As one step towards EvNet's common goal of identifying best practices, this project will investigate at the university level: a) the extent to which online practices incorporate established characteristics of effective teaching, b) and further seek to identify the characteristics that are relevant and appropriate for online teaching. Of particular interest are the extent to which online instruction fosters student learning, and incorporates a caring perspective. An extension of this project in the second year will be an investigation of the relationship between the identified characteristics and student learning. (These project objectives primarily relate to Theme 2, Evaluating Design Roles. The extension of this project, the relation of characteristics to student learning, relates to Theme 3: Evaluating Delivery Results).
In the first phase of the project, the researchers will jointly develop an instrument to assess the extent to which on line practices incorporate established characteristics of effective teaching. This will be done by integrating appropriate constructs from the higher education literature in traditional settings, in particular: characteristics of effective teaching, the importance of a caring perspective, and conceptions of teaching that focus on student learning. As well, we will draw from our own more recent work investigating aspects of effective online instruction, in particular: attributes of online instruction, the relationship between features of the web and types of learning, and student motivation to learn via computer conferencing, as well as relevant constructs from our ongoing work on assessing pedagogical expertise and themes of caring.
In the second phase of the project, the instrument developed jointly will be applied at each site to a selected set online course materials to assess the extent to which they incorporate the characteristics of effective online instruction. Questionnaire and interview data wil also be collected from professors and students which will be used, in part, to identify relevance and appropriateness of the identified characteristics for online teaching.
Student learning measures will be collected for later use, perhaps in a second year extension of the project, to investigate the relationship between characteristics and student learning.
As one step towards EvNetµs common goal of identifying best practices, this project will investigate at the university level: a) the extent to which online practices incorporate established characteristics of effective teaching, b) and further seek to identify the characteristics that are relevant and appropriate for online teaching. Of particular interest are the extent to which online instruction fosters student learning, and incorporates a caring perspective. An extension of this project in the second year will be an investigation of the relationship between the identified characteristics and student learning.
These project objectives primarily relate to Theme 2, Evaluating Design Roles. The extension of this project, the relation of characteristics to student learning, relates to Theme 3: Evaluating Delivery Results.
There are several perspectives on the characteristics of effective university teaching that are relevant to this research: Characteristics of effective teaching in traditional settings, the importance of caring, conceptions of teaching, and discussions of characteristics specific to online contexts. Each of these will be discussed below.
Several studies have attempted to identify the characteristics of effective university teaching. Feldman (1988) synthesized 31 studies that had used both structured and unstructured data methods and found that both student and faculty members identified the following as important factors for university teaching: Sensitivity to and concern with class level and progress, preparation and organization of the course, knowledge of the subject, enthusiasm for the subject and teaching, clarity and understandability, availability and helpfulness, fairness, impartiality in evaluation of students, and quality of examinations. Sherman et al (1987) identified five factors, which bear similarity to Feldmanµs: Enthusiasm, clarity, preparation and organization, stimulation, knowledge. Lowman (1994) discussed characteristics of effective teaching in terms of two dimensions: intellectual excitement and interpersonal rapport. . His thesis is that both dimensions are necessary for exemplary college teaching. Intellectual excitement includes factors such as clarity, knowledge of the subject, organization, and public speaking ability. Interpersonal rapport includes factors such as communication skills, caring, and sensitivity.
These studies and discussions of characteristics of effective teaching were based mainly on lecture or lecture discussion method. Nonetheless, many of these factors can be considered relevant for online instruction, particularly when online strategies include discussion or lecture information.
The importance of caring is implied or explicit in all of the studies discussed above, but Lowman (1994) most eloquently expresses the importance of caring for students: He says that ?college teaching is and should be interpersonal, that it is above all an enterprise involving human beings and their personalitiesµ (p. 213). He describes the classroom as a highly emotional interpersonal arena in which a variety of emotional reactions can influence how much is learned and how participants feel about learning. His second dimension, interpersonal rapport is most clearly related to caring. It incorporates two components: interpersonal concern and effective motivation; both essential to developing warm, close relationships with students that motivate them to do their best work.
Carson (1997) is similarly powerful in emphasizing the long term impact of caring. She says that ?the second major characteristic of effective teachers is that they unite love of subject with a deep concern for and connection with their studentsµ (p. 9). While Carson has also identified a number of characteristics of effective university teaching, the most striking part of her work are the stories from alumni supporting the importance of these characteristics. She found that graduates regarded most highly and remembered most intensely and fondly those professors who demonstrated a ?special attitude toward and relationship with studentsµ (p.9).
Wilcox (1996) and TµKenye (1998) also discuss the importance of developing a caring and nurturing perspective in adult and higher education. The latter asserts that mastery of content should be secondary to facilitating healthy intrapersonal development as part of learning.
We recently reported our findings from research with exemplary math professors regarding their views of teaching and learning (Weston & McAlpine, 1998). The most pronounced view about university teaching that emerged from interviews with these professors was the importance they placed on caring and concern for students. A quote from one of our professors summarizes well the importance of incorporating a caring perspective in higher education: ·They [the students] donµt care how much you know until they know how much you careº.
Conceptions of teaching: The evolution of focus from content to student learning
Views about how students learn and how these are related to conceptions of teaching are addressed in theories of teaching development in higher education. The evolution teaching expertise and related conceptions of teaching can be seen as progressing through a series of increasingly sophisticated stages of development that are characterized by conceptual changes in the way the professor thinks about how learning takes place, how to structure the content for learning, and the roles of the student and the instructor in this process (e.g., Ho, 1998; Kember, 1997; Ramsden, 1992; Saroyan, Amundsen and Li, 1997).
For example, Ramsden (1992) provides a three level theoretical model which describes the transitions that occur over time in the way professors view instruction as they acquire a more sophisticated view of the teaching and learning process. Theory 1 describes teaching as telling or transmission, primarily of content and procedure, and where the focus is on professor actions rather than on the students. Theory 2 describes teaching as organizing student activities and techniques designed to ensure student learning. The focus moves from professorsµ actions towards the studentsµ actions. Theory 3 focusses on the students and describes teaching as making learning possible through the professor working cooperatively with students to help them change their understanding.
This model, as others (e.g., Fox, 1983; Kember, 1997; Sherman et al, 1987), explain professorsµ progress through the levels as changes in professorsµ perception about the relationship between students and professors, changes in thinking about how learning occurs and thus, a reconceptualization of the subject matter to facilitate learning.
Why is a professors conception of teaching important? Because student centred/learning oriented teachers tend to focus on facilitating understanding, and conceptual change and intellectual development of students - all important learning outcomes for higher education. As well, the professorsµ conception and approach can influence studentsµ learning approaches (e.g., surface, deep or achieving) which subsequently influence student success in learning (e.g., Biggs, 1988; Kember, 1997; Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983).
Summary
In traditional instructional contexts, incorporating characteristics of effective teaching, a caring approach to teaching, and a student centred/learning oriented approach are important considerations because they influence the quality of student learning. We concur with a statement in a recent University Affairs article in which Boshier says, ·many of the principles guiding the development of a good online course are the same as those that would be used in a face to face teaching situation.º (Lougheed, 1998, P. 8).
Relation to ongoing research: Characteristics of effective online instruction
In this section we will focus on how, during the past several years, we have been examining particular aspects of effective online instruction, and how some of our other ongoing research projects relate to this proposal.
When we began to create our own instruction for on line learning we searched for guidelines to steer our design process to avoid creating what Cuneo has called ·drill and kill... coldware... and shovelwareº (Lougheed, 1998, p. 9). The literature related to on line learning revealed concern with good instruction (e.g. Harasim et al, 1995) but no comprehensive guidelines based on a principled approach to designing instruction. In general, the available information tends to focus on technical issues such as physical appearance and navigation (e.g., Bastecki & Berry, 1996; Berk & Kanfer, 1996; Berners-Lee, 1995; Decsy, 1996; Lai & Waugh, 1994; Lynch & Horton, 1997). To fill this gap, we adapted a set of guidelines developed in earlier work (Saroyan & Geis, 1988; McAlpine & Weston, 1994) for designing text based instructional materials to the context of online learning. In a recent article we describe four categories of attributes of instructional materials: Instructional design, subject matter, language, presentation and how these attributes are relevant to on line learning. Additional considerations or characteristics of effective instruction for the context of online learning are discussed, such as impact on learning, student access, student computer literacy, infrastructure, interactivity, navigation, content accuracy and recency, and loading speed and bandwidth (Weston, Gandell and Finkelstein, under review). We are currently analyzing web style guides to see the extent to which they incorporate these essential attributes for online instruction (Weston, Gandell & Finkelstein, in preparation)..
A matrix describing the relationship between traditional instructional strategies and levels of learning was developed by Weston and Cranton in 1986. We have recently adapted this and created a matrix that describes the relationship between features of online instruction and types of learning. The matrix has proven very useful in helping professors understand how different online strategies can be used to achieve different types of learning. For example, content presentation features such as course outlines on the web are most appropriate for address lower level learning goals such as knowledge, and discussion features such as on line conferences can facilitate higher levels of learning such as understanding and thinking (Gandell, Weston, Finkelstein and Winer, in preparation; Gandell, Weston & Pesco, in preparation). This matrix incorporates constructs that can be integrated into tools for assessing web features and their relation to intended and actual teaching goals.
Bures, Amundsen and Abrami (funded by SSHRC) are investigating student motivation to learn via computer conferencing (1999; in press). Students and professors responded to a questionnaire. As well, professors were interviewed pre and post course to understand the context in which computer conferencing was being used in the course. They have found a continuum of use of conferencing from a simple conversation to quite sophisticated integrations. The most striking finding of this work is that students who understand how computer conferencing will contribute to their learning in the course are higher on measures of satisfaction, learning and frequency of use.
McAlpine and Weston (funded by SSHRC) have been investigating reflection and it impact on improving teaching (1997; in press a; in press b). One aspect of this research has been recognition of the importance of caring in the views of a selected group of outstanding univ professors, described earlier. As part of this work, a coding system was developed to analyze themes related to caring and other characteristics of effective teaching. We now wish to extend what we have learned about the importance of caring and community to the context of online learning. As well, this research have provided extensive experience in analyzing qualitative data which will be of relevance to this research (e.g., Weston, McAlpine, Gandell, Beauchamp, Wiseman & Beauchamp, 1999)
Amundsen and Saroyan (funded by SSHRC and FCAR) have been studying the development of pedagogical expertise and how professorsµ teaching conceptions evolve (e.g, Amundsen, Saroyan, 1994; Amundsen, Saroyan & Frankman, 1996; Saroyan, Amundsen and Li, 1997. And have recently developed a model of teacher competence in higher education (Saroyan & Amundsen, in preparation). As part of this work they have developed tools for assessing levels of teaching development which will be essential for the work proposed here.
This project moves one step closer to identifying ·best practicesº in online instruction, a common concern of EvNet and countless others in higher education (e.g., Gilbert, 1996). What concerns us, and others, is that individual or even multiple aspects of best practices are acknowledged and named for example, that it should be learner driven and friendly and intimate but we seem to lack an integrated set of principles to frame our understanding of what best practices means. This project proposes to develop an integrated principled approach to identifying effective online isntruction. The project brings together a breadth of principles from higher education related to the characteristics of effective teaching. The first part of the project is to develop a tool that integrates the principles. The second part is to examine a selected set of existing on line instruction to see the extent to which the characteristics are evident. We expect that as a part of this process we will learn more about the relevance of characteristics to online instruction. Once validate and related to measures of student learning, the resulting tool can be used to guide the effective development of new online instruction.
The constructs and analysis tools we have discussed above, developed in our own research and constructs from the literature, provide the basis for developing a powerful integrated coding system that can serve as an analysis tool to identify the characteristics of effective teaching that are incorporated in existing online courseware. From the literature we will draw upon effective teaching factors, the themes of caring, and conceptions of teaching. From our own more recent work we will also draw upon the attributes of online instruction, the relationship between online features and types of learning, approaches to assessing pedagogical expertise, and themes of caring. The researchers will work jointly on this aspect of the project.
At both sites, McGill and SFU, a selected set of online materials will be examined using this tool to identify the extent to which they incorporate these characteristics of effective teaching. As well professors will be interviewed to understand their goals and the context for use of the materials, adapting protocols developed by Amundsen and Abrami. Questionnaires developed by Amundsen and Abrami will also be adapted to track student motivation, satisfaction and frequency of use. The interview and questionnaire information will help to identify relevance and appropriateness of the identified characteristics for effective online teaching.
As well learning measures will be collected for later use, regarding the relationship between the identified characteristics and student learning. These will not be examined during this project due to time constraints.
We plan to disseminate our work to scholarly audiences by publishing regularly in higher education journals as well as presenting at conferences such as AERA, STLHE, CSSHE, and EvNet. Practice and policy audiences will be reached through presentations at national and international conferences for faculty developers as well as to reports to university committees, and to professors through our regular faculty development activities.
An important characteristics of the research approach used by both Weston and Amundsen is the emphasis on the integration of graduate students into existing research teams: masterµs and doctoral students are active team members, often drawing a thesis out of the research program. Thus, the research offers graduate students a foundation for their development as future scholars and practitioners. All graduate students on the research teams participate actively in research. Besides meeting with us on an individual basis, we hold regular research team meetings where issues relating to professorsµ or studentsµ interests is discussed. Through this process students are trained to analyze relevant literature, develop research questions for their theses, develop and implement methodologies and communicate results of their research in a number of ways. Students are encouraged to present jointly with the researchers at scholarly conferences and to publish jointly (and have been successful at both).
Members of previous cohorts of graduate students with our teams report that the team environment has been one of the most important parts of their graduate program because of the challenge and support of both faculty and other students, the opportunity to take part in academic arguments, and participation ion the processes linked to obtaining research funding.
We will develop the instruments in Summer and Fall (May- December 1999), and pilot test the application of the instruments in one course at each site (Sept - Dec 1999). Specific courses and courseware will be examined during the winter semester (Jan - April 2000).
Amundsen, C & Saroyan, A. (1994). Focusing on the instructional process to promote change in teaching. Paper at American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Amundsen, C., Saroyan, A. & Frankman, M. (1996). Changing methods and metaphors: A case study of growth in university teaching. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 7(3), 3-42.
Bastecki, V.L. & Berry, L.H. (1996). Window presentation styles and user spatial ability. Paper presented at Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Indianapolis, Indiana.
Berk, R. & Kanfer, A. (April 1996). A review of Web style guides. NCSA Technology research group. Online: http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/edu/trg/styleguide/
Berners-Lee, T. (1995). Styleguide for online hypertext. Online: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/Overview.html
Biggs, J.B. (1988). The study process questionnaire (SPQ): Userµs Manual. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Bures, E., Amundsen, C. & Abrami, P. (1999) Contextualizing student motivation to learn via computer conferencing. Paper to be presented at American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Bures, E., Amundsen, C. & Abrami, P. (in press). Motivation to learn via computer conferencing. Research in Higher Education.
Carson, B.H. (1997, October). A professorµs place in student memories. University Affairs, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 8-10.
Centra, J.A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Decsy, D.E. (1996). Evaluating internet resources. Techtrends, 41(4). 3-5.
Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Feldman, K.A. (1988). Effective college teaching from the students and faculty view: Matched or mismatched priorities? Research in Higher Education, 28, 291-344.
Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 151-163.
Gandell, T., Weston, C., Finkelstein, A. & Winer, L. (in preparation). Using the web in teaching: Classification of the extent and ways to use the Web considering student learning and course design.
Gandell, T., Weston, C. & Pesco, D. (in preparation). Formative feedback for utlizingin online discussion as a teaching strategy.
Gilbert, S. W. (1996). Making the most of a slow revolution. Change, Mar-Apr.
Harasim, L.M., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Ho, A. (1998)
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research into research into university academicsµ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
Lai, Y.R. & Waugh, M.L. (April 1994). From information searching to learning: A comparison of contrasting hypertextual menu designs for computer based instructional documents. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Lougheed, T. (1998, November). Goodbye, Mr. Silicone chips. University Affairs, 8-9.
Lowman (1984)
Lowman, J. (1994). What constitutes masterful teaching. In K.A. Feldman & M.B. Paulsen (Eds.). Teaching and learning in the college classroom (pp. 213-225). Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster.
Lynch, P.J. & Horton, S. (1997). Yale C/AIM Style Guide. Http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/intro/design_strategies.html
McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (1994). The attributes of instructional materials. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 19-30.
McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beachamp, J., Beauchamp, C. & Wiseman, C. (1997). Building a model of reflection: New findings and insights. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
a) McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, C. Wiseman, & J., Beauchamp. (In press). Monitoring student cues: Tracking student behavior to improve instruction in higher education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education.
b)McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp,J., Beauchamp, C. & Wiseman, C. (in press). Building a model of reflection. Higher Education.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London, UK: Routledge.
Saroyan, A. & Amundsen, C. (in preparation). A model of teaching competence in higher education.
Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C. & Li, C. (1997). Incorporating theories of teacher growth and adult education in a faculty development program. To improve the academy, 16, 93-115.
Saroyan, A. & Geis, G. (1988). An analysis of guidelines for expert reviewers. Instructional science, 17, 101-128.
Sherman, T.M., Armistead, L.P., Fowler, F., Barksdale, M.A. & Reif, G. (1987). The quest for excellence in university teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 58(1), 66-84.
TµKenye, C. (1998). The nurturing perspective. In D. Pratt & associates (Eds.). Five perspective on teaching in adult and higher education. (pp. 151-172). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Weston, C. & Cranton, P. A. (1986). Selecting instructional strategies. Journal of Higher Education. 57(3), 259-288.
Weston, C., Gandell, T. & Finkelstein, A. (under review). Designing instruction for the context of online learning.
Weston, C., Gandell, T. & Finkelstein, A. (in preparation). An analysis of the instructional attributes of web style guides.
Weston, C. & McAlpine, L. (1998). How six outstanding mathematics professors view teaching and learning: The importance of caring. International Journal of Academic Development, 3(2).
Weston, C., McAlpine, L., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (1999). Issues in documenting and reporting the analysis of interview data. Paper to be presented at American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Wilcox, S. (1996). Fostering self-directed learning in the university setting. Studies in Higher Education, 21(2), 165-176.