Topic outline

  • Principles of Teaching Online

    Prev Next

    • Some things to consider ….

      Online teaching and learning takes place in a radically different context than most of us know to be the traditional teaching context, where students and their lecturers/tutors meet in the same place at the same time.  For example, online communication is conveyed principally through the use of computer software and hardware. 

      Significantly, it is typically asynchronous and text-based, not real time with gestures, voice tone… as added communication channels. Yet, for example, we are also provided with new potential for more broadly enacting social constructivist pedagogical approaches, such as peer assessment.

      The literature therefore suggests that we think differently and acquire new skills when designing our online courses and learning experiences (e.g. Dunlap et al. 2007; Fish & Wickersham, 2009). Heuer and King (2004) explain that although online learning shares many of the same features as those of face-to-face, it is unique in its flexibility and means of enabling learning to occur anytime and anywhere while also catering for reflection and anonymity.

      Therefore, merely replicating face-to-face practices when designing online courses fails to take advantage of the dynamic nature that is found in the online environment (Bonk & Dennen, 2003; Vaughan, 2010). Simply uploading lectures and tutorial PowerPoints used in face-to-face classes does not address learner’s needs, for example, in providing opportunities for online learners to simultaneously engage with each other and the course content.

      Further, understanding that students may not have the same technology or technology skills as their instructor, we may find that some students’ software may not be up-to-date or they may not be technically savvy.  These are also important considerations when designing e-learning and e-assessments (Kozlowski, 2004).

    • Course Pedagogical Design Principles

      Moreover, fundamental differences like these need to be met with fundamentally different pedagogical approaches that not only mediate for the differences mentioned above but also leverage the technological capabilities available.  There are at least a few pedagogical principles that may be considered best practice in teaching fully online:

      1. Set out clear and detailed expectations from day one.
        For example, let students know the “weekly rhythm” for the course.  Which day of the week are discussion posts due?  Responses?  What kind of discussion posts do you expect your students to make (i.e. quality not just quantity)?
      2. Expect students to do the work of learning.
        For example, using:
          • Required "getting to know you" forum.
          • Activities that direct students to assess each other's as well as their own work (i.e. peer and self-assessment).
      3. Design your course with ongoing regular weekly interactivity.
        This has been called the "heart and soul of effective asynchronous learning".  This may involve, for example:
          • Carefully setting up discussion/work groups before the course begins.  Eight students/group is recommended as this allows for students dropping and adding while preserving an optimal size for productive collaboration. 
          • Using and experimenting with different Moodle tools from the basic Q&A discussion forums to the more complex Workshop tool.
      4. Work to optimize your teaching presence. 
        Remember, while online students should do the work of learning, we at the same time need to establish a “presence” of teaching in our course.  For example, if we comment on too many student posts, students may feel intimidated and find it harder to share their thinking.  In contrast, if we never read or comment on student posts, we lose the opportunity to gauge our students’ understanding of the course material and offer potential corrective comments or extending questions.
      5. Narration.
        Narration throughout an online course is fundamental to establishing the flow of the course, keeping the students on track and maintaining engagement. the narration needs to describe to the students what they need to be doing and why. Narration needs to be included at all levels of the course, including at the overall course level, each topic / week of the course down to each learning resource and activity within the course.   
          • The purpose of the course, each topic / week and each learning resource or activity should be described in relation to the learning objectives of the course.
          • The narration should clearly articulate the value and purpose of each topic / week and the individual learning resources with in them. 
          • Narration should outline what students need to do in each topic / week and with each learning resource contained within them.
          • Narration should link the topics / weeks with in a course together as well as articulating how the various learning resources link together and build upon on another. 
          • It should also describe how the topics / week and the learning resources within them link to the course assessments. 
      6. Model academic integrity.  
        It is important to model academic integrity to students by ensuring that all resources and material included in or referred to in the course are appropriately cited throughout the course.  
      7. Variety of instructional material. 
        Aim to include a variety of instructional material types and perspectives and not rely on one content type such as text. Including a variety of instructional material adds to engagement and student interest.  

      Adapted from Pelz, B. (2010).

    • References:

      Bonk, C & Dennen, V 2003, ‘Frameworks for research, design, benchmarks, training and pedagogy in web-based distance education’. In M Moor & W. Anderson (Eds), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 331-348), Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey.  (NOT IN LIBRARY CATALOGUE)

      Dunlap, JC, Sobel, D & Sands, DI 2007, ‘Supporting students’ cognitive processing in online courses: Designing for deep and meaningful student-to-content interactions’, TechTrends, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 20-31.

      Fish, WW & Wickersham, LE 2009, ‘Best practices for online instructors: Reminders’, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 279-284. (instruction should be instructors)

      Heuer, BP & King, KP 2004, ‘Leading the band: The role of the instructor in online learning for educators’, The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-11.

      Kozlowski, D 2004, ‘Factors for consideration in the development and implementation of an online RN-BSN course: Faculty and student perceptions’, Computers Informatics Nursing, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 34-43. 

      Pelz, B 2010’ ‘(My) three principles of effective online pedagogy’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 103-116.

      Vaughan, ND 2010, ‘A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course redesign’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 60-65.

       

    Prev Next