Content uploaded by Evrim Baran
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Evrim Baran on Sep 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Ann D. Thompson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ann D. Thompson on Jun 07, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [evrim baran]
On: 23 November 2011, At: 17:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Distance Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20
Transforming online teaching practice:
critical analysis of the literature on
the roles and competencies of online
teachers
Evrim Baran a , Ana-Paula Correia b & Ann Thompson b
a Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
b Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University, Ames, USA
Available online: 02 Nov 2011
To cite this article: Evrim Baran, Ana-Paula Correia & Ann Thompson (2011): Transforming online
teaching practice: critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online
teachers, Distance Education, 32:3, 421-439
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610293
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Transforming online teaching practice: critical analysis of the
literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers
Evrim Baran
a
*, Ana-Paula Correia
b
and Ann Thompson
b
a
Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada;
b
Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University, Ames, USA
(Received 6 May 2011; final version received 17 June 2011)
Understanding what is lacking in the online teaching literature is critical to help-
ing researchers and practitioners develop programs and support mechanisms for
online teachers in higher education. This review formulates a critique of the
standards- and competency-driven vision of online teaching from the perspective
of transformative learning theory, in order to offer an alternative exploration of
the professional development of online teachers as adult learners. The results
indicate that while research about online teacher roles and competencies guides
the development of teacher preparation and training programs, it lacks in terms
of addressing the issues of empowerment of online teachers, promoting critical
reflection, and integrating technology into pedagogical inquiry. An alternative
perspective is suggested that considers teachers as adult learners who continu-
ously transform their meaning of structures related to online teaching through a
continuous process of critical reflection and action.
Keywords: online teaching; transformative learning theory; online teacher roles;
competencies
Introduction
The Internet has become a common medium for interaction, communication, and
collaboration within which learners and teachers engage in ‘unique and irreplace-
able learning opportunities’(Burbules & Callister, 2000, p. 277). Increases in the
number of online programs and course offerings are changing the role of the teach-
ers and the nature of teaching, with more and more faculty and support staff
required for online teaching (Bennett & Lockyer, 2004). Teachers, who are at the
center of this increasing demand and pressure to teach online, are being challenged
to rethink their underlying assumptions about teaching and learning, and the roles
they take as educators (Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2008). This growing interest in online
education challenges higher education institutions as well to rethink their cultural,
academic, organizational, and pedagogical structures in adapting to a new culture of
teaching and learning (Howell, Saba, Lindsay, & Williams, 2004).
Current approaches to online teaching research
The experiences of early adopters have created a discourse around online educa-
tion focusing on the definition of online teacher roles and competencies (Bennett
*Corresponding author. Email: evrimb@gmail.com
Distance EducationAquatic Insects
Vol. 32, No. 3, November 2011, 421–439
ISSN 0158-7919 print/ISSN 1475-0198 online
Ó2011 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610293
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
& Lockyer, 2004; Lee & Tsai, 2010; Major, 2010; Natriello, 2005). The notion
that teaching online requires the development of new skills and sets of pedagogies
has led researchers to study the roles that online instructors take in online educa-
tion environments (see Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001; Berge &
Collins, 2000; Goodyear, Salmon, Spector, Steeples, & Tickner, 2001; Graham,
Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, & Duffy, 2001; Guasch, Alvarez, & Espasa, 2010; Salmon,
2004).
While educators and organizations around the world are becoming more
involved in online learning, the growth in faculty involvement and acceptance has
been modest, accompanied with limited change in online pedagogies (Natriello,
2005).
Given the expanding interest and demand for online learning, coupled with the results
of studies showing that higher levels of learning are not easily achieved in online
courses, there is an imperative to advance our understanding of how to facilitate effec-
tive online learning activities (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006, p. 121).
Researchers have identified several reasons for the persistent limited understand-
ing in nurturing higher-order thinking in the online classroom. One of the critical
reasons is the tendency of carrying traditional educational practices into the online
environment (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006). Teachers often rely on traditional pedagogi-
cal approaches that they develop in emulation of professors they consider to be
effective teachers. Furthermore, these approaches are formed over the years of
developing expertise in the face-to-face classrooms, and mostly without teaching
preparation (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006). Having little (if any) prior experience in
teaching online, teachers tend to transfer traditional approaches to the online class-
room, and perpetuate approaches that have been proven to be ineffective in the
face-to-face classroom. Teaching online, therefore, creates tensions by ‘introducing
a new activity into existing institutions with established roles’(Natriello, 2005,
p. 1890).
Studies of online teacher roles and competencies are important as they pro-
vide information about how online teachers might be trained and supported, as
well as factors that might affect the design of online learning environments.
Often the roles and competencies suggested for online teaching have had limited
impact on the professional development programs that address teachers’needs,
individual dispositions, external social demands, and capabilities within their
unique teaching contexts. Moreover, despite the growth in online learning in
higher education, the literature on online education lacks a critical look at the
existing research on teachers’roles and competencies with respect to online
teaching.
Purpose of the study
This review of the literature on online teaching sought to synthesize and critically
examine the literature on roles and competencies for online teachers.
Various terms are used in the literature on online teaching to describe online
teacher roles, for example, online teacher, e-moderator, online tutor, facilitator, or
online instructor. In this review, online teacher is defined as a faculty member
who teaches online; online teaching is defined as teaching that is conducted
mostly online; and face-to-face teaching is defined as teaching that is conducted
422 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
in a physical classroom. Moreover, courses taught completely online are referred
to as online courses and those taught face-to-face or in a blended mode involving
face-to-face and online methods are called traditional courses (Tallent-Runnels
et al., 2006).
Methodology
This critical analysis of literature on online teacher roles and competencies began as
a broad search for research on online teaching. After the identification of key arti-
cles and related frameworks, the search was narrowed down to the topics of online
teacher roles and competencies. The transformation of the search topic into the
search language was an ongoing effort to find the key terms in the field in order to
locate the desired literature.
The articles included in this review comprise both qualitative and quantitative
studies. They were located through a search of online databases, including Educa-
tional Resources Information Center (ERIC), Academic Search Elite, and Google
Scholar; the tables of contents of key journals, such as British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology,Journal of Distance Education,Distance Education,Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks,The Internet and Higher Education,Computers
and Education,Teachers College Record,The Journal of Open and Distance
Learning,Quarterly Review of Distance Education and the American Journal of
Distance Education; and bibliographies of relevant articles. To locate the review
studies, the Review of Educational Research journal was examined, focusing on the
reviews of online teaching published since 2000. The Distance Education Hub
(DEHub, http://www.dehub.edu.au/) was also used to locate research on online
teaching. DEHub serves as an online database of research on distance education
and contains research articles and other resources on distance education drawn from
the Australian Education Index and a variety of international organizations and pub-
lishers. In addition to searching online databases and journals, three other sources
were used for the search: printed books, references of the key articles, and articles
by key researchers in the field. Due to the insufficient level of consistency or agree-
ment on the terminology used in the online teaching literature, the references of the
related publications were extensively used. Keywords included online teaching,
online teacher roles,online teacher competencies,higher education, and online
learning.
This critical review covers articles published in the last 20 years, starting with
the current research and going back to the 1990s when research on online teaching,
teacher effectiveness, and teaching with technology was gaining momentum with
the dissemination of online learning in higher education institutions. Empirical
research articles and articles on conceptual and theoretical frameworks were
included. The review resulted in 11 key articles on online teacher roles and compe-
tencies in higher education: Anderson et al. (2001); Aydin (2005); Bawane and
Spector (2009); Berge (2009); Coppola, Hiltz, and Rotter (2002); Darabi, Sikorski,
and Harvey (2006); Goodyear et al. (2001); Guasch et al. (2010); Salmon (2004);
Varvel (2007); and Williams (2003). Because there is limited research that critically
analyzes competency- or role-based online teaching, several studies from the teacher
education field were included in order to frame the critique in the online teaching
context.
Distance Education 423
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Literature analysis and synthesis
The literature analysis and synthesis followed three phases. First, the articles
were selected for analysis and then reviewed in terms of the purpose, context,
methodology, and results. This process focused on identifying, listing, and
organizing the concepts and themes used by researchers of each study while
relating them to one another (Major, 2010). Themes of context, identified
roles and competencies, faculty involvement, methods for identification, meth-
ods for testing, and implications for research and practice were identified.
Second, in an attempt to synthesize, the themes identified from each single study
were compared and contrasted using the constant comparison approach (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). Using this method, competencies suggested within each role were
compared with existing roles and competencies in other studies. The categories that
emerged from this comparison included pedagogical, facilitator, instructional
designer, social, managerial, and technical roles.
The third phase of the analysis consisted of formulating a critique of the
standards- and competency-driven view of online teaching from the perspective of
transformative learning theory.
Data interpretation: a theoretical frame
The transformative learning theory provided a rich framework with which to ana-
lyze the teachers’learning processes while teaching online. Since being proposed
by Mezirow in 1991, transformative learning theory has evolved ‘into a comprehen-
sive and complex description of how learners construct, validate, and reformulate
the meaning of their experience’(Cranton, 1994, p. 22). Mezirow (2000) explains
transformational learning as follows:
Transformational learning is a way of problem solving by defining a problem or by
redefining or reframing the problem. We often become critically reflective of our
assumptions or those of others and arrive at a transformative insight, but we need to
justify our new perspective through discourse. (p. 20)
Three constructs were explored in Mezirow’s (1991) theory: centrality of experi-
ence, critical reflection, and rational discourse (Taylor, 1998). The learner’s experi-
ence, being socially constructed or deconstructed, is central to transformative
learning. It is through critical self-reflection that the learner questions ‘the integrity
of assumptions and beliefs based on prior experience’and this act of reflection ‘is
most essential for the transforming of our meaning structures –a perspective trans-
formation’(Taylor, 1998, p. 16). Critical reflection is carried out in the medium of
rational discourse ‘where experience is reflected upon and assumptions and beliefs
are questioned, and where meaning schemes and meaning structures are ultimately
transformed’(Taylor, 1998, pp. 17–18).
At the core of transformative learning is the empowerment of the individual
(Evans & Nation, 1993). The ‘definition of empowerment involves three major
ideas: the notion of choice, of control of one’s life, and of emancipation from ways
of thinking which for the particular individual have limited both choice and control’
(p. 91). It is through transformative learning that the learner is empowered by being
a‘mature and autonomous person’(p. 91).
424 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Mezirow (1991) identified transformative learning as the very core of adult edu-
cation, aiming at helping ‘the individual become a more autonomous thinker by
learning to negotiate his or her own values, meanings, and purpose rather than
uncritically acting on those of others’(p. 11).
Central to the transformative learning process is ‘helping learners to critically
reflect on, appropriately validate, and effectively act on their (and others’) beliefs,
interpretations, values, feelings, and ways of thinking’(Mezirow, 2000, p. 26).
With the vast adoption of emerging technologies in everyday life at an increas-
ingly participatory and social level, it has become inevitable for teachers to re-
examine their beliefs and assumptions towards the new culture of learning and
teaching, and related ethical practices. This, without any doubt, leads to constant
challenges in teacher beliefs, judgments, interpretations, assumptions, and expecta-
tions (Coppola et al., 2002; Lee & Tsai, 2010). Therefore, a transformative learn-
ing frame can enable us to view teachers as adult learners who transform the
meaning of structures related to teaching online through an ‘ongoing process of
critical reflection, discourse, and acting on one’s beliefs’(Taylor, 1998, p. 19). Yet
the literature on online teaching is limited in terms of analyzing how ‘reflective
online teacher-practitioners will work from a deep knowledge base (which relates
to both their expertise in the discipline per se and their knowledge of what is
known about online learning) and make their discoveries public and peer
reviewed’(Kreber & Kanuka, 2006, p. 122). This review therefore offers a unique
examination of the research on online teaching, identifying what is lacking and
suggesting an alternative frame for promoting online teachers’transformative learn-
ing experiences.
The use of transformative learning theory in the context of online teaching is
grounded in three fundamental premises: (a) viewing online teachers as active adult
learners, (b) recognizing that transformative learning occurs though critical reflec-
tion, and (c) considering that transformation happens as teachers conduct pedagogi-
cal inquiry with technology. This critical analysis included searching for evidence
of the existence or lack of these premises in the literature on online teacher roles
and competencies.
Current literature on online teacher roles and competencies
The literature seems to be in agreement that online teaching is different from
face-to-face teaching and that, as such, it requires the development of its own
pedagogies (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006; Laat, Lally, Lipponen, & Simons, 2007;
Natriello, 2005). While the traditional roles of teachers can be transferred to the
online environment, the affordances and limitations of the new learning setting
require teachers to adapt to new roles for creating effective and meaningful learn-
ing experiences (Coppola et al., 2002; McShane, 2004). Over the years, numerous
online teacher roles have been mentioned in the literature using different terms
and descriptions (Anderson et al., 2001; Berge & Collins, 2000; Coppola et al.,
2002; Goodyear et al., 2001; Graham et al., 2001; Guasch et al., 2010; Salmon,
2004). Researchers have created taxonomies and models specifying the roles that
online teachers need to perform while teaching online. Although the studies
addressing these roles show variety in context and definition of an online teacher,
commonalities can be found in the roles that teachers assume as they teach
online.
Distance Education 425
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Roles of online teachers
One of the early models describing the teacher’s role in a virtual environment is
the instructor’s roles model, which identified teachers’functions under four differ-
ent categories: pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical (Berge, 1995). The
roles were defined within the online discussion context, in which the pedagogical
role meant facilitating the learning in discussions; the social role meant encourag-
ing and promoting working together; the managerial role meant organizing and
designing the logistics of the discussions; and the technical role meant providing
a transparent technology environment to the learners (Berge, 2009; Berge & Col-
lins, 2000). These roles were suggested at a time when teachers were just mov-
ing to online environments, where the main activities were designed around
online discussions. However, due to the rise of virtual worlds and other learning
environments, Berge (2009) called for a change in the roles that would focus
more on ‘informal, collaborative, reflective learning, with user-generated content’
(p. 412).
Online learning, by nature, changes the way teaching responsibilities are per-
formed. Building on previous research, Anderson et al. (2001) suggested three cate-
gories for online teachers’roles to ensure teaching presence: instructional design
and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. Teaching presence is
defined as ‘the design, facilitation, and direct instruction of cognitive and social pro-
cesses for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worth-
while learning outcomes’(Anderson et al., 2001, p. 5). Research has found that
teaching presence is a significant predictor of students’perceptions of learning, sat-
isfaction, and sense of community (Gorsky & Blau, 2009; LaPointe &
Gunawardena, 2004; Russo & Benson, 2005). Although teaching presence is con-
sidered to be what the teacher does to create a community of inquiry with social
and cognitive presence, all participants within the online learning environment can
also contribute to teaching presence by sharing the facilitation responsibilities
(Baran & Correia, 2009).
While the aforementioned researchers looked at the teacher roles performed
mainly in online discussion forums, Coppola et al. (2002) focused on the changing
pedagogical roles of virtual professors in asynchronous learning environments:
cognitive, affective, and managerial. In the cognitive role, teachers engage in dee-
per-level cognitive activities related to information storage, thinking, and mental
processes. In the affective role, they need to find different tools to express emotions
and develop intimate relationships with students. Finally, as part of their managerial
role, they structure and plan the course in detail with increasing attention on moni-
toring their students.
In an effort to define online teaching roles and competencies, a group of
researchers and practitioners described the main roles of online teachers: process
facilitator, advisor/counselor, assessor, researcher, content facilitator, technologist,
designer, and manager/administrator (Goodyear et al., 2001). Adopting these roles
and looking at the perceptions of online mentors, Aydin (2005) identified additional
roles, such as content expert, instructional designer, and materials producer. More
recent research (e.g., Bawane & Spector, 2009) clarified the following online tea-
cher roles emerging from the literature: professional, pedagogical, social, evaluator,
administrator, technologist, advisor/counselor, and researcher. The results of Bawane
and Spector’s study indicated that the pedagogical role was the highestranked role,
426 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
followed by professional, evaluator, social facilitator, technologist, advisor, adminis-
trator, and researcher roles.
Competencies for online teachers
The prioritization of the roles and competencies of online teachers varies in the lit-
erature depending upon the context where online teaching takes place. For instance,
technology-related competencies (Egan & Akdere, 2005), communication competen-
cies (Williams, 2003), and assessment-related competencies (Aydin, 2005) can be
considered more important than others depending on the context and culture within
the online teaching environments.
While teachers may be the sole performers of online teaching roles, the teaching
roles are often carried out by a number of actors (Guasch et al., 2010). For instance,
the United Kingdom’s Open University framed a collaborative model in distance
education in which several individuals perform the roles (Salmon, 2004).
E-moderator was one of the critical roles in supporting and encouraging interaction
and communication for knowledge and skill development in the interactive and col-
laborative online environments (Salmon, 2004). Although Salmon’s e-moderator
concept stresses the importance of the facilitation role that online teachers under-
take, it is limited in scope with respect to the diverse online teaching contexts
where the online teacher takes the main responsibility for developing and maintain-
ing an online learning environment and taking on different roles (Bennett & Lock-
yer, 2004).
Table 1 presents a summary of key research on online teacher roles and compe-
tencies, the purpose of each article, and the method used to identify and validate
the competencies and roles at different levels.
Common roles identified in the literature
The online teacher roles identified in the literature comprised pedagogical,
facilitator, instructional designer, social, managerial, and technical roles. These roles
overlapped in terms of their functions and tasks. Some researchers categorized
teaching-related tasks, such as designing and implementing instructional strategies,
developing learning resources, and facilitating and sustaining students’participation
and motivation under the pedagogical role on a more general level (Bawane &
Spector, 2009). Others separated these tasks and proposed a role for each task, for
example, process facilitator for providing prompts and responses to guide students’
learning (Bennett & Lockyer, 2004), instructional designer for designing instruc-
tional materials and strategies, and managerial role for carrying out the tasks of
course management.
Table 2 presents online teacher roles as suggested in the literature. Although the
table was adapted from Bawane and Spector’s (2009) study on the prioritization of
online instructor roles, additional roles were included from other studies focusing
on teachers’roles in online learning environments (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001;
Berge, 2009; Coppola et al., 2002).
Instructional design is often considered an important role for online teachers.
This role is concerned with planning, organizing, and structuring the course compo-
nents (Anderson et al., 2001), designing learning tasks (Goodyear et al., 2001), and
designing interactive technologies and teaching strategies/models (Williams, 2003).
Distance Education 427
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Furthermore, it consists of the tasks of maintaining and organizing learning, and
making sure that learning goals are achieved (Guasch et al., 2010).
The managerial role comprises carrying out the pedagogical tasks related with
course management (Berge, 2009; Coppola et al., 2002). It consists of tasks such as
course planning, organizing, leading, and controlling (Coppola et al., 2002). Man-
agement also includes teachers carrying out planned actions, managing communica-
tion channels, and supervising the virtual learning process (Guasch et al., 2010).
This role is also used with the administration role in order to describe the functions
of managing the course and establishing rules and regulations, and involves such
issues as student registration, recordkeeping, and security (Aydin, 2005; Bawane &
Spector, 2009).
The social role is one of most emphasized roles and it refers to teachers’func-
tions related to building and improving student-teacher relationships in a virtual
Table 1. Summary of the existing literature studies on online teacher roles and
competencies.
Studies Purpose Method
Guasch
et al.
(2010)
Developed teachers’competencies for
virtual environments in higher
education
Reviewing the literature and teacher
training actions
Bawane &
Spector
(2009)
Prioritized and identified online
instructor roles to develop training and
curricula for online teachers
Validating the literature and
identifying competencies with
experts in teacher education
Varvel
(2007)
Developed an online instructor
competency list geared to the needs of
a particular program
Developed an online instructor
competency list for a particular
program
Berge
(1995);
Berge
(2009)
Listing the roles and functions of the
online instructor in computer
conferencing (CC)
Conceptual paper revisited in 2009
Darabi
et al.
(2006)
Identified and validated instructor
competencies required for teaching at a
distance with advanced communication
technology.
Reviewing the literature and
validating with experienced
practitioners in academia, industry,
and the military
Aydin
(2005)
Identified roles, competencies, and
resources for online teaching in Turkey
Surveying online mentors in a large
open university
Salmon
(2004)
Defined e-moderator competencies Analyzing the content of the
reflections conference and focus
group interviews, etc.
Williams
(2003)
Identified roles and role-specific
competencies
Validating the literature and
identifying competencies with the
experts in teacher education using
the Delphi technique
Coppola
et al.
(2002)
Captured role changes enacted by
online instructors
Capturing roles enacted by the
online instructors through
interviews
Anderson
et al.
(2001)
Developing the conceptual framework
to understand, measure and improve the
function of ‘teaching presence’within a
computer conference environment
Investigating computer conferences
used for educational purposes
Goodyear
et al.
(2001)
Described main roles that online
teachers perform
Using a panel of distance education
experts to determine the roles and
competencies
428 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
learning environment (Guasch et al., 2010). Due to the complexity of the many
tasks of online teachers at the cognitive and managerial levels, teachers can ‘no
longer rely upon sensory and expressive skills to establish and maintain relation-
ships with students’(Major, 2010, p. 2184). Therefore, taking on the affective or
social role becomes very important in nurturing social relationships, expressing
energy and humor, and establishing an expressive connection with the students
(Coppola et al., 2002).
The online environment changes the fundamental nature of the interaction
between the teacher, student, and content, requiring a re-examination of the roles
teachers take in enhancing students’learning. Because online students are expected
to take greater control of their learning process and be more active in stimulating
their peers’learning, facilitation of online learning emerges as an important role in
guiding these student-centered approaches. Moreover, as the hierarchy in the online
environment is flattened with more distributed power and control (Schrum & Hong,
2002), teachers are expected to adopt more facilitative approaches in creating lear-
ner-centered online classrooms (Salmon, 2004; Smith, 2005). While there is still a
strong focus on the responsibilities of teachers in online courses, the teacher moves
from being at the center of the interaction or the source of information to the ‘guide
on the side,’which implies that teachers design, organize, and schedule the activi-
ties and learners assume greater responsibility for their learning by coordinating and
regulating their learning activities (Anderson et al., 2001; Berge, 2009).
In an online learning environment, teachers are not the sole performers on the
online teaching stage. They share the roles and responsibilities with other actors,
such as instructional designers, program coordinators, and graphic designers. The
roles required for online teaching may be delegated to a number of specialized pro-
fessionals and teams, for example, instructional support personnel, instructional
designers, teaching assistants, technology experts, media developers, online program
Table 2. Roles associated with online teaching (adapted from Bawane & Spector, 2009,
p. 389).
Studies Roles
Guasch et al. (2010) Design/planning, social, instructive, technological, management
Bawane & Spector
(2009)
Professional, pedagogical, social, evaluator, administrator,
technologist, advisor/counselor, researcher
Berge (1995); Berge
(2009)
Pedagogical, social, managerial, technical
Varvel (2007) Administrative, personal, technological, instructional design,
pedagogical, assessment, social roles
Aydin (2005) Content expert, process facilitator, instructional designer, advisor/
counselor, technologist, assessor, material producer, administrator
Williams (2003) Administrative manager, instructor/facilitator, instructional designer,
trainer, leader/change agent, technology expert, graphic designer,
media publisher/editor, technician, support staff, librarian, evaluation
specialist, site facilitator/proctor
Coppola et al.
(2002)
Cognitive, affective, managerial
Anderson et al.
(2001)
Instructional design, facilitating discourse, direct instruction
Goodyear et al.
(2001)
Process facilitator, advisor/counselor, assessor, researcher, content
facilitator, technologist, designer, manager/administrator
Distance Education 429
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
coordinators, and even other faculty (Howell et al., 2004; Miller, 2001; Paulson,
2002). Online teachers often collaborate with other key actors to a much greater
extent than their face-to-face counterparts in order to receive support and help dur-
ing the planning, design, and delivery of online courses (Bennett & Lockyer, 2004).
The literature suggests that the proposed roles and competencies of online teach-
ers are useful in curriculum, training, professional development of online teachers
(Bawane & Spector, 2009; Williams, 2003), and staff selection for online teaching
(Williams, 2003).
Emerging issues in online teaching research
If a distinct pedagogy of online learning is to emerge, the role of online teachers in
the online environment needs to be explored. As shown above, the literature
describes a variety of roles and competencies for online teachers. These competen-
cies are described as knowledge- or performance-based with the terms competent
and exemplary used to emphasize the exhibition of competencies at different levels
(Varvel, 2007). Online teachers ‘are required to possess a diverse set of competen-
cies and their extent of utilization relies on the context or role they are required to
perform and also the kind of resources and support available’(Bawane & Spector,
2009, p. 387).
While the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers recognizes
the importance of context in the performance of these functions, it is limited in
terms of sharing strategies for transforming teacher practices for online teaching
and helping them understand and adapt to the new teaching environment. ‘The adult
education literature has recently addressed professional development and teacher
education as adult learning’(King, 2002, p. 286). Moreover, transformative learning
has been suggested as a critical basis for faculty development (Cranton, 1994; King,
2002). However, the literature on online teacher roles and competencies is lacking
in adequate discussion of online teachers’transformational learning, particularly in
terms of strategies for facilitating their transformation as they move from face-to-
face teaching to online teaching.
Reviewing the literature on online teacher roles and competencies with these
premises, this study identified three dimensions that are lacking in the current
approaches and that need further exploration: (a) empowering online teachers,
(b) promoting critical reflection, and (c) integrating technology into pedagogical
inquiry. The dimensions of online teachers’transformational learning are shown in
Figure 1.
Empowering online teachers
Many studies on defining online teacher roles and competencies follow a ‘technical
view of teaching,’which ‘tends to focus on the primacy of knowledge and value
transmission rather than a broader sense of education’(Rennert-Ariev, 2008,
p. 113). This functionalist type of orientation in competency-based teacher educa-
tion approaches has been criticized, with concerns questioning the assertion that the
roles are assumed to be taken by the individuals without resistance, rejection, and
re-creation (Rennert-Ariev, 2008). Often, these functionalist views ‘downplay the
importance of teacher agency in defining and shaping the terms of their experience’
(Rennert-Ariev, 2008, p. 113). Similarly, the literature on online teacher roles and
430 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
competencies has limited mention of the value of the interaction between the per-
spectives of individual teachers and the values of the online teacher professional
development and support programs. The role of the teacher in the creation of the
content and values of such a program is also lacking in the current literature.
‘Transformative learning contributes to empowerment as a process of being
one’s own mature and autonomous person’(Evans & Nation, 1993, p. 91). It is
through critical reflection that teachers can be empowered as autonomous and self-
directed professionals who constantly engage in a dialogue about solving complex
problems, making decisions, reflecting in action, and collaborating with other key
actors. Teachers should not be expected to simply accept the competencies and roles
suggested by an authority; instead, they must reflect on their roles as they become
aware and critical of their own assumptions towards online learning and teaching.
The roles and competencies are generally developed by a group of experts identified
as knowledgeable about distance education and educational technologies (Bawane
& Spector, 2009; Goodyear et al., 2001; Williams, 2003). However, research has
been limited in terms of bringing teachers’voices into this process; thus creating
the potential for teachers’regression into passive roles. Moreover, studies aimed at
collecting data from teachers generally used surveys in order to validate and priori-
tize already established roles and competencies (e.g., Aydin, 2005). Such studies
need to be driven by the intention to focus on teachers not as passive learners and
performers of established roles and competencies, but as participants, expressing
potentially varying degrees of conformity with and resistance to the roles of online
teaching. The notion of emphasizing standards-driven, technical, one-size-fits-all
online teaching approaches is insufficient for addressing the complex educational
needs of each unique online teaching context.
The concept of empowerment is rarely brought to the forefront in the context of
online teacher education and professional development. Research needs to explore
strategies for facilitating the empowerment of online teachers. Empowerment may
enable teachers to teach innovatively and explore ways to promote empowerment of
online students. Moreover, since teacher learning is not static, but instead a continu-
ous process, ways of empowering teachers as learners during their online teaching
experiences need to be examined.
Figure 1. The dimensions of online teachers’transformational learning.
Distance Education 431
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Promoting critical reflection
Transformative learning ‘involves transforming frames of reference through crucial
reflection on assumptions, validating contested beliefs through discourse, taking
action on one’sreflective insight, and critically assessing it’(Mezirow, 1997, p. 11).
It is through such critical reflection that personal empowerment is realized by chal-
lenging assumptions rather than accepting them as they are.
Reflection is a key factor for improving a teacher’s practice. Schön (1983)
asserts that engaging in the process of continuous learning is an essential feature of
professional practice:
Both ordinary people and professional practitioners often think about what they are
doing, sometimes even while doing it. Simulated by surprise, they turn thought
back on action and on the knowing which is implicit in action. They may ask
themselves, for example, “What features do I notice when I recognize this thing?
What are the criteria by which I make this judgment? What procedures am I enact-
ing when I perform this skill? How am I framing the problem that I try to solve?”
(p. 50)
It is through reflection in action that practitioners can bring to the surface the
tacit understandings that build on the specialized and repetitive practice and deal
with the ‘situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict’
(Schön, 1983, p. 50). Schön (1988) also talks about ‘reflection on action’as a retro-
spective practice. Reflection in action (during the experience) and reflection on
action (after the experience) have become two essential elements of professional
training and development in different disciplines. Also of importance to online edu-
cation is teachers’ability to perform critical reflection, which can be defined as ‘the
process by which adults identify the assumptions governing their actions, locate the
historical and cultural origins of the assumptions, question the meaning of the
assumptions, and develop alternative ways of acting’(Stein, 2000, p. 3). Critical
reflection ‘merges critical inquiry, the conscious consideration of the ethical implica-
tions and consequences of teaching practice, with self-reflection, deep examination
of personal beliefs, and assumptions about human potential and learning’(Larrivee,
2000, p. 293).
One of the threats to the growth of a distinct online pedagogy is the limited
focus on reflection. Once teachers internalize the routines of online teaching, the
roles they are expected to take and the methods they are to use, their ability to cope
with that is guaranteed and with it the need to grow as an online teacher fades. The
result is replication of the same class material and content each time it is taught,
without the adoption of new methods and technologies into the learning context.
While the roles are suggested to teachers with the functions performed as specific
outputs (Bawane & Spector, 2009; Howell et al., 2004), they do not guide teachers
for ‘pedagogical problem solving and discovery’through critical reflection in online
teaching (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006, p. 122).
Online learning environments have the capability of enabling the exploration
and discovery of new pedagogical approaches, such as encouraging participatory,
inquiry-based social learning practices (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006). Therefore, the
focus of online teacher preparation and development programs needs to be geared
towards encouraging online teachers’critical reflective practices, through which
they engage in transformative learning practices with their students.
432 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Integrating technology into pedagogical inquiry
Another problem related to the existing literature is treating technology as a sepa-
rate entity, such as the role of technologist in Goodyear et al.’s (2001) study, tech-
nological role in Berge’s (1995) study, and technical skills in using the features of
the software in Salmon’s (2004) study. However, Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya
(2007) argue that ‘technology cannot be treated as a knowledge base unrelated and
separate from knowledge about teaching tasks and contexts –it is not only about
what technology can do, but also, and perhaps more importantly, what technology
can do for them as teachers’(p. 742). As a result, researchers, particularly in the
area of technology integration, argue for a more integrated and multidimensional
teacher knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The literature on online teacher roles and competencies puts limited emphasis
on how pedagogical inquiry plays a role within a certain discipline (e.g., English lit-
erature, anthropology, design). ‘The questions that academics from sociology ask
about student learning and teaching will be different from those posed by engineers,
as will be the methods they use to seek answers to their questions’(Kreber &
Kanuka, 2006, p. 113). Therefore, we need to consider how students learn and
develop in different disciplines and how teachers can encourage these learning
experiences with online technologies. Online teachers need to go beyond mere com-
petence in the online technologies, and engage in pedagogical inquiry in which they
consider the complex relationships between technologies, pedagogies, and the con-
tent in their online teaching context (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). It is through the
integration of technology into the pedagogical inquiry that teachers can go through
a transformative process of examining the pedagogical potential of online technolo-
gies and constructing online learning experiences within their content areas.
Concluding remarks
This review aimed to use transformative learning theory as a lens for critical analy-
sis of the literature on the roles of online teachers, and specifically the role- and
competency-driven approach to defining these roles. This analysis shows that there
is diversity in the meanings of the terms roles and competencies of online teachers.
Commonly identified roles are managerial, instructional designer, pedagogical, tech-
nical, facilitator, and social roles. For each role, several competencies have been
suggested depending on the context in which the online teaching is being performed
(Bawane & Spector, 2009). Although this line of analysis has suggested the use of
these roles and competencies for the development of teacher preparation and train-
ing programs, it lacks in terms of addressing the issues of empowerment of online
teachers, promoting critical reflection, and integrating technology into pedagogical
inquiry. Moreover, while competency-based teacher education has been criticized in
the teacher education literature both at the pre-service and in-service levels (Téllez,
2007), the literature on online teaching has remained silent on the critical analysis
of the use of competency-based teacher education models in online teacher
education.
As a result of the critique by teacher educators of the competency-driven
approaches, the teacher education literature has moved on to different models, such
as reflective teacher education, constructive teacher education, and alternative certi-
fication (Téllez, 2007).
Distance Education 433
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Like the accountability movement, CBTE [competency-based teacher education] did
not require significant increases in state education budgets, held the promise of sys-
tematic changes, was focused on results –instead of the messy and confusing pro-
cesses nested within most educational reforms –and, finally, seemed capable of
paying off quickly. (Téllez, 2007, p. 548).
Today’s competency- and standards-driven efforts in online education have a
similarly attractive quality, yet embody the same limitations. Furthermore, earlier
works on online education were grounded in the motivation of systematization and
industrialization of educational processes via technology. This techno-centric
approach, still dominant in many forms of today’s online education, resulted in the
replication of traditional approaches in the online environments and created one-
size-fits-all preparation and support programs for online teachers.
Different from these functionalist and technical perspectives towards teacher
knowledge and practice, transformative learning theory holds promise for providing
a perspective on considering teachers as adult learners who continuously transform
their understanding of structures related to online teaching through an ongoing pro-
cess of critical reflection and action (Taylor, 1998). According to Mezirow (1991),
transformative learning:
involves an enhanced level of awareness of the context of one’s beliefs and feelings, a
critique of their assumptions and particularly premises, an assessment of alternative
perspectives, a decision to negate of old perspective in favor of a new one or to make
a synthesis of old and new, an ability to take action based upon the new perspective,
and a desire to fit the new perspective into the broader context of one’s life (p. 161).
We need to consider online teachers, especially in higher education, as reflective
practitioners who make their own decisions about preferred goals and practices of
online teaching and construct ‘a working knowledge, which favors personal experi-
ence but also includes theory, research, values, and beliefs, and is used to critically
analyze and continually improve teaching’(Valli, 1992, p. xv). Encouraging online
teachers to consider alternative viewpoints and frames of references thus needs to
be the focus of the online teacher preparation and professional development
programs.
‘Teaching involves many complex and somewhat ill-structured activities; as a
consequence, establishing reliable and relevant performance measures for teaching
competence is difficult’(Spector, 2007, p. 6). Similarly, the teacher’s role in the
online environment is dynamic and multidimensional, requiring a more integrated
look as teachers work through pedagogical problem solving within their disciplines
and use various online technologies. Approaches to online teacher preparation and
support, therefore, need to regress from the technology-focused programs, which
treat technology as a separate entity to be learned and an isolated role to be
performed. What is needed is the creation of transformative learning experiences for
online teachers who would ‘engage in pedagogical problem-solving and discovery
about online teaching’within their disciplines (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006, p. 122).
‘Online learning can enable and inspire instructors to acquire radically new and
different understandings of pedagogy, as well as transform practices entrenched in
university traditions that are less effective in promoting higher-order learning’
(Kreber & Kanuka, 2006, p. 125). This critical review has been an attempt to
address the limitations and issues in the current literature and propose an alternative
434 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
view towards the development of competencies for teaching online. If the purpose
of online learning is to promote students’higher-level learning as well as to develop
their critical and creative thinking skills, teachers need to be empowered and
encouraged to be active adult learners themselves as they act with critical power in
their world, and to take charge of their own learning.
Directions for future research
The dimensions of online teachers’transformational learning –empowering online
teachers, promoting critical reflection, and integrating technology into pedagogical
inquiry –should be explored further to support and sustain online teacher transfor-
mation and professional development. As it is critical to gain access to the perspec-
tives of teachers in examining the transformation, data can be gathered using such
methods as participant observation, ethnographic interviews, and reflective journals.
Moreover, action or participatory research methods can be used to involve online
teachers in such research processes as they investigate their own transformation and
reflect upon their practices, perspectives, and assumptions.
While studies about online teacher experiences represent important exploratory
research, future research should also focus on how collective transformation occurs
within organizations and communities. It should also investigate the varied ways in
which teachers, communities, and organizations transform through online learning
initiatives, and the roles that different actors take in the creation of content, values,
and practices during this transformation.
Implications for practice
As teachers move from traditional to online classrooms, they face constant chal-
lenges of finding their teacher-self. While there is the tendency for online teachers
to lean to their traditional teaching practices as reference points, the affordances and
limitations of online environments will pose new challenges for them as they try to
operate within their existing sets of beliefs and practices. Programs preparing fac-
ulty to teach online need to encourage them to critically reflect upon their past
experiences, assumptions, and beliefs towards learning and teaching, question them,
and transform their perspectives by engaging in critical reflection, pedagogical
inquiry and problem-solving. Through this process, teachers need to be provided
with a collaborative working environment where their needs are listened to and
solutions are suggested according to the variables in their teaching contexts, such as
their level of technology use, schedules, student profiles, and their teaching methods
in the face-to-face classrooms.
Support programs need to consider teachers as active agents during this process.
Instead of building courses for them, a collaborative culture around course design
and development needs to be provided and supported. Technology staff and
instructional designers should constantly engage in a dialogue about solving prob-
lems and making decisions regarding the design and teaching processes of online
courses. Collaborate with online teachers and listen to their voices as they trans-
form and create their online teacher personas.
Online teachers often feel uncertain, uneasy, and unprepared for the challenges
of teaching online, and also lacking in the tools and conditions that they use to
establish their expertise and teacher persona in the traditional classrooms (Major,
Distance Education 435
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
2010). Support and development programs are critical in helping teachers engage in
the process of pedagogical inquiry and problem solving as they reflect upon the
interactions between content, online technologies, and pedagogical methods within
their unique teaching contexts. While learning about new online technologies is
important, online teachers need opportunities where they can explore ways to trans-
form their existing pedagogies to the online environment, thinking about the limita-
tions and affordances of the online technologies for their pedagogical purposes.
Online teachers should be encouraged to pursue pedagogical inquiry and creativity.
Online educational environments have the potential for enabling the exploration
and discovery of new pedagogical approaches, such as encouraging participatory,
inquiry-based and social learning practices (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006). This notion
of de-centering of the teacher in the online classroom poses new challenges for
online teachers. Online teachers need to be guided in finding ways to support their
learners’independence and autonomy in the online environment. Attempts should
be made to engage teachers in learner-centered teaching approaches.
It is critical to prepare and support teachers for online teaching so that they
know what to expect and how to establish their online teacher persona through
online pedagogies, and also develop positive attitudes towards online teaching. By
incorporating collaborative work groups, community building, and group discus-
sions into professional development programs, and sustaining their continuity, teach-
ers will have an opportunity to participate in communities of practice and transform
their teaching by socially constructing their knowledge and practices (King, 2002).
Online teachers should be encouraged to promote community building around
online teaching.
Notes on contributors
Evrim Baran is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Curriculum and
Pedagogy at the University of British Columbia in Canada. Her research focuses on online
learning and teaching, technology and teacher education, and social media in education.
Ana-Paula Correia is an associate professor in curriculum and instructional technology at
Iowa State University, USA. Her major research interests are collaborative learning, online
learning and teaching, and curriculum development in instructional design and technology.
Ann Thompson is a professor in curriculum and instructional technology at Iowa State
University. Her major research interests are in faculty professional development in
technology and technology integration, in K-12 and higher education environments.
References
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence
in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2),
1–17. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Aydin, C. (2005). Turkish mentors’perception of roles, competencies and resources for
online teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(3). Retrieved from
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/
Baran, E., & Correia, A.-P. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions.
Distance Education, 30(3), 339–361. doi: 10.1080/01587910903236510
Bawane, J., & Spector, J. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for
competency-based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397. doi:
10.1080/01587910903236536
436 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an online teacher: Adapting to a changed envi-
ronment for teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Media International,
41(3), 231–248. doi: 10.1080/09523980410001680842
Berge, Z. (1995). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. Educational Technology, 35(1),
22–30.
Berge, Z. (2009). Changing instructor’s roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 9(4), 407–415. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/quarterly-review-
of-distance-education.html
Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (2000). Perceptions of e-moderators about their roles and functions
in moderating electronic mailing lists. Distance Education, 21(1), 81–100. doi: 10.1080/
0158791000210106
Burbules, N., & Callister, T. (2000). Universities in transition: The promise and the chal-
lenge of new technologies. The Teachers College Record, 102(2), 271–293. Retrieved
from http://www.tcrecord.org/
Coppola, N., Hiltz, S., & Rotter, N. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles
and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4),
169–189. Retrieved from http://www.jmis-web.org/toppage/index.html
Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for edu-
cators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darabi, A.A., Sikorski, E.G., & Harvey, R.B. (2006). Validated competencies for distance
teaching. Distance Education, 27(1), 105–122. doi: 10.1080/01587910600654809
Egan, T., & Akdere, M. (2005). Clarifying distance education roles and competencies:
Exploring similarities and differences between professional and student-practitioner
perspectives. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 87–103, doi: 10.1207/
s15389286ajde1902_3
Evans, T., & Nation, D. (1993). Reforming open and distance education: Critical reflections
from practice. London: Kogan Page.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for quali-
tative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for
online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development,
49(1), 65–72. doi: 10.1007/BF02504508
Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two instructors. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index
Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B.-R., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. (2001, March/April). Seven
principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Tech-
nology Source. Retrieved from http://www.technologysource.org/article/seven_princi-
ples_of_effective_teaching/
Guasch, T., Alvarez, I., & Espasa, A. (2010). University teacher competencies in a virtual
teaching/learning environment: Analysis of a teacher training experience. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26(2), 199–206. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.018
Howell, S., Saba, F., Lindsay, N., & Williams, P. (2004). Seven strategies for enabling fac-
ulty success in distance education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 33–49. doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.005
King, K.P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learn-
ing opportunities. Computers & Education, 39(3), 283–297. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315
(02)00073-8
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technol-
ogy? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Edu-
cational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. Retrieved from http://www.baywood.
com/journals/previewjournals.asp?id=0735-6331
Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowl-
edge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers &
Education, 49(3), 740–762. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012
Kreber, C., & Kanuka, H. (2006). The scholarship of teaching and learning and the online
classroom. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32(2), 109–131.
Retrieved from http://www.extension.usask.ca/cjuce/
Distance Education 437
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R. (2007). Online teaching in networked learn-
ing communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instruc-
tional Science, 35(3), 257–286. doi: 10.1007/s11251-006-9007-0
LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to
understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in
computer-mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83–106. doi: 10.1080/
0158791042000212477
Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective tea-
cher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307. doi: 10.1080/14623940020025561
Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’perceived self efficacy and technologi-
cal pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide
Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4
Major, C. (2010). Do virtual professors dream of electric students? College faculty experi-
ences with online distance education. Teachers College Record, 112(8), 2154–2208.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics role concept
and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–16. doi: 10/
1080.1356251032000155795
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jos-
sey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12. doi: 10.1002/ace.7401
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as trans-
formation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller, G. (2001). General education and distance education: Two channels in the new main-
stream. The Journal of General Education, 50(4), 314–322. doi: 10.1353/jge.2001.0028
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A frame-
work for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Retrieved
from http://www.tcrecord.org
Natriello, G. (2005). Modest changes, revolutionary possibilities: Distance learning and the
future of education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1885–1904. Retrieved from http://
www.tcrecord.org
Paulson, K. (2002). Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. Journal of Higher Edu-
cation, 73(1), 123–140. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0010
Rennert-Ariev, P. (2008). The hidden curriculum of performance-based teacher education.
The Teachers College Record, 110(1), 105–138. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online pres-
ence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology
& Society, 8(1), 54–62. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/
Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Routl-
edgeFalmer.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.
Schön, D. (1988). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions and strategies for online success: Voices from
experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 57–67.
Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Smith, T. (2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction. The Journal of Educators
Online, 2(2), 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com
Spector, J.M. (2007). Competencies for online teachers. In J.M. Spector (Ed.), Finding your
online voice: Stories told by experienced online educators (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Stein, D. (2000). Teaching critical reflection. (Myths and realities No. 7). Columbus, OH:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ED445256)
Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J., Lan, W., Cooper, S., Ahern, T., & Shaw, S. (2006). Teach-
ing courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1),
93–135. doi: 10.3102/00346543076001093
438 E. Baran et al.
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
Taylor, E.W. (1998). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A critical review.
(Information Series No. 374). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career,
and Vocational Education. (ED423422)
Téllez, K. (2007). Have conceptual reforms (and one anti-reform) in preservice teacher edu-
cation improved the education of multicultural, multilingual children and youth? Teach-
ers and Teaching, 13(6), 543–564. doi: 10.1080/13540600701683457
Valli, L. (1992). Introduction. In L. Valli (Ed.), Reflective teacher education: Cases and cri-
tiques (pp. xi–xxv). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Varvel, V. (2007). Master online teacher competencies. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www2.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/
Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2008). Teaching philosophy: Moving from face-to-face to
online classrooms. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 34(1), 63–69.
Retrieved from http://www.extension.usask.ca/cjuce/
Williams, P. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher edu-
cation institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45–57. doi: 10.1207/
S15389286AJDE1701_4
Distance Education 439
Downloaded by [evrim baran] at 17:25 23 November 2011
