Вагнер М. В., преподаватель иностранного языка, Карагандинского Государственного Университета им. академика Е. А. Букетова.

Teaching Online.

What is online tutoring? To answer this question, we must first look at what online education, or e-learning, is - and what it isn't.

Scenario 1: An educational institution decides to put a course on Educational Management online. They put a number of text files online, participants pay a fee per module, download the documents, read them, and… ?

This is not online learning; this is an online bookshop.

Scenario 2: An educational institution decides to provide courses for learning English online. They put a number of self-study exercises on a CD-ROM, participants pay a fee, open the CD ROM, do a few drag
and drop or gapfill exercises and…?

This, in our opinion, is also not online learning. It is a self-study grammar book in digital format.

True e-learning attempts to recreate, as far as possible, more traditional face-to-face learning environments, whilst simultaneously trying to leverage the obvious differences between the bricks and mortar classroom and the virtual one.

Online tutoring, by extension, is similar to face-to-face tutoring, with the most obvious difference being that online tutors will rarely meet course participants and will therefore need to work harder to emulate the social atmosphere and group dynamic characteristic of the face-to-face course.

Online tutoring is part pastoral, part technical, part pedagogical and very hard work!

It is neither a cheap nor an easy option - a point worth bearing in mind when considering the jump to online courses, whether you are a centre director, a course director or a potential tutor.

How is it different to face-to-face teaching?

One of the most obvious differences will be the perceived lack of real people on the course - a perception that can lead to feelings of alienation and isolation on the part of the participants unless it is addressed creatively from the very beginning of the course.

Much more time is needed in online courses in what is often called the socialisation, 'getting to know each other' phase. Whilst 30 minutes may often suffice with a face-to-face group, it's often necessary to spend up to a week online to achieve the same feelings of group identity and collegiality.

This phase of an online course will not only create a safe and comfortable group dynamic, but should also be used to negotiate the 'rules of engagement' which will be observed by the group - this stage is also important as there is a great deal of potential for misunderstanding online, given the lack of paralinguistic features. It will also allow participants to get a feel for each other before moving on to the course content itself.

The socialisation phase is also an ideal time to address technical problems and access difficulties, as well as to discuss and clear up unrealistic expectations on the part of the participants. For many people, their first time as an online student is confusing, frustrating and disappointing unless these issues are overtly dealt with early on.

What are the pros and cons? For the tutor, the pros are many:

Online tutors can work from any location equipped with an Internet connection, and at any time of the day or night.

Online tutoring means adding another string to your bow as a teacher - as the Internet becomes increasingly ubiquitous, and the demand for online study grows, so will the demand for trained and experienced online tutors.

And of course, for any teacher, learning new skills and developing oneself professionally is usually a hugely rewarding experience.

As for cons, there are two main negatives:

One is the amount of time that online tutoring takes up, not only in providing constant learner support and feedback, but in designing new materials for online delivery if you do not already have these ready.

Of course, there is no point in re-inventing the wheel, and there is already plenty of good material out there on the Internet.

Another negative is that institutions who implement e-learning often see it as the 'cheap' alternative to face-to-face teaching, and underestimate the amount of hours that an online tutor will need to put in to run a successful online course. Luckily this rather blinkered view is becoming less prevalent, as online course providers realise that offering quality online courses is the only way forward - and that this implies some investment in effective materials design, and in tutor training and tutor time.

Top ten tips for online tutors:

• Get some qualifications: There are a few organisations offering online tutor training courses, and experiencing an online course yourself can really help you become a good online tutor.

• Get more IT training: You will need to be able to answer technical questions and general Internet questions, as well as course-related queries. Be prepared for this.

• Re-write, don't adapt: Few face-to-face courses will lend themselves naturally to online conversion. A lot of re-writing will be needed for successful online implementation.

• Never assume anything: First-time online participants will need plenty of support, encouragement and motivational input. Drop out rates for online courses tend to be quite high.

• Create the right environment: Spend time on socialisation and group dynamic. An online course will wither and die without it.

• Deal with problems overtly: Encourage open discussion of ongoing problems and issues in your online group - be proactive. Set a few simple rules, establish terms/ times of your availability during the course.

• Develop participant skills: Work with your learners to explore how knowledge is constructed, assimilated and dealt with online. Help them to gain the skills they need to get the most out of the course.

• Encourage reflection: Provide opportunities for participants to reflect - not only on what they have studied, but on the process of online study itself. Weekly journals are an ideal space for this kind of reflection.

• Allow for closure: A period of 'mourning' is customary at the end of any course. Allow participants to deal with this positively by planning for closure, and allowing them to continue working together if they wish.

• Reflect and revise: Each course you run will flag up problems, issues and potential for improvement. Listen to your participant feedback and be open to incorporating the best of it into future versions of your courses.

Regarding interaction, Ridings and Gefen (2004) found that across all types of communities, information exchange was the most commonly cited reason for participation while social support was the second most popular reason for members in communities devoted to professional topics. Communities are used not only for informational purposes but also as an opportunity for social interaction (Kaye, 2005). Kalman, Ravid, Raban, and Rafaeli (2006) argued that interactivity is an essential characteristic of effective online communication and plays an important role in keeping message threads and their authors together. Interactive communication (online as well as in traditional settings) is engaging, and loss of interactivity results in a breakdown of the communicative process.

Research indicates the existence of a relationship between learners’ perceptions of social presence and their motivation for participation in online discussions (Weaver & Albion, 2005). The importance of social interaction to individuals who participate in online communities explains why sociability may be a key element in determining the success or failure of an online community. It has been found that learner satisfaction depends on student-instructor interactions and that students’ perceptions of ‘good’ interactions have a positive impact on their enthusiasm and learning (Swan, 2001; Tricker et al., 2001; Ussher, 2004).

Qualitative data from Weaver and Albion’s (2005) study showed that students placed a high priority on the role of the course instructor as initiator and maintainer of momentum in discussions. This was most evident in the comments of students who experienced infrequent participation by the course instructor. Northrup (2002) found that online learners felt it was important for instructors to promote collaboration and conversation. When interactive activities are carefully planned, they lead not only to greater learning but also to enhanced motivation (Berge 1999; Northrup, 2002).

Interaction in a forum is closely related to the rate at which new messages are posted. Increased frequency of posting in asynchronous communications can lead to more favorable impressions of communication partners (Liu, Ginther, & Zellhart, 2001; Walther & Bunz, 2005). Researchers have suggested that timing of messages can serve as a proxy for a sense of social presence (Blanchard, 2004), as an indication of attentiveness (Walther & Bunz, 2005) or respect (Bargh & McKenna, 2004), and as a clue to the sociability of a community (Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, 2005). As such, the frequency of messages may serve as a signal for how engaged participants are with the community.

Regarding feedback, a survey conducted by McCollum, Calder, Ashby, and Morgan (1995) showed that students ranked feedback as the highest factor in determining course quality. Similar findings were reported by Tricker et al. (2001), Spangle, Hodne, and Schierling (2002) and Young (2006). At the same time, faculty members found interacting with and providing feedback to students in online classes to be more time consuming than in face-to-face classes (Chabon, Cain, & Lee-Wilkerson, 2001; Jennings & McCuller, 2004; Herrmann & Popyack, 2003; Smith, Ferguson, & Caris, 2002).

Kearsley (2000) and Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2000) found that instructors can either enhance or decrease course interaction depending on how consistently, quickly, and helpfully they respond. The most successful online courses are those in which instructor-to-student interaction is both frequent and productive (Northrup, 2002; Swan, 2001). Thus, evidence of high instructor engagement ranged from low to high in the quality, speed, and usefulness of feedback to students. Jiang and Ting (2000) further reported that both perceived learning and perceived interaction with instructors were linked to the actual average numbers of responses per student that instructors made. Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz, and Maher (2000) also found a correlation between students’ perceived interaction with their instructors and the actual frequency of instructor participation in online course discussions, and Picciano (1998) reported that instructors’ activity was related to students’ perceived learning from them in an online graduate level course. The number and type of facilitator postings also increased the level of interaction between students (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005).

On the other hand, Eom (2006) found that instructor facilitation and feedback did not affect the perceived satisfaction of students who take web-based courses. Eom found that the most significant factors for increasing student satisfaction with online classes are paying attention to students and responding to their concerns.

Two Canadian university instructors who teach online have drawn upon their own experiences, as well as those of other online teachers, to come up with a list of principles to guide new online instructors and course developers.

Authors Jim Henry and Jeff Meadows of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta say, among other things:

- Technology is a vehicle, not a destination.

- Effective online courses are defined by teaching, not technology.

- A great web interface will not save a poor course, but a poor web interface will destroy a potentially great course.

- Excellence comes from ongoing assessment and refinement.

- For teaching online, say Henry and Meadows:

"[It is] not sufficient to be a content expert. Nor is it sufficient to be 'tech-savvy.' It is not even sufficient to be an excellent traditional classroom teacher. Because the online world is a categorically different environment, a particular blend of skills and knowledge is necessary if success is to be found in this domain."

Students are doing less hand-raising and more clicking as online classes become increasingly popular in K12 instruction, both in combination with brick-and-mortar classrooms and in independent full-time virtual schools. “It’s exploding,” says Barbara Treacy, director of EdTech Leaders Online, a program of the nonprofit Education Development Center that works with educational organizations to develop online courses and professional development. “What we’re going to see in the future is a spectrum of blended courses, and the rare classroom that is 100 percent face-to-face.” 

Right now, 31 states allow purely online schools, of which about 275,000 students attended in the 2011-2012 school year, according to “Keeping Pace with K12 Online and Blended Learning,” an annual report from the Evergreen Education Group, which works with districts to improve education outcomes through digital learning. And students nationwide are increasingly taking classes online at least part of the time: In the 2011-2012 school year, nearly 620,000 students were enrolled in single online courses in 28 states, an increase of 16 percent from the year before, the report says. 

The numbers of students taking distance education courses (which take place outside a traditional setting, the vast majority occurring online) rose from 45,000 in 2000 to 1.8 million students in the 2009-2010 school year, according to a 2012 report from the International Association for K12 Online Learning (iNACOL). And the impending move to the Common Core State Standards’ computerized assessments is also pushing states to evaluate technology infrastructures, the report states, making way for more online and blended courses. 

With online instruction comes a change in the nature of teaching, communicating with and assessing students. As schools move to the online model, administrators must ensure that teachers and students are prepared for the shift.

Student access to advanced courses is one of the primary reasons district leaders initially made online learning available: In 2010, less than 35 percent of traditional schools offered AP or IB courses, according to the College Board. And about 70 percent of online students are enrolled in core courses because they failed the first time in the classroom setting, or are trying to graduate within four years, iNACOL found. Online classes also provide an option for working or bedridden students, and for those in alternative programs.

In 2008, Jefferson County Public Schools, the largest district in Colorado, began offering online courses statewide for grades 7 through 12 through the district’s 21st Century Virtual Academy. The academy, which is free for Colorado students, increased from 90 students its first year to 816 full- and part-time students this year, including those taking AP courses. “As budget cuts were hitting us, we recognized that a lot of schools can’t offer these smaller courses [in brick-and-mortar facilities] with only four or five students,” says Sherry Meier, assistant director of student online learning at Jefferson County Public Schools.

More teachers, rookies, and veterans at all experience levels are adapting to an online model, and a growing number of college education programs are offering certificates in online teaching for education majors, according to Susan Patrick, CEO of iNACOL. “Every other sector of the workforce outside of K12 education has moved to a more flexible environment that fits the modern world,” Patrick says.

Online educators must be certified classroom teachers in their state, Patrick says, but there is no nationally required online certification. The average classroom teaching experience of those who transition online is eight years, according to “Going Virtual! 2010,” a Boise State University report on the professional development of K12 online teachers. “The expectation is that younger teachers are more tech savvy, but that’s not the case,” says David Hargis, director of content development at ASCD, which offers online PD programs. “We’re seeing great experimentation by teachers who have been in the field a number of years and want to try something new.”

Teachers need to experience online learning themselves, says Treacy of EdTech Leaders Online, to “use the tools and experience the change in pedagogical design teaching online—the way you interact, the pace of learning, and the opportunities in content.” According to the EdTech Leaders Online training courses, online teachers must:

Establish clear expectations and deadlines. Make sure students understand what work will be expected of them, and the criteria for grading.

Guide students through projects, activities, and problems with carefully crafted directions and timely responses to questions. Project guidelines should be specific, with timelines for project milestones and teacher check-ins.

Be positive, personal, and approachable. Develop a professional but informal online voice, learning how to share personal stories and humor with students to make connections with students so they feel comfortable asking questions and engaging in the course.

Observe how students respond to assignments, and adjust content or facilitation accordingly. Encourage students to reflect and provide feedback on individual assignments and the course overall.

Use questions rather than provide all the answers to foster discussion.

Most virtual academies have a required training program, as many teachers have no prior online experience. For example, Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA) has an initial teacher training to familiarize new hires with the different online programs. “Most come from other districts, and they might be a phenomenal classroom teacher—we just need to give them the tools and training to engage that online,” says Cindy Wright, the head of school. AZVA has 5,500 students (up from 1,000 in the 2004-2005 school year) and 151 teachers. “The delivery method is different, but good teaching is good teaching,” Wright adds.

Teachers must transform their classroom skills to the virtual medium by adjusting curriculum to combine text-based and multimedia material, Treacy says. Instead of searching for raised hands, they can use course management systems such as Blackboard or Schoology to collect student participation data throughout a course, including discussion comments and time spent on each lesson.

Online teachers must also learn to resolve basic technical problems that arise for students, such as wireless connection issues, and consistently check web tools and links in lessons.

Assessment strategies also differ, Treacy says, and teachers must learn how hey will know students are learning, be it via projects, tests, quizzes, or discussions in which students respond to questions posed by the teacher or other students. Inaddition, online teachers must communicate concisely in writing to students, more so than classroom teachers who primarily present content through lectures, when monitoring discussion boards and critiquing student writing.

And online teachers must become adept at moving between content areas, as students in many virtual academies can start courses at any point in the year. “Just because it’s the third week in September doesn’t mean you’re only teaching the fall of the Roman Empire,” says Beth Miller, senior manager for professional learning at Florida Virtual School (FLVS), the nation’s largest state virtual school with 148,000 students enrolled in 2011-2012, and which is free for Florida residents.

“You’re teaching all of history, all the time. It’s a real mental shift for teachers.” Teachers learn to multitask with support from a professional learning specialist, an instructional leader, and adjuncts who assist with grading, Miller adds.

The schedule is also a shift: at FLVS, teachers are available from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., seven days a week—but they aren’t sitting at a desk all day, says FLVS communications specialist Tania Clow. Their typical day might include grading papers, preparing the virtual grade book (which parents and students can access to view progress), and replying to student questions via email, phone, or instant message. Teachers also set offce hours and times to give students one-on-one attention when needed, and often choose their schedules based on when most students are online.

The number of states that require students to take online courses is also growing: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, and Virginia have passed such legislation. For example, the Florida Digital Learning Now Act, enacted last year, requires all high school students to take at least one online course as a graduation requirement. At Miami-Dade Public Schools, these courses are scheduled into students’ days, and are taken in a computer lab at each high school.

“We found that the transition forkids was tough,” especially for struggling learners, who not only need more time to understand concepts, but more teacher support, says Sylvia Diaz, administrative director of instructional technology at Miami-Dade. Though the online teachers are always available, these students had trouble navigating the online medium for the first time and knowing when to reach out for help, especially in core classes.

When given the choice, administrators should examine both staff and student interest and willingness to take part in online learning before implementing classes, says David Hargis, director of content development at ASCD.

“Don’t assume that just because you’re doing something online, it’s going to make kids learn,” he adds. “You have to think about what’s applicable and engaging for all students.”

The future of online learning will likely be in blended models that combine some classroom and some online instruction, says Lisa Collins, senior director of instructional services at K12, Inc., an online course provider.

“We need to keep up with the world of work skills, because so many of our job experiences are moving to virtual communication mechanisms, and students should be prepared,” she adds. “It’s about being able to provide a more robust, individualized experience for them.” 

References

1. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Retrieved April 2, 2009

2. Baker, J. D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 1-13. 

3. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Online discussion groups: The relationship between social presence and perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 323-346.

4. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6-28.

5. Eom, S. (2006). The role of the instructors as a determinant of students’ satisfaction in university online education. Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE international Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies-ICALT, Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 985-988.

6. Fahy, P. J. (2001). Addressing some common problems in transcript analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). Retrieved April 2, 2009

7. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.

8. Herrmann, N., & Popyack, J. L. (2003). Electronic grading: When the tablet is mightier than the pen. Syllabus: Technology for Higher Education, 16, 1-16.

9. Jennings , S. E., & McCuller, M. Z. (2004). Meeting the challenges of grading online business communication assignments. Proceedings of the 69th Annual Convention, Association for Business Communication (pp. 9-14). Cambridge, Massachusetts.

10. Kalman, Y. M., Ravid, G., Raban, D. R., & Rafaeli, S. (2006). Pauses and response latencies: A chronemic analysis of asynchronous CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1). Retrieved April 2, 2009

11. Luebeck, J. L., & Bice, L. R. (2005). Online discussion as a mechanism of conceptual change among mathematics and science teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 21−39.

12. Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2005). A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human

13. Northrup, P. (2002). Online learner’s preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 219-229.

14. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

15. Tricker, M., Rangecroft, M., & Long, P. (2001). Evaluating distance education courses: the student perception. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(2), 165–177.

16. Varnhagen, S., Wilson, D., Krupa, E., Kasprzak, S., & Hunting, V. (2005). Comparison of student experiences with different online graduate courses in health promotion. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 99-117.