C 2006)
Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006 (
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-006-9010-z
Implementing Effective Online Teaching
Practices: Voices of Exemplary Faculty1
Cassandra C. Lewis and Husein Abdul-Hamid
Published online: 26 May 2006
ABSTRACT: This qualitative study explores the process of implementing effective online
teaching practices through interviews with thirty exemplary instructors. Emergent
themes include providing students with constructive feedback, fostering interaction and
involvement, facilitating student learning, and maintaining instructor presence and organization. Analyses of the findings and implications for online instruction are presented.
KEY WORDS: college teaching; online; faculty; best practices.
The literature on instructional practices in online learning has been
categorized as lacking in rigor and sound methodological techniques
(Knowlton, 2000; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999). However, recent scholarship has shown promise, reflecting that research done on web-based
instruction is moving beyond anecdotal reports to substantive qualitative and quantitative research. Studies of student-centered teaching
and constructivist principles in online teaching have also emerged
(Gunn, 2001). Despite these gains, scholarship that illuminates and
demystifies the process of online teaching is still relevant.
Our focus was to explore and then describe how faculty members
teaching online are using effective teaching practices in their online
courses. On the basis of interviews with these faculty, we report on
practices used to facilitate engaged student learning and the building
of community so as to inform both policy and practice in virtual
instruction.
Related Literature
Much has been written on principles that promote student engagement and learning in both the face to face and web-based
1 An
earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Cassandra C. Lewis is a research assistant at the University of Maryland University
College. She is also a doctoral candidate in the department of Education Policy and
Leadership at the University of Maryland, College Park. Husein Abdul-Hamid is
Associate Provost and Executive Director of the Office of Evaluation, Research, and
Grants at the University of Maryland University College. He holds a Ph.D. in Statistics
from American University. E-mail address: habdul-hamid@umuc.edu.
83
C 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
84
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
instructional environment. One of the most cited examples is
Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) work where they identified seven
principles of quality teaching in undergraduate education. These
principles include encouraging frequent faculty and student interaction
and collaborative learning, using active learning techniques, giving
prompt feedback, emphasizing time on task, communicating high expectations, and respecting diversity. Almost 10 years later, Chickering
and Ehrmann (1996) expanded on these practices by addressing how
these principles can be used in technology rich environments. Scholars
who study instructional practices in the web-based environment have
also contributed to the literature on best teaching practices. Knowlton
(2000) presented a theoretical framework for a student-centered online
teaching environment in which “the emphasis should be placed on managing the learning experience, not on managing the technology” (p. 11).
As part of this learning experience, students are encouraged to interact
and collaborate. The role of the faculty is to design the course so as to assist students in developing and implementing goals, establishing course
objectives and learning outcomes, as well as providing feedback and
evaluation of work (Knowlton, 2000). Berge (2002) extended the notion
of establishing an interactive environment by arguing for the alignment
of learning goals, learning activities, feedback, and evaluation.
On the basis of a review of empirical studies, Hacker and
Niederhauser (2000) outlined five learning principles for the enhancement of effective online instruction and student learning outcomes.
Their principles include requiring students to become active participants in their own learning, grounding learning by using examples,
using collaborative problem solving, giving appropriate feedback, and
using motivation to challenge and enhance students’ self-efficacy.
Undoubtedly, although these studies have added richness and depth
to the teaching literature, there still remains a gap in pinpointing how
faculty give life to these practices. Bain’s (2004) book What the Best
College Teachers Do is one attempt to address this shortcoming in the
literature. In the book’s introduction, Bain stated that he attempted
not only to capture what the best teachers did, but how they thought
about the teaching process. Likewise, although we recognize that many
of the examples found in Bain’s (2004) work are universally applicable,
we still see the need for focused exploration of how teachers in an online
environment engage their students. For example, in chapter five of the
book, Bain painted an eloquent picture of how the best teachers engage
their students by talking and suggested that the most significant skill
of the exemplary instructors was their ability to communicate orally.
Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices
85
Because many online courses are taught without the benefit of oral
expression, it is even more critical that studies such as this offer insight
into how instructors of web-based courses teach and communicate.
The Study
Given the intent of our study to focus on the “process, meaning,
and understanding” (Merriam, 1998, p. 8) of faculty practices in
online education, qualitative research methods were selected. The
purpose of the interviews was to gain a concrete understanding of
how the practices were implemented in the online classroom. Data
collection consisted of semi-structured interviews with a total of thirty
graduate and undergraduate instructors who teach at the University
of Maryland University College (UMUC). UMUC is widely considered
a leader in distance education. In 2005, UMUC’s offerings of more
than 500 courses, 80 degree programs, and enrollments surpassing
87,000, all online, establishes the institution as one of the largest
distance education providers in the country. The faculty participants
were selected from a larger pool of faculty who had participated in
Phase I of a more comprehensive study, the Best Online Instructional
Practices (BOIP) Study, in which this study is nested. The first part
of the BOIP study used survey methodology to probe what teaching
strategies (identified and developed in a pilot study) faculty used
in their online courses. Student course evaluation data were added
and, in parallel with the faculty input, were analyzed to measure the
effectiveness of the practices.
Participants
We selected faculty participants in this nested qualitative study
through criterion sampling (Patton, 1990) based on an aggregated
formula derived from their feedback on the Instructional Practices
Inventory (IPI) of the BOIP. The formula uses faculty feedback on the
proposed effective strategies in the IPI, recommendations of effective
strategies which faculty believe to have contributed to their success
in the online environment, and the level of confirmation by students
in their classes. We considered faculty who scored high on the basis of
this formula exemplary and subsequently invited them to participate in
this nested study. On average, participants received student evaluation
scores of 4.3 on a 1–5 Likert scale. Seventeen participants were
86
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
undergraduate instructors and 13 were graduate instructors. Six
participants had 1–2 years of experience teaching online, eight had
2–3 years of online experience, and 16 participants had 4 or more
years of online teaching experience. Two of the participants had also
received the University’s top award for excellence in teaching. Faculty
participants represented various subject areas and specializations in
Business Management, the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Biology,
Legal Studies, Communication Studies, Psychology, Computers, and
Information Technology.
Data Collection and Analysis
The research was conducted with the approval of the University’s
human subjects review board. All interviewees were assured of confidentiality, the option to decline participation, and the ability to
withdraw from the study at any point. Interviews ranged from thirty
minutes to one hour and were conducted in person or by phone.
Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Data analysis consisted
of identifying and coding emerging themes through the use of the
constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). After the
related themes were developed, a select group of study participants
who represented different disciplines were invited to participate in
a videotaped focus group discussion about the identified themes and
effective practices. Prior to the focus group, participants were sent a
summary of the research findings and a list of questions or issues
that would be covered. Analysis of this discussion revealed that no
substantive changes to earlier themes were necessary.
Findings
As mentioned, the purpose of the interviews was to gain a concrete
understanding of how the effective practices were implemented in the
online classroom; therefore, in this article particular attention is paid
to describing examples of the actual strategies that faculty utilized
while teaching online. Although these approaches are based on the
experiences of faculty who teach online, they are not all unique to
that environment and in many cases are identical to those practices
used in face-to-face instruction. However, the extent to which faculty of
web-based classes rely on these tools to achieve course goals, develop
critical thinking skills, or develop camaraderie among students marks a
Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices
87
clear distinction between what works in face-to-face and online courses.
Examples of strategies will be presented in four broad categories:
Fostering Interaction, Providing Feedback, Facilitating Learning, and
Maintaining Enthusiasm, and Organization.
Fostering Interaction
Fostering an online atmosphere with vibrant interaction among
students and between the instructor and the students was one of
the primary areas of emphasis in the study findings. Much like
the traditional face-to-face college classroom, research on the online
environment shows that interaction among students and between the
instructor and students is critically important for student satisfaction
and retention (King & Doerfert, 1996). However, given the isolation that
can arise from studying at a distance, creative methods which foster
in-class interaction among peers, as well as with the instructor, allow
students opportunity to feel integrated and connected into the culture
of the institution (Moore, 1989, 1993; Wagner, 1997). In addition,
meaningful and planned student interaction based on course content
topical areas offers students the opportunity to learn from and with
their peers in a collaborative process.
The faculty in this study were fully conscious of this reality and
focused on facilitating class interaction through course conferences,
study groups, and group projects. In WebTycho, the UMUC online
course management platform, conferences are considered the “heart”
of the course. Conferences are typically created by the instructor
by the listing of a main topic with discussion guidelines. In formal
conferences students are usually required to respond to a main topic
posting for an assigned grade. Informal conferences may be related
to the course objectives, but are generally less structured and offer
students opportunities for further discussion and connection in a
relaxed environment.
For about one third of the faculty participants the first step in
nurturing a dynamic online interaction is to allow students the
opportunity to introduce themselves in an introductory conference.
According to one instructor:
I start off the class with the conferences, so they have something to do—
post an introductory conference. I started this about a year ago and it
works just great. In addition to the introduction, you post a bio or intro
to tell us something about yourself. And post a response to at least five
others in the class. . .. I actually make that the first assignment.
88
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
Following the initial introduction, interviewees reported that they
maintained strong class interaction through both formal and informal
conferences, chat rooms, and e-mail. Two thirds of the participants
reported that interactions between students are maintained throughout the course by requiring students to make substantive contributions,
such as the posting of an issue or question or by responding to the posts
of others in formal conferences. However, faculty also explained that the
issues selected as discussion conferences should be thought provoking
or as categorized by one instructor “they have to be interesting issues.
They can’t be no-brainers that 30 people have the same answer to
and post 30 similar answers. They have to be interesting enough that
people can come at the questions in a little different way and have a
little different interpretation.”
Faculty members who preferred to encourage rather than mandate
student interaction explained that they focused on being explicit with
the course requirements and expectations for participation, as well as
the percentage of the grades allocated for substantive contribution.
With this rubric in mind, these participants maintained that students
were free to respond to issues or questions that they felt were most
relevant to their own experiences and interests. One participant who
teaches an undergraduate course in human sexuality explained how
she managed conferences without stifling student interaction:
When they have interchanges, I just let that occur. And then, when I see
the discussion maybe needs to go in another direction to explore another
part of the issue, or someone has brought up a very good point which
could take us in another direction to explore the issue in more depth, I
will weigh in at that point. . . to manage the discussion in the ways in
which I want to see it play out.
Faculty also saw the need for students to engage with each other
through social interactions, which may or may not be directly related to
the academic content of the course. Informal conference areas allowed
students the opportunity to build on interactions that were developed
in other areas of the course. According to one instructor, “I have a
conference labeled “The Café,” for whatever course it is. . .that is just
set up for them to initiate various discussion on the course topics. They
can talk to each other on anything related to the course.” Other faculty
set up conferences and chat rooms so that students can discuss subjects
outside of subject matter—without instructor interjection or presence.
One instructor shared that “[my] Web café conference, “Harmony
House”. . .is just for students. As the instructor, I do not enter.”
Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices
89
In addition to attempts to recreate vibrant in class discussions or
out-of-class interactions, faculty also spoke about connecting students
through collaborative work. One instructor explained how she manages
class discussions by groups:
[The groups] are graded on the amount and quality of participation or
they conduct a discussion on their own via chat room areas that I’ve set
up for it and they submit a discussion summary. I provide a format for
the discussion summary, where they have to tell when the discussion took
place, who was in the discussion, points of the discussion, how did they
feel about the discussion, how would they continue the discussion. There
is a set format that I provide for that.
Faculty who used group projects or study groups created them in
a number of ways. Although some arranged students alphabetically,
others strategically arranged students to ensure balancing of gender,
demonstrated academic skill, or by allowing students to pick their own
groups. Participants reported that the key to successful group work
was to explain to students the benefit of learning to work effectively in
groups and to give them clear instructions on what is expected of them
during group participation. One instructor stated, “I always put in an
incentive in the beginning, telling of the value of cyber teaming—that
organizations tend to look at this as a real positive skill when people
have it.” Interviewees also added that they are careful to tell students
what they can expect when working in a group, and they provided
tips to minimize conflict and encourage students who are not pulling
their own weight. These strategies range from sharing the theoretical
process of group formation to asking students to select a team captain
or leader to manage the process and assign roles.
A clear pattern in the portrayal of how interaction is facilitated
by these instructors is the modeling of what works in the physical
classroom experience. So, although these instructors can’t physically
have students “go around the room” with introductions or talk among
themselves in small group discussions, they can and do create spaces
for students to learn with and from each other.
Providing Feedback
The benefit of providing prompt and substantive feedback to postsecondary students in general is well supported in the literature.
In their seminal work on quality college teaching, Chickering and
Gamson (1987) identified the need for this standard of feedback in
traditional undergraduate education. However, for online students,
90
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
timely and thorough instructor feedback is not only essential in
cultivating the learning experience but in fostering connections to
the institution (Brown, 2001; Mayadas, Bourne, & Moore, 2002; Shin,
2003). The strategies employed by instructors in this study exemplify
the widespread implementation of the approach and is reflective of
their desire to meet the needs of their students.
Faculty recounted that feedback is given to students for a variety of
reasons and situations, for example feedback is given on students’ contributions to conferences and as follow-up to submitted assignments.
Whether it be individually, in small groups, privately, or in the public
forum, all students regardless of their performance in the course are
given individualized feedback and an overall impression of how they
are doing at every stage of the course.
Almost all the exemplary faculty reported that a large part of
providing student feedback was to clearly express grading expectations
or requirements prior to student submission of the assignment. A
graduate instructor’s method for this is exemplified in the following:
I have a little matrix on the front end that says this is how I want to see
your paper laid out in general and these are the points I’m allocating to
the different sections. . .. Even more than helping them focus their efforts,
I think it really facilitates an understanding of where their grade comes
from. . .. So, to the extent that you can show them on the front end what
your criteria are for the different items you can show them in the paper
where they had failed to meet the standards and students are typically
satisfied.
According to that instructor, the rubric would outline and identify
characteristics of “A, B, C, etc. . ..” papers. Faculty also expressed
the necessity of encouraging all students, regardless of skill and
performance level. One instructor stated that he used feedback to “try
to encourage the bright students and keep their quality up and then
bring the quality of students that aren’t doing so well. . .up as well.”
Other faculty reported that feedback was used to encourage students to
participate in the class and to ask questions about areas that presented
problems and confusion. One instructor commented as follows:
In each part of the conference there is room for questions. I provide the
explanations. . .I also have room for individual students to state the area
where they have problems. . .. I provide room for each student to ask a
question. In other words, part of the conference under each area is room
for questions that students may ask.
Faculty also stated that they tried to prompt ‘no show’ students to
participate by sending reminder e-mails and messages. One instructor
Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices
91
shared her strategies for keeping in touch with absentee students, “[I]
try to follow up with them like after 2–3 weeks and [if] I don’t see the
person producing or posting anything, I tend to send them an e-mail
saying, I noticed that you’re not participating. Is there anything I can do
to make it easier for you?” Referrals to remedial and other educational
support services not immediately available by way of bulletin boards or
campus signs were also reported as effective means of giving feedback.
The University’s online writing center was one of the most widely cited
examples of support services promoted by faculty.
Although participants resoundingly reported that providing quick,
quality, and in-depth comments is critical in maintaining a presence
in the online classroom, they also acknowledged that providing such
feedback to students can be a lengthy and challenging process. Most
faculty reported that they are online very frequently in order to provide
a high level of attention to their online students. One participant
stated “I normally check the website about four times a day and try to
provide immediate feedback if it’s a question to me about something.”
Another participant gave insight into how quickly grades are returned
to students: “On their papers I try, within five days of submission,
to have the grades back to them and give them personal feedback.”
However, when asked to quantify the approximate time spent during
the course of a week responding to students, most faculty admitted that
they could not provide accurate time estimations beyond recounting
that they were online at a minimum of once a day and at times four to
five times per day.
In addition, to balancing time demands, some interviewees also
mentioned their struggle to balance the need to offer support and
encouragement to students while still challenging them to take responsibility for their own performance and learning. The comments of
a graduate instructor exemplified this concern:
I feel that some of the students don’t take the initiative to find answers
themselves or learn the process of learning enough because they feel that
at any juncture they can just e-mail me or have a question and say, “I
don’t understand!” That’s fine, but if at any time they take the time to
look at the project or talk to a colleague via e-mail or do any step that
would be more self-advocacy related, they could find the answer. And in
a typical campus setting they would never contact a professor. I’m not so
sure that all this attentiveness doesn’t foster a lack of initiative on the
student’s part.
Strategies developed to reduce the amount of time responding to
common questions and concerns involved the development of “banks”
92
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
of common problems, questions, and responses that were collected over
time. Feedback comments were then cut and pasted as needed. Some
faculty also reported that they used voice technology like RealPlayerTM
to give students feedback in an effort to address the amount of time
needed to be fully expressive in feedback and comments. Others
found creative ways to provide prompt feedback to students who
submit completed assignments prior to the due date, while other
students were still working on the assignment. An undergraduate
accounting instructor explained that he designs password-protected
solutions for homework problems and only provides the password to
students who submitted the assignment. According to that instructor,
“Students. . .have to submit something to earn the password. As long
as I know they’ve made some attempt. If they don’t make any attempt,
they don’t get the password.”
The strategies shared by the exemplary instructors dealt most
specifically with addressing the challenges of giving feedback to
students primarily through written communication. Accordingly, the
tools that were shared allowed the instructors to spend less time on
correcting common errors, which enabled them to focus on guiding
students through the learning process.
Facilitating Learning
Berge’s (2002) recommendation for fostering active, interactive and
reflective e-learning encourages instructors to foster student learning
through prelearning activities which are tied to course organization and
the setting of expectations, to engaging learning activities and projects,
which are the hallmarks of active learning. Indeed, many of the types of
methods and approaches suggested by Berge were themselves echoed
in the strategies employed by the instructors in the study.
When asked how learning goals are made clear to students, most
of the participants stated that they directed students to the course
syllabus, which outlined the goals and objectives of the course. However,
some instructors went beyond this practice and used other strategies
to reinforce or introduce course goals. According to one instructor:
When I open the module, I restate what the goals are for that particular
module. And when the module is finished, I wrap up the discussion and
then reflect based on the conference postings or whatever is going on
in that particular module. I assess whether I think the goals have been
achieved, and if not, where I think we could have done better. I invite
Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices
93
students to make their comments or statements on my assessment, as to
how well we have accomplished the goals.
Another instructor spoke of introducing the goals through the
syllabus and reinforcing them through the class announcements.
According to her, “it’s not hard to break down the learning objectives
in the syllabus. To reinforce those as you go through each module, I
use classroom announcements a lot to make sure they’re on target.”
One undergraduate instructor also mentioned that she administers a
simple quiz based on the syllabus to ensure that the course goals are
reiterated from the very beginning of the course.
Faculty in particular spoke about efforts to reduce disconnection
between students, the course content, and the learning process. In
so doing, interviewees again emphasized enabling students to reflect
and interact with each other in the conference section of the online
course. Students are asked to post the areas with which they are
having the most difficulty, report on what they have learned, or pose
questions to their peers. The goal is for students to articulate, develop,
and in some cases, defend clearly written lines of argument or to
formulate questions for further exploration. Depending on the course
level, students are also encouraged to share their own examples of
companies or situations reflective of the subject matter. In explaining
how course content is linked to student experience, an undergraduate
instructor reported that, “whenever I talk about a phenomenon, I
always encourage them, if they have personal anecdotes, to provide
them for all the students to look at and relate to.”
For other instructors, in particular the graduate faculty, connecting
the personal experiences of their students or current events with the
context of the course is done through a more formalized process. One
graduate faculty member explained that she made the content of her
course interesting and relevant to her students in many different ways,
using many different approaches. According to her:
I use a lot of contemporary news articles. When there’s something that’s
going to be on TV, nation-wide broadcasts I mention that. . .. When I find
an article that I think speaks to whatever we are working on for that
particular module, then I will contact the library and have them put
it into reserve reading, so that in my classes they may have five to six
reserve readings which may not tie directly to a particular assignment,
but allow them to explore and are relevant in today’s world, other than
just looking at what the literature says about it.
Faculty also invited guest speakers to visit the online class in real
time chats or conferences in order to facilitate student learning about
94
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
the subject matter. One graduate instructor stated that he decided
to use a guest speaker to facilitate discussion on a component of the
class that was particularly challenging for the students. According
to that instructor, holding this web-based discussion in small groups
with different time slots was critical to the logistical success of the
practice. The small groups and flexible times enabled all students
the opportunity to participate in meaningful dialogue with an expert
in the field. According to him, after the visit by the expert, the
students showed marked improvement on that particular component
and provided positive feedback about that feature of the course.
The use of learning objects such as video clips and other digital
resources was another strategy for some of the exemplary faculty.
The undergraduate Biology instructor maintains a library of scientific
video java applets used to illustrate abstract principles or phenomena,
such as how lighting is formed or what happens in a thunderstorm.
According to him, using these tools to complement the course structure
and textbooks offers students another method of understanding and
interacting with the course content while capitalizing on the web-based
environment of the course.
The approach of the interviewees supports Lee and Gibson’s (2003)
argument that strategies which encourage self-directed learning can
enhance the student learning process by allowing students to benefit
from collaboration and feedback from the instructor and peers. Furthermore, teaching strategies that enable students to integrate and share
personal experiences in active engagement with the course content are
critical in building virtual learning communities (Brown, 2001; Wilson
& Ryder, 1996).
Maintaining Enthusiasm and Organization
Given the reality that most of the communication in online courses
must be written and clearly presented to students without the assistance of bodily cues or facial expressions, many participants stressed
the need for faculty to be organized and energetic and to have a visible
persona in the classroom. One instructor’s comments reveal how he
maintains that state through careful planning and preparation:
In order to have a successful semester, since the students are not facing
you, you need to give them a lot more information on the front end
in terms of the structure, the class, and the deliverables and your
expectations.
Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices
95
Another faculty member added:
I think you need to be more organized when you teach an online class.
You need to plan with care. I actually send out weekly e-mail greetings
and the students really like that. I do that to remind them of what they
are supposed to be doing.
For the instructors well-organized and interactive classes are enjoyable and manageable for the faculty and the students. However,
participants also spoke about the extent to which online teaching forces
them to frequently self-assess their own teaching techniques, because
most of the course—interactions, assignments, and communications—
are forever emblazed in writing. The comments of one instructor,
express this view:
When I see what they’ve written, I get to see how they’re learning and
I can intervene at that point. This is working; this is not working. This
is what we need to do. Go back and read this; go think about this. . .
and I can do that online. So, in a sense, the demands of the online
[course] make me a better teacher in terms of learning outcomes and
not about personality. . . It makes me a better teacher because the results
are there and I have to do something about it. And one thing I find so
really wonderful online is I have to constantly assess what worked and
what didn’t work because I have before me weekly the results of what
worked or didn’t work and I experimented with those kinds of things for
years and years in a face-to-face classroom.
Although the consensus by these 30 faculty members was that online
teaching was challenging, and at times time-consuming, interviewees
also acknowledged that some of the pressures of teaching in this
medium can be alleviated through pre-course planning and organization, maintaining a continuous presence over the course of the semester,
and performing frequent evaluations over the course of the semester.
Implications
For many online instructors, finding the intersection between the prescribed “best” online teaching principles and their practical application
is, at best, an elusive and confusing process. However, the voices of these
faculty, resoundingly spoke of strategies that, while reminiscent of the
traditional face-to-face environment, must receive greater emphasis to
establish and maintain the virtual communities of learning heralded
in the literature.
Despite differences in online course platforms, one of the expectations
for effective online instruction is for structured pedagogical approaches,
96
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
which evolve around interactivity and the deliberate actions of faculty
willing to provide careful attention to student needs. Evident from this
study is that this type of environment is not one that emerges naturally
or unwittingly in online courses. Faculty must carefully plan, maintain
organization, and creatively engage students with the course content
and with each other. Enriching the course with real life applications, in
addition to incorporating students’ backgrounds and areas of interests,
enables students to challenge their own assumptions while benefiting
from the diversity inherent in many online classes.
Instructors must also be open to assessing their courses continuously
for strategies that prevent the emotional and cognitive disconnection
experienced by many students taking web-based courses. Part of the
assessment of the course includes examining teaching techniques to
assess whether or not students are being provided with clear and
continuous guidance, prompt and constructive feedback, well-designed
and regular assignments, and meaningful opportunities for interaction
and support.
Scalability issues of class size and faculty time are ever present in
discussing the effective implementation of online teaching practices.
Additional research which examines optimal class size, as well as how
much instructor time it takes to create student-centered courses, would
contribute practical knowledge for administrators of online programs.
Thus, in addition to student learning, the implications of our results
have special bearing on practical issues such as course planning and
design, course assessment, as well as scalability concerns in online
instruction.
Conclusion
Given the varying tasks inherent in online instruction, whether it
be guiding student learning or facilitating student connections, it is
apparent that the role of the online instructor is neither static nor one
dimensional. The thoughtful use of creative instructional strategies,
such as the ones featured in this article, will assist instructors
in managing the demands of web-based instruction while engaging
students in learning.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the faculty participants of this study for their
willingness to share their experiences and teaching strategies. Special
Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices
97
thanks to Kerri-Lee Krause, Pam Dello-Russo, Cynthia Whitesel, and
several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier
drafts of the paper.
References
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective e-learning. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 3, 181–190.
Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5, 18–35. Retrieved January 7, 2004,
from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/pdf/v5n2 brown.pdf.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles:
Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–6.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Gunn, C. (2001). Effective online teaching: How far do the frameworks go? Meeting at the
crossroads: Proceedings of the 2001 annual conference of the Australasian Society
for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.
Hacker, D. J., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the
online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles
of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 53–64). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
King, J., & Doerfert, D. (1996). Interaction in the distance education setting. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from University of Missouri-Columbia, Department of
Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources Web site: http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/
ssu/Aged/NAERM/s-e-4.htm.
Knowlton, D. S. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A defense and
delineation of a student-centered pedagogy. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W.
Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 5–14). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, J., & Gibson, C. C. (2003). Self-direction in an online course through computermediated interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 17, 173–187.
Mayadas, F., Bourne, J., & Moore, J. C. (2002). Introduction. In J. Bourne & J. C.
Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (pp. 7–
13). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education (2 nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance
Education, 3, 1–6.
Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical
Principles of Distance Education. (pp. 22–38). New York, NY: Routledge.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington,
DC: American Federation of Teachers and National Educational Association.
Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance
learning. Distance Education, 24, 69–86.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
98
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity from agents to outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching
and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate
programs (pp. 19–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Wilson, B., & Ryder, M. (1996). Dynamic learning communities: An alternative to
designed instructional systems. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development
Presentations of the National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved January 7, 2004 from:
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/ ∼ mryder/dlc.html.