Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A process-oriented framework for acquiring online teaching competencies

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a multidimensional construct which requires multiple competencies, online teaching is forcing universities to rethink traditional faculty roles and competencies. With this consideration in mind, this paper presents a process-oriented framework structured around three sequential non-linear phases: (1) before: preparing, planning, and designing; (2) during: facilitating, interacting, and providing/gathering feedback; and (3) after: reflecting and considering lessons learned. Grounded on existing models and on our experience designing and working with faculty designing and teaching online courses, this framework provides a systemic understanding of the various roles and competencies associated with online teaching. Use of this framework should enable higher education institutions (HEIs) to develop comprehensive and effective faculty development programs, capable of helping faculty create and facilitate effective learning opportunities for all students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As a generic concept, online teaching refers to any learning experience which mixes three interdependent dimensions: (1) delivery and interaction tools (hardware and software); (2) remote location; and (3) synchronous or asynchronous meeting time.

References

  • Abdous, M. (2009). E-learning quality assurance: A process-oriented lifecycle model. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdous, M., & He, W. (2008a). Streamlining online course development process by using project management tools. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 181–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdous, M., & He, W. (2008b). A design framework for syllabus generator. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 541–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdous, M., & Yoshimura, M. (2010). Learner outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison of live video-streamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Computers & Education, 55(2), 733–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amirault, R., & Visser, Y. (2009). The University in periods of technological change: A historically grounded perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of experienced instructors. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3), 152–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competency-based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L. (2008). Instructor’s changing roles in multi-user virtual environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 407–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., & Surkes, M. A. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, S. (2005). Changing roles and competencies of academics. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(3), 256–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brindley, J., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/675/1271.

  • Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43–62). New York: Springer Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers, D. (2004). Quality in E-learning from a learner’s perspective. Proceeding of the Third EDEN Research Workshop, Oldenburg, Germany, 4-6 March. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Online_Master_COPs.html.

  • Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 244–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. (1989). The written world: On the theory and practice of moderating educational computer conferences 89 computer conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communications, computers, and distance education (pp. 22–39). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., & Spector, J. M. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graff, R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of readiness to teach online. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/33/34/3334462.html.

  • Harasim, L. (2006). A history of E-learning: Shift happened. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 59–94). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. R. (1988). Teaching in a virtual classroom. In A virtual classroom on EIES: Final evaluation report (Vol. 2). Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. R., Kim, E., & Shea, P. (2007). Faculty motivators and de-motivators for teaching online: Results of focus group interviews at one university. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences.

  • Hosiea, P., Schibecib, R., & Backhausc, A. (2005). A framework and checklists for evaluating online learning in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 539–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2008). Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3/4), 521–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohman, J. (1996). Characteristics of exemplary teachers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 65, 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowes, S. (2008). Online teaching and classroom change: The trans-classroom teacher in the age of the internet. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(3), 5. Retrieved from http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue3/Online_Teaching_and_Classroom_Change-__The_Trans-Classroom_Teacher_in_the_Age_of_the_Internet.pdf.

  • Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS, 1(19). Retrieved from http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason.html.

  • McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics’ role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G. (2002). Editorial, what does research say about the learners using computer-mediated communication in distance learning? American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 61–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrisett, L. (1996). Habits of mind and a new technology of freedom. First Monday, 1(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/483/404.

  • Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. L. (2001). Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins-Dove, T. G. (2006). Streaming video and distance education. Distance Learning, 3(4), 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. W. (1986). Humanizing the use of technology in education: A re-examination. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue Internationale de l’Education, 32(2), 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, R., Williams, M., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34(4), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paquette, G. (2007). An ontology and a software framework for competency modeling and management. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. First Look. NCES 2009-044: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubSearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009044.

  • Paulsen, M. F. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom, Vol. III: Distance Learning (pp. 81–89). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R (2005). Pedagogical, institutional and human factors influencing the widespread adoption of educational technology in higher education. In Goss, H. (Ed.), Balance, fidelity, mobility? Maintaining the momentum? Proceedings of the 22nd ASCILITE Conference. Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology, 4–7 December 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/62_Phillips.pdf.

  • Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M., (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. ED453803. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2b/6d/70.pdf.

  • Roblyer, M. D., Porter, M., Bielefeldt, T., & Donaldson, M. B. (2009). Teaching online made me a better teacher: Studying the impact of virtual course experiences on teachers’ face-to-face practice. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(4), 121–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1998). Technology’s promises and dangers in a psychological and educational context. Theory into Practice, 37(1), 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, C., Alpert, M., & Koeller, M. (2007). Increasing the efficacy of educators teaching online. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 173–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M. J. (2005). Time demands in online instruction. Distance Education, 26(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2010). Innovating the 21st-century university: It’s time! EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 45(1), 16 − 29. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume45/Innovatingthe21stCenturyUniver/195370.

  • Thach, E., & Murphy, K. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the internet. American Education Research Journal, 41, 447–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, L. (2007). Online teaching and university policy: Investigating the disconnect. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2005). Reflections on teaching and learning online: Quality program design, delivery and support issues from a cross‐global perspective. Distance Education, 26(3), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Learning Technologies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    M’hammed Abdous

Authors
  1. M’hammed Abdous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M’hammed Abdous.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abdous, M. A process-oriented framework for acquiring online teaching competencies. J Comput High Educ 23, 60–77 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-010-9040-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-010-9040-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation