BEST ONLINE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES: REPORT OF PHASE I OF AN ONGOING STUDY

This study examines how best practices in online instruction are the same as, or different from, best practices in face-to-face (F2F) instruction. The book Effectiveness and Efficiency in Higher Education for Adults [1] summarizes some 20 years of research on best practices in F2F instruction. The bases of comparison are principles from the KS&G material and from Chickering and Gamson’s “seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education” [2]. A reason for making these comparisons is that the rapid growth of online instruction promises that online instruction may become the largest source of ongoing higher education. Not surprisingly, interest in assessing the quality of online offerings has also grown [3, 4, 5, 6]. The question is increasingly raised: Are postsecondary institutions effectively “doing their old job in a new way?” [7]. One way to answer that question is to analyze the online instructional practices of faculty with the aid of research on patterns of instruction, face-to-face and online. This paper is abbreviated from a February 14, 2002 report by Marisa Collett, Morris Keeton and Vivian Shayne of the Institute for Research and Assessment in Higher Education for the Office of Distance Education and Lifelong Learning at the University of Maryland University College. I. PRINCIPLES OF BEST PRACTICE The book Effectiveness and Efficiency in Higher Education for Adults [1] (herein referred to as KS&G) undertakes just such an analysis. The book surveys research of the last 20 years, including meta-analyses of studies on different principles of instruction, in search of principles and practices with largest effect sizes in explaining learning gains. Eight principles emerge as a manageable set of principles meeting this criterion. For each of the principles, case studies are cited that apply each principle as effective practices or strategies. These eight principles, though worded differently, partially overlap and supplement the “seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education” [2] (herein “C&G”). JALN Volume 8, Issue 2 — April 2004 76 Table 1. Principles from C&G and from KS&G In terms of feedback, the KS&G principles add that the feedback needs to be constructive. The KS&G principle on balancing challenge and support combines the C&G principles 6 and 7, encouraging individualization of learning arrangements. A focus on active learning is shared by the two analyses, with KS&G making explicit the need for critical thinking and including cooperation among students and interaction between teacher and students as ways to foster the active, critical reflection. Finally, KS&G adds a focus on the institutional climate or environmental press for inquiry as a key to best practice. The relationship between a principle and appropriate applications is not a simple one. Consider, for example, the principle that an instructor should make clear the learning goals and objectives of a learning experience (course, workshop, training event) and make one or more paths to their achievement clear to students and keep them clear. Among the ways to do so is to state these goals and paths in a syllabus. Students, however, may not know enough about the subject of study to understand the instructor’s explanation in the syllabus without further help. Also workshops rarely provide syllabi. So other strategies are required to fulfill this principle. Normally a mix of strategies will work best to this end. Though a combination of strategies normally yields best learning, the most effective practices will differ from course to course, workshop to workshop, or training goal to training goal. For example, on the principle of clarifying goals and paths to learning, it can be helpful to give students a pre-test that is equivalent psychometrically to the final assessment to be used. Developing such instrumentation, however, is costly in time and demanding of expertise. It may be more practical to devote extra class time to spelling out the instructor’s expectations, or to combine the work of clarification with efforts to motivate students by striking deals in which some course time is given to other goals that different students have, in addition to the instructor’s goals. For a given instructional principle, there are numerous strategies available for applying the principle. It is not necessary, of course, to use them all in any one instructional effort. On a Likert scale of 1–5, with 5 as most effective, the instructor might rate his or her Chickering and Gamson (C&G) Keeton, Sheckley, & Krejci-Griggs (KS&G) 1. Good practice encourages student-faculty contact. Make learning goals and one or more paths to them clear. 2. Good practice encourages cooperation among students. Use extensive and deliberate practice. 3. Good practice encourages active learning. Provide prompt and constructive feedback. 4. Good practice gives prompt feedback. Provide an optimal balance of challenge and support that is tailored to the individual student’s readiness and potential. 5. Good practice emphasizes time on task. Elicit active and critical reflection by learners on their growing experience base. 6. Good practice communicates high expectations. Link inquiries to genuine problems or issues of high interest to the learners (thus enhancing motivation and accelerating their learning). 7. Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning. Develop learners’ effectiveness as learners early in their education. Create an institutional environment that supports and encourages inquiry. JALN Volume 8, Issue 2 — April 2004 77 effectiveness at 4.5 while some implementing strategies would be used slightly, if at all (e.g., at 1 or 2 level), and the average use of the list of available strategies might be only 3.