Students Perceptions of Effective Teaching in Distance Education Albert Johnson, M.Ed. (IT) Senior Instructional Designer, Distance Education and Learning Technologies Trudi Johnson, PhD Associate Professor, Faculty of Education The notion of asking students to provide feedback on the quality of the teaching that they encounter during their academic career has been with us for almost a century. Student rating of instruction was introduced into North American universities in the mid-1920s (d Apollonia & Abrami, 1997). A renewed concern over the quality of university teaching, which has been partially generated by the growing acceptance of web-based distance education, has fostered a significant body of research that attempts to isolate characteristics of effective university teaching in both traditional and distance modes of delivery (Young, Cantrell, & Shaw, 1999). This presentation highlights a study of students perceptions of effective teaching that was conducted at Memorial University during the winter semester of 2008. While much research has been conducted on the questions related to effective teaching in post-secondary institutions, projects that investigate the nature of effective teaching across modes of course delivery are rare. The growth of online distance education leads researchers to questions about the characteristics of effective teaching in online courses. Are the characteristics of effective online teaching the same as the characteristics of effective teaching in a face-to-face environment? And, if so, how are these characteristics manifested through electronic media? Traditional student questionnaires and course evaluation forms are designed with the underlying assumption that the designer and the participant agree on the characteristics of effective teaching (Anderson, Cain, & Bird, 2005; Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, Collins, Filer, Wiedmaier, & Moore, 2007; Young, 2006). The method used to gather data to study students perceptions of effective teaching at Memorial University challenges this assumption. The first nine questions of the survey asked students for demographic information. Thirty of the remaining 40 items were open-ended and asked participants for text-based responses. Students were asked to draw on their own experiences as university students to identify five characteristics of effective instructors, describe each characteristic and explain why it is important, and to identify instructor behaviours that demonstrate the characteristic. Finally, students were asked to rank the five characteristics from one to five, with one referring to the least important and five referring to the most important. The set of questions was repeated five times for both on-campus teaching and instruction at a distance. The survey was made available to students through a learning management system (Desire2Learn) from February 25, 2008, to April 4, 2008. Approximately 17,000 Memorial University students had access. The demographics of the 330 students who provided usable data were very similar to the demographic profile of the larger university population. Of the 330 respondents, 161 of them provided data for both oncampus and distance delivery of courses. The manual coding of the data for on-campus teaching identified 69 adjectives that students used to identify characteristics of effective teaching. A unique coding number was assigned to each of the adjectives. These numbers were entered by hand onto a hard copy of the data, and then keyed into an electronic version in spreadsheet software. After completing the coding process, the data were filtered in the spreadsheet software by the unique numbers and new spreadsheets were derived, one spreadsheet for each of the 69 characteristics. The descriptions and instructor behaviours identified for each characteristic Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 1
were then harvested, and definitions and a list of instructor behaviours were compiled for each characteristic. The analysis of these definitions and behaviours led to further grouping of the data along behavioural themes. The same approach was used to analyze the data for the characteristics of effective teaching in distance courses. Fifty-three of the adjectives identified in the on-campus segment of the survey appeared in the responses to the distance segment. No unique adjectives were present in the distance responses. After completing the analysis, nine characteristics of effective teaching were identified. Effective teachers at Memorial University were perceived to be: respectful, knowledgeable, approachable, engaging, communicative, organized, responsive, professional, and humorous. The characteristics are listed in descending order according to the number of times they were identified by on-campus students. The nine characteristics are consistent cross modes of delivery. Students who completed the section of the survey pertaining to distance courses place the characteristics in a different priority: respectful, responsive, knowledgeable, approachable, communicative, organized, engaging, professional, and humorous. A number of compelling trends appeared in the analysis of the data. Students in both on-campus and distance courses who included respectful as a characteristic highlight the nature of the valued relationship between instructor and students. They appreciate instructors who are compassionate and understanding of the unique and challenging situations that students sometimes experience. These aspects of the characteristic are particularly important for new students. Regardless of the mode of delivery, students expect and appreciate that their instructors are knowledgeable in the field of study in which they teach. Respondents rarely separate pedagogical and content knowledge when they describe good teaching. The conclusion drawn from this is that strong content knowledge does not guarantee good teaching, but good teaching is dependent on strong content knowledge. Both distance and on-campus students use a number of indicators to shape their opinions about an instructor s level of knowledge in their subject area. Many note that the instructor s ability to answer questions, clarify difficulty concepts, or deal with concepts in the subject mater that were outside of the course purview are good indicators of depth and breadth of content knowledge. Students also note that organization is an important indicator of content knowledge. Respondents who completed the distance section of the survey stress the importance of well-organized web-based materials. Students also expressed the expectation that professors be current and active in ongoing investigations in their field. They indicated that researching, reflecting, and/or practicing in an instructor s chosen field is significant to the faculty member s ability to make teaching engaging. Adjectives respondents use to describe this aspect of knowledgeable included competent, credible, current, reflective, and qualified. Students indicated that they expect and appreciate that their instructors be approachable. On-campus students note a number of interpersonal attributes that made instructors approachable, while distance students framed their responses in the context of electronically mediated communication. The definitions that both distance and on-campus students provide encompass three main themes: the positive interaction between professor and students, the comfort level of students to ask questions and to seek advice, and the sincere effort on the part of instructors to help students reach their academic goals. The definitions students provided for engaging predominantly dealt with three attributes: the passion and enthusiasm demonstrated by the instructor for the course material and teaching, his or her ability to share this passion and enthusiasm with the students, and the level to which this energy influences the instructor s pedagogical choices. Students who responded to both sections of the survey indicated that instructors can engage their students by presenting authentic examples of practice, and appreciated the interjection of personal anecdotes that are related to the subject matter being taught. They found case Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 2
studies or personal narratives about research interesting and aided in the students understanding of the course content. Communication skills are highly valued. On-campus students note the importance of language, particularly an effective command of English. For some on-campus and distance students, communicative means using a variety of teaching methods to help students understand course content. Prompt, quality feedback is a theme that appears often in student responses both for the on-campus and distance segments of the survey. The distance students, however, are very concerned about the speed with which instructor feedback was forwarded to them. Prompt feedback appears to be a very important characteristic of effective teaching at a distance. Respondents to both the on-campus and distance segments of the survey identified organization as a characteristic of effective teaching. Other adjectives that students used to describe this set of behaviours included efficient, focused, and prepared. Students preferred instructors who are organized in their lectures and online content, in their approach to the subject matter, and in their dealings with students. An organized instructor teaches from well-prepared lectures; uses clear visual aids; is coherent in class or with notes on a web site; reviews evaluation components when they are handed back to students; provides a course outline; and provides feedback consistently throughout the course. Instructors who are responsive to students are highly valued. Two important forms of feedback for oncampus students were discussion and questioning during class time. Students want their instructors to involve them more in the learning process. Students claim that this would result in a more effective and efficient use of instructional time. Students who completed the distance segment of the survey are greatly concerned about the responsiveness of faculty teaching online. Their concern is quite valid given that for the vast majority of distance students, all communication with instructors is mediated electronically, through e-mail, discussion forums, or audio or video conferencing (i.e., web-based audio and video conferencing, or telephone). For distance students, timely and constructive feedback to questions or evaluation components was extremely important. Both distance and on-campus students expect faculty to maintain a professional demeanor when dealing with students, both in person and electronically. On-campus students expect instructors to be in class on time with well-planned lectures and activities. Needlessly cancelling classes was described as unacceptable. They want their professors to stay on the course material, but appreciate the interjection of personal anecdotes that highlight concepts being studied in the course. Both on-campus and distance students want to be able to trust their instructors to be faithful to the course syllabus and to establish professional expectations for student conduct in their classes, laboratory activities, and in online communications and group work. They note that when a professor exhibits a professional presence and is dedicated to teaching, they feel valued as students. For some, being dedicated means keeping up with technology and new teaching methods. Distance students indicated that promptly responding to electronic forms of communication is a component of professionalism for instructors. Humor is noted as an important characteristic by a number of students who completed the on-campus segment of the survey. They contend that instructors with a sense of humor help them feel more relaxed. They expect their professors to be positive about teaching the material and about being in class. Responses provided by distance students concurred with the findings presented in the on-campus portion of the survey. Distance students indicated that they rely more on the content, language, and tone of electronic communications as indicators of humor. Respondents to both the on-campus and distance segments of the survey highlight the same characteristics of effective teaching, but they did indicate an understanding and acceptance of the fact that faculty would express these characteristics differently in different modes of delivery. Distance students are willing to Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 3
sacrifice some overt indicators of effective teaching for the convenience and flexibility offered by webbased course delivery. Students who responded to the distance portion of the survey are significantly concerned about timely feedback to email, discussion postings, and evaluation components. Their concern is understandable and is significant to the other factors that make distance teaching effective. Communication is key to exhibiting the characteristics of effective teaching. On-campus students have access to a significant body of information to assess teacher effectiveness simply because they are taught in the physical presence of the instructor. There are a number of subtle indicators such as tone, body language, and facial expressions that communicate a multitude of information about the attitudes and professionalism of an instructor that distance students rarely, if ever, are able to access. For distance students, e-mail, discussion postings, and media presented through the web site are the only sources of information they have to assess instructor effectiveness, making electronically mediated communication the conduit by which distance instructors can demonstrate characteristics of effective teaching. Faculty and instructional designers need to maximize the potential of distance instructors to communicate the positive aspects of practice. There are a number of strategies that can be employed to enhance effective online instruction. Instructional designers can use multimedia to increase instructor presence in distance courses. When students see or hear the instructor in appropriate and engaging media throughout a web-based course, they feel more connected to their instructor. Faculty can also increase their instructor presence by promptly responding to electronic communications. The tone that is conveyed through these messages is extremely important and plays a significant role in the students perceptions of teacher effectiveness. There is great potential for this study to inform research in related areas. These results may be useful to researchers investigating the gap between students and faculty perceptions of effective teaching; the change over time of students perceptions of effective teaching; a comparison of Memorial University to other North American universities in regard to students perceptions of effective teaching; and the influence (if any) of the amount of university experience on students beliefs regarding effective instruction. Hopefully, this study will be the beginning of a more extensive research agenda in the area of effective teaching at the post-secondary level. An electronic version of the final report of this research project is available online at: http://www.distance.mun.ca/survey. References Anderson, H. M., Cain, J., & Bird, E. (2005). Online student course evaluations: Review of literature and a plot study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(1), 34-43. d Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1198-1208. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., Collins, K. M. T., Filer, J. D., Wiedmaier, C. D., & Moore, C. W. (2007). Students perceptions of characteristics of effective college teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed-methods analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 113-160. Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65-77. Young, S., Cantrell, P., & Shaw, G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 670-686. Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 4
About the Presenters and Co-investigators Address for all investigators: Faculty of Education St. John s, NL A1B 3X8 Canada Albert Johnson (M.Ed.) is a senior instructional designer with Distance Education and Learning Technologies at Memorial University. He is a sessional instructor in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University where he teaches a course called Effective Teaching to students preparing to practice at the intermediate and high school levels. E-mail: albertj@mun.ca Phone: 709-737-7697 Fax: 709-737-6783 Trudi Johnson (PhD) is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education where she teaches Social Studies Education and Effective Teaching. She is also cross-appointed to the Faculty of Arts where she teaches in the Law and Society Program. Her research interests include married women s property law, and effective teaching. E-mail: trudij@mun.ca Phone: 709-737-8622 Co-investigators Jerome Delaney holds a PhD from the University of Alberta and is currently an assistant professor of Educational Administration in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University. He teaches undergraduate courses in Effective Teaching and Legal and Moral Issues in Education as well as graduate courses in Educational Leadership. E-mail: jdelaney@mun.ca Phone: 709-737-2071 Dennis Treslan (PhD) is a professor of Educational Administration in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University. His research interests focus on educational politics, leadership, organizational theory and supervisory processes in education. He recently completed a ten-year term as Associate Dean, Undergraduate Programs in the Faculty of Education at Memorial. E-mail: dtreslan@mun.ca Phone: 709-737-2491 Copyright 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 5