Online and hybrid learning are so commonplace nowadays that many students have experience with them even before they leave K-12.  However, with the increasing ubiquity of this mode of instruction, there are certain challenges that we encounter along the road to “teaching a good class.”  Looking back to the beginnings of online teaching and learning, the greatest fear many faculty had, and some still do, was that it would be flat, not engaging for students, and that students would lose all sense of a faculty member even teaching the course.  Since that time, we have come a long way in trying to allay faculty and student fears that an online course will have less quality and be a “gimme” course and will be much easier than a face-to-face course would be.  (Well, that last one is an idea we are still trying to discourage.)  A brief look at the distance education/online courses of years past will show how we’ve attempted to alleviate the  concerns of student engagement and reveal that it’s still a hidden issue that could use some work.

The earliest kind of distance education courses were correspondence courses.  Students would get a book to read and a series of tests to take at a testing location. Tests were mailed in and scored, and afterwards a certificate was supplied to the school for the academic credential.  I took one of these courses in high school, and I was the teacher and the student, and because I only read the book to prepare for the tests, I can honestly say I learned little or nothing. This method of instruction leaves a lot to be desired.  It’s purely information sharing, relies wholly on the motivation of the student, and has no way to get help from (or even to interact with) a teacher and other students.

A little later, courses were delivered either in pre-recorded lectures delivered through local cable access channels or through closed-circuit television feeds. Many Illinois community colleges had their own public access channel where some professors would deliver lectures on television for specific classes. Their students still had to come to campus occasionally to take tests or do other class work, but not for lecture.  This method beats the former because there is a real instructor and other students whom you will see from time to time.  However, unless you are actually on campus, you have no student interaction.

Many college and university campuses installed closed-circuit television feed classrooms, which made it possible to have a live synchronous class when students and professors were in multiple locations.  Cameras and televisions in each classroom would let students and professors in all locations see and talk with one another. This was the first big breakthrough in distance education.  However, the technology was very finicky, and in bad weather the network would often go offline and students would be stuck in a classroom looking at a blank screen if they were not lucky enough to have the professor teaching from their location.  This is a much improved method in that lecture materials could be shown on screen to students (this is the beginning of PowerPoint’s popularity in higher education), and students were able to interact directly with other students and with their professor.  Student and faculty engagement is high in this model, but this is still not a true online  course because students have to attend a physical location to go to class.

The earliest truly online courses sought to keep the student and faculty interaction high by using text-based discussion boards so faculty could have discussion in an asynchronous fashion without sacrificing the back-and-forth that happens in a classroom setting.  On one level, this is a great idea, but on the other hand, these early courses were entirely text-based.  Students read and participated in online discussions, and handed in electronic copies of their papers. In a course structured this way, it’s difficult to prove that you have an actual person teaching the class.  What do they look/sound like?  Are they engaged with the material?  Lots of material that is exclusively text makes the student experience very bland and monochromatic, and even with positive interaction through discussion boards there can be a feeling of disconnection for students when compared to a face-to-face class.

As video technology became cheaper over time, more professors began offering video content in online courses and this provided students with a sense of who the instructor was. Students could see and/or hear them while watching a lecture video online and get a real sense of the professor’s personality, which doesn’t always come through in text-based interaction.  Students loved the chance to see and hear instructors delivering lectures that they could watch on their own schedules while at home. In one sense, this solved an engagement problem in eliminating purely text-based instruction and providing a sense of instructor presence.  However, this also precipitated a shift away from using discussions.  Some instructors felt that students didn’t really need to engage with one another if this was going to be a class with mostly independent work, so discussion boards were phased out in favor of direct online video instruction. Online instruction had now come full circle, back to the old lecture model of “I teach, you listen.”

Even worse, in some ways this hearkens back to the correspondence course days, as students are forced to engage with more and more material on their own, without factoring in the opinions and support of their classmates.  Sit back and think for a minute and see if the following list applies to the average week in your online course:

1. Students read assigned material, in articles, textbook, or both.
2. Students watch video or listen to audio lectures.
3. Students take an auto-graded quiz, or turn in a short writing assignment electronically.
4. Students receive grades on their work for the week.
5. Repeat for the rest of the course.

At first glance, this sounds like a well-managed and efficient course structure.  However, although the technology is more up to date and multimodal, this is still an old-fashioned correspondence course.  Students have little or no contact with the instructor, only from feedback on submitted assignments, and none with fellow students.  “But wait!” you say, “Students in my class have a 2a, where they answer a discussion post.”  Let’s look at the discussion post and see if it’s really engaging students.

If you have a discussion question for students that has a finite, reachable answer, you are probably having a pretty flat discussion experience.  The first three students answer the post with the answer, and everyone else participates by writing, “I agree.”  This isn’t a discussion, but rather the online equivalent of you asking an open question in class and a few raised hands answering the question.  The best discussion questions don’t have a clear answer, and sometimes they aren’t even clear questions.  Rather, they are opportunities to provoke thought, critical thinking and analysis in students.  The less they agree with one another, the better.  Disagreement and debate are fundamental parts of any discussion, and especially when we feel strongly about something, we may have a lot to say.  Use this opportunity to build community, and to give students an opportunity to argue what they would or would not do in a real situation.  This is a great way to get them to apply the knowledge they are acquiring through reading and watching before being tested.  It also provides them with opportunities to engage with their classmates and with you in an authentic manner, like they would do in a classroom.  Think back to the day you have in that certain class where you ask a very pointed question that you know will be hotly debated.  Now think of a question like that for every week, and you’re set.

It is not enough to show students video or audio of you.  It is not enough to grade assessments online, and it is not even enough to have regular class discussions.  Student engagement requires a very calculated strategy on the part of the instructor to make sure several factors are satisfied:

1. Students are well-informed about their course requirements, and always know what has happened, what is happening now, and what will be happening next.
2. Students know who you are, and feel that you are knowledgeable and approachable.
3. They are aware that you care about them, and provide not just criticism on their work, but positive reinforcement and encouragement when they do well.
4. Discussions and other coursework regularly engage them with their classmates, allowing them to develop relationships with one another.
5. The instructor provides regular and timely feedback on assignments, and regularly engages in discussions to provide a sense of constant presence.

It is not for nothing that the greatest fear of new online instructors is how they will compensate for the lack of a physical presence in a classroom; there is no “magic bullet” that will fix this problem.  Without regularly engaging students with one another and with you, you are giving them something much more like a publisher’s pre-made course pack.  Upload materials and they do the rest, without you. The course relies more and more on students’ intrinsic motivation and becomes something that they don’t need you for anymore.

Although it may not officially be among your course objectives, student engagement is critical for both their understanding and enjoyment of the course materials, and is an essential component of the higher education experience.  Without the exposure to the ideas of others and the involvement of a faculty member who is focused on their academic success, it’s just another correspondence course, and there is no value to the student in taking your class versus taking a self-study course (probably for a significantly lower price).  Whether this is your first time teaching or you are a seasoned veteran, it’s worth your time to make sure that the sense of community you think you are creating is actually what students are experiencing.  Everyone will be happy you did!