Teaching and Learning Online 1

Running head: Teaching and Learning Online

An Examination of Teaching and Learning Online

Cindy Seibel

December 3, 2008
 An Examination of Teaching and Learning Online

This paper examines the potential of teaching and learning online and the design

considerations to support it. While I will begin with a broad discussion of the topic, I have

selected two views to compare and contrast in the body of the paper: a teaching view and a

learning view. These views are explored from two different sets of authors and contrast the

benefits with the potential risks for learners that online teaching and learning strategies afford.

Introduction

The potential for teaching and learning online can be considered in three areas: improved

learning outcomes, greater access, and a safer learning environment. Improved learning

outcomes can be conceived as better retention of material, deeper thinking and understanding ,

and ability to apply learning across multiple disciplines and subject areas. Greater access has

been described as anytime-anywhere learning , room for more learners, the potential for more

teachers and the access to other learners for collaboration . Safety is encountered in the ability to

explore virtually that which is dangerous in real life, such as chemistry experiments and field

trips to high-risk locations .

Access and safety represent the immediate benefits of teaching and learning online. The

greatest long-term potential for teaching and learning online may lie in the improved

achievement of learning objectives. The greatest risk may be to promote teaching practices that

counter that focus. Online learning “may be used to duplicate a mundane educational model of

information transfer or an exciting model that stresses students’ collective construction of

knowledge as they interact with other students, the content, and the faculty” . Dalsgaard and

Siemens agreed and argued this to be the difference between managing students’ and learning

empowering them to be life-long learners in their own right.

 Teaching and Learning Online 3

To frame this examination of benefit and risk I have selected three papers to review. Two

papers are from a group of authors who discuss the ‘School for All’ initiative in Taiwan and the

third paper is from a different author, Elizabeth J. Burge, who discussed the potential of learning

online from a constructivist perspective . The different authors approach the online learning

environment from different perspectives: the School for All project was developed and is

described from the teacher perspective and Burge speaks from the learner perspective.

Approaching the development and evaluation of online learning from a teaching perspective

presents a risk that traditional models of teaching by delivering content will be not only

perpetuated but designed into the technologies that support it. By contrast, a learning view

acknowledges that learners enter the space with different styles and talents, that deep learning

occurs in a social context where learners create meaning through a reflective endeavour, and that

content is a building block of learning rather than the end goal.

The Teaching View: The School for All Project

In 1998 the Taiwan government funded a national initiative to promote academic

excellence in universities. One of the funded projects – Learning Technology: Active Social

Learning and Its Applications from Taiwan to the World – examined learning through four

lenses. The work considered in this paper examines the research conducted in one lens,

community-based learning, through a program called School for All. School for All was

delivered on the Educities platform which provided a web-based educational environment

accessible to all members of society. The hypothesis in the School for All project was that the

provision of supporting technologies would allow non-accredited teachers to be successful online

instructors.
 Teaching and Learning Online 4

The School for All project identified outstanding teachers on the basis of the quality of

the course material, the instructional processes used including “assignment, class management,

[and] interactions between teachers and learners” and “the overall performance in reference to

[the] instructors age group” (p. 212). Each of the criteria represented 20 percent of the total

evaluation. While student materials were used to support the evaluation, student feedback was

not solicited for the instructor evaluation. These courses were offered for free and not accredited,

so there were no measures of student achievement associated with the research.

Specifically Young et al argued to challenge the frame of conventional education in that

“only teachers teach and students learn” . The authors believed their work confirms the

possibility that “those who educate on the Internet will return education to more convivial and

less authoritarian practices” .

The Learning View: Elizabeth J. Burge

In 1999 Elizabeth Burge published an article compiling her learnings as an educational

technologist and Professor of Adult Education . Much of what she wrote remains relevant today.

In addition to sharing her advice about choosing and using learning technologies, she asked and

answered the key question “What can the learners do to acquire, organize, elaborate, and

integrate new and old, tacit and explicit, experiential and theoretical information?” :

After learners have studied this new information [outside of class], they come to class
prepared to work with it at higher cognitive levels, i.e., to analyze, apply, synthesize, and
evaluate it, using their own tacit knowledge and real-world problems as contexts and
resources. Small-group activity can be planned for higher-order thinking, but it needs
well-designed monitoring. Loss of academic rigor is not an issue here. Class activity
includes the use of learning (as distinct from teaching) objectives, structured activities
before and during interaction with peers, certain teacher tasks and responsible self-
direction.

Burge approached her work as a constructivist facilitator. Learning objectives were

defined and achieved through strategies that included purposeful group discussions, checking for
 Teaching and Learning Online 5

new learning and correcting errors, helping learners to think at higher levels and build upon their

existing knowledge, and supporting learners through expected dissonance.

The Theory

Learning theories have evolved from behaviorism (the learner as an empty vessel) to

cognitivism (processing occurs within the brain based on inputs) to constructivism (the learner

creates his or her own meaning) . Constructivism further evolved with the concept of social

context, that meaning is created in the presence of the learner’s frame of reference of people,

places and things. Ally suggested that all three theories can be used in designing online learning:

“[b]ehaviorists' strategies can be used to teach the “what” (facts), cognitive strategies can be used

to teach the “how” (processes and principles), and constructivist strategies can be used to teach

the “why” (higher level thinking that promotes personal meaning and situated and contextual

learning)” .

The five different pedagogical models identified by Lin et al in School for All for

delivering online learning are models of organizing the teachers, not the learners. These are

teaching models premised on a behavioural approach. School for All’s overall approach is

predominantly behavioural. The platform includes discussion forums but the supporting

assessment tools were based on quantity rather than quality.

In contrast, placing the learner at the centre is one hallmark of the social constructivist

approach . One example of Burge’s focus on the learner was her posing of the question “will

they become knowledge photocopiers (of the delivered information) or information architects

(builders of sturdy mental frameworks)?” (p. 46). A constructivist strategy will place the learner

at the centre and focus on success being learners’ development as architects of their own

learning.
 Teaching and Learning Online 6

The Technology

Technologies used in web-based courses typically deliver three kinds of tools or

functions: authoring/publishing tools, conferencing tools, and data management tools . These are

either bundled in a course management system or delivered as a loosely coupled set of

technologies available on the World Wide Web and accessed through a common web page . For

purposes of this paper, only course management systems that are accessible through the World

Wide Web are considered to be part of online teaching and learning.

In School for All, Lin et al hypothesized that “[w]eb-based learning systems, if designed

appropriately, offer many advantages over the traditional learning environments” . They created a

learning management system with set functions and features that would guide t the most novice

instructor, a mechanistic environment through which novice instructors would pass their content.

For experienced teachers the risk is that “teachers are taking a technology that could help

reinvent their teaching style and making it fit into their old lecture-based teaching styles” . This

environment may be better suited to training (skills) rather than learning (concepts and

application of those concepts).

The tools in School for All constrained learning and controlled the learner rather than

creating opportunities for learners to explore concepts and create meaning for them. The project

aimed to provide adaptive tools for teachers but these were primarily aimed at organizing and

managing course content and access, such as role definition, available functions and rubrics. The

authors equated using a function to its ability to “practically and flexibly support online

teaching” . Teacher as controller was identified as an important role.

Burge realized that learning technologies can help to “set up the conditions to promote

self-confidence and connection” but used inappropriately could also “block those drives” (p. 47).
 Teaching and Learning Online 7

She recognized that design is critical to achieving stated objectives. Dalsgaard agreed, stating

that “[s]elf-governed, problem-based and collaborative activities call for tools which support

construction, presentation, reflection, collaboration, and tools for finding people and other

resources of relevance to their problem” .

Both approaches state that the learning platform (that is, the technologies used to support

online learning) need to combine usability, aesthetics and adaptability to benefit both teachers

and learners . But the implementation when taken from either a teacher o learner view is

decidedly different. School for All built a learning management system. Burge (1999) promoted

using the right tool for the job at hand – “A hammer is not the best tool for embedding a screw”

(p. 47).

The Instructional Design

While the technology has the potential for both positive and negative consequences, the

role of instructional practice is more clear. Meyer’s analysis suggested that “the impact online

learning will have on students’ writing skills has more to do with how the course and learning

objectives are designed than the web in and of itself” (p.4).

School for All took a structured approach to instructional design, in essence a formula for

instructors to follow. This was most apparent in the Information Technology courses that were

quite linear. In School for All, adaptation was built into the instructional design in the form of

function choices for the instructor rather than creating adaptive exploration in the technology for

the learner.

One of the design choices available in School for All was to keep the discussion forum

closed to class participants or open it to non-participants. There are risks in such a decision

related to social presence. Anderson described social presence as the environment established to
 Teaching and Learning Online 8

provide learners with the comfort to express their opinions, both positive and negative, with

others. The anonymity of School for All participants created some safety but it would also make

it difficult to ever reach a level of trust that is a cornerstone of community. Social presence needs

to be cultivated by learners in an online forum in order to build community .

Another decision choice in School for All was to allow anonymous class participation. A

discussion forum can be a place for reflection and deeper thinking. Opening the discussion up

too soon may have the opposite effect. Some learners need a more intimate learning environment

where trust is developed before learners feel comfortable in posting either original thoughts or

contentious responses .

An adaptive design supports different learner styles. Learning how to learn is a desired

attribute of the 21st century learner. This necessitates support from the facilitator to explore

learner style and/or respond to learner style. The anonymity in School for All would make it

difficult for the instructor to understand the learner’s needs.

Burge promoted a more flexible approach that is adaptive for the learner. Her blended

design included online content review, face to face discussion, and online reflection and

discussion. This design reflected the changing role of teacher to “Learning Concierge, Modeler,

Learning Architect, Connected Learning Incubator, Network Sherpa, Synthesizer and Change

Agent” .

The instructional design needs specific pedagogical strategies to engage learners. A

paradox is occurring in some blended environments where learners eschew the face to face

communication in favour of online content delivery .

Burge’s design necessitated communication because online content delivery is

insufficient to create deep learning. Meyer questioned whether online communication could
 Teaching and Learning Online 9

foster the communication necessary for learners to collectively build understanding and

individually create meaning. She concluded that “social presence may turn out to be talking’s

best online analogue” (p. 5).

A Final Note: Teacher Preparation

Nason conducted a qualitative phenomenological study at a community college

implementing a blended learning program. The institution leadership (executive and

instructional) relied on the literature to choose a blended approach as the optimal design to create

a rich learning experience. However, the teachers were not trained in either using the online tools

or considering a design change to their face-to-face instructional model in order to leverage the

tools. Consequently students only used online tools and failed to have the richer learning

experience expected. The teachers lacked the knowledge and skills to create and deliver the

optimal design.

So what are the skills that teachers need to develop online learning programs? Should

teachers be expected to “go it alone”? Burge suggested that it takes an array of specialties to

develop online programs from instructional designers to technologists to IT specialists. Ma

proposed that teachers could begin by using Flash conversion programs to convert their

PowerPoint slides into animated learning objects. This may be particularly useful for language

instruction where students can hear and see the language. Teachers cannot be expected to come

to the table with all these skills, but chunking the work and starting in small ways and working in

teams or communities of practice will ease teachers into the online environment .

Rather than supporting its hypothesis that anyone can teach, the School for All project

demonstrated that are likely three elements critical to teaching and learning online: subject

matter expertise, teaching/instructional skill, and comfort in working in an online environment.

 Teaching and Learning Online 10

The results suggested that with a strong supporting technical environment that the most

successful classes as measured by the project are taught by instructors that demonstrate comfort

in working online and exhibit either subject matter expertise or teaching/instructional skill. In

School for All the outstanding teachers fell into two categories: accredited teachers and current

students. Accredited teachers brought an understanding of learning theory, learning styles, and

instructional strategies to the work. Students performed well, I contend, because they are

currently learners and have a better appreciation of learner needs. Juxtapose this with an adult

(neither learner nor teacher) that did not perform well, but rather had a single-minded view of

passing knowledge to the learner with neither a studied sense nor experiential sense of what

learners need. Not everyone can teach.

Professional development for even accredited teachers is critical in the new online

learning spaces, and action research provides one such avenue. Evidence-based practice is a top-

down approach which relies on knowledge gathered research data that is valid and reliable .

Action research, in contrast, is a bottom-up approach that directly impacts personal practice with

the potential of replication elsewhere. Every teacher can create an action research investigation.

The role of educator as both a qualitative and quantitative researcher is described by

Rinaldo as an important function to improving both student outcomes and personal practice.

Where this learning is not provided in a pre-service model, an online professional development

opportunity could well serve the teacher in gaining this knowledge and skill. Teachers could be

supported through an action research process such as described in the Alberta Teacher’s

Association Action Research Guide .

An online community could also support an action research model, as teachers share

practice, reflect on their own learning, and seek support from other teachers engaged in action
 Teaching and Learning Online 11

research . Teachers pursuing similar questions in similar settings could be grouped together

within a community that was then shared out, or work closely in the same community.

Are face to face skills sufficient for teachers to be successful in an online or even blended

environment? The success of students as teachers in School for All would suggest that teachers

will be better online teachers if they have first been online learners. Jones suggested that in order

for the online experience to be valuable adults need “technical skills, social maturity, emotional

stability, self-control, professionalism, empathy, critical thinking ability, and common sense”.

Technical skills can be mediated, but Jones cautions that support and feedback are required to

mediate the remaining attributes. To be supportive for our teachers we need to create accessible

environments in our school districts that differentiate both the content and tools of adult learning

from that of student learning and design professional development to be an interactive,

collaborative and reflective experience.

Conclusion

My bias for social constructivist strategies is evident in this paper. Finding one’s personal

epistemology is an important step in one’s own development as an educational technologist . The

selection of these two views is not an accident. Burge’s work resonated with me, like the striking

of a gong. School for All came to me as a mechanistic approach to teaching and learning.

Automation perpetuates the factory model of learning. Adaptive approaches reflect the organic

nature of deep learning. Learning technologies have the negative potential to perpetuate the

factory model but the positive potential if designed to adapt to the learner and if teachers are

supported in their personal development to change practice. Therein lies the great potential of

teaching and learning online.

 Teaching and Learning Online Page 12

References