Online Learning: Strategies for Pedagogical Retooling

Maureen Snow Andrade

Academic Affairs, Utah Valley University, 800 W. University Parkway MS 194, Orem, Utah, U.S.A.

Keywords: Flexible Learning, Online Learning, Pedagogy, Higher Education, Disruptive Innovation.

Abstract: Higher education can be conceptualized as a partnership between the learner and the institution. However,

this may necessitate changes in practice, such as the development of flexible learning models to

accommodate individuals from a range of backgrounds and life circumstances, particularly those

traditionally excluded from higher education. Flexible modes of learning may encounter resistance or fail to

deliver expected outcomes, however, thus limiting adoption. Pedagogical retooling can address this. This

paper reviews the current status of one type of flexible delivery—online learning—in terms of stakeholder

views, the need for continued institutional responsiveness, and pedagogical strategies that support desired

outcomes. The latter includes pedagogical training that involves implementing elements of effective course

design, simulating the student learning experience, forming communities of practice, and sustaining practice

with follow-on support.

1 INTRODUCTION

When the Open University in the United Kingdom

opened its doors 45 years ago, some considered the

concept to be “blithering nonsense,” (Wildavsky,

2016, para. 2). The vision to offer low cost, high

quality, personalized, valued degree programs with

flexible scheduling to part-time adult learners

regardless of academic preparation did not reflect

current practice. However, when initial enrollments

of 25,000 were realized (compared to 180,000 across

all higher education institutions in the United

Kingdom), the approach was heralded as the “"most

significant event in the history of higher education

since land grant colleges were created in the United

States” (Wildavsky, 2016, para. 3).



This disruptive innovation has become

increasingly common. Recognition that education is

“a major contributor to national wealth and

economic development” (British Council, 2012, p.

1), the opportunity is being extended to learners of

all ages and backgrounds. Many nations have open

universities, and traditional institutions are adopting

the principles and flexible delivery premises upon

which open universities were founded.

Consequently, post-secondary enrollments are

increasing by 5% per year (British Council, 2012).

Higher education is beginning to be

conceptualized as a “partnership between HEPs

[higher education providers] and students with the

goal of providing accessible yet manageable

learning opportunities for a wide range of people”

(Higher Education Academic [HEA], 2015, p. 4).

Learners wanting to be part of this partnership

represent diverse educational backgrounds, levels of

academic preparation, social classes, age groups,

cultural assets, ethnicities, linguistic proficiencies,

and life situations, much more so than traditional

university students.

To address the needs of these learners, flexible

delivery models are being considered and adopted.

Flexibility entails greater choice for learners in terms

of time, place, and delivery of educational offerings;

however, continued attention is required to provide

these choices in ways that support effective learning

and successful completion of programs of study.

“When well supported, [flexible learning] positively

impacts recruitment, retention and progression;

widens participation; and offers opportunities to

learners of all ages, backgrounds, ethnicities and

nationalities” (HEA, 2015, p. 4).

Traditional higher education practices and

institutional cultures can present a significant barrier

to the adoption of learning paradigms that are

flexible and responsive to learner circumstances,

however. This is particularly true in terms of the

acceptance of online learning as a viable

pedagogical approach. This paper examines views of

distance learning within the academy, indicates the

Andrade, M.

Online Learning: Strategies for Pedagogical Retooling.

In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 2, pages 85-90

ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3

need for continued responsiveness, and shares

strategies for effective retooling and pedagogical

practice in online programs.

2 PERSPECTIVES ON ONLINE

LEARNING

For many, online learning is considered the most

viable solution to increasing educational demand

from a diverse pool of learners (European

Commission [EU], 2014; HEA, 2015). It has the

potential to “reach individuals previously

marginalized to change lives and improve

communities and economies” (Andrade, 2013, p.

67). Traditional degree programs are becoming

modernized in terms of greater access to materials,

and pedagogies that blend technology with

traditional approaches; this modernization is

resulting in wider acceptance of online learning (EU,

2014).

Indeed, enrollment patterns for online courses

clearly indicate increasing access to, and by

implication, acceptance of this mode of delivery.

Although growth in the percentage of students

taking at least one online course has slowed to

approximately 3.7 (as compared to 20% in 2003,

2005, and 2009), this exceeds overall higher

education enrollment increases of 1.2% for the same

time period (Allen and Seaman, 2015). As expected,

undergraduates who are older, employed full-time,

and have a spouse or dependent are more likely to

participate than their traditional counterparts

(Radford, 2011). This patterns supports the founding

principles of the open university and the need to

extend these principles to traditional institutions.

However, perspectives on the sustainability and

quality of online learning differ. Critics observe that

retention in online courses is 8% lower than in

traditionally-delivered courses (Lokken and Mullins,

2014). Nearly 45% of chief academic officers feel

that it is more difficult to retain students in online

courses than in face-to-face courses, and the

majority (68.3%) believe that more discipline is

needed for success in online than in traditional

courses (Allen and Seaman, 2015).

Certainly, flexible learning has the potential to

encourage “students to become independent and

autonomous, fostering attributes that will enable

them to manage the complexities of 21st century

life” (HEA, 2015, p. 3). Simply enrolling in a

flexible learning course, however, does not create an

autonomous or independent learner. Developing

these abilities requires intentional course design and

instructor facilitation (Andrade, 2014a, 2014b).

Faculty stakeholders are often characterized as

being resistant to online learning.

There are still a number of faculty on our

campus who question what we are doing to

our students. [They think that if they are] not

going to get the campus experience, they

aren’t going to get the interaction they used

to get (Bichsel, 2013, p. 23).

Faculty members at institutions that offer online

programs and those who have taught online tend to

have more positive views than their counterparts

(Allen and Seaman, 2015). However, fewer than half

feel that their institutions have appropriate

assessment mechanisms to ensure the quality of

online offerings, and almost two-thirds feel that

learning outcomes are inferior (Allen & Seaman,

2012). In contrast, approximately 75% of

administrators view student learning outcomes in

online courses as equivalent to or higher than face-

to-face courses (Allen and Seaman, 2015).

3 THE NEED FOR

RESPONSIVENESS

In spite of these varying perspectives, the call for

higher education is to “become more responsive and

relevant to new demands from a clientele reflecting

an evolving demographic profile” (Beaudoin, in

press). Higher education is a long-established

enterprise with long-standing traditions that have not

been questioned to much extent. Current

conversations indicate concerns with rising costs,

return on investment, the practice of measuring

quality by inputs such as seat time and credit hours,

lack of accountability, and elitism (Christensen et

al., 2011). Higher education must reinvent itself to

effectively serve a range of student populations and

prepare graduates for a constantly changing global

environment.

Online learning is a disruptive innovation in

higher education with the potential to effect needed

change. Disruptive innovation is “the process by

which products and services, which at one point

were so expensive, complicated, and inconvenient

that only a small fraction of people could access

them, become transformed into ones that are

simpler, more convenient, lower in cost, and far

more accessible” (Christensen et al., 2011, p. 10).

Online learning enables “learning to happen in a

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

variety of contexts, locations, and times; it allows

for a transformation of curriculum and learning”

(Christensen et al., 2011, p. 4). The issue is how to

ensure the effectiveness and encourage acceptance

of this transformation.

Higher education has been a sustaining

innovation, historically available to only those with

the cultural and financial capital to prepare them

with the requisite life experiences and advantages

for access and success. Due to rising demand, the

need to accommodate diverse learners, external

criticism, and increasing competition from for-profit

providers (i.e., disruptive innovators), traditional

institutions are recognizing the need to change in

order to provide an affordable, high quality

experience to a broad population.

Innovations typically require changes in

structure, policy, and business models. Universities

may decide to offer online programs to new

audiences to avoid self-competition (Roscorla,

2014). Otherwise, students may choose online over

face-to-face courses, threatening the latter and

creating concerns within the academy. Institutions

sometimes spin off their online learning operations

to free themselves from slow decision-making

processes and resistance, and to serve greater

numbers of students. This is the case with

institutions such as Southern New Hampshire

University, the first online competency-based U.S.

institution to be eligible for student federal financial

aid (LeBlanc, 2015).

“New and emerging approaches to teaching and

learning, made possible by new technologies, can

complement, consolidate, support, and further

advance” access (EU, 2014, p. 4). In spite of this,

goals for widely accessible higher education

opportunity have not yet been realized (EU, 2014).

Additionally, concerns about quality and student

success indicate the need for greater attention to

effective practice and pedagogical strategies.

Few teaching staff see value in online learning

according to their chief academic administrators

(Allen and Seaman, 2015). This may be due to

resistance to change, tradition, or familiar cultural

practices. It may also be due to unfamiliarity with

this mode of teaching and learning, insecurity about

technology, and uncertainty about how to adapt.

Preparing instructors to teach online has been cited

as a significant challenge (Lokken and Mullins,

2014).

4 REFORM STRATEGIES

To address the challenges noted, institutions should

consider developing a multi-dimensional approach

for supporting effective online teaching. These

involve strategies that range from effective course

design to simulated training, the formation of

communities of learning, and follow-on support.

4.1 Implement Effective Elements of

Course Design

A successful online teaching and learning

experience begins with course design. Teaching staff

must be made aware of the elements of good

practice and how to implement them. These include

pre-enrollment information (program specifics, fees,

estimated time to completion, needed background

knowledge); intentional design (learning outcomes,

media and social networking, relevant content);

interventions (progress checks, alerts for missing

assignments or low scores); formative and

summative assessments; personalized support

(conferencing, social networking, learning

resources); and learner analytics (Tait, 2015).

Additionally, courses might embed learning strategy

training to encourage learner responsibility and

success (Andrade, 2014a; 2014b).

Understanding how online courses are

intentionally designed may help address instructor

concerns with quality and outcomes. Instructors

might also see applicability for these practices in

their face-to-face courses and the potential for

redesigning courses with online components. Course

redesign is a current strategy in higher education that

addresses unacceptable pass rates in gateway

courses, or those that are foundational, highly

enrolled, and which students may be at risk of

failing (John N. Gardner Institute, 2016). Redesign

can result in significant gains in student degree

completion (Pushing the Barriers, 2015; Renick,

2016).

Typically, course redesign is characterized by

online lectures and practice exercises, pre/post-

assessments; automated feedback, peer and e-

tutoring; and consistency across sections

(Educational Advisory Board, 2014; “Pushing the

Barriers,” 2015). These elements share similarities

with those of effective online course design. Learner

analytics, outcomes, completion rates, and other

metrics can be used to demonstrate efficacy and

identify needed improvements.

Online Learning: Strategies for Pedagogical Retooling

4.2 Simulate the Student Learning

Experience

Training programs for online instructors often

simulate the student experience. This might occur in

the form of a flipped classroom; both learners and

instructors use online materials to prepare for in-

class engagement and application (Palloff, 2014).

This is a hybrid teaching/training model. Instructors

participate in the same types of activities as students.

They thus increase understanding of the purpose

course activities, and have the opportunity to apply

appropriate pedagogical techniques.

Instructors must also understand relevant

philosophical underpinnings in the student course.

For instance, courses may be based on the concept

of collaborative control, aimed at helping learners

become more responsible, learn help-seeking

strategies, and develop autonomy. The learner is not

expected to assume complete control over the

learning process but manages tasks in collaboration

with other students and the instructor (White, 2003).

If this is an underlying premise of the course,

instructors need to understand their role in

facilitating increased learner responsibility.

Developing responsibility involves choice, which

leads to autonomy. Students might be given a choice

of assignments based on a diagnosis of their

strengths and weaknesses. This can be accompanied

by goal-setting, performance monitoring, and

reflection. As learners strive to achieve a goal, they

complete activities, interact with their peers, and

assess their progress. This process transfers the

responsibility for learning from the instructor to the

learner (Andrade, 2014b). Once again, the instructor

must understand the purpose of these activities and

be skilled at supporting learners in achieving

associated outcomes.

To model this approach, activities in the training

course might provide instructors with opportunities

to determine what they want to learn and why and

set goals for enhancing pedagogical practice. They

can share these with their colleagues in the course,

submit reflections, and determine next steps. This

approach supports greater investment in the training

as the instructors determine what they want to learn

and apply the concept of collaborative control. It

simultaneously provides them with an experience

that mirrors that of their students.

4.3 Create Communities of Practice

In addition to effective course design practices and

simulation of activities in the student course,

instructor support should entail opportunities for

community building. Teaching online is sometimes

seen as isolating, and particularly if instructors are

new to it, uncertain of how to approach student

learning issues, and feel they have no one to consult

for answers to questions or ideas for resolving

problems. Online instructors may have never taken

an online course much less taught one (McQuiggen,

2012). As such, instructors may benefit from on-

going connections with other online instructors.

Communities of practice can be formed by

creating instructor groups with an appointed leader

who organizes virtual meetings and discussion

forums. Participants determine topics for these

exchanges and share materials and ideas.

Discussions might focus on adapting classroom

approaches to an online environment, using

technology, and addressing student or course-

specific issues.

Teaching groups can be organized within

departments offering online courses or across an

institution. The former provides an advantage in

terms of the opportunity to discuss course-specific

content and approaches while the latter provides for

cross-disciplinary exchanges on pedagogy. In this

way, both novice and seasoned instructors can

continue their development as part of a professional

community of practice.

On-going training and professional development

might also include continued goal-setting in which

instructors set a goal each semester, share it with

their group, and report on it at the end of the term.

This creates an environment in which online

instructors learn from and support each other.

Weekly and end-of-term reports, submitted

formally to a lead instructor or office staff member,

or informally to colleagues in a discussion post or

blog, can be an effective way to share teaching

insights, report problems, provide feedback on

course design or content, comment on student

progress, or make suggestions for further training.

For course or program administrators, these reports

provide critical data for decisions about course

changes or training processes and content.

These approaches to collaboration not only ease

instructors into a new learning context, but address

some of the concerns with quality often cited by

critics of online learning. They provide structure,

oversight of teaching, consistent standards and

expectations, networking opportunities, and

continuing professional development, all of which

also contribute to the achievement of student

learning outcomes.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

4.4 Sustain Practice with Follow-on

Support

In addition to establishing communities of practice,

another strategy is to provide follow-on training that

involves outreach to instructors and further

opportunities for sharing. Outreach could include

weekly e-mails with tips and strategies; quarterly

newsletters consisting of innovative ideas, success

stories, and institutional reports; or scheduled

webcasts. The latter might feature institutional

leaders sharing their vision for teaching and

learning, and instructors discussing their online

teaching insights. Webcasts can be structured so that

questions can be submitted in advance and addressed

in the session, thereby providing instructors with

opportunities for involvement.

Online resource libraries can be created for

instructors to share materials such as student-help

videos on practical issues ranging from formatting

writing assignments to conducting grammar and

spelling checks to applying instructor feedback.

Instructors can post tips on topics such as using

social networking, screencasts, videos, instant chat,

recorded verbal feedback, or other forms of

technology. Strategies for time management, grading

assignments, teaching through response,

communication with learners, creating

supplementary materials, or example announcements

may also be topics of interest. Tips for assisting

struggling students or for deepening learning

through questioning and commentary can be

included as well. Training manuals used in the initial

training course can also be made available online for

review, clarification, or follow up.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Online learning “presents an opportunity to rethink

age-old assumptions about higher education—its

processes, where it happens, and what its goals are”

(Christensen et al., 2011, p. 4). Institutions are

questioning these assumptions and responding to

demand by providing learners with access and

flexible delivery models.

However, to ensure learner success, institutions

must develop quality design, training, and support

structures. This entails identifying frameworks for

instructor development that will have a positive

impact on student success. The strategies outlined

are designed to overcome known barriers to

successful online learning programs.

REFERENCES

Allen, E. I., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S.

(2012, June). Conflicted: Faculty and online

education, 2012. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey

Research Group and Washington, DC: Inside Higher

Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/

sites/default/server_files/files/IHE-BSRG-Conflict.pdf

Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade change: Tracking

online education in the United States. Babson Park,

MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog

Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.

onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf

Andrade, M. S. (2013). Global learning by distance:

Principles and practicalities for learner support.

International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course

Design, 3(1), 66-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/

ijopcd.2013010105

Andrade, M. S. (2014a). Course embedded support for

online English language learners. Open Praxis, 6(1),

65-73. Retrieved from http://openpraxis.org/index.

php/OpenPraxis/issue/view/7/showToc. http://dx.doi.

org/10.5944/openpraxis.6.1.90

Andrade, M. S. (2014b). Dialogue and structure: Enabling

learner self-regulation in technology enhanced

learning environments. European Journal of

Educational Research 13(5), 563-574. Retrieved from

www.wwwords.eu/eerj/content/pdfs/13/issue13_5.asp

Andrade, M. S. (2015). Teaching online: A theory-based

approach to student success. Journal of Education and

Training Studies 3(5), 1-9. Retrieved from

http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/jets/article/view/

904/844. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i5.904

Beaudoin, M. (in press). Issues in distance education: A

primer for higher education decision-makers. In M. S.

Andrade (Ed.) New Directions in Higher Education.

Special Issue on Distance Education. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons.

Bichsel, J. (2013, June). The state of e-learning in higher

education: An eye toward growth and increased

access (Research Report). Louisville, CO:

EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research

(ECAR). Retrieved from educause.edu/library

/resources/state-e-learning-higher- education-eye-

toward-growth-and-increased-access

British Council. (2012). The shape of things to come:

Higher education global trends and emerging

opportunities to 2020. Retrieved from http://www.

britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/glo

bal-landscape/report-shape-of-things-to-come-1

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L, & Soares, L.

(2011, February). Disrupting college: How disruptive

innovation can deliver quality and affordability to

postsecondary education. Washington, DC: Center for

American Progress & Mountainview, CA: Innosight

Institute. Retrieved from https://www.american

progress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/02/pdf/

disrupting_college.pdf

European Commission. (2014, February). Report to the

European Commission on new modes of teaching and

Online Learning: Strategies for Pedagogical Retooling

learning in higher education. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Commission.

Higher Education Academy. (2015). Framework for

flexible learning in higher education. York, England:

The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/enhancement/framewor

ks/framework-flexible-learning-higher-education

John N. Gardner Institute. (2016). Gateway courses.

Retrieved from http://www.jngi.org/gateway-courses-

definition/

LeBlanc, P. (2015, July). Higher education’s climate

change crisis: Innovation and opportunity and a

changing eco-system. Paper presented at the AAEEBL

conference, Boston, MA.

Lokken, F., & Mullins, C. (2014, April). Trends in

eLearning: Tracking the impact of eLearning in

community colleges. Washington, DC: Instructional

Technology Council. Retrieved from

http://www.itcnetwork.org/membership/itc-distance-

education-survey-results.html

McQuiggen, C. A. (2012). Faculty development for online

teaching as a catalyst of change. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks 16(2), 27-61.

Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org

/read/journal-issues/

Palloff, R. M. (2014). Can they flip? Teaching instructors

to flip the classroom through a flipped approach.

Paper presented at the 30

Annual Conference of

Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.

Pushing the barriers to teaching improvement: A state

system's experience with faculty-led, technology-

supported course redesign. (2015, October). Adelphi,

MD: The William E. Kirwan Center for Academic

Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.usmd.edu/

cai/sites/default/files/USMCourseRedesignReport-

Sept2015.pdf

Radford, A. W. (2011, October). Learning at a distance.

Undergraduate enrollment in distance education

courses and degree programs. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=201

2154

Renick, T. M. (2016, February). Using data and analytics

to re-image the first year for at-risk students. Paper

presented at the AASCU Academic Affairs Winter

Meeting, Austin, TX.

Roscorla, T. (2014, September). 3 things higher education

should know about disruptive innovation. Retrieved

from http://www.govtech.com/education/3-Things-

Higher-Education-Should-Know-about-Disruptive-

Innovation-.html

Tait, A. (2015, April). Student success in open, distance,

and e-learning. Oslo, Norway: International Council

for Open and Distance Education. Retrieved from

http://www.icde.org/assets/WHAT_WE_DO/studentsu

ccess.pdf

White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance

education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667312

Wildavsky, B. (2016, February). The Open University at

45: What can we learn from Britain's distance

education pioneer? Retrieved from http://

www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/

posts/2016/02/01-open-university-broadcast-lectures-

wildavsky?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonu6TJdO

%2FhmjTEU5z17e8vW6%2B3lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUf

GjI4ERMZrI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFS7jFMaxzzLgL

XBM%3D

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education