergoing constant transformation as new technologies evolve
and more research is conducted on how the online environment
affects learning and teaching. The pace of change in technology
requires that structure be in ze: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Faculty
report little consensus concerning the minimum frequency of an
instructor’s required postings in the online discussion threads.
Instructors’ responses range from the belief that there should
be no instructor participation requirements to supporting
twice-a-day mandatory instructor participation.
While the
target question asked faculty for minimum requirements
for threaded discussion participation, many faculty noted that
their responses were based on minimum expectations for
employment as opposed to maximal instructional effectiveness. As
such, some who indicated that the minimum requirements should be
for faculty interaction 3 days-per-week also noted that they
believed faculty should still be participating and interacting
more frequently. As discussed previously, most faculty stated
that frequent interaction was an essential aspect of online
course instruction, and that they were simply hesitant to have
this aspect of their instruction mandated by a simplified count
of the minimal posting requirements or the required number of
days of online course participation.
Faculty
feedback reveals that instructors do not agree on how to define
“active participation.” Yet, the importance of an instructor’s
engagement in an online course cannot be overlooked. Vella
(1994) suggests that learning is an “active process” which
implies engagement of the instructor and student. Research on
student barriers to online learning suggest that “social
interaction is strongly related to online learning, enjoyment,
effectiveness of learning online, and likelihood of taking
another online class” (Muilenburg & Berge, 2005, p.45). Students
will not be retained if the online class is conducted merely as
a correspondence course; learners want what they would normally
have in the face-to-face classroom: interaction between students
and instructors. As such, to promote optimal student learning
and retention, it is critical to establish guiding principles
that drive best practices in online instructor interaction.
Beck and
Greive (2005) provide online instructors suggestions on how to
be successful in online teaching. They stress the need to be an
effective communicator via chat, e-mail, discussion
participation, feedback on assignments, sharing examples, and
instant messaging. While instructor-student communication is
important across all these modes of interaction, threaded
discussions serve as the primary means of whole-class or group
interaction in the online classroom. The use of threaded
discussions provides online instructors a means of engaging
groups of students, fostering peer-to-peer interaction and
developing a cohesive learning community. The result of this
engagement is an enhanced active learning process.
Evaluation
of Participation
Consistent
with the lack of faculty agreement concerning the regulation
instructors’ involvement in online discussion threads, faculty
also disagreed on the extent to which the quality of their
discussion thread postings should be analyzed as a component of
their teaching. Central to faculty concerns was the belief that
instructional effectiveness should drive all benchmarks
concerning when and how an instructor participates in the online
classroom. In addition, faculty expressed apprehension about
being evaluated on something as subjective as the “quality” of
their interactions.
Regardless
of their reported position on evaluating the quality of an
instructor’s participation in the threaded discussion, 81% of
the open-ended responses highlighted the necessity to go beyond
a simple number count of faculty posts to ensure that
instructional interaction was relevant, meaningful and
pedagogically valuable. This perspective was effectively
captured by one instructor who stated,
Anyone can
post X number of times, but this doesn’t ensure that
students are learning anything. Twenty irrelevant interactions
are not nearly as effective for promoting student learning as
one or two insightful, relevant comments or questions that
stimulate critical thinking and active exploration of course
material.
While
faculty generally endorsed the need for an evaluation of
quality, 52% of open-ended responses also highlighted concerns
about the subjective nature of evaluating the quality of faculty
interactions. Specifically, instructors were concerned about the
ability to operationally define “quality interactions” as well
as the ability of evaluators to determine quality standards
across a variable range of disciplines, courses, instructional
styles and educational goals. As one instructor challenged,
Undoubtedly,
quality is of the utmost importance. But, quality is a vague
term that generates more questions than answers. Who determines
quality? Does every interaction have to be of a specific
quality? Can quality vary from one discussion to another? Are
quality posts different from introductory to advanced classes?
Is quality of instructor interaction related to the purpose of
the assignment? What constitutes high quality interactions
compared to low quality interactions?
The
questions posed by the faculty are reflective of the issues that
must be considered when creating guidelines and standards for
online education. As research converges to shape best practices
in online instruction, one must be mindful of the role
instructors will play in facilitating quality online learning
experiences. While, faculty understand the need for evaluation,
there is a concern that the online classroom may lack
“established guidelines or procedures for online teaching” (Spector,
2005, p.17).
It follows
that institutions must apply best practices in online
instruction to create clear protocol to guide and evaluate
online instruction (including expectations for instructor
participation in the online classroom). The implementation of an
online instructor evaluation process that utilizes principles of
effective online teaching (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996) is
central for success in the virtual classroom. As such, an
effective online faculty evaluation system can serve to
simultaneously guide faculty in effective online instructional
practices, evaluate instructional effectiveness and maximize
student learning (for an example of an evaluation system based
on these principles, see Mandernach, Donnelli, Dailey & Schulte,
2005).
Implications
and Future Directions
Discussing
the role of technology in institutions, Duderstadt (1999) states
“The real question is not whether higher education will be
transformed but rather how and by whom” (p. 1). Technology has
become a standard and expectation by today’s learners;
technology is changing the face of education and, consequently,
the role of administrators, instructors, and students. “It could
well be that faculty members of the twenty-first century college
or university will find it necessary to set aside their roles as
teachers and instead become designers of learning experiences,
process, and environments.” (Duderstadt, 1999, p.7). If this is
indeed the case, it is vital that benchmarks are established to
guide instructors through this role transformation. Developing
clear standards for online instructor presence and participation
may be the first step in moving instructors towards a new model
for their role as virtual educators.
Faculty
perceptions regarding the regulation and evaluation of
instructors’ participation in online course threaded discussions
suggested that specific benchmarks regarding time and frequency
of instructor posting in the online classroom may not be as
important as setting professional expectations and communicating
concrete strategies for instructors’ visibility in the online
classroom. Also, it is important to note, that an instructor’s
philosophy regarding course facilitation and the learning
outcomes of the course will mediate all best practice standards
regarding instructor time and presence in the online classroom.
Thus, the focus of faculty education and best practices in this
area must be tailored to balance the need for instructional
presence with the unique demands of each institution.
References
Auerbach,
C.F. & Silverstein, L.B. (2003). Qualitative Data: An
Introduction to Coding and Analysis. New York: New York
University Press.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001).
Assessing teaching presence in a computer
conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 5 (2), 1-17.
Beck, E. &
Greive, D. (2005). Going the distance: A handbook for part-time
& adjunct faculty who teach online. Ann Arbor, MI: Adjunct
Advocate, Inc.
Blignaut, A. S., & Trollip, S. R. (2003).
Measuring faculty participation in asynchronous discussion
forums.
Journal of Education for Business, 78 (6),
347-353.
Chickering,
A. & Ehrmann, S. (1996, October). Implementing the seven
principles: Technology as lever. American Association for
Higher Education Bulletin, 49 (2), 3-6.
Chou, C.
(2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based
learning systems: A technical framework for designers.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (3), 265-279.
Duderstadt,
J.J. (1999). Can colleges and universities survive in the
information age? In Katz, R.N. & Associates (Eds.), Dancing
with the devil: Information technology and the new competition
in higher education (pp. 1 -25). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Galbraith,
M.W. (2004). Adult learning methods: A guide for effective
instruction. Malabar, Fl: Krieger.
Gallimore,
R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching,
schooling, and literate discourse. In
L. C. Moll (Ed.),
Instructional Implications
and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology (pp.
175-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Garrison, D.
R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a
text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher
education. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2),
1-14.
Gorham, C. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher
immediacy behaviors and student learning.
Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
Heuer, B. P.
&, King, K. P. (2004). Leading the band: The role of the
instructor in online learning for educators. The Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 3 (1), 1-11.
Hutchins, H. M. (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven
principles: Strategies for facilitating online
courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6 (3), 1-13.
Mandernach,
B. J., Donnelli, E., Dailey, A., & Schulte, M. (2005). A faculty
evaluation model for online instructors: Mentoring and
evaluation in the online classroom. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 8 (3).
Merriam,
S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning
in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M. G.
(1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of
Distance Education, 3 (2), 1-6.
Muilenburg,
L.Y. & Berge, Z.L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning:
A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26
(1), 29-48.
Northrup, P.
T. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for interaction. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 219-226.
Picciano, A.
G (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,
presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6 (1), 21-40.
Richardson,
J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online
courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and
satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7
(1), 68-8 8.
Roblyer, M.
D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2004). Exploring the interaction
equation: Validating a rubric to assess and encourage
interaction in distance courses. The Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 8 (4), 25-37.
Savery, J. R. (2005). BE VOCAL: Characteristics of successful
online instructors.
The Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 4 (2), 141-152.
Schulte, A.
(2004). The development of an asynchronous computer-mediated
course. College Teaching, 52 (1), 6-10.
Shea, P, Swan, K., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing
learning community in online asynchronous
college courses: The role of teaching presence. The Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9 (4), 59-82.
Sheehan, K.
(2001). Email survey response rates: A review.
Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication,
6
(2).
Short, J.,
Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Smith, R.O.
(2005). Working with difference in online collaborative groups.
Adult Education Quarterly, 55 (3), 182-199.
Smith, M.
C., & Winking-Diaz, A. (2004). Increasing students’
interactivity in an online course. The Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 2 (3), 1-25.
Spector, J.M.
(2005). Time demands on online instruction. Distance
Education, 26 (1), 5-27.
Su, B.,
Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., & Lee, S. (2005). The
importance of interaction in web-based education: A
program-level case study of online mba courses. The Journal
of Interactive Online Learning, 4 (1), 1-19.
Vella, J.
(1994). Learning to listen learning to teach: The power of
dialogue in educating adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License
|