The change to online teaching required teachers to reconsider their
former approach to course planning, preparation and teaching. They
had to consider the aims and objectives of the course and what were
the essential aspects. How had the course been taught in the past
and what resources were available? What new resources would be required?
What information and communication resources would meet the needs
of the course? What attributes and experiences might the mature
group of online students bring with them? What is the time-line
to plan and prepare? Where is the support during the planning and
preparation process?
The
challenge for teaching staff has been to teach in a different way.
The nature of student-teacher interaction is a major example. In
the online environment the unknown dimensions of the synchronous
and/or asynchronous teaching and learning environments meant that
staff had to seek help to make adjustments to their own expectations.
During our research with academic staff teaching online for the
first time identified with the staff, a number of attributes that
would be of value to first time online teachers. These attributes
included:
an
ability to take reasonable risks and try new methods of teaching
that were unfamiliar to them;
an
acceptance that some aspects of online course teaching are less
certain and they have to try and evaluate the outcomes;
an
open mindedness to accept that some things like strict time lines
simply will not work in an online environment when learners are
able to work in their own time and space;
accepting
compromise in terms of the initial set goals and be prepared to
take some "knock backs";
being
reflective about the planning and preparation while seeking help
from colleagues and support staff;
being
an enabler with an open teaching style;
being
prepared to respond to learners in different ways because they
have different and often enhanced access to staff via the range
of technologies; and
being
learners themselves in a new and different teaching environment.
We found that staff who had difficulty adjusting to teaching online
were those who had, in their on campus teaching, very fixed strategies
to have everything organised tightly for the whole course. They
wanted everything absolutely secure beforehand, left nothing to
chance, and finally, regarded themselves as a giver of knowledge
and the central figure in the teaching process of knowledge transmission.
All of this, of course, raises a fundamental issue about expectations
of the university about course preparation. Accountability strategies
have reduced the flexibility teachers once had to make alterations
to a course as it proceeded, a situation at odds with online teaching.
Need for staff professional development
The
move from teaching on campus to teaching online has caused many
staff to rethink and challenge some of their long-standing assumptions
and practices. The authors(2003) found that teachers were able to
voice the importance of experience and their ongoing need for support.
As one said:
As
an online lecturer it is difficult to explain to others the realities,
the nuts and bolts, of teaching online. In talking with a colleague
recently the comment was made that "You have to have been there
to truly appreciate the value of such teaching." Perhaps sharing
experiences with colleagues, presenting papers such as these, and
working alongside others as a guide and mentor may help to alleviate
some of these apprehensions.
As
the online programme has expanded, so too has the number of university
teachers. Support for the staff has been available through informal
contacts with other experienced online teachers and a formally planned
series of meetings and workshops to meet professional development
needs. An online course, CD-Rom, video, audio and text resources
have all supported the workshops and one-to-one sessions with experienced
online teaching support staff.
One
of the challenges for ongoing staff professional development is
the rapid pace of the developing technologies. The hardware and
software, which a university teacher may use, may have radically
changed by the time the same course is taught again the following
year. For this reason the staff need an ongoing programme of professional
development and support to ensure they have access to current practice
and resources.
Some
staff may have entered online teaching through feelings of "technolust"
believing they were at the forefront of a 'brave new world' of technological
development and application. They were often disappointed by the
low technology approach of the MMP, which aimed to meet the communications
needs of many rural students. Those teaching staff who saw online
teaching as primarily a technological activity were soon disappointed.
They quickly realised a high standard of teaching was expected and
the process of online teaching was more public and transparent than
they had anticipated. They could not hide behind the screen and
keyboard; they had to teach in a very new and different manner.
One of the university's strategies to overcome this, was to provide
support for those who were willing to seek the help and move from
this technological model of teaching to a more mixed model with
an emphasis on good teaching practice.
Commonalities
At
this point, some clarification of on campus and online teaching
is necessary. First, there seem to be several characteristics of
effective teaching, whether online or on campus. Some of these are:
Students
are provided with clear guidelines about course objectives content,
learning and assessment activities and requirements.
Course
resources are available: books, equipment, other literature.
Techniques
of teaching include providing motivating learning activities,
feedback on coursework, reinforcement, and high expectations.
Student
satisfaction with their level of interest and academic achievement.
When measuring and quantifying these effectiveness factors, there
are difficulties. But useful indicators are students' academic achievement
(course results) and their level of satisfaction about how the course
was taught and what they believed they learned from it. Another
indicator is how a university teacher assessed their own teaching:
Were my students motivated? What did the coursework indicate about
their learning of the course content?
Such
evaluations and measures of teaching are then, partly quantitative
in the form of course results, and partly subjective in the form
of self and student evaluations about various aspects of teaching
and learning, such as student-teacher interaction, motivation, and
academic achievement in addition to the assessed work.
It
can be concluded that there are some common characteristics across
effective university teaching, no matter what the setting - on campus
or online. Yet the actual teaching style of university teachers
varies considerably. That is, the range of effective teaching can
be considerable, even though all may meet the effectiveness characteristics
outlined above. There are dangers, then, in using terms like 'traditional'
teaching.
The
second consideration is what has emerged by way of effective online
teaching strategies. It needs to be said that the university teachers
who volunteered, as the 'pioneers' were all regarded as effective
teachers. Presumably, their teaching varied a good deal in some
respects, yet reflected the benchmark effectiveness characteristics.
In other words, there was no single model of teaching that could
be labelled 'traditional' or 'on campus'. The students of the university
teachers were mostly full-time, attended face-to-face classes regularly,
and thus interacted directly with their teachers. When these teachers
began online teaching, they had to make modifications to their teaching.
Their students were no longer regularly face-to-face, course materials
could not be handed out as before, assignments were not handed in
as before, and their students could not be observed working with
children in the customary way of doing coursework. The move to online
teaching was associated with these changed conditions. The usual
and accepted teaching approaches needed to be modified. As these
modifications were made, the teachers began to look at their on
campus teaching leading to changes to on campus teaching. Online
teaching then influenced on-campus teaching.
Conclusion
After
one year of online teaching of a teacher education degree at the
University of Banasthali, there are some features that suggest our
approach has a number of features that have enabled on campus teaching
approaches to be examined, challenged and modified. Three features
stand out. These are greater collaboration in teaching, greater
transparency in teaching, and self-examination of teaching approaches.
The
first of these features is the way in which online teaching has
been able to develop a more collaborative approach to teaching.
While there is some team teaching in on campus teacher education,
the prevalent approach has been face-to-face teaching that has tended
to be insular and largely invisible outside the course itself. There
are not many opportunities for teachers to share their face-to-face
teaching either by teaching together or watching each other teach.
The culture in which they work is slanted towards individual teaching
and research, resulting in limited opportunities to share. The move
to online teaching has provided a new opportunity for teaching staff
to share what they teach and how they teach even though some had
already worked in teams. In workshops the online teaching staff
have reviewed course content, teaching approaches, learning activities,
assignments, and communication with students. This is not to suggest
that all teaching staff are wedded to a particular approach, but
for many it seems that the sharing has been beneficial. Because
these workshops include 'technical' and teaching staff, common issues,
concerns, and strategies are looked at, thus sometimes saving individuals
from 're-inventing the wheel'.
The
second feature is that of developing greater transparency in teaching
through collaboration. Workshops and meetings have been well attended.
Early on, a climate of collaboration was established, due mainly
to the effective programme leadership which encouraged it, and perhaps
to a 'we are all in this together' realisation. Cooperation was
probably seen as necessary to survive, then advance. Not only have
staff been prepared to discuss aspects with their colleagues but
also the immediacy of electronic communication has meant that many
students are very quickly aware of what is happening in a course,
ask many questions, and expect quick responses to their queries.
Teaching staff have shared coping strategies, which has had the
effect of making them ensure that they are very precise with their
course content, assignment tasks and instructions for their online
coursework. These strategies have, from staff report, influenced
their face-to-face teaching trough this closer examination of the
course content. Both groups of students have benefited from greater
precision and detail for students about course requirements and
expectations.
These
first two features -collaboration and transparency - have led to
a third feature, that of greater opportunities for university teachers
to examine their own practice. While it is not suggested that face-to-face
teaching does not provide for what is popularly called 'reflective
practice', the evidence from the workshops of online teachers suggests
that the process of public discussion actually aids self-analysis.
Ideas are more often shared in public. Others have sometimes taken
up successful strategies that have been reported by one university
teacher, and the impact reported at subsequent workshops.
We
have reported the emergence of a different way of teaching a pre-service
teacher education programme. We have shown that teachers have made
adaptations to their usual teaching approach. It is not a question
of out with the old and in with the new. It has been argued that
elements of effective teaching remain, regardless of the organisational
forms of course teaching. What has contributed to the success of
the venture into online teaching has been the adaptations that teachers
have made to their prevailing practice. They have considered different
alternatives and taken some risks. In the process they have developed
online techniques and enhanced their on campus teaching. Those who
teach both on campus and online may well have the best of both worlds.
Each teaching environment will inform the other and both will be
richer for the experience.
The
Whiteboard Online Programmes have built up a reputation for having
teaching staff who are enthusiastic about their teaching. This enthusiasm
has not been at the expense of the on campus teaching. Both have
gained benefits. The challenge remains to extend what has been learned
to other teacher educators.
