Moving from Face-to-Face to Online Teaching

Abstract

Transitioning from face-to-face to online teaching can be challenging but is also rewarding. It is challenging to create a sense of social presence so that the online student feels a part of the learning community. It is difficult to assess the level of student learning and to regularly communicate with them without being face-to-face. Online students may require constant feedback and clarifications on difficult concepts which can be very time consuming for the faculty. The paper will discuss creative instructional strategies that will help faculty overcome some of the challenges and make their transition from face-to-face to online teaching an easier process. Advantages and rewards of online teaching are also discussed.

Full text

VOL 23, NO 3 SUMMER 2010 CLINICAL LABORATORY SCIENCE 187
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Moving from Face-to-Face to Online Teaching
MUNEEZA ESANI
ABSTRACT
Transitioning from face-to-face to online teaching can
be challenging but is also rewarding. It is challenging to
create a sense of social presence so that the online
student feels a part of the learning community. It is
difficult to assess the level of student learning and to
regularly communicate with them without being face-
to-face. Online students may require constant feedback
and clarifications on difficult concepts which can be
very time consuming for the faculty. The paper will
discuss creative instructional strategies that will help
faculty overcome some of the challenges and make their
transition from face-to-face to online teaching an easier
process. Advantages and rewards of online teaching are
also discussed.
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
1. Compare and contrast instructor-student inter-
action in face-to-face courses vs. online courses.
2. Discuss the importance of social presence in online
education.
3. List some strategies that will motivate an online
learner to actively participate in an online course.
4. Discuss the “non-stop” nature of online teaching
and learning.
5. List two advantages of online teaching.
Clin Lab Sci 2010;23(3);187
Muneeza Esani, MHA, MT(ASCP), Clinical Laboratory
Sciences Program, University of Texas Medical Branch,
Galveston, TX
Address of Correspondence: Muneeza Esani, Clinical
Laboratory Sciences Program, 4.426 Health Professions
and Nursing Bldg, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX
77555, muesani@utmb.edu, 409-772-9456.
INTRODUCTION
Classroom lectures, paper exams and face-to-face
communication are used to accomplish the cognitive
objectives in most CLS programs across the country.
However, in recent years, CLS education has reached
beyond the classroom setting to a wider student
audience that is not able to attend the on-campus
classroom. Online education connects instructors and
students with resources, virtual communication and
remote activities using a course management system as
the primary means of instruction. Transitioning from
on-campus to online teaching brings about some
challenges and surprises. This article will focus on the
ways in which faculty must adjust their teaching in
order to effectively facilitate learning online.
Creating an environment of social presence is essential
for the success of online education. Garrison et al.
defined social presence as the ability of participants
within the online learning community to project their
personal characteristics into the community and present
themselves as real people.1 The connection and feeling
of being part of a learning community is somewhat
lacking in online education and it is not unusual for an
online student to feel isolated. Creating a sense of social
presence creates a level of comfort and enhances
interactions between students and the instructor, which
makes the learning environment fulfilling for online
learners and instructors.2,3 As Mykota and Duncan
pointed out, the primary function of social presence is
cognitive learning. When students perceive their
experience as enjoyable, satisfying, and personally and
professionally fulfilling, they tend to interact more
which results in enhanced learning. When the online
environment is lacking social presence, the participants
see it as impersonal and, in turn, the amount of
information that is shared with others decreases.4
Gunawardena and Zittle examined the effectiveness of
social presence in online education and reported that a
direct relationship exists between social presence and

FOCUS: EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
188 VOL 23, NO 3 SUMMER 2010 CLINICAL LABORATORY SCIENCE 
student satisfaction. They found that students with high
perception of social presence had higher perceptions of
learning and were 60% more satisfied with their
instructor compared to students that had low percep-
tion of social presence.5 This was also confirmed by a
comparative analysis of student motivation involving 12
e-learning university courses performed by Rovai
(2007). The results of this study provide evidence that
social presence is a major contributor to the satisfaction
and motivation of online learners. This can be
accomplished early in the course by the instructor
sharing background information, professional exper-
iences, personal and professional interests and
challenges.6 An introductory exercise where the students
and instructor share their backgrounds can be all it
takes. Alternatively, instructors can divide the students
into groups and let them share contact information to
create a buddy system. Relationships established at the
beginning of the course create social presence and
provide a support system. Thus, the understanding of
the social presence theory and development of an
environment conducive to sharing early in the online
education process contributes to the overall success of
the online educational experience.
Whether face-to-face or online, acquisition of
knowledge and obtaining a higher order of critical
thinking are goals of higher education. In the face-to-
face setting, this is evident through classroom
discussions, laboratory exercises, and oral and written
examinations. Instructors have regular contact with
students and are able to assess their prior learning and
their level of cognitive knowledge in every class. They
rely on a number of unobtrusive visual cues from their
students to enhance their delivery. A quick glance, for
example, reveals who is attentively taking notes,
pondering a difficult concept, or preparing to make a
comment. The student who is frustrated, confused,
tired, or bored is equally evident. The attentive
instructor consciously and subconsciously receives and
analyzes these visual cues and adjusts the course delivery
to meet needs of the class during a particular lesson.
Challenges of Online Teaching
When teaching online, faculty has few, if any, visual
cues. Those cues that do exist are filtered through
technological devices such as video monitors. It is
difficult to carry on a stimulating teacher-class
discussion when spontaneity is altered by technical
requirements and distance. The teacher might never
really know, for example, if students are asleep, talking
among themselves, or even in the room. If the course is
purely online, the lectures may be recorded in any of
several formats and may or may not be viewed by
students. Furthermore, the level and depth of prior
learning and critical thinking skills of learners in the
online setting is not always displayed to the instructor.
Under those circumstances, a pre-assessment is
necessary to assess the knowledge and skills that an
online student possesses prior to the beginning of the
course. Moreover, online students need a structured
system of acquiring cognitive knowledge to produce
positive learning outcomes. The instructor should
provide a logical flow of lessons as well as activities that
assess and reinforce student learning on a regular basis
so that adjustments to instruction can be made in a
timely manner.7 Although face-to-face interaction is
limited in this setting, discussion boards, blogs and/or
chat rooms can be used for communication with the
instructor and with other students. Most students will
take responsibility for their learning and actively
participate in discussion board type activities,
particularly if it is a graded event. However, there are
always some that will not participate no matter what the
consequences.
Compared to the traditional face-to-face courses, online
courses require more development and design time and
the delivery is more labor intensive. Visser’s (2000)
study compared his own experience as an instructor of a
new online course with prior experience teaching a
regular classroom course. His results indicated that the
time and labor-intensive work that is required in online
course development and delivery are greater than that of
regular classroom teaching.8 The instructor must start
preparing for an online course long before the course
starts. This requires hours in front of a computer screen
typing every instruction that could be verbally
communicated in a face-to-face setting with minimal
effort.9 This is because every aspect of the course must
be carefully organized with explicit and detailed
instructions. There is little room for making changes
while the course is in progress because instructors do
not have regular meetings with students to clarify

FOCUS: EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
VOL 23, NO 3 SUMMER 2010 CLINICAL LABORATORY SCIENCE 189
instructions. The same is true for providing feedback.
All communication with online learners must occur in
writing, via email or formal announcements on an
online content management system such as Blackboard.
As a result, there is some lag time before the online
learner receives and reads the message. Often the
learners work on their course content at night or on
weekends, and need answers to their questions during
that time. This means the instructor must be available
to them after normal office hours. This “non-stop”
nature of online learning along with the need to provide
constant feedback and clarification may give a sense of
omnipresence to the faculty.10 Constant messages from
learners can be time-consuming and labor intensive to
review and respond. In addition to corresponding with
online learners, grading of exams and papers and other
responsibilities, such as other courses, are enough to
overwhelm an instructor. Although quick response and
feedback are the nature of the online environment, an
instructor can use simple strategies, such as including
the probable response time in the syllabus, to inform
learners about expected response time. Lewis and
Abdul-Hamid suggested that common problems,
questions and their responses can be collected over time
and feedback comments can be copied and pasted for a
quicker response.11 Alternatively, a frequently asked
questions’ section can be posted on the content
management website where necessary. Finally, the
organization of the course is extremely important and
using clear instructions will help to avoid the need for
additional clarifications.
Advantages of Online Teaching
Some of the frequently mentioned advantages of online
teaching are that it is convenient, efficient, challenging
and can be fun and rewarding. Such courses also
provide the opportunity to work with new and
emerging cutting edge technologies.12 Online
instructors can teach from anywhere in the world as
long as they have an internet connection. There is no
class time missed due to illness, educational conferences,
public holidays or even natural disasters. In addition to
convenience, the online environment also offers
excitement as well as new challenges for both learners
and the instructor. The instructor can create interactive
learning tools for teaching challenging concepts, which
is more interesting and exciting for the learner than
using still pictures or verbiage in a face-to-face lecture.
However, every online instructor must face the
challenge of mastering the course management system
and keep up with emerging technologies. If the
university or CLS department provides technical
support and training, the process becomes less
frustrating and more enjoyable. Finally, online learning
produces a deeper level of thinking and understanding
of course materials vs. face to face learning due to the
written nature of all communications. An online and
phone interview of 21 university faculty conducted by
thejournal.com provided some subjective data regarding
online learning. More than half of the interviewees felt
that learning in online environment is more profound
as the discussions seem both broader and deeper. They
also felt that, in such an environment, the quality of
student contributions are more refined as they have
time to mull concepts over as they write prior to
posting. The fact that students must take the time to
write their thoughts down, and the realization that
those thoughts have the potential of being permanently
exposed to others via discussion board or the like, brings
about a deeper level of discourse.13 Moreover, the
quality of discussion can be tied to the course
participation grade which again motivates students to
put greater thought into what they write. Another study
conducted by Asynchronous Learning Network
interviewed 20 university faculties that taught both
face-to-face and online, representing various
departments in their schools. This was a semi structured
interview where faculty answered 14 questions which
were then coded and the most frequently coded passages
were determined. The faculty in this study frequently
spoke of being more reflective or careful in crafting their
own responses in an online discussion and also
mentioned the higher quality of questions and
comments from online learners.12 Both studies show
that discussions and learning can be superior in an
online environment compared to face-to-face
environment. Both of the above mentioned studies are
qualitative and do not provide quantitative data which
is certainly needed to explore this further. Overall,
online teaching has its advantages and can be a fulfilling
and satisfying experience for an instructor.
Most online instructors will agree that teaching online is
no less rewarding than teaching face-to-face. A study

FOCUS: EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
190 VOL 23, NO 3 SUMMER 2010 CLINICAL LABORATORY SCIENCE 
conducted in 2006 showed that faculty experiences with
online teaching were gratifying, stimulating and
rewarding.14 In a classroom setting, the instructor might
feel good about an ‘aha’ moment when the students
display understanding of difficult concepts. The
experience is quite similar when an online student posts
something thought-provoking on discussion board.
Moreover, if learners have related work experience such
as in a CLT to CLS program, the course facilitator or
instructor learns from them as well. These learners may
have access to case studies and the latest testing
methodologies that can be shared with everyone
involved in the course. Overall, the experience of a
course instructor can be rewarding in traditional,
virtual, or blended environments.
As classroom venues transition from traditional to
virtual, the role of an instructor changes. The instructor
must recognize the nature of online learning and adjust
their instruction to create a learner-centered
environment. Creating a climate of social presence,
paying close attention to course design, thoughtful use
of creative instructional strategies, and encouraging
knowledge sharing will assist instructors in managing
the demands of web-based instruction effectively.
REFERENCES
1. Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical thinking,
cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance
education. American Journal of Distance Education.
2001;15:7-23.
2. Aargon SR. Creating social presence in online environments.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education.
2003;100:57-68.
3. De Gagne JC, Walters, K. Online teaching experience: A
qualitative metasynthesis (QMS). MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching. 2009;5:577-87.
4. Mykota D, Duncan R. Learning characteristics as predictors of
online social presence. Canadian Journal of Education.
2007;30:157-70.
5. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997) Social presence as a
predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated con-
ferencing environment. The American journal of Distance
Education, 11(3), 8-26.
6. Rovai A, Ponton M, Wighhting M, Baker J. A comparative
analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom and e-
learning courses. International Journal on E-Learning. 2007;
6(3):413-32.
7. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M. Facilitating cognitive
presence in online learning interaction is not enough. Journal
of Distance Education. 2005; 19:133-48.
8. Visser JA. Faculty work in developing and teaching Web-based
distance courses: A case study of time and effort. The American
Journal of Distance Education. 2000; 14:21-32.
9. Anderson T, Rourke L, Garrison DR, Archer W. Assessing
teaching presence in a computer conference context. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2001;5:1-17.
10. Conceicao-Runlee S, Reilly K. Experiences of faculty members
who interact with students in an online environment. 1999
Oct. Paper presented at the Midwest Research to Practice
Conference, University of Missouri-St. Louis.
11. Lewis CC, Abdul-Hamid H. Implementing effective online
teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative
Higher Education. 2006; 31:83-98.
12. Coppola NW, Hiltz SR, Rotter, NG. Becoming a virtual
professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning net-
works. Journal of Management Information Systems.
2002;18:169-78.
13. Teaching College Courses Online vs Face-to-Face. Available
from thejournal.com/Articles/2001/04/01/Teaching-College-
Courses-Online-vs-FacetoFace. Accessed 2010 Feb 23.
14. Conceicao S. Faculty lived experiences in the online environ-
ment. Adult Education Quarterly. 2006;57:26-45.