BEST PRACTICES FOR ONLINE INSTRUCTORS

Reminders

Wade W. Fish and Leah E. Wickersham

Texas A&M University-Commerce

Online education has become increasingly popular in higher education, which is a trend that will continue as
more universities have begun to heavily invest in online teaching due to student demand. While best practices
for implementing online instruction are well documented in previous literature, factors identified in this
review of literature serve as reminders that should be considered by higher education faculty to enhance the
quality of their online courses. Teaching online requires a faculty member to think differently about teaching
and learning, learn a host of new technological skills, and engage in ongoing faculty development for design
and development of quality online instruction.

During the past few years, online education has
become increasingly popular in higher educa-
tion (Dunlap, Sobel, & Sands, 2007; Stolten-
kamp, Kies, & Njenga, 2007). In 2004, over
54,000 online courses were offered within uni-
versities across the United States (Singh & Pan,
2004). Online learning is a trend that will con-
tinue as more universities have begun to heav-
ily invest in online teaching (Appana, 2008)
due to increased student demand (Gallien &
Oomen-Early, 2008). While best practices for
implementing online instruction are well docu-
mented in previous literature, the following
factors serve as reminders that should be con-
sidered by higher education faculty to enhance
the quality of their online courses.
THINK DIFFERENTLY
Necessary measures to develop and teach qual-
ity online courses are considerably different
compared to implementing conventional
courses (Dunlap et al., 2007). Effective online
course delivery requires more than simply
repackaging existing traditional course content
(Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008) by means
such as placing presentation slides and lecture
notes into course management systems, which
is frequently practiced by poorly trained fac-
ulty (Dunlap et al.). Faculty must restructure
how course content is delivered, which takes
type of content, student ability and course
sequence within curriculum into consideration

Wade W. Fish, Department of Educational Leadership, Texas A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011, Commerce,
TX 75429-3011. Phone: (903) 886-5600. E-mail: Wade_Fish@tamu-commerce.edu

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 10(3), 2009, pp. 279284 ISSN 1528-3518
Copyright 2009 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
280 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
(Cornelius & Glasgow, 2007). Online teaching
requires faculty to be able to communicate dif-
ferently and by learning how to enhance rela-
tionships with students online (Dykman &
Davis, 2008).
Delivering quality online courses is more
difficult and time consuming compared to tra-
ditional courses (Almala, 2007; Darrington,
2008; Dykman & Davis, 2008; Li & Irby,
2008). Difficulty revolves around faculty hav-
ing to create quality learning environments
through virtual classroom communities (Dar-
rington) in addition to faculty having to adjust
to limited social interaction (Dykman &
Davis). Recommendations to decrease the dif-
ficulty level of implementing effective online
courses include increased faculty release time
in order to reduce teaching loads (White,
Brown, & Sugar, 2007; Winkler-Prins,
Weisenborn, Group, & Arbogast, 2007), which
will allow educators time to develop instruc-
tional materials and to learn how to adapt to
the online instructional environment. Accord-
ing to Dykman and Davis, online teaching will
likely become easier and rewarding for educa-
tors as they become more comfortable deliver-
ing courses online.
THE ADULT LEARNER
The increase in the number of online courses
has resulted in an emphasis toward adult
learning theory, in which the instructor serves
as a facilitator of learning rather than a
distributor of content (Ruiz, Mintzer, &
Leipzig, 2006). This paradigm shift from
traditional content-centered to learning-
centered courses (Magnussen, 2008) facilitates
learning through collaborative discovery
(Dykman & Davis, 2008), which increases
student satisfaction (Appana, 2008). Effective
online learning environments engage students
toward higher levels of thinking, promote
active student involvement, accommodate
individual differences and motivate learners
(Zsohar & Smith, 2008). Curriculum content
should be authentic and applicable to the real
Vol. 10, No. 3, 2009
world that facilitates problem-centered
learning. Quality instruction further builds
critical thinking skills that enhance lifelong
learning (Dunlap et al., 2007). Meaningful
interaction that motivates students to think
critically is dependent upon effective course
content presentation.
FACULTY SUPPORT AND
COLLABORATION
Successful online course development is
dependent upon the commitment (Magnussen,
2008), enthusiasm, interest and skills of dedi-
cated faculty (Winkler-Prins et al., 2007).
Despite the demand for online instruction,
innovative adoption of online teaching prac-
tices in higher education has been limited, as
universities often are reluctant to engage in
technological development (Fox, Anderson, &
Rainie, 2005 as cited in Dykman & Davis,
2008; Spellings, 2006 as cited in Dykman &
Davis). The willingness of institutions to
invest in technical support and equipment is
necessary to implement successful online pro-
grams (Magnussen, 2008). Furthermore,
administrative support is essential in order to
create effective distance education support
structures (Appana, 2008) and maintain strong
e-learning infrastructures (Almala, 2007).
While initial funding may serve as a limita-
tion, sufficient allocation of revenues is neces-
sary in order to allow faculty members to
convert conventional programs to online
courses (Appana).
Institutions must provide ongoing faculty
training and support (Appana, 2008) through
professional development opportunities that
expose instructors to current technologies and
related software (Evans & Champion, 2007).
Universities staying current with technological
innovation results in improved online course
development outcomes and satisfaction (Cor-
nelius & Glasgow, 2007). Those instructors
who teach online should be properly trained in
order to become more technologically profi-
cient (Arabasz & Baker, 2003 as cited in Stol-
Best Practices for Online Instructors
tenkamp et al., 2007). An intensive team effort
is necessary, especially for those instructors
who lack online course development skills
(Taylor, 2002, as cited in Appana, 2008),
which includes collaboration between faculty
and web design teams (Appana). Li and Irby
(2008) provide measures that faculty can take
to enhance their online course development
skills, which consists of regularly attending
online education workshops and conducting
literature reviews in order to stay current on
effective online education practices. Li and
Irby further recommend that instructors consis-
tently consult and network with other col-
leagues who teach online courses to include
those from other universities. Properly trained
instructors will likely have the knowledge to
build successful courses that enhance faculty
productivity, engage learners and optimize stu-
dent learning outcomes (Zsohar & Smith,
2008).
STUDENT SUPPORT
Successful online students are likely to be dis-
ciplined, organized, self-motivated, and tech-
nologically knowledgeable (Hiltz & Goldman,
2004). Unfortunately, many students enrolled
in online courses are not tech-savvy (Dar-
rington, 2008). Comprehensive student online
training is necessary in order to reduce student
frustration levels (Magnussen, 2008; Restauri,
2004 as cited in Appana, 2008) and to ensure
that online technology does not interfere with
learning (Comelius & Glasgow, 2007). The
presentation of online courses further contrib-
utes toward student success levels. Online
technology should consist of user-friendly
technology delivery systems (Almala, 2007),
and software that appeals to learners (Hutch-
ings, Hadfield, Howarth, & Lewarne, 2007).
Furthermore, online course content should be
easy to navigate that contain high quality
images, graphics, video streaming, and links to
electronic resources (Winkler-Prins et al.,
2007).
281
QUALITY DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Quality online courses adapt to student needs,
provide meaningful examples, motivate stu-
dents, and consist of instructors who express
concern for student learning (Young, 2006).
The foundation for developing online courses
revolve around the careful selection of course
delivery systems (Cornelius & Glasgow,
2007), establishing high standards (Almala,
2007) and instructional planning (Evans &
Campion, 2007).
Organization and Planning
According to Dykman and Davis (2008),
detailed organization and planning is the first
step in teaching online. Components to plan-
ning online courses include developing course
objectives, identifying reading material and
assignments, determining interaction options
and clarifying student expectations. Learners
are more likely to focus more on learning
(Dykman & Davis) and benefit (Zsohar &
Smith, 2008) when online courses are care-
fully planned through clear expectations and
guidelines. Clarification is especially impor-
tant since faculty members are usually unable
to provide students with instantaneous expla-
nations for potential misunderstandings online
(Magnussen, 2008).
Upfront planning, prior to the beginning of
an online course, is necessary to decrease stu-
dent misunderstanding and confusion (Almala,
2007; Li & Irby, 2008) as making significant
adjustments mid-stream usually does not work
with online teaching (Dykman & Davis, 2008).
Planning early consists of developing objec-
tives that provide learners with clear guide-
lines, which can be effectively achieved by
modularizing or organizing course content into
topics (Dykman & Davis; Zsohar & Smith,
2008). Properly created modules assist student
expectations by providing well-written direc-
tions that assist them toward remaining on a
required pace and keeping track of assignment
due dates.
282 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
Many novice online instructors have diffi-
culty in their attempts to make online courses
academically rigorously equivalent to conven-
tional courses, which often results in overload-
ing students (Dykman & Davis, 2008). Online
courses should offer a variety of activities and
assignments that involve both lower- and
higher-level cognitive processing (Dunlap et
al., 2007). This balance encourages a collabor-
ative environment. Online course assignments
must not only provide a sense of connectivity,
but holistically fit together to complement
learning objectives (Zsohar & Smith, 2008).
Instructor and Student Interaction
Interaction between the instructor and stu-
dent enhances the effectiveness of the online
learning environment (Garrison & Anderson,
2003; Muirhead, 2004, as cited in Dunlap et
al., 2007) contributing to positive student per-
formance, grades and course satisfaction
(Appana, 2008; Gallien & Oomen-Early,
2008). According to Thurmond (2003, as cited
in Dunlap et al.), the effectiveness and quality
of the instructor contributes more towards stu-
dent satisfaction than technology. While qual-
ity instructor guidance and verbal directions
are often non-existent in online courses (Evans
& Champion, 2007), a learning community
must exist to where students do not feel dis-
connected (Cornelius & Glasgow, 2007).
Feedback to students that is prompt, rele-
vant and continuous contributes to high stu-
dent satisfaction levels in online courses
(Darrington, 2008; Zsohar & Smith, 2008).
Dykman and Davis emphasize that initial and
continuous communication as consistent
meaningful dialogue between instructor and
student serves as a basic principle of online
teaching. Furthermore, professors should be
proactive, diligent, and keep track of commit-
ments to communicate with their students
online. Direct inquires from professors
enhances student comfort levels. Results from
a study conducted by Gallien and Oomen-
Early (2008) concluded that students who
received consistent personalized instructor
Vol. 10, No. 3, 2009
feedback exhibited higher satisfaction levels
and academic gains compared to those stu-
dents who received strictly collective feed-
back.
While important, providing consistent per-
sonalized feedback to students in online
courses can serve as a challenge to professors
(Li & Irby, 2008). Magnussen (2008) recom-
mends that faculty should set boundaries in
order maintain manageable workloads such as
by specifying times to where students can
expect prompt instructor feedback. Faculty can
also minimize e-mails, while maximizing
entire class communication, by posting student
questions on class wide discussion forums,
which decreases replicate questioning and stu-
dent misunderstanding (Gallien & Oomen-
Early, 2008; Li & Irby; Zsohar & Smith,
2008). Utilizing accessible online grade-books
(Winkler-Prins et al., 2007) and providing
assignment grading rubrics with clear expecta-
tions (Darrington, 2008) further enhances stu-
dent feedback efforts.
Ongoing Evaluation
Faculty should continuously evaluate the
effectiveness of their online courses (Dykman
& Davis, 2008; Stoltenkamp et al., 2007).
Continuous evaluation should involve
researching current practices of institutions
that serve as leaders in delivering quality
online programs (Almala, 2007). Stotenkamp
et al. concludes that continuous planning is
essential due to ever-changing technologies
and policies. Frequently updating online pro-
grams (Winkler-Prins et al., 2007), collecting
student feedback (Cornelius & Glasgow, 2007;
Li & Irby, 2008), and obtaining input by col-
leagues (Zsohar & Smith, 2008) further con-
tributes toward the development of quality
online courses.
CONCLUSION
The concept of delivering instruction online is
one that is not going to fade away. It is not an
Best Practices for Online Instructors
educational fad or the latest buzzword used to
impress our stakeholders. The ivory tower as it
was once known has now firmly established
itself as a digital one. The change in the ways
and means of educating students of higher
learning does not need to be viewed in a nega-
tive light; however, many faculty are reluctant
to move from behind the lectern to a computer
screen. This resistance to change is not without
merit. As pointed out in the review of literature
for this article, teaching online requires a fac-
ulty member to think differently about teach-
ing and learning, learn a host of new
technological skills and engage in ongoing fac-
ulty development for design and development
of quality online instruction, and play the role
of teacher, learner, and technical support.
Faculty should not be alone in the require-
ment of making the shift from traditional
teaching to the electronic mode of educating
students. Administration must share in this
responsibility and put their weight behind sup-
porting faculty and students. A variety of
ongoing professional development opportuni-
ties must be made available to assist faculty in
developing the technical and instructional
design skills necessary to create a quality
online course and engaging learning experi-
ence for students. To that end, the technology
used to deliver instruction must be current and
user-friendly, providing technical assistance
and/or training to faculty and students as
needed. Incentives should be offered to faculty
in the form of time, such as a course release,
and/or monetary support to encourage quality
design and development of online instruction.
And finally, methods of ongoing assessment
should be employed to assist in providing fac-
ulty with feedback for areas of improvement
and encourage the practice of continuous
improvement.
The task ahead is not an impossible one, but
it is vital that institutions of higher learning
change their traditional practices rather than
continue operating as normal while adding
the huge responsibility of online teaching to an
already heavy workload. The ivory tower has
indeed changed, but with tremendous opportu-
283
nities for growth and outreach and infinite
innovative possibilities.
REFERENCES
Almala, A. H. (2007). Review of current issues in
quality e-learning environments. Distance
Learning, 4(3), 23-30.
Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limita-
tions of online learning in the context of the stu-
dent, the instructor, and the tenured faculty.
International Journal on ELearning, 7(1), 5-22.
Cornelius, F., & Glasgow, M. E. S. (2007). The
development and infrastructure needs required
for successone colleges model: Online nurs-
ing education at Drexel University. TechTrends,
51(6), 32-35.
Darrington, A. (2008). Six lessons in e-learning:
Strategies and support for teachers new to online
environments. Teaching English in the Two Year
College, 35(4), 416-421.
Dunlap, J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Sup-
porting students cognitive processing in online
courses: Designing for deep and meaningful stu-
dent-to-content interactions. TechTrends, 51(4),
20-31.
Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). Online edu-
cation forum: Part twoteaching online versus
teaching conventionally. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 19(2), 157-164.
Evans, R., & Champion, I. (2007). Enhancing
online delivery beyond PowerPoint. The Com-
munity College Enterprise, 13(2), 75-84.
Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized
versus collective instructor feedback in the
online classroom: Does type of feedback affect
student satisfaction, academic performance and
perceived connectedness with the instructor?
International Journal on ELearning, 7(3), 463-
476.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning
in the 21st century: A framework for research
and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (2004). Learning
together online: Research on asynchronous
learning networks. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hutchings, M., Hadfield, M., Howarth, G., &
Lewarne, S. (2007). Meeting the challenges of
active learning in web-based case studies for
sustainable development. Innovations in Educa-
tion and Teaching International, 44(3), 331-343.
284 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
Li, C., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online
education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges,
concerns and recommendations. College Student
Journal, 42(2), 449-458.
Magnussen, L. (2008). Applying the principles of
significant learning in the e-learning environ-
ment. Journal of Nursing Education, 47(2), 82-
86.
Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006).
The impact of e-learning in medical education.
Academic Medicine, 81, 207-212.
Singh, P., & Pan, W. (2004). Online education: Les-
sons for administrators and instructors. College
Student Journal, 38, 302-308.
Stoltenkamp, J., Kies, C., & Njenga, J. (2007). Insti-
tutionalizing the elearning division at the Uni-
versity of the Western Cape (UWC): Lessons
learnt. International Journal of Education and
Development using Information and Communi-
cation Technology, 3(4), 143-152.
Vol. 10, No. 3, 2009
White, L. N., Brown, C. A., & Sugar, W. (2007).
One departments transition to online instruc-
tion: Library science and instructional technol-
ogy masters programs at East Carolina
University. TechTrends, 51(6), 52-58.
Winkler-Prins, A. M., Weisenborn, B. N., Group, R.
E., & Arbogast, A. F. (2007). Developing online
geography courses: Experiences from Michigan
State University. The Journal of Geography,
106(4), 163-170.
Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online
teaching in higher education. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 20(20), 65-77.
Zsohar, H., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Transition from
the classroom to the web: Successful strategies
for teaching online. Nursing Education Perspec-
tives, 29(1), 23-28.
Copyright of Quarterly Review of Distance Education is the property of Information Age Publishing and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.