Advertisement

Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 83–98 | Cite as

Implementing Effective Online Teaching Practices: Voices of Exemplary Faculty

  • Cassandra C. Lewis
  • Husein Abdul-Hamid
Article

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 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the faculty participants of this study for their willingness to share their experiences and teaching strategies. Special 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

  1. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective e-learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 181–190.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–6.Google Scholar
  5. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Lee, J., & Gibson, C. C. (2003). Self-direction in an online course through computer-mediated interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 17, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education (2 nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–6.Google Scholar
  14. Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education. (pp. 22–38). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Maryland University CollegeCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Grants at the University of Maryland University CollegeCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations