Best Practices for Teaching Online
by Lorraine D. Ledger, M.S.
Online teaching is a very different process from face-to-face instruction. In determining which virtual or distance instructional practices are best, however, online teaching should be judged on the same basis as traditional modes: Do students learn and develop as a result? Courses and learning materials must be intentionally designed and include clearly defined objectives. A pedagogy should be chosen (e.g., behaviorism or constructivism) which best aligns with the course content and desired learning outcomes, and all necessary tools and resources should be provided which best serve students in achieving those goals.
Learner perspectives should be considered too. Sadaf et al. (2019) reported that student perceptions of a course’s quality, rigor, or usefulness impacted their learning and motivation. Student engagement is especially important in online learning environments, “because it provides evidence of the effort required for students’ cognitive development and their ability to create knowledge” (p. 215). Online adult students in the study reported that they wanted course activities and assignments that were more interactive (e.g., discussions) and hands-on. Students also reported wanting clear communication about what was expected of them, and to be given flexibility by the instructor, so that they could choose from a variety of ways to be evaluated and interact with course content.
All courses should be intentionally designed to increase student engagement and interaction. Only those learning materials, activities, assignments, and assessments which assist or enable students to achieve the course’s predetermined learning objectives should be included. Technology should serve an educational purpose. Tools and resources should be provided that students can easily access and use to meet course objectives. Course content should be presented in a variety of ways to reach the broadest audience possible. Course design itself should provide a means for collecting feedback and giving feedback, so that the students, the teacher, and the course itself may be continually improved.
Several frameworks and models are available to guide instructors and trainers in designing high quality courses, including the popular ADDIE design model; Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design (UbD) aka “backward design” technique (jaymctighe.com); Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines (udlguidelines.cast.org); Quality Matters rubrics and standards (www.qualitymatters.org); and ANSI/IACET professional development and continuing education standards (www.iacet.org).
Crucial Training Concepts
Both virtual and face-to-face professional development trainings should follow the same basic standards. Training for faculty, for instance, should focus on pedagogy and student needs first and foremost (Mohr & Shelton, 2017). For online teaching, however, it is crucial that faculty understand new pedagogies may be necessary to optimize student learning in a non-face to face environment (Mohr & Shelton, 2017).
International Accreditors for Continuing Education and Training (Granowsky, 2018) listed the following seven elements, on their website, as important to always include in any training offered: content that is job-focused and situated; incorporates active learning (i.e., engagement); supports collaboration; models effective practices; provides coaching and expert support; offers feedback and opportunities for reflection; and is of sustained duration (i.e., not just once).
What I Look For – My Personal Preferences
Whenever I look for online classes or training programs for myself, I consider how the content will build on my current knowledge to reach a personal goal. My goals are sometimes job-related, but also sometimes just things I find personally fun or interesting. As far as structure, I look at scheduling first and consider how taking the class will fit into my life. I want to understand exactly what will be required of me before committing. Will it be convenient? I prefer instructor-led asynchronous formats with assignment deadlines and interactive elements like discussion boards. I prefer taking one short course at a time; five to eight weeks is ideal. I guess, generally, I want flexibility and what I’m learning has to feel relevant and useful.
I like being able to self-pace, to see all the components of the course upfront and be able to choose how I progress through the materials (e.g., the order). I like being able to view every aspect of my enrollments and course content in one place too (e.g, student portal), and I really get annoyed when I have to leave one interface to view items in another. I want easy navigation and reduced clicks.
Discussion forums can be a mixed bag, depending on the subject and parameters given. Generally I learn a lot talking with my peers and enjoy the social aspect. However, being restricted to only interacting with peers in a written format is somewhat limiting and can feel tedious, so sometimes this is my least favorite online component. Also, the technology slows down communications, even during synchronous video conferencing, because you can’t just glance around the room and pick-up the group “vibe” or use body language to convey meaning without words. Communication online generally takes longer and is harder work, mentally and emotionally. Ultimately, my least favorite aspect of online learning is feeling chained to my computer.
References
Granowsky, E. (2018, September 17). 7 Elements of effective professional development. IACET. https://www.iacet.org/news/iacet-blog/blog-articles/7-elements-of-effective-professional-development1/
Mohr, S. C., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional development: A delphi study. Online Learning, 21(4), 123-140. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/183780/
Sadaf, A., Martin, F., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2019, December). Student perceptions of the impact of Quality Matters-certified online courses on their learning and engagement. Online Learning – Journal of The Online Learning Consortium, 23(4), 214-233. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2009
