Paul KrieseProfessor Political ScienceIndiana University East Randall OsborneProfessor of PsychologyTexas State University-San Marcos

As we begin our third decade of teaching online courses, we reflect here on lessons learned from these years of applying these lessons. We ask “how can we continue to develop a purposeful methodology for teaching students to self-reflect and ask critical questions (e.g., Gokhale, 1995)? The very first time we proposed the course a colleague asked, “How can you teach about hate without teaching how to hate?” The answer is in the process. We do not teach about hate by saying, “here is what hate is”. We teach about hate by requiring students to look inside to find it rather than pointing fingers at others.

As we worked to design our team-taught online course, we searched the literature for “best practices” on teaching online courses (e.g., Dykman & Davis, 2008).

Although much was available in terms of using the technological tools that were available (chat rooms, discussion forums, Wikis, etc.), very little was available on what “quality” online teaching would require.

To start, we realized that our course was more about process than content. What, after all, is the content of “hate?” Teaching processes which change not only from course to course, but from one point in a semester to another point in the same semester, and in the same course.

One risk in developing and teaching a process-driven course is that faculty will not have the course completely mapped out before adding students to the mix.

Faculty need to have faith that they will rise to the occasion and to be willing to say to students that we are all on this adventure together.

Faculty must not come to a class with pre-ordained expectations but with a sense that when events occur that they will be able to create multiple ‘teaching moments” and inspire students to do the same – and then recognize students when they make these discoveries.

Faculty need to have guidelines for class behavior that will guide discussions and will help to develop course environments.

If faculty create guidelines, then whatever takes place within this environment should follow those guidelines.

Honest explorations of values will then have an enlightening and not a defeating effect.

One might expect, given the above, that faculty would generally see this set of pedagogical tools to be positive.

But such is often not the case. Faculty have in our experience, done just the opposite.

We believe that quality and truly inspiring teaching and learning can (and do) occur in online courses. We want to share this enthusiasm for quality online teaching with session participants (e.g., Chen, Kinshuk, Wei & Liu (2010).

We start with work by Osborne, Kriese, Tobey and Johnson (2009) who explored faculty and student perceptions of online teaching and learning. Indeed, these authors explored the gap between student and faculty perceptions of online courses.

In this work, they discovered that many differences exist in what students and faculty expect from each other in online courses before taking or teaching those online courses.

Generally, faculty were more likely than students to agree with statements that: (1) students learn less in internet courses, (2) internet courses take more time, (3) interactions in internet courses are less effective, (4) internet courses have more problems, (5) students who procrastinate should not take internet courses, (6) that students take internet courses because they believe they will be easier, and (7) that sensitive topics (such as racism) should not be taught in internet courses. These perceptions on the part of faculty are likely to be significant barriers to the development and teaching of internet courses (Osborne, Kriese, Tobey & Johnson, 2009a, p. 175-176).

In addition, the authors outlined that some of these differences diminish after the student has taken an online course and after a faculty member has taught online. These researchers found:

The differences that go away are: (1) the perception that students learn less in internet courses, (2) the perception that internet communications are less effective, (3) the perception that more problems occur in internet courses than in face-to-face courses, and (4) the perception that sensitive topics (such as racism) should not be taught in internet courses (Osborne, Kriese, Tobey & Johnson, 2009a, p. 178).

Team-teaching is one very good way to make sure that discussions are varied. Faculty bring their own ideas to a topic.

Even if the faculty have similar approaches (as we do) there is always a different slant on these issues.

As long as the team teachers trust each other, and trust process, this approach will provide much fruitful discussion.

And, when students see faculty discuss and debate issues, here is a model for them to follow: open and frank discussion of important and often controversial issues in a positive and creative environment.

It is our belief that faculty who are teaching or plan to teach online need to understand the limitations and advantages of teaching in such formats. Quality online teaching is possible.

This is an Internet course. As such, the success of the course relies on active participation by each class member throughout the entire semester.

Even though we are the professors for the course, it is designed as a seminar course, meaning active participation from students is essential.

Although face-to-face interactions will not occur because of our use of the Internet, we do expect continual communication between members of the class and the course faculty. Even though this interaction will be over the Internet, we expect students to use the same etiquette that would be used in a classroom during face-to-face interactions. This etiquette includes:

1.) respect for others (their viewpoints, their values, their beliefs),

2.) the right to disagree (but requires sensitivity to the viewpoints of others),

3.) taking responsibility for being involved in developing the issues and topics relevant to this course,

4.) active participation in all elements of the course,

5.) continual feedback to the instructors about the course, course assignments, and individual viewpoints,

6.) a commitment to the mutual exchange of ideas. This means we will not isolate definitive "answers" to the issues we raise but we will actively explore and respect the multiple sides to those issues, and

7.) a responsibility to "police" ourselves. We are attempting to develop a community and this requires trust. In order to develop trust, we must know that we can share our ideas and not be "attacked." This also requires that we allow other class members the same trust and freedom we expect.

We expect students to demonstrate a significant amount of critical thinking in this course. Because this is so important, we have developed and outline below a model that you should use as you complete course assignments. Specifically, we believe that critical thinkers demonstrate the ability to address issues at each of the following levels:

1.) Recitation – state known facts or opinions. A critical component of this step is to acknowledge what aspect(s) of what is being stated is factual and what is based on opinion.

2.) Exploration – analyze the roots of those opinions or facts. This step requires digging below the surface of what is believed or known and working to discover the elements that have combined to result in that fact or that opinion. This is an initial analysis without an attempt to comprehend the impact of those facts or opinions.

3.) Understanding – involves an awareness of other views and a comprehension of the difference(s) between one’s own opinion (and the facts or other opinions upon which that opinion is based) and the opinions of others. To truly “understand” our own opinion in relationship to others, we must initiate an active dialogue with the other person about his or her opinions and the roots of those opinions. In other words, once we become aware of the roots of our own opinions, we must understand the roots of the opinions of others.

4.) Appreciation – means a full awareness of the differences between our views and opinions and those of others. To truly appreciate differences, we must be aware of the nature of those differences. The active dialogue undertaken in the third step (understanding) should lead to an analysis of the opinion as recited by the other. The result should be a complete awareness of the similarities and differences between our own opinions (and the roots of those opinions) and those of the “other.” Although we may still be aware that our opinions differ, we are now in a position to truly appreciate and value those differences.

In our view, it is important to acknowledge that “understanding” does not mean to “accept.” The goal is not to get everyone to agree; the goal is to get people to truly explore and understand how and why opinions differ. To understand means to realize the circumstances and motivations that lead to difference and to realize that those differences are meaningful. It is our belief that discussing social issues (such as prejudice or racism) without requiring students to explore the roots of their views, to understand the roots of other views, and to appreciate the nature and importance of different views about those issues, perpetuates ignorance. To raise the issue without using the elements of critical thinking and exploration we have outlined above may simply reinforce prejudices by giving them voice without question.

Performance in online courses (perhaps much the same as face-to-face courses though those courses are not the focus of this work) is affected as much by biases and attitudes coming into the course as by faculty choice of instructional technologies or student learning styles.

Although this must be considered in deciding which courses to put online, how to put those courses online, what content to deliver, and how to deliver such content, such qualities might make some courses better suited for online teaching than conventional delivery (e.g., Hammersley, 1998; Osborne, Kriese & Tobey, 2008; Osborne, Kriese, Tobey & Johnson, 2009b).

Chen, N. S., Kinshuk, Wei, C. W., & Liu, C. C. (2010). Effects of matching teaching strategy to thinking style on learner’s quality of reflection in an online learning environment. Computers & Education, 56, 53–64.   Dykman, C.A. & Davis, C.K. (2008). Online education forum: Part two – teaching online versus teaching conventionally. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19, 157-164.   Gokhale, A.A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7, 22-30.   Hammersley, J. (1998). Understand attitude development: Online lesson. Retrieved August 23, 2001, from: http://www.prm.nau.edu/PRM326/understand_attitude_dev_lesson.htm.   Osborne, R.E., Kriese, P & Tobey, H. (2008). Reflections on a Decade of Using the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 37-46.

  Osborne, R.E., Kriese, P. Tobey, H. & Johnson (2009a). Putting it all together: Incorporating “SoTL Practices” for teaching interpersonal and critical thinking skills in an online course. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 4, 45-55.   Osborne, R.E., Kriese, P. Tobey, H. & Johnson (2009b). And never the two shall meet?: Student vs. faculty perceptions of online courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 171-182.