Running head: DO ONLINE INSTRUCTORS REALLY NEED TO BE PRESENT?
Cynthia P. Lyons
OMDE 608
Section: 9040
March 4, 2012
Position Paper
Do Online Instructors Really Need to Be Present?
Cynthia P. Lyons
University of Maryland University College
OMDE 608
1
DO ONLINE INSTRUCTORS REALLY NEED TO BE PRESENT?
2
Do Online Instructors Really Need to Be Present?
Berge’s (1995) article, “The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator,” describes the
importance of active online instructor roles in distance education and e-learning. The growth of
online education requires more qualified online instructors in order to keep up with the demands
of increasing numbers of online learners. As institutions deal with budgetary constraints,
administrators consider online courses as cost-effective methods for replacing face-to-face
traditional learning. If a course can be delivered online with computerized assessments, then
why should the institution pay higher salaries for instructors? A tutor or a graduate assistant can
compile assessment results and post grades in a fully automated course. The author of this paper
uses research and personal experiences to justify the argument that instructor presence is critical
support for online learners. This paper supports Berge’s (1995) assertion that online instructors
need to be actively present in the online classroom as learning facilitators. The discussion begins
with understanding and justifying the role of the online instructor according to Berge (1995).
The Role of the Online Instructor
Teaching online courses provides flexibility for the instructor to determine how often and
to what degree the instructor will participate in the online classroom. An instructor may choose
to simply monitor student posts, answer questions, and post grades. According to Berge (1995),
the role of the online instructor is to facilitate learning by engaging students in various types of
interaction. Berge presents a framework for online instructors to follow in order to deliver a
quality instructional program. His framework consists of pedagogical, social, managerial, and
technical characteristics (Berge, 1995). The underlying principle in Berge’s (1995) work is that
online instructors must be able to guide and engage learners in various types of interaction, such
as student-student, student-instructor, and student-content (Berge, 1995). This guidance
DO ONLINE INSTRUCTORS REALLY NEED TO BE PRESENT?
3
promotes a collaborative learning environment in which the instructor and class members
support one another. Berge (1995) suggests that facilitators should respond to students’ posts
and to ask stimulating questions to encourage critical thinking, further research, and
socialization. This type of instruction provides the online learners with support and
encouragement and helps to eliminate the isolation that many online learners experience.
Moreover, developing a collaborative learning environment helps bring anxious or apprehensive
learners into the online conference (Berge, 1995). In many cases, students build online
relationships as they progress through a program together, which contributes to the learner’s
success.
Additional research and studies provide more evidence justifying the value of instructor
presence. In a case study conducted at Royal Roads University, instructors stated that sharing
practical work experiences with their students allowed the students to gain a better understanding
of course concepts (Guilar and Loring, 2008). According to Oliver, Herrington, Herrington, &
Reeves (2007), online collaborative learning is similar to building communities. Moreover, the
authors state, “in order for collaborative activities to achieve their intended outcomes, teachers
often need to stimulate interactions among students” (Oliver et al., 2007, p. 3).
Faculty Perspective
In some cases faculty do not subscribe to Berge’s (1995) ideas on instructor roles.
Faculty argue that participation is relative to the course content and that instructor presence is
subject to individual preferences. Mandernach, Gonzales, and Garrett (2006) discuss faculty
opinions on instructor presence in the online classroom. Their study found that instructors and
the institution do not agree on the frequency of instructor interaction (Mandernach et al., 2006).
Faculty feel that the number of posts is not as important as the quality of posts (Mandernach et
DO ONLINE INSTRUCTORS REALLY NEED TO BE PRESENT?
4
al., 2006). Mandernach et al. (2006) also provide evidence that some faculty believe the type of
course material influences the level of faculty interaction. For example, if the students are
expected to relate personal experiences, faculty intervention may deter some student-student
interaction (Mandernach et al., 2006). Therefore, qualified and well-trained instructors are
needed to determine how much interaction is sufficient. Since staff tutors and graduate assistants
typically do not possess equivalent experience, skills, and credentials as regular course
instructors, they cannot be expected to offer the same levels of interaction that a regular
instructor would offer. Furthermore, poor instructor performance can lead to learner frustration
and ultimately affect graduation and retention rates (Mandernach et al., 2006).
Ramapo College in New Jersey offers an online math course that does not require an
instructor at all. Professor Potocka developed the course in which students use software to
progress through the course and assessments are fully automated. The students have electronic
access to a tutor, may visit the campus to meet with a tutor, and may also access the institution’s
technical help service (Potocka, 2010). According to Potocka (2010), students have access to
“Lifelines” for onscreen help (p. 506). Potocka (2010) states that some of the advantages to the
program include flexibility, lower costs, no need for an instructor, and no need for campus space.
According to Potocka (2010), another advantage is the course “reduces dependence on adjunct
instructors and thus changes reputation of the college” (p. 515). This could actually be a
disadvantage if one considers it is better to have an adjunct instructor than no instructor.
Interestingly, Potocka’s (2010) study shows that the online learners achieved similar grades as
those who took the course face-to-face. Did they really learn the material; or, did they score well
because the course design allowed for multiple attempts on tests (Potocka, 2010)?
DO ONLINE INSTRUCTORS REALLY NEED TO BE PRESENT?
5
Personal Perspective
Given the examples presented thus far of faculty who believe that instructor presence is
negotiable, and the case of a completely automated course, instructor presence may be perceived
as discretionary. However, the author of this paper asserts that Berge’s (1995) argument for
active participation as a facilitator is not negotiable. This paper’s author experienced online
courses where instructors did not participate regularly. Courses where the online instructors did
not provide timely feedback or stimulate discussions were not as productive as classes where the
instructor consistently interacted with the students. For example, classes with little instructor
presence resulted in very few discussions and very little stimulation or motivation to conduct
further research.
The author of this paper also completed courses where the instructor encouraged
interaction by asking engaging questions. These instructors not only motivated the class to
interact and to conduct further research, they also provided encouraging and clear direction in
their feedback on graded assignments. The courses delivered by instructors who regularly
engaged students in dialog were much more interactive and substantial than courses where the
students were left to work on their own. According to Berge (1995), building a mutual
environment where learners feel comfortable and valued is essential to the instructor’s role.
Indeed, Berge (1995) states, “The moderator uses questions and probes for student responses that
focus discussions on critical concepts, principles, and skills” (p. 2).
The author’s experiences with courses similar to Rampano’s math course were lacking
intellectual stimulation and development. Course content was delivered using a textbook and
assessments were completed via the online program. Potocka’s (2010) advantages certainly
apply, but these types of programs lack academic quality and integrity. In terms of learner
DO ONLINE INSTRUCTORS REALLY NEED TO BE PRESENT?
6
support, these courses do not provide adequate support. Available “help,” similar to Potocka’s
(2010) “Lifelines” are scripted to specific issues (p.506), so the scripted help screens cannot
resolve all possible issues. Finally, students do not have instructors to monitor progress, identify
weaknesses, and provide direction.
Conclusion
The online instructor must be able to encourage learner self-discovery, facilitate online
interaction, and provide learner support. A course delivered online is not simply a digitized
version of the classroom course. Berge (1995) identifies two types of interaction: “interaction
with content and interpersonal interaction” (p. 1). The Ramapo College example presented
earlier lacks this interpersonal interaction. In today’s economy where budgeting and
accountability are performance indicators, institutions must refrain from compromising academic
quality and integrity by substituting instructors with fully automated courses. Institutional
administrators need to understand that instructor presence in the online classroom is critical to
student success. Berge (1995) stresses the importance of developing and delivering a course
where the instructor can establish a collaborative, encouraging, and interactive environment.
This enhances the learner experience and establishes reliable and effective learner support
(Berger, 1995).
DO ONLINE INSTRUCTORS REALLY NEED TO BE PRESENT?
7
References
Berge, Z. (1995). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. E-moderators.com. Retrieved from
http://emoderators.com/wp-content/uploads/teach_online.html
Guilar, J.D., & Loring, A. (2008). Dialogue and community in online learning: lessons from
Royal Roads University. Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 19-40.
Mandernach, B.J., Gonzales, R.M., & Garrett, A.L. (2006). An examination of online instructor
presence via threaded discussion participation. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 2(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol2no4/mandernach.htm
Oliver, R., Herrington, A., Herrington, J., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Representing authentic
learning designs supporting the development of online communities of learners. Journal
of Learning Design, 2(2), 1-21.
Potocka, K. (2010). An entirely-online developmental mathematics course: Creation and
outcomes. PRIMUS, 20(6), 498-516. doi: 10.1080/10511970802398151