Best Practices for Online Instructors

• Wade W. Fish, Department of Educational Leadership, Texas A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce,

TX 75429-3011. Phone: (903) 886-5600. E-mail: [email protected]

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 10(3), 2009, pp. 279–284 ISSN 1528-3518

Copyright © 2009 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

BEST PRACTICES FOR ONLINE INSTRUCTORS

Reminders

Wade W. Fish and Leah E. Wickersham

Texas A&M University-Commerce

Online education has become increasingly popular in higher education, which is a trend that will continue as

more universities have begun to heavily invest in online teaching due to student demand. While best practices

for implementing online instruction are well documented in previous literature, factors identified in this

review of literature serve as reminders that should be considered by higher education faculty to enhance the

quality of their online courses. Teaching online requires a faculty member to think differently about teaching

and learning, learn a host of new technological skills, and engage in ongoing faculty development for design

and development of quality online instruction.

During the past few years, online education has

become increasingly popular in higher educa-

tion (Dunlap, Sobel, & Sands, 2007; Stolten-

kamp, Kies, & Njenga, 2007). In 2004, over

54,000 online courses were offered within uni-

versities across the United States (Singh & Pan,

2004). Online learning is a trend that will con-

tinue as more universities have begun to heav-

ily invest in online teaching (Appana, 2008)

due to increased student demand (Gallien &

Oomen-Early, 2008). While best practices for

implementing online instruction are well docu-

mented in previous literature, the following

factors serve as reminders that should be con-

sidered by higher education faculty to enhance

the quality of their online courses.

THINK DIFFERENTLY

Necessary measures to develop and teach qual-

ity online courses are considerably different

compared to implementing conventional

courses (Dunlap et al., 2007). Effective online

course delivery requires more than simply

repackaging existing traditional course content

(Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008) by means

such as placing presentation slides and lecture

notes into course management systems, which

is frequently practiced by poorly trained fac-

ulty (Dunlap et al.). Faculty must restructure

how course content is delivered, which takes

type of content, student ability and course

sequence within curriculum into consideration

280 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 3, 2009

(Cornelius & Glasgow, 2007). Online teaching

requires faculty to be able to communicate dif-

ferently and by learning how to enhance rela-

tionships with students online (Dykman &

Davis, 2008).

Delivering quality online courses is more

difficult and time consuming compared to tra-

ditional courses (Almala, 2007; Darrington,

2008; Dykman & Davis, 2008; Li & Irby,

2008). Difficulty revolves around faculty hav-

ing to create quality learning environments

through virtual classroom communities (Dar-

rington) in addition to faculty having to adjust

to limited social interaction (Dykman &

Davis). Recommendations to decrease the dif-

ficulty level of implementing effective online

courses include increased faculty release time

in order to reduce teaching loads (White,

Brown, & Sugar, 2007; Winkler-Prins,

Weisenborn, Group, & Arbogast, 2007), which

will allow educators time to develop instruc-

tional materials and to learn how to adapt to

the online instructional environment. Accord-

ing to Dykman and Davis, online teaching will

likely become easier and rewarding for educa-

tors as they become more comfortable deliver-

ing courses online.

THE ADULT LEARNER

The increase in the number of online courses

has resulted in an emphasis toward adult

learning theory, in which the instructor serves

as a facilitator of learning rather than a

distributor of content (Ruiz, Mintzer, &

Leipzig, 2006). This paradigm shift from

traditional content-centered to learning-

centered courses (Magnussen, 2008) facilitates

learning through collaborative discovery

(Dykman & Davis, 2008), which increases

student satisfaction (Appana, 2008). Effective

online learning environments engage students

toward higher levels of thinking, promote

active student involvement, accommodate

individual differences and motivate learners

(Zsohar & Smith, 2008). Curriculum content

should be authentic and applicable to the real

world that facilitates problem-centered

learning. Quality instruction further builds

critical thinking skills that enhance lifelong

learning (Dunlap et al., 2007). Meaningful

interaction that motivates students to think

critically is dependent upon effective course

content presentation.

FACULTY SUPPORT AND

COLLABORATION

Successful online course development is

dependent upon the commitment (Magnussen,

2008), enthusiasm, interest and skills of dedi-

cated faculty (Winkler-Prins et al., 2007).

Despite the demand for online instruction,

innovative adoption of online teaching prac-

tices in higher education has been limited, as

universities often are reluctant to engage in

technological development (Fox, Anderson, &

Rainie, 2005 as cited in Dykman & Davis,

2008; Spellings, 2006 as cited in Dykman &

Davis). The willingness of institutions to

invest in technical support and equipment is

necessary to implement successful online pro-

grams (Magnussen, 2008). Furthermore,

administrative support is essential in order to

create effective distance education support

structures (Appana, 2008) and maintain strong

e-learning infrastructures (Almala, 2007).

While initial funding may serve as a limita-

tion, sufficient allocation of revenues is neces-

sary in order to allow faculty members to

convert conventional programs to online

courses (Appana).

Institutions must provide ongoing faculty

training and support (Appana, 2008) through

professional development opportunities that

expose instructors to current technologies and

related software (Evans & Champion, 2007).

Universities staying current with technological

innovation results in improved online course

development outcomes and satisfaction (Cor-

nelius & Glasgow, 2007). Those instructors

who teach online should be properly trained in

order to become more technologically profi-

cient (Arabasz & Baker, 2003 as cited in Stol-

Best Practices for Online Instructors 281

tenkamp et al., 2007). An intensive team effort

is necessary, especially for those instructors

who lack online course development skills

(Taylor, 2002, as cited in Appana, 2008),

which includes collaboration between faculty

and web design teams (Appana). Li and Irby

(2008) provide measures that faculty can take

to enhance their online course development

skills, which consists of regularly attending

online education workshops and conducting

literature reviews in order to stay current on

effective online education practices. Li and

Irby further recommend that instructors consis-

tently consult and network with other col-

leagues who teach online courses to include

those from other universities. Properly trained

instructors will likely have the knowledge to

build successful courses that enhance faculty

productivity, engage learners and optimize stu-

dent learning outcomes (Zsohar & Smith,

2008).

STUDENT SUPPORT

Successful online students are likely to be dis-

ciplined, organized, self-motivated, and tech-

nologically knowledgeable (Hiltz & Goldman,

2004). Unfortunately, many students enrolled

in online courses are not tech-savvy (Dar-

rington, 2008). Comprehensive student online

training is necessary in order to reduce student

frustration levels (Magnussen, 2008; Restauri,

2004 as cited in Appana, 2008) and to ensure

that online technology does not interfere with

learning (Comelius & Glasgow, 2007). The

presentation of online courses further contrib-

utes toward student success levels. Online

technology should consist of user-friendly

technology delivery systems (Almala, 2007),

and software that appeals to learners (Hutch-

ings, Hadfield, Howarth, & Lewarne, 2007).

Furthermore, online course content should be

easy to navigate that contain high quality

images, graphics, video streaming, and links to

electronic resources (Winkler-Prins et al.,

2007).

QUALITY DESIGN AND

IMPLEMENTATION

Quality online courses adapt to student needs,

provide meaningful examples, motivate stu-

dents, and consist of instructors who express

concern for student learning (Young, 2006).

The foundation for developing online courses

revolve around the careful selection of course

delivery systems (Cornelius & Glasgow,

2007), establishing high standards (Almala,

2007) and instructional planning (Evans &

Campion, 2007).

Organization and Planning

According to Dykman and Davis (2008),

detailed organization and planning is the first

step in teaching online. Components to plan-

ning online courses include developing course

objectives, identifying reading material and

assignments, determining interaction options

and clarifying student expectations. Learners

are more likely to focus more on learning

(Dykman & Davis) and benefit (Zsohar &

Smith, 2008) when online courses are care-

fully planned through clear expectations and

guidelines. Clarification is especially impor-

tant since faculty members are usually unable

to provide students with instantaneous expla-

nations for potential misunderstandings online

(Magnussen, 2008).

Upfront planning, prior to the beginning of

an online course, is necessary to decrease stu-

dent misunderstanding and confusion (Almala,

2007; Li & Irby, 2008) as making significant

adjustments mid-stream usually does not work

with online teaching (Dykman & Davis, 2008).

Planning early consists of developing objec-

tives that provide learners with clear guide-

lines, which can be effectively achieved by

modularizing or organizing course content into

topics (Dykman & Davis; Zsohar & Smith,

2008). Properly created modules assist student

expectations by providing well-written direc-

tions that assist them toward remaining on a

required pace and keeping track of assignment

due dates.


Many novice online instructors have diffi-

culty in their attempts to make online courses

academically rigorously equivalent to conven-

tional courses, which often results in overload-

ing students (Dykman & Davis, 2008). Online

courses should offer a variety of activities and

assignments that involve both lower- and

higher-level cognitive processing (Dunlap et

al., 2007). This balance encourages a collabor-

ative environment. Online course assignments

must not only provide a sense of connectivity,

but holistically fit together to complement

learning objectives (Zsohar & Smith, 2008).

Instructor and Student Interaction

Interaction between the instructor and stu-

dent enhances the effectiveness of the online

learning environment (Garrison & Anderson,

2003; Muirhead, 2004, as cited in Dunlap et

al., 2007) contributing to positive student per-

formance, grades and course satisfaction

(Appana, 2008; Gallien & Oomen-Early,

2008). According to Thurmond (2003, as cited

in Dunlap et al.), the effectiveness and quality

of the instructor contributes more towards stu-

dent satisfaction than technology. While qual-

ity instructor guidance and verbal directions

are often non-existent in online courses (Evans

& Champion, 2007), a learning community

must exist to where students do not feel dis-

connected (Cornelius & Glasgow, 2007).

Feedback to students that is prompt, rele-

vant and continuous contributes to high stu-

dent satisfaction levels in online courses

(Darrington, 2008; Zsohar & Smith, 2008).

Dykman and Davis emphasize that initial and

continuous communication as consistent

meaningful dialogue between instructor and

student serves as a basic principle of online

teaching. Furthermore, professors should be

proactive, diligent, and keep track of commit-

ments to communicate with their students

online. Direct inquires from professors

enhances student comfort levels. Results from

a study conducted by Gallien and Oomen-

Early (2008) concluded that students who

received consistent personalized instructor

feedback exhibited higher satisfaction levels

and academic gains compared to those stu-

dents who received strictly collective feed-

back.

While important, providing consistent per-

sonalized feedback to students in online

courses can serve as a challenge to professors

(Li & Irby, 2008). Magnussen (2008) recom-

mends that faculty should set boundaries in

order maintain manageable workloads such as

by specifying times to where students can

expect prompt instructor feedback. Faculty can

also minimize e-mails, while maximizing

entire class communication, by posting student

questions on class wide discussion forums,

which decreases replicate questioning and stu-

dent misunderstanding (Gallien & Oomen-

Early, 2008; Li & Irby; Zsohar & Smith,

2008). Utilizing accessible online grade-books

(Winkler-Prins et al., 2007) and providing

assignment grading rubrics with clear expecta-

tions (Darrington, 2008) further enhances stu-

dent feedback efforts.

Ongoing Evaluation

Faculty should continuously evaluate the

effectiveness of their online courses (Dykman

& Davis, 2008; Stoltenkamp et al., 2007).

Continuous evaluation should involve

researching current practices of institutions

that serve as leaders in delivering quality

online programs (Almala, 2007). Stotenkamp

et al. concludes that continuous planning is

essential due to ever-changing technologies

and policies. Frequently updating online pro-

grams (Winkler-Prins et al., 2007), collecting

student feedback (Cornelius & Glasgow, 2007;

Li & Irby, 2008), and obtaining input by col-

leagues (Zsohar & Smith, 2008) further con-

tributes toward the development of quality

online courses.

CONCLUSION

The concept of delivering instruction online is

one that is not going to fade away. It is not an

Best Practices for Online Instructors 283

educational fad or the latest buzzword used to

impress our stakeholders. The ivory tower as it

was once known has now firmly established

itself as a digital one. The change in the ways

and means of educating students of higher

learning does not need to be viewed in a nega-

tive light; however, many faculty are reluctant

to move from behind the lectern to a computer

screen. This resistance to change is not without

merit. As pointed out in the review of literature

for this article, teaching online requires a fac-

ulty member to think differently about teach-

ing and learning, learn a host of new

technological skills and engage in ongoing fac-

ulty development for design and development

of quality online instruction, and play the role

of teacher, learner, and technical support.

Faculty should not be alone in the require-

ment of making the shift from traditional

teaching to the electronic mode of educating

students. Administration must share in this

responsibility and put their weight behind sup-

porting faculty and students. A variety of

ongoing professional development opportuni-

ties must be made available to assist faculty in

developing the technical and instructional

design skills necessary to create a quality

online course and engaging learning experi-

ence for students. To that end, the technology

used to deliver instruction must be current and

user-friendly, providing technical assistance

and/or training to faculty and students as

needed. Incentives should be offered to faculty

in the form of time, such as a course release,

and/or monetary support to encourage quality

design and development of online instruction.

And finally, methods of ongoing assessment

should be employed to assist in providing fac-

ulty with feedback for areas of improvement

and encourage the practice of continuous

improvement.

The task ahead is not an impossible one, but

it is vital that institutions of higher learning

change their traditional practices rather than

continue operating as “normal” while adding

the huge responsibility of online teaching to an

already heavy workload. The ivory tower has

indeed changed, but with tremendous opportu-

nities for growth and outreach and infinite

innovative possibilities.

REFERENCES

Almala, A. H. (2007). Review of current issues in

quality e-learning environments. Distance

Learning, 4(3), 23-30.

Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limita-

tions of online learning in the context of the stu-

dent, the instructor, and the tenured faculty.

International Journal on ELearning, 7(1), 5-22.

Cornelius, F., & Glasgow, M. E. S. (2007). The

development and infrastructure needs required

for success—one college’s model: Online nurs-

ing education at Drexel University. TechTrends,

51(6), 32-35.

Darrington, A. (2008). Six lessons in e-learning:

Strategies and support for teachers new to online

environments. Teaching English in the Two Year

College, 35(4), 416-421.

Dunlap, J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Sup-

porting students’ cognitive processing in online

courses: Designing for deep and meaningful stu-

dent-to-content interactions. TechTrends, 51(4),

20-31.

Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). Online edu-

cation forum: Part two—teaching online versus

teaching conventionally. Journal of Information

Systems Education, 19(2), 157-164.

Evans, R., & Champion, I. (2007). Enhancing

online delivery beyond PowerPoint. The Com-

munity College Enterprise, 13(2), 75-84.

Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized

versus collective instructor feedback in the

online classroom: Does type of feedback affect

student satisfaction, academic performance and

perceived connectedness with the instructor?

International Journal on ELearning, 7(3), 463-

476.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning

in the 21st century: A framework for research

and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (2004). Learning

together online: Research on asynchronous

learning networks. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hutchings, M., Hadfield, M., Howarth, G., &

Lewarne, S. (2007). Meeting the challenges of

active learning in web-based case studies for

sustainable development. Innovations in Educa-

tion and Teaching International, 44(3), 331-343.


Li, C., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online

education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges,

concerns and recommendations. College Student

Journal, 42(2), 449-458.

Magnussen, L. (2008). Applying the principles of

significant learning in the e-learning environ-

ment. Journal of Nursing Education, 47(2), 82-

86.

Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006).

The impact of e-learning in medical education.

Academic Medicine, 81, 207-212.

Singh, P., & Pan, W. (2004). Online education: Les-

sons for administrators and instructors. College

Student Journal, 38, 302-308.

Stoltenkamp, J., Kies, C., & Njenga, J. (2007). Insti-

tutionalizing the elearning division at the Uni-

versity of the Western Cape (UWC): Lessons

learnt. International Journal of Education and

Development using Information and Communi-

cation Technology, 3(4), 143-152.

White, L. N., Brown, C. A., & Sugar, W. (2007).

One department’s transition to online instruc-

tion: Library science and instructional technol-

ogy masters programs at East Carolina

University. TechTrends, 51(6), 52-58.

Winkler-Prins, A. M., Weisenborn, B. N., Group, R.

E., & Arbogast, A. F. (2007). Developing online

geography courses: Experiences from Michigan

State University. The Journal of Geography,

106(4), 163-170.

Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online

teaching in higher education. The American

Journal of Distance Education, 20(20), 65-77.

Zsohar, H., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Transition from

the classroom to the web: Successful strategies

for teaching online. Nursing Education Perspec-

tives, 29(1), 23-28.

Copyright of Quarterly Review of Distance Education is the property of Information Age Publishing and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Best Practices for Online Instructors

Documents

Transcript of Best Practices for Online Instructors