2 pages, double space response paper
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rqrr20
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
ISSN: 1745-9435 (Print) 1745-9443 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rqrr20
The Online Communication Course: The Challenges
Shannon Vanhorn , Judy C. Pearson & Jeffrey T. Child
To cite this article: Shannon Vanhorn , Judy C. Pearson & Jeffrey T. Child (2008) The Online Communication Course: The Challenges, Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 9:1, 29-36, DOI: 10.1080/17459430802400332
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430802400332
Published online: 16 Oct 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 549
View related articles
Citing articles: 7 View citing articles
The Online Communication Course: The Challenges Shannon Vanhorn, Judy C. Pearson, & Jeffrey T. Child
While online courses are not new, the challenges they create for communication educators
remain significant. The purpose of this study is to identify those issues communication
educators confront in teaching one type of online communication courses, asynchronous
courses that include course delivery, information transaction, and communication via the
Internet. The authors discuss the importance of this dynamic form of course delivery to the
new generation of students, the Millenials, as they permeate higher education institutions.
Keywords: Online Education; Online Higher Education; Teaching Effectiveness; Time
Management
Higher education has been transformed in the 21st century by the worldwide
technological infrastructure. The Millennial generation members, whose oldest
representatives are just graduating from college in 2008, see technology as central
to their education (Pew Institute and American Life Project, 2005). While distance
education is not new, it now permeates higher education. In the fall of 2005, one
out of every six students enrolled in at least one course online, an estimated 3.2
million students (The Sloan Consortium, 2007). The communication discipline
has responded to this innovation. The National Communication Association and
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
provide several resources for online communication educators. Additionally, some
institutions employ experts in online instruction, available to assist instructors in
creating and maintaining their online courses. Yet even with these resources,
challenges remain.
Shannon Vanhorn (PhD, North Dakota State University, 2005) is an assistant professor at Valley City State
University, Valley City, ND 58072. E-mail: Shannon.Vanhorn@vcsu.edu. Judy C. Pearson (PhD, Indiana
University, 1975) is a professor and associate dean at North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5075.
E-mail: Judy.Pearson@ndsu.edu. Jeffrey T. Child (PhD, North Dakota State University, 2007), is an assistant
professor at Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242. E-mail: jchild@kent.edu
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
Vol. 9, No. 1, 2008, pp. 29–36
ISSN 1745-9435 (print)/ISSN 1745-9443 (online) # 2008 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/17459430802400332
Most instructors are primarily trained in pedagogical techniques associated with
ensuring effective content mastery in face-to-face settings (Wolcott, 1993). The
purpose of this study is to determine challenges communication educators face in
teaching one type of online communication course, those that include course
delivery, information transaction, and communication via the Internet (Berge &
Collins, 1995). Our guiding research question asks:
RQ1: What challenges do online educators across the communication discipline report in pursuit of effective teaching?
Method
Participants
An invitation to participate in a survey was e-mailed to the 5,225 higher education
members of the National Communication Association (NCA) and the 1,404 higher
education members of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC). After several e-mail iterations, the survey was completed
by 240 people who taught online human communication, mass communication, or
courses in closely related areas. 1
One hundred twenty-seven (53%) were female (127)
and 113 (47%) were male. Respondents’ school size varied from fewer than 1,000
students to more than 35,000. Fifty-two (22%) professors, 43 (18%) associate
professors, 68 (28%) assistant professors, 32 (13%) instructors, 15 (6%) lecturers,
11 (5%) adjuncts, and 19 (8%) teaching assistants participated in the study.
Procedures and Analysis
Participants completed an e-mail survey, which asked, ‘‘What challenges do you face
as an instructor of a fully online communication course?’’ and included a few demo-
graphic questions. The open-ended question was analyzed by two trained coders
through the use of open-coding techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Coders main-
tained an acceptable level of reliability (kappa¼ .86), with kappas ranging from .81 to .94. After discussion and negotiation of the initial coding, 100% agreement was
achieved. As participants were able to provide more than one challenge in their
response to the question, each unique challenge to online teaching noted by a
participant constitutes the unit of analysis for the study.
Results and Discussion
The research question focused on describing the challenges of communication
instructors with online pedagogy. While 236 participants answered this question,
many participants included more than one response, yielding 445 challenges, which
were coded into seven categories: the course, time management and workload, tech-
nology, students, communication, support, and teacher motivation.
30 S. Vanhorn et al.
Course Challenges
The largest response was to the course (146 responses). Instructors commented on
the difficulty of transforming a face-to-face (F2F) course to an online course with
comments like, ‘‘Getting the same amount of content across as I would in a regular
class is daunting, although I have posted lectures and study guides,’’ ‘‘Using group
activities and role playing in class, and that doesn’t work online,’’ and ‘‘Making sure
the course is learner-centered.’’
Instructors questioned whether they could make the online information interest-
ing, creative, and complete for their online audience. As one instructor stated, ‘‘Not
being able to make the course Web sites as attractive and as inviting as they should
be—I am limited by time to just making them functional.’’ Additionally, instructors disclosed that they, themselves, might present the greatest impediment because of
their preferences to teach F2F.
Twelve responses mentioned that specific courses, such as interpersonal com-
munication, public speaking, and writing, should never be taught online: ‘‘I teach
an interpersonal communication class online. I’m sure you can see the irony there’’
and ‘‘I have great reservations teaching a writing course online. I just do not see the
advantages.’’ Others noted that students become disengaged: ‘‘We use the chat room.
Sometimes I wonder whether they are at the terminal,’’ and ‘‘Once the course is
underway, I must work hard to keep students involved.’’ Yet one response countered
some of the others: ‘‘Student improvement in the online course is often dramatic—
both in content and in writing ability.’’
Time Management and Workload Challenges
The second theme yielded 88 responses. Subtopics to this theme included comments
about time management, preparation, e-mail, students’ expectations of instructors,
students’ time management, and workload issues. For example, one instructor dis-
cussed the difficulty in having to ‘‘learn the technology, respond to e-mails, write
the lessons, grade the papers, and respond to more e-mails.’’ Another stated, ‘‘I often
feel like I’m playing catch up to my students; I spend more time monitoring dis-
cussion boards and communication than I do teaching.’’ Additionally, the instructors
felt they spent more time on the computer: ‘‘The students expect me to be online
24=7. I find myself glued and much more dependent on my computer.’’
Technology Challenges
Technology challenges were reported in 37 responses, and comments reflected tech-
nology problems, students’ technical skills, training, course management software,
accessibility and software issues. Instructors reported that technology glitches affected
their course deadlines: ‘‘Technology working! I’ve learned to be flexible with dead-
lines and due dates, as technology always seems to fail at the most important
moment.’’ In addition, technology changes were cited as difficult, ‘‘having to
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 31
organize myself to keep abreast with the continuously changing technologies.’’ They
noted that some students are not computer-savvy yet are enrolled in a completely
online and computer-dependent course: ‘‘some barely know how to turn it on!’’
Student Challenges
Sixty-seven responses indicated challenges in dealing with students, citing student
motivation, disengaged students, retention, and students’ perception of difficulty.
Instructors commented on students’ lack of motivation to participate in the online
course: ‘‘Working with students who lack motivation or the necessary amount of
self-discipline to come to class.’’ Another noted, ‘‘Students often forget deadlines
and do not consult assignment specifications properly.’’ Some students do not com-
municate online: ‘‘Students disengage more easily,’’ and the ‘‘Dropout rate is twice
that of the traditional large intro class.’’
Communication Challenges
Communication challenges were cited 54 times. Respondents reported difficulty
providing feedback to students: ‘‘Having to e-mail individual responses to students.
In an F2F class, you can instantly discuss a topic but online, you must be good at
typing.’’ Nonverbal feedback was also problematic: ‘‘You just don’t get the F2F inter-
action that lets you know when learning is actually occurring,’’ and ‘‘There are no
physical cues to remind me of who they are, and I am not that good with names.’’
Support Challenges
Eighteen responses fell into this category. Instructors reported difficulty with their
superiors: ‘‘Getting department head to give me credit for teaching the courses as
part of my course load,’’ and ‘‘Administration refuse[s] to provide adequate fund-
ing.’’ They also reported issues with their peers: ‘‘Not having my online teaching
work respected or understood by my colleagues,’’ and ‘‘Convincing other communi-
cation colleagues that the online course does have its place in our discipline.’’
Teacher Motivation Challenges
Six responses emerged as teacher motivation challenges. These responses reported
being pressured to teach the online course: ‘‘The expectation is that if I want to
remain teaching at this institution, I must be willing to teach online. This . . . hardly makes the experience enjoyable.’’
32 S. Vanhorn et al.
Miscellaneous Challenges
Twenty responses were varied and did not fit one of the challenges mentioned above.
Examples of these challenges included the following:
. ‘‘Evaluation: It seems that an entire new way of grading should be developed for online courses,’’
. ‘‘Students in different units as opposed to all being in the same unit at the same time—it’s too scattered,’’
. ‘‘Low enrollment,’’ and
. ‘‘Don’t feel as connected to the rest of the faculty members as I teach from my home and not on site.’’
Discussion and Implications
Transitioning from the F2F course to the online course seems to be the biggest chal-
lenge facing the online instructor. Trends for the last 15 years in the F2F class have
focused on engaging the student through discussion, activities, and group work.
Online instructors are finding it difficult to take an activity-rich F2F course and make
it just as stimulating and thought-provoking online. Lectures must include inven-
tions such as different color and size fonts, animation, and links to other sites, which
renders the ‘‘sage on the stage’’ a ‘‘sage in the box’’ (Bourne et al., 1997, p. 11).
Many academic institutions have experts and departments with the mission of
facilitating online educators in conceptualizing, adapting, and transitioning teaching
techniques, strategies, and resources from the F2F to the online format. Furthermore,
non-profit organizations such as the New Media Consortium provide many helpful
resources and research with the goal of enhancing online education. However, the
struggles noted by participants of this study suggest that these resources may go lar-
gely untapped from the sheer breadth and depth of problems cited by online instruc-
tors in establishing community, engaging students, and evaluating the learning
environment in the online class.
Technology challenges the online instructor. Software is updated, new technology
arrives, and instructors must implement it. Because little training is available, instruc-
tors end up serving as IT personnel and trainers (Shoenfeld-Tacher & Persichitte,
2000). When technology breaks down, time stands still in the online course; thus,
instructors must be flexible with deadlines. The student’s computer may crash, the
campus server may go down, and deadlines may be missed. Instructors must also
be flexible with students who lack adequate bandwidth.
The lack of student interactivity is a challenge. While most platforms have chat
capability, faculty and students tend to avoid this component, which actually could
provide them with a more satisfactory experience (Burke & Chidambaram, 1999).
Instead, instructors often opt for discussion threads and replies. The lack of student
interactivity can also affect the feeling of ‘‘community’’ in the classroom. Students
often feel isolated, as if they are taking an online course by themselves, rather than
being part of a learning community in which they can share ideas and experiences
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 33
with each other (Picciano, 2002). While discussion boards attempt to simulate
classroom discussion, students may minimize their contributions. Instructors need
to be aware of these challenges and take measures to counteract them, such as parti-
cipating with the students in the discussion areas and encouraging community
building activities, such as off-topic chat rooms.
Students are also challenged with the technology of online courses; some students
are technologically perceptive, while others have difficulty. The instructor may not
only teach course content, but may also need to teach technical skills. Students expect
the instructor to be available 24 hours=seven days a week and expect an increased level of prompt feedback (VanSickle, 2003), often within hours. Students may e-mail
the instructor more than they would visit with the instructor F2F. Instructors must
be aware of these challenges and take measures to set boundaries and express
expectations regarding technology knowledge and instructor availability.
Similar to the F2F course, student motivation tends to be a challenge. Comments
such as ‘‘Some students need prodding them along during the semester,’’ ‘‘Keeping
students organized and on schedule,’’ ‘‘Good students fly while lazy students get
more behind,’’ ‘‘Inspiring unmotivated students,’’ and ‘‘Getting students to read
all the material’’ could also be reported about students in the F2F course. Therefore,
similar to the F2F course, instructors must engage their students in thought-
provoking and applicable materials and assignments.
Retention rate may be problematic. One instructor reported having 60 people
attempting to get into 20 open slots in her online course. By the end of the semester,
10 students were left in the course. Students may enter the online course thinking the
online version will be easier than the F2F course; they can attend class at their leisure,
and not at prescribed times. They do not understand that they must be active learners
and take more responsibility in their learning. Expectations of workload and student
responsibility must be communicated initially and frequently.
Colleagues who do not believe in teaching communication courses online are
often at odds with those who do. People who teach online courses seek the same
respect as do those who teach F2F courses. Financial support, or extrinsic rewards,
was not reported as essential in the online course, which is not surprising, given
the research on motivation (Sylvia & Hutchinson, 1985).
Limitations
This study is limited by its method and participants. Web-based surveys are limited
because of variation in hardware and software capabilities (Dillman, 2000). The part-
icipants represent a purposive, rather than a random, sample, which calls generaliz-
ability into question (Wimmer & Dominick, 2000). This project is further limited
because of the small number of participants and the unknown representativeness
of the population, both noted earlier. In addition, the focus of this research was
on asynchronous online courses. Synchronous online courses may also have some
of the same issues.
34 S. Vanhorn et al.
Suggestions for Further Research
While the challenges of instructors have been identified, solutions have not been
determined. Innovative pedagogical tools that are reforming educational practice
continue to provide answers to questions created in the online course. Additional
research into these tools may provide solutions to some of these challenges. The focus
on the scholarship of teaching and learning may also provide an avenue of research
into community building, retention, and improved practices in online communi-
cation courses.
Conclusion
The future of higher education may be unknown, but online courses are now part of
the landscape (The Sloan Consortium, 2007). While late adopters want to conduct
research and learn more about the problems and solutions offered by such develop-
ments, early adopters are eager to depose brick-and-mortar schools to create a new
direction in virtual space. As members of the Millennial generation continue to seek
online higher education course offerings, members of the communication discipline
will need to continue to reflect and research the issues that arise. Thoughtful and
reasoned responses to virtual educational experiences are essential.
Note
[1] Although this number may appear to be very low, the precise number of NCA and AEJMC
members who have taught online courses in the past three years is unknown. The representa-
tiveness of the sample may be comprised, or the number may be adequate if the number of
people teaching online courses is relatively small.
References
Berge, Z. & Collins, M. (Eds.). (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Bourne, J. R., Brodersen, A. J., Campbell, J. O., Dawant, M. M., & Shiavi, R. G. (1997). A model for
online learning networks in education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1.
Retrieved November 2, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v1n1/index.asp.
Burke, K. & Chidambaram, L. (1999). How much media bandwidth is enough? A longitudinal
examination of media characteristics and group performance. MIS Quarterly, 23, 557–580.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys—the tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2005). Internet: The mainstreaming of online life. Trends
2005. Retrieved July 25, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/97/press_release.asp.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and perfor-
mance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6. Retrieved November
9, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publication/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_picciano.asp.
Schoenfeld-Tacher, R. & Persichitte, K. A. (2000). Differential skills and competencies required of
faculty teaching distance education courses. International Journal of Educational Technology,
2. Retrieved October 18, 2004, from http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n1/schoenfeld-tacher/.
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 35
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Sylvia, R. D. & Hutchinson, T. (1985). What makes Ms. Johnson teach? A study of teacher
motivation. Human Relations, 38, 841–856.
The Sloan Consortium. (2007). Making the grade: Online education in the U.S., 2006. Retrieved
January 28, 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp.
VanSickle, J. (2003). Making the transition to teaching online: Strategies and methods for the first-time
online instructor. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479882). Morehead,
Ky.: Morehead State University.
Wimmer, R. D. & Dominick, J. R. (2000). Mass media research: An introduction (6th ed.). Belmont,
Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Wolcott, L. (1993). Faculty planning for distance teaching. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 7, 26–36.
36 S. Vanhorn et al.