Analysis of essential skills and knowledge for teaching online

Contributed by:

Sharp Tutor Fri, Jan 07, 2022 06:00 PM UTC

This study identifies and posits guidelines for assessing the skills and knowledge of online distance
educators. Findings derived from Cooper’s (1998) synthesis research method reveal sixteen skills that may be
grouped into six areas that are thought to be essential for educators to teach successfully online. The study also
shows that factors, like discipline, delivery mode, learning outcome, and instructional strategy, may affect the
application of those skills

1. Analysis of essential skills and knowledge for teaching online
Jia-Ling Lee
Atsusi Hirumi
University of Central Florida
Abstract
This study identifies and posits guidelines for assessing the skills and knowledge of online distance
educators. Findings derived from Cooper’s (1998) synthesis research method reveal sixteen skills that may be
grouped into six areas that are thought to be essential for educators to teach successfully online. The study also
shows that factors, like discipline, delivery mode, learning outcome, and instructional strategy, may affect the
application of those skills, Moreover, the findings suggest that educators can greatly benefit from training,
support, and faculty development to make the transition from teaching in a face-to-face setting to an online
setting, even though most skills are thought to be similar and applicable across settings. The findings also
indicate that further studies are needed to establish the validity and reliability of self-assessment instruments
and to connect theory and practice.
Introduction
Online distance learning has become a very popular mode for learning in higher education during
recent years. However, some online educators claim that they were forced to teach online (Cooper, 1998), or
they lack the knowledge or skills to teach successfully online (Bailey & Chambers, 1996; Clark, 1993;
Flottemesch, 2000; Inman & Kerwin, 1999; Karsenti, 2001; Wallace, 2003). Do distance educators need any
special skills or knowledge to teach effectively online? If so, what are they? Moreover, is there any valid,
reliable, and efficient way to determine whether an educator is suitable for teaching online?
The purposes of this study are to (a) determine whether online distance educators need special skills or
knowledge to successfully teach online, and (b) determine whether any valid, reliable and efficient ways to
assess the essential skills and knowledge of online distance educators.
This study synthesized the skills and knowledge for online distance educators from a review of
literature and an analysis of existing self-assessment instruments. The research questions that guided the study
were :
1. What are essential skills of a successful online distance educator in higher education?
2. Is there difference between teaching in face-to-face and online environment?
3. Is a self-assessment available for educators to determine their capability and suitability for
teaching online?
4. What elements in existing self-assessment instruments were used in higher education?
5. Is there an alternative way to determine whether an educator in higher education is suitable for
online teaching?
For the purposes of this study, Hirumi ’s (2002) definition for e-learning is used to describe online
distance learning that, “,,, is facilitated predominately through the use of telecommunication technologies such
as electronic mail, electronic bulletin board systems, inter-relay chat, desktop videoconferencing and the World-
Wide-Web”(p.17). Online courses are increasing dramatically across higher education. According to the
Statistics from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education, the percentage of all 2-year and 4-
year institutions that provided distance education courses for any level or audience doubled from 1997-98 to
2000-2001 academic year (Lewis, Alexander, Farris, & Greene, 1997; Livingston & Wirt, 2004; Waits &
Lewis, 2003). However, online distance learning also presents issues.
The problem is the overall quality of online courses is still questionable (Johnson, 2003). Even though
many educators see the importance of online education, many still lack the experience or knowledge to teach
online effectively (Bailey & Chambers, 1996; Clark, 1993; Flottemesch, 2000; Inman & Kerwin, 1999;
Karsenti, 2001; Wallace, 2003). Do educators need any special skills or knowledge to successfully teach online?
If so, are there any effective and efficient ways to measure or determine if an educator has the skills and
knowledge necessary to teach effectively online?
Published studies use different techniques to delineate essential skills for distance educators. A number
of studies use Delphi techniques to identify roles or skills that distance educators should possess (Thach, 1994;
Williams, 2003). Some studies use quantitative methods to examine what educators face and feel about online
534

2. teaching (Clark, 1993; Inman & Kerwin, 1999). Others focus on the shift educators make from teaching in a
face-to-face environment to that in an online environment (Conciecao-Runlee, 2001; Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter,
2002; Easton, 2003; G. G. Smith, Ferguson, & Caris, 2002). Many authors expressed concern for terminology
in the field (Easton, 2003; Flottemesch, 2000). To gain insights and a better understanding of the research
results, it is helpful to look at the “big” picture by synthesizing findings from previous studies.
Method
This study used the research synthesis method developed by Cooper (1998) to identify fundamental
skills and knowledge of successful online teachers in higher education. Cooper (1998) states that research
synthes es emphasize “…empirical studies and seek[s] to summarize past research by drawing overall
conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses ” (p.3). Compared to
the meta-analysis method which is commonly used to synthesize research findings, Cooper’s method focuses
more on the similarities and differences across research studies to enhance shared concepts and terminologies as
well as to facilitate the transition from research to practice (Cooper, 1998; Hare & Noblit, 1983).
Coding sheets were generated to organize and compare research findings according to the following
guidelines posited by Cooper (1998). The coding sheet should:
1. Include detailed information about each study that is related to the topic.
2. Include seven categories of information (i.e., report identification, study setting, subjects,
methodology, treatment features, statistic outcomes or effect size, and the coding procedures ).
3. Be standardized to contain the main comparison of study interests.
4. Provide space for descriptive note for each study in order to find the interaction between main
effect and other variables.
5. Be pilot tested and revis ed to precisely define necessary categories and unveil further
ambiguities.
This study used the studies by Thach (1994) and Williams’s (2003) to form initial coding columns (essential
skills and outputs), then modified columns by using the other eight randomized studies. Since the topic of
distance education skills can be viewed from different perspectives, researchers used the following criteria to
select research for inclusion in the study:
1. Research studies should cover overall skills or outputs which educators can teach in online
environment successfully.
2. Research studies should mainly focus on higher education.
3. Research studies should mainly be conducted in the English speaking countries.
4. Findings should be proved by half of the studies.
A total of twenty studies were used to create the coding sheet (see Appendix A for coding references),
including thirteen empirical studies and seven position papers published between 1994-2004. This study
focused on skills and knowledge mainly found in the higher education among English speaking countries.
Therefore, the results may not represent findings from other areas. In addition, some studies do not specify the
type of distance learning they conducted. Therefore, those findings may also be affected.
Findings
What are essential skills of a successful online distance educator in higher education?
Based on the synthesized results, there are six essential skills and sixteen outputs for performing those
skills :
1. Interaction
n Guide and maintain interactive discussion
n Provide timely feedback
n Encourage peer learning
n Advise and counsel students
2. Management
n Monitor and evaluate student performance
n Facilitate presentation
n Introduce support services to students
3. Organization/ instructional design
n Provide clear learning outcomes, objectives, and expectation
n Organize materials and activities clearly and well
535

3. n Identify students’ learning styles/needs
n Conduct instructional design effort
n Present materials and activities
n Provide a variety of learning activities
4. Technology
n Utilize technology in a competent manner
5. Content knowledge
n Master in content area
6. Teamwork skills
n Collaborate with technical/support skills
The skill areas are ranked from 1-6 in order of importance. The outputs are grouped by area first, and
then by importance. Not surprisingly, the ability to stimulate and facilitate interactions is the most important
skill that online distance educators should possess. Even though many educators urged the competency of
technology in online teaching, this ranking also presents a trend that online education is driven by pedagogical
concerns instead of technological concerns. Another interesting finding is the relative importance of content
knowledge. It seems that in an online environment, educators’ mastery in the content area is important, but their
ability organize and present content information to students is more important.
From the review of literature, we also found factors that may affect the essential skills of successful
online distance educators in higher education:
1. Supporting system of the institutions (Berge & Muilenburg, 2001; Dzuiban, Shea, & Arbaugh,
2004). The better supporting system is, the less essential skills those online educators need.
2. Delivery methods of the online courses . Some online courses also require partial classroom
attendance; therefore, the essential skills and the outputs will be varied (Pyle & Dziuban, 2001).
3. Learning outcomes of online instruction. Essential skills and outputs for conducting online
courses with higher thinking skills will be different from those with fundamental operation skills
(Pyle & Dziuban, 2001; Southern association of college and schools, 2000 Dec.)
4. Instructional approach and epistemological beliefs. Different instructional approaches will affect
online distance educators’ teaching strategies, and different teaching strategies will affect what
kind of skills they need to possess in order to teach online successfully. It also means that what
educators’ epistemological beliefs will direct them to choose different instructional approaches.
Therefore, the skills or knowledge for teaching online successfully might be different (Gagne,
Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005; P. L. Smith & Ragan, 1999).
Is there difference between teaching in face-to-face and online environment?
To examine the difference between teaching online versus face-to-face classroom settings, we
identified key competencies specified for conventional classroom educators and reviewed literature discussing
the paradigm shift from traditional face-to-face classroom to online settings. Like others, we found that most
skills are similar (c.f., Coppola et al., 2002; Easton, 2003; Palloff & Pratt, 1999). However, a number of studies
also stated that skills, like content and activities’ organization, interaction and communication, evaluation and
assessment, office hour maintenance, and teamwork, need to be adapted to meet the requirements of an online
environment (Berliner, 1988; Dzuiban et al., 2004; Easton, 2003; SACS, 2000). For example, in conventional
classroom settings, the primary role of educators is to instruct, but in the online environment, the role changes
to an instructor and instructional designer. Another shift has the educator’s presentation style changing from a
lecture orientation to a Socratic approach. It is important to note that many of the recommended adaptations for
teaching online are also being adopted for teaching in conventional face-to-face classroom settings even though
they might be less emphasized.
Even though many of the skills are similar, research suggests that educators need training, support, and
faculty development to make the transition from teaching in conventional classrooms to teaching online.. The
training and support may or may not be housed in the educators’ home institution. If an institution asks
educators to teach online, but does not provide adequate training and support, the quality of online course
materials and delivery may be jeopardized. Moreover, the institution may frustrate their educators without
assisting them through the transition
Is a self-assessment available for educators to determine their capability and suitability for teaching
536

4. Several self-assessment instruments have been reported for determining whether educators in higher
education are suitable or capable of teaching online. Some of them have an online version for educators to test
by themselves. Reported self-assessment instruments include:
1. Are you ready to work online? (Salmon, 2000)
2. Is online teaching right for me? (University of Central Forlida, 2003)
3. Is Online Teaching for Me? Self-evaluation Quiz. (Onlinelearning.net, n.d.)
4. Personality traits and teaching style preferences for online instructors (Fuller, Norby, Pearce, &
Strand, 2000)
5. Self-assessment of Readiness for creating or teaching an online course (Gummess, n.d.)
6. Teaching Styles and Web Pages (Indiana State University, 2004)
What elements in existing self-assessment instruments were used in higher education?
Nitko (2004) points out that an authentic performance assessment should include two essential
elements: (a) a performance task which learners can demonstrate by producing an extended written or spoken
answer, and (b) a clear rubric or criteria for grading that performance. By examining the elements of the
existing instruments, we found that most focus on specific perspectives, such as technical (necessary computer
skills), psychological (personality traits) and pedagogical (teaching style). Even though some of the instruments
provide other elements which are included in our list of essential skills and outputs (e.g., “Is online teaching
right for me?” or “Is online teaching for me?”) such elements do not appear to be grounded in learning theories
or supported by empirical studies. In addition, we did not find evidence for validity, re liability or follow up
studies reported on most instruments. The review of literature did reveal several guidelines for generating self-
assessments :
1. The instruments should be aligned with available training and support. For example, the faculty
support center at the University of Central Florida provides several consultations for faculty
members to assess their skills followed by training and support services to address identified
areas of need (Dziuban et al., 2003).
2. Assessment items need to be aligned to learning objectives and cover cognitive (Bloom,
Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) and affective (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964)
domains.
3. The instruments should be treated as one sources of assessment data. Nitko (2004) states that
assessments should be conducted from multiple perspectives to reduce potential bias.
Is there an alternative way to determine whether an educator in higher education is suitable for teaching
Our findings show that there are some alternative ways to determine whether educators are suitable
and capable of teaching online:
1. Be evaluated by professional organizations: Some creditable organizations provide course or
certificate evaluation services. For example, the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS) provides many services to assure the quality of education. Educators can
submit their course materials, students ’ works, even videos of their class activities to NBPTS to
get feedback for their teaching performance as well as their course content. This kind of service
is not mandatory, and they evaluate the course as well as the certificate by using multiple
resources . The advantage is that the evaluation result is relatively creditable, coming from an
independent source. On the other hand, the process takes considerable time and effort from both
ends and may not be practicable as standard practice, particularly for larger organizations.
2. Participate in assessment centers . Compared to the previous option, this is also a formal way to
access educators’ capability of teaching online. However, the assessment materials are from the
center, not from educators themselves. Moreover, educators may need to go to performance
assessment centers to complete simulated teaching activities like inferences, peer collaboration,
or staff development. Therefore, this kind of performance assessment is creditable, but again,
may not be practicable as standard practice.
3. Follow checklists, best practices, and benchmarks from creditable organizations. There are many
checklists, best practices, and benchmarks from scholarly journals, books, or organizations
developed by experienced online educators or experts. Even though those materials may not have
been developed for your exact environment, they may still provide useful guidelines for general
assessment purposes.
537

5. 4. Have a good mentor in the same field. It is always a good idea to have a good mentor in the same
field (Perreault, Waldman, Alexander, & Zhao, 2002). He or she can provide suggestions which
match the environment you have, even though sometime his or her suggestions may be
somewhat subjective. .
Recommendations
Based on our findings, we recommend that:
1. Researchers conduct additional studies to determine how specific disciplines, delivery modes,
and learning outcomes/strategies affect the skills and knowledge necessary for distance educators
to teach successfully online. Even though some speculate that skills and knowledge vary by
domain, course delivery mode, and desired learning outcomes, there is little empirical evidence
to support such claims .
2. Researcher and partitions determine and report the validity and reliability of self-assessment
instruments. Even though we found many self-assessments to help distance educators determine
if they are prepared and/or suitable to teach online, the validity and reliability of such
instruments are rarely reported. Additional follow up studies are needed for the self-assessments.
Appendix A: References of the coding sheet
Ally, M., & Coldeway, D. O. (1999). Establishing Competencies and Curricula for the Distance Education
Expert at the Master's Level. Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 75-88.
Brent Muirhead, D. M. (2001). Practical strategies for teaching computer-mediated classes. Educational
Technology & Society, 4(2), 1-12.
Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever.
AAHE Bulletin, October, 3-6.
Conciecao-Runlee, S. (2001). A Phenomenonological Study of College Faculty Experiences Derived from
Teaching in a Computer-Mediated Environment When There Is an Absence of Physical Presence.
Wisconsin.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and
asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169-189.
Dzuiban, C., Shea, P., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2004). Faculty roles and satisfaction in asynchronous learning
networks. In S. R. Hiltz (Ed.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning:
Lawrence Erlbaun Associates, Inc.
Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor's role in online distance learning., Communication Education
(Vol. 52, pp. 87-105).
Ginsberg, M. B. (1998). Observation Guide for Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning (Adult
Version). In R. J. Wlodkowski (Ed.), Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive
Guide for Teaching All Adults (Revised Edition ed., pp. 339-343). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
International Board of Standards for Training Performance and Instruction. (2003). 2003 Instructor
Competencies. Retrieved Jul. 17, 2004, from http://www.ibstpi.org/competencies.htm
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in internet-
based distance education, from http://www.nea.org/he/abouthe/Quality.pdf
Moore, M. G. (2001). Surviving as a distance teacher. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 1-5.
Perreault, H., Waldman, L., Alexander, M., & Zhao, J. (2002, July/August). Overcoming barriers to
successful delivery of distance-learning courses. Journal of Education for Business, 313-318.
Pyle, R. C., & Dziuban, C. D. (2001). Technology: Servant or Master of the Online Teacher?, Library
Trends (Vol. 50, pp. 130): Library Trends.
Ragan, L. C. (2003). Effective workload management strategies for the online environment. Retrieved
Aug.31st, 2004, from http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/pub/home/fac/workload_strat.pdf
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Southern association of college and schools. (2000 Dec.). Best practices for electronically offered
degree and certificate programs. Retrieved Sep. 16, 2004, from
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/commadap.pdf
Thach, E. C. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles, outputs, and competencies
needed in the field of distance education. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Texas A & M University,
College Station.
538

6. White, K. W. (2000). Face to face in the online classroom. In K. W. White & B. H. Weight (Eds.), The
online teaching guide : a handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom
(pp. 1-12). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education
institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45-57.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Characteristics and skills of a motivating instructor. In R. J. Wlodkowski (Ed.),
Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults (Revised
Edition ed., pp. 25-67). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
References
Bailey, C., & Chambers, J. (1996). Interactive learning and technology in the US sciences and mathematics
reform movement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 123-133.
Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. Y. (2001). Obstacles faced at v.arious stages of capability regarding
distance education in institutions of higher learning. Tech Trends, 46(4), 40-45.
Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. New Orleans: American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbok I: Cognitive domain. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Clark, T. (1993). Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance education: A national survey.
American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 19-33.
Conciecao-Runlee, S. (2001). A Phenomenonological Study of College Faculty Experiences Derived from
Teaching in a Computer-Mediated Environment When There Is an Absence of Physical Presence.
Wisconsin.
Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing research : a guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and
asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169-189.
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Juge, F., Truman-Davis, B., Sorg, S., & Hartman, J. (2003). Developing a web-
based instructional program in a metropolitan university. In B. Geibert & S. H. Harvey (Eds.), Web
wise learning: Wisdom from the field (pp. 49-81): Xlibris Publications.
Dzuiban, C., Shea, P., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2004). Faculty roles and satisfaction in asynchronous learning
networks. In S. R. Hiltz (Ed.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning:
Lawrence Erlbaun Associates, Inc.
Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor's role in online distance learning., Communication Education
(Vol. 52, pp. 87-105).
Flottemesch, K. (2000). Building effective interaction in distance education: A review of the literature.
Educational Technology, 40(3), 46-51.
Fuller, D., Norby, R. F., Pearce, K., & Strand, S. (2000). Internet teaching by style: Profiling the on-line
professor. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2).
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. K. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Gummess, G. (n.d.). Self assessment of readiness for creating or teaching an online course. Retrieved Jul. 17,
2004, from http://www.stfrancis.edu/cid/selfrate.htm
Hare, R. D., & Noblit, G. W. (1983). Interpreting the translation of data into explanation: An attempt at a
synthesis of quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-learning interactions: A grounded approach. International
Journal on E-Learning, 1(1), 19-27.
Inman, E., & Kerwin, M. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward distance learning. Community
college Journal of Research & Practice, 23(6), 581-591.
Johnson, S. D. A., Steven R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning
environments., New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education (pp. 31-43): Jossey-Bass, A
Registered Trademark of Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company.
Karsenti, T. (2001). From blackboard to mouse pad: Training teachers for the new millennium. Education
Canada, 41(2), 32-35.
539

7. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 2:
Affective domain. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Lewis, L., Alexander, D., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (1997). Distance education in higher education institutions,
NCES 98-062. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Livingston, A., & Wirt, J. (2004). The condition of education 2004 (Compendium No. NCES 2004-076):
National Center for Education Statistics.
Nitko, A. J. (2004). Educational Assessment of Students. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Onlinelearning.net. (n.d.). Is Online Teaching for Me? Self-evaluation Quiz. Retrieved Sep. 11st, 2004,
from
http://www.onlinelearning.net/InstructorCommunity/selfevaluation.html?s=324.a030j6447.089j31
8310
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. P. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the
online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perreault, H., Waldman, L., Alexander, M., & Zhao, J. (2002). Overcoming barriers to successful delivery of
distance-learning courses. Journal of Education for Business, July/August, 313-318.
Pyle, R. C., & Dziuban, C. D. (2001). Technology: Servant or master of the online teacher? Library Trends,
50(1), 130-144.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Smith, G. G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2002). Teaching over the web versus in the classroom: Difference
in the instructor experence, International Journal of Instructional Media (Vol. 29, pp. 61):
Westwood Press Inc.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
Southern association of college and schools. (2000 Dec.). Best practices for electronically offered degree and
certificate programs. Retrieved Sep. 16, 2004, from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/commadap.pdf
Stock, W. A. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The
handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Thach, E. C. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles, outputs, and competencies
needed in the field of distance education. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Texas A & M University,
College Station.
University of Central Forlida. (2003). Is online teaching right for me? Retrieved Jul, 7, 2004, from
http://teach.ucf.edu/begin/survey.html
Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-
2001(NCES 2003-017). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among
teachers and students. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241-280.
Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education
institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45-57.
540

Book a Trial Class

Download