The experience of teaching online and its impact on faculty innovation across delivery methods

Highlights

• Teaching online may have a positive impact on the f2f teaching of some instructors.

• Changes occurred in instructor reflection, course planning, student learning activities, and use of class time.

• Instructors became increasingly focused on the student learning process.

• Instructors became familiar with new technologies and aware of their potential.

• The boundary between in-class and out-of-class activities weakened.

Abstract

As traditional colleges and universities increasingly incorporate online learning programs into their curriculum, it is important to understand the benefits that may accrue to the faculty who teach in those programs, particularly those that influence instructors' continuing participation in face-to-face (f2f) teaching. The purpose of this qualitative study was to provide a greater understanding of how the experience of teaching online influenced instructors' thinking, planning, and enactment in their teaching practice across delivery methods.

Four overarching themes emerged: 1) Reflecting on Practice, 2) Creating Structure, 3) Conducting the Class, and 4) Facilitating Learning. Reflecting on Practice occurred when instructors questioned themselves about their teaching goals and objectives. Creating Structure encompasses course planning and designing. Conducting the Class refers to the ongoing consideration of maximizing class time for student learning. Facilitating Learning involved creating conditions that promote student learning. Three trends had an impact on the themes: 1) a shift in focus from teaching to learning, 2) a growing awareness of the affordances of technology and media, and 3) a weakening of the boundary between in-class and out-of-class learning activities.

Introduction

As online learning in higher education becomes more common (Allen & Seaman, 2014), the number of faculty who move from face-to-face (f2f) teaching to online teaching has also increased. Studies examining this shift have focused on competencies for teaching online (e.g., Williams, 2003), faculty development needs and initiatives (e.g., Eib & Miller, 2006), barriers and incentives to faculty participation (e.g., Shattuck, 2012), faculty satisfaction with online teaching (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009), and changing faculty roles (e.g., Beaudoin, 1990). Much less research has been conducted on a shift in the other direction, i.e., how teaching online might influence f2f teaching. Although a few researchers have begun to explore this phenomenon (e.g., Kampov-Polevoi, 2010, McQuiggan, 2011, Scagnoli et al., 2009, Shea et al., 2002, Skibba, 2009, Wiesenberg and Stacey, 2008), the overall knowledge base is not robust.

A fuller examination of the relationship between online and f2f teaching will contribute to our understanding of the professional development process of faculty in higher education. It may also assist instructional designers and faculty developers in communicating more effectively and productively with faculty clients about instructional issues in both domains. Additionally, expanding the knowledge base on the types of teaching strategies that work in both formats should provide instructors and instructional designers with a more robust set of strategies in both contexts, a better understanding of how to implement strategies in either context, and an appreciation for the kinds of strategies that might transfer to new and emerging teaching domains, e.g., massive open online courses.