Problem in Teaching-part 2

CHAPTER 9

Online Teaching Strategies

Henny Breen and Melissa Robinson

“Online discussions have more depth and meaning. In the current political climate, people are so

divided and don’t care why others might have a different attitude about something. Since students

are able to share the experiences that have shaped and molded them, we can respect each other

and maybe even challenge our own thought processes to incorporate the new ideas into our current

belief systems.”

Overview

This chapter begins with a brief discussion about the requirements for faculty to be prepared to

teach online. A more thorough discussion of faculty preparation, from the perspective of faculty

professional development, is found in Chapter 13. This chapter addresses the role of faculty in a

learner-centered online classroom that is built on constructivist pedagogy and adult learning

principles. Strategies for teaching are provided, along with examples.

Faculty Preparation for Teaching Online

Within nursing, there is a beginning acknowledgment that having content and clinical expertise is

not enough to teach effectively. Education and nursing are two unique disciplines, and expertise in

one does not result in expertise in the other. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing

(AACN) and the National League of Nursing (NLN) both acknowledge that graduate-level evidence-

based curriculum design and teaching methods are needed to form the foundation for academic

practice. The NLN establishes nursing education as a specialty area of practice through its certified

nurse educator (CNE) credentialing program recognizing academic nurse educators as an advanced

practice role (Booth, Emerson, Hackney, & Souter, 2016). We concur with Booth et al. in advocating

for pedagogical preparation for academic nurse educators.

For faculty teaching online, we believe this pedagogical preparation is essential for developing and

teaching a rigorous, quality online class. Faculty members who want to transition from face-to-face

teaching to quality online teaching need to have a solid foundation in education theory that is

learner centered. We believe that online teaching is a specialty within the advanced practice role of

academic nurse educators that requires further preparation in how to apply constructivist pedagogy

to the online learning environment. Engaging in ongoing self-reflection prior to and during the

teaching process is critical for faculty to develop expertise in online teaching. Palloff and Pratt (2007)

challenge online instructors to engage in a transformative process of reflection, just as they would

require of their students. Chapter 13 addresses the process of self-reflection. Reflective questions

that we continually ask ourselves related to teaching online are found in Table 9-1

Much has been written about teaching strategies that facilitate learner-centered teaching. However,

less has been written about the skills needed by faculty to make the transition to learner-centered

teaching—and even less as it applies to online teaching. The following section addresses that need in

addition to providing several examples of teaching strategies that we have found effective in

facilitating a learner-centered online classroom for nursing students.

Learner-Centered Teaching

Learner-centered teaching is based on constructivist theory, in that learners discover and transform

complex information to make it their own. It is an inquiry-based approach that involves active,

collaborative, and cooperative learning. Faculty guide and facilitate learning, with more of the focus

on learning and less on teaching (Weimer, 2013). This requires a different set of skills that may be

difficult to develop because they may not be as intuitive when making the transition to online

teaching. It is also important to note that not all faculty want or need to make the transition and

may not be suited for online teaching (Smith, 2005).

Faculty who do not have a solid belief in the tenets of constructivism will likely struggle with trusting

the process of active learning. Faculty who use lectures, whether in the face-to-face classroom or

online through narration as their primary mode of teaching, demonstrate a belief in passive learning,

in which students need to acquire new knowledge based on the expertise of the teacher passing on

knowledge. However, constructivist faculty believe that information may be received passively, but

understanding cannot be. Understanding comes from active learning in which the students make

connections between prior knowledge, new knowledge, and the processes involved in learning

(Candela, 2020; Harasim, 2017). At the same time, we do not endorse a radical approach to

constructivism in which no teaching instruction takes place.

Concept-Based and Competency-Based Teaching

Nursing faculty who have made the transition to conceptual teaching may have an easier time

making the transition to learner-centered teaching. Inherent within conceptual teaching is letting go

of the need to “cover everything” and, rather, facilitate new learning while building on previous

learning. Faculty choose concepts related to nursing practice from which students discover common

principles that can be generalized to various contexts, along with discovering the relationship

between concepts. Conceptual teaching facilitates the process of conceptual learning by linking new

information to past learning, which in turn deepens and expands conceptual understanding. Given

the continuous advances in health care, it is clear that nurses need to be skilled in conceptual

thinking and clinical reasoning to adapt to these changes (Giddens, 2020). Conceptual teaching

requires an understanding of constructivist pedagogy.

Faculty may also be concerned about competencies, given that many organizations, such as the ANA

and Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN), have developed competencies. These

competencies are represented through concepts or domains that reflect concepts (Giddens, 2020).

To clear up confusion between what it means to be concept based versus competency based,

Giddens (2020) provides a clear distinction while acknowledging that they share the same origin. The

differences lie in the application and the outcome. Competencies describe the intended outcome,

whereas concepts refer to the learning process because they are used as the framework to build

knowledge. Competencies are observable and measurable skills that integrate knowledge, values,

and beliefs that are assessed over time.

The Faculty Role in Constructivist Teaching

The faculty role is to provide a safe and organized environment for learning in which key principles

or values of constructivist learning pedagogy are applied.

Scaffolded Teaching

Scaffolded learning is also known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD), a concept created by

Vygotsky (1978/1997). The ZPD “is the distance between the actual developmental level as

determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential problem-solving under adult

guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978/1997, p. 8). Faculty are

responsible for guiding the learner through the zone by designing learning opportunities (scaffolds)

that guide the student through the scaffolds in a way that provides context, motivation, and the

foundation from which the new understanding can occur. These scaffolds are gradually removed as

the student progresses and is able to demonstrate comprehension and skill independently (Harasim,

2017). At that point, the student may take on the role of a mentor or a “more capable peer” in the

teaching process.

Active Learning and Teaching

Active learning refers to students being engaged in a way that promotes analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation of course content (Harasim, 2017). This requires faculty to be highly skilled in

encouraging and guiding students to participate in a way that promotes reflecting on course content

and how it fits with their current knowledge, evaluating new information, and transforming that

information and applying it to their practice as appropriate.

A study examining the types of interactions that are most predictive of students’ sense of

community included introduction, collaborative group projects, sharing personal experiences, entire

class discussions, and exchanging resources (Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012). The students’ sense of

connectedness and learning were enhanced by faculty drawing in participants, creating an accepting

climate for learning, keeping students on track, diagnosing students’ misperceptions, looking for

areas of consensus when there is disagreement, reinforcing student contributions, and injecting

their own knowledge and confirming student understanding (Shea, 2006). Some of the instrumental

requirements include setting time parameters, due dates, deadlines, clear course topics and

instructions, and guidelines on how to effectively and appropriately participate in and contribute to

the discussion.

It is not uncommon for faculty new to online teaching to engage in passive teaching strategies

without being aware they are doing so. For example, they provide narrated PowerPoint

presentations or some other form of video lecture for students. We have found that a faculty

reliance on textbooks and lectures often leads to knowledge-based questions that inhibit students

from moving through the inquiry process. This is not to say that these kinds of passive activities are

never done, but all learning tasks need to be carefully considered, keeping in mind the educational

purpose. For example, a 10-minute lecture may be required when introducing a new or complex

concept, which is then used to promote discussion.

Providing articles and links to sources that can be found in the library rather than having students

find the source themselves may curtail the exploration phase and students’ ability to critically

examine the literature for the most relevant information. Students who seek resources for

themselves increase their information technology skills. At the same time, it is important for faculty

to remember the importance of scaffolding information and skills to increase the students’

competence in finding, assessing, and using relevant information. Table 9-2 provides teaching

suggestions to facilitate active learning.

Description

The faculty role is critical in setting up opportunities for students to do the work of developing the

skills needed to solve problems and address other issues related to nursing practice. It is an inquiry-

based approach in which students take responsibility for identifying what they need to know and

finding resources.

Develop a Community of Learners

Online educators need to develop a community of learners in which active participation between

and among learners and faculty can occur. Creating a sense of community that is based on a

common purpose is of particular importance to overcome the sense of isolation that can occur for

online students. The students need to interact with faculty members, peers, and course content.

These three types of interactions function in an interdependent manner because they each

potentially contribute to and benefit from each other (Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012). There have

been a number of studies supporting that a sense of community can be created online and is

significantly associated with perceived learning, especially when there is a strong faculty teaching

presence (Garrison, 2007; Harasim, 2017; Shea, 2006).

As faculty working with postlicensure students, we see ourselves as learners as well within the

community of learners using the collaborative process. Collaboration is a key principle of social

constructivism. Faculty need to be able to differentiate between cooperation and collaboration in

teaching and guide students in moving from cooperative work to collaborative work (Breen, 2013).

This means that students are encouraged by faculty, in purposeful ways, to share alternative

viewpoints and challenge new ideas. This can be done by assigning individual research to address a

specific topic, with the results shared with the class or small group, followed by collaborative

discussion.

Community of Inquiry

A common framework used for online learning, teaching, and research is the community of inquiry

(CoI) model depicted in Figure 9-1. It incorporates three types of interaction and was developed by

Randy Garrison, Terry Anderson, and Walter Archer from 1999 to 2001 (Anderson, 2018). The CoI

model has three elements: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence (Anderson,

2018). In the past two decades, it has been a commonly cited model for online educational research

(Bozkurt et al., 2015). The three elements are described separately; however, they interact

interdependently for educational purposes (Garrison, 2007)

Figure 9-1 Community of inquiry model

Data from Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999

Social Presence

Social presence refers to the students being connected to each other in a meaningful way that builds

trust. This trust is necessary in order for students to share their different perceptions, ideas, and

feelings without the fear of being judged. Social presence often starts with students posting a

picture in their student profile and an introductory discussion. This introduction can set the stage for

building a community of learners by purposively thinking through what students should be asked to

share. For example, students in a class with prelicensure students may be asked to share where they

are in their educational journey, whereas students in a first-year postlicensure or graduate-level

class may be asked to share when they became registered nurses (RNs) and what area of nursing

they work in. This sets the stage for students to discover what they have in common and things they

may want to learn from others. Sharing about their families, pets, and what they like to do for fun

also builds community by allowing students to see each other as “real” people.

Faculty also begin to develop a strong social presence with their students by having a written or

video introduction in which they not only share why they are teaching the course but also their own

educational journey and their teaching style. Faculty introductions should also welcome the students

to the class with enthusiasm and make it evident that they care about their students and their

success. This can be done by including when and how students can connect with them in realtime

and how soon they can expect a response to a question. It is also very important for faculty to

welcome each student by individually acknowledging something that they shared in the introductory

discussion and to encourage students to welcome each other.

Social presence goes beyond the introduction and is woven throughout the course, with the purpose

of meeting educational objectives (Shea, 2006). In keeping with constructivist pedagogy, students

are encouraged to incorporate their professional and personal experiences, with specific examples,

to apply learning, which not only establishes cognitive presence but also further establishes a social

and emotional connection. Open communication and collaborative discussions are hallmarks of

social presence (Garrison, 2007).

Cognitive Presence

Cognitive presence is defined by Garrison (2007) as “exploration, construction, resolution and

confirmation of understanding through collaboration and reflection in a community of inquiry” (p.

65). The CoI model is based on the practical inquiry model (PIM), which describes four levels of

cognitive presence that can be observed in students’ online discussion postings. These levels of

cognitive presence, as described by Sadaf and Olesova (2017), are as follows:

Triggering as students become aware of a problem through initiating the inquiry process

Exploration, which refers to students exploring a problem by searching for relevant information and

attempts to explain

Integration as students interpret or construct possible solutions

Resolution, which refers to students applying or defending possible solutions with new thoughts or

ideas.

The triggering and exploration phases exemplify low levels of cognitive presence, whereas engaging

in integration and resolution allows students to build on each other’s ideas and synthesize

information to provide solutions. These phases are not linear; students may move back to previous

phases before reaching resolution (Swan, Garrison, & Richardson, 2009). Garrison, Anderson, and

Archer (2010) noted that several studies found that moving through the process of inquiry to

completion was challenging, and discussions often did not move past the exploration phase. Moving

through the inquiry process to completion was found to be directly related to the role of faculty in

facilitating student learning through triggering questions, effective assessment, and pushing

students to go beyond observing and sharing.

Before moving to teaching presence, we want to recognize that different theories and models

illustrate similar ways of understanding how knowledge is constructed. For example, Harasim’s

(2017) online collaborativist theory identifies that three phases—idea generating, idea organizing,

and intellectual convergence—lead to knowledge building and application. Adult learning theory

helps us prioritize understanding students’ motivations for learning. Theoretical pedagogy is critical

in guiding faculty members to intentionally connect theory to their teaching practice. The bottom-

line question for us is the following: How do we facilitate and motivate students to engage with the

course content, relevant outside research, their peers, and faculty to construct knowledge and apply

it to nursing practice?

As a result, we define cognitive presence as the ability of a community of learners in an online

classroom to construct meaning through engaging with the course content, outside research,

individual reflection, and collaborative reflection to explicitly take into account the individual work

that also needs to be done in conjunction with the collaborative work.

Teaching Presence

Teaching presence includes the planning that goes into course design, as discussed in Chapter 8, and

what is done when interacting with students through facilitation and direct instruction. How the

course is designed facilitates discussions and provides direct instruction to establish teaching

presence. Numerous studies confirm the importance of teaching presence for successful online

learning in relation to student satisfaction, perceived learning, and sense of community (Garrison,

2007). Without an active teaching presence, the higher levels of cognitive presence are rarely

developed (Garrison et al., 2010)

There is overlap between social and cognitive presence. Social presence is enhanced by building

positive relationships with students by being open, approachable, respectful, and patient. A sense of

belonging is enhanced by addressing students by name, encouraging participation, and recognizing

progress and achievement. Not only do these efforts made by faculty promote social presence, they

are also motivators to promote student persistence (Boston et al., 2009; Stavredes, 2011). Cognitive

presence can be enhanced when faculty members promote a sense of purpose by monitoring

student performance on a regular basis, being engaged in the discussions, and providing

constructive and timely feedback that encourages professional growth as students grapple with

complex topics.

The Learner in the Community of Inquiry Model

Anderson (2018) acknowledges that there have been recommendations for additional presences,

such as vicarious, emotional, and autonomy presence, that he has not endorsed. He asserts that

they already exist in the original model but notes that further definition within social presence may

address these recommendations. However, Anderson is supportive of adding learner presence to

the model based on a large study conducted by Shea and Bidjerano (2010). Learner presence

represents elements of online self-regulation, such as self-efficacy, cognition, behavior, and

motivation. Shea and Bidjerano (2010) examined the relationship between learner self-efficacy and

how they rated the quality of their learning in online learning environments and found a positive

relationship between the CoI framework and learner presence. Adding this presence allows for the

CoI model to evolve beyond a teaching model to a teaching and learning model in which teachers

need to match their teaching to the capacity of the learner (Anderson, 2018).

Paz and Pereira (2015) proposed that regulated learning be added to the teaching presence in the

CoI model to demonstrate the overlap between cognitive and teaching presence because it focuses

on the coregulation of learning and metacognition by both faculty and students. Adding this to

teaching presence acknowledges the role of both learners and faculty in the teaching process, which

is in keeping with Vygotsky’s (1978/1997) ZPD and collaborativist learning theory. However, the

categories within regulated learning found by the study conducted by Paz and Pereira seem to

coincide with group-process issues with collaborative group work because they include confirming

understanding of tasks, assessing work process, suggesting improvements, and reminding and

encouraging others to contribute to the work, to name a few.

The main point of adding regulated learning to cognitive presence in the CoI model or adding learner

presence as a fourth presence is that there is an acknowledgment of the need to consider both

teaching and learning because they inform each other in the online learning environment. Both of

these additions are congruent with our understanding that the three interactions of student to

content, student to student, and student to faculty and the three presences of the CoI model inform

each other.

Teaching Strategies to Demonstrate Presence and Engagement

Helping students move through the process of inquiry is much more demanding, requiring strong

online teaching skills. In today’s political and social environment of “alternate truths” and media

saturation, it is essential that students learn to critically explore and evaluate the information they

encounter and the knowledge they are constructing (Anderson, 2018). This is never more evident

than at the time of writing this chapter during the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. Many working

nurses are coping with caring for patients without proper personal protective equipment and

continual policy changes as evidence about the coronavirus evolves. This is a time when faculty and

students are learning together to maneuver through a global crisis.

Postlicensure nursing students are adult learners, are increasingly self-directed, and have

experiences that provide for a rich learning environment (Candela, 2020). Therefore, we see

ourselves as learners and colleagues in the online learning environment with a responsibility to

provide meaningful learning experiences that are relevant to the life and work experiences of

students. As colleagues, it has been our preference to use our first names in working with students.

However, given different students’ comfort level because of cultural differences, we advise them

that they may refer to us by our first name or by “Professor.” Collegiality does not negate the

responsibility of faculty to understand the power differential between faculty and student and the

impact of this on the faculty–student relationship.

It is important for faculty to be aware of the stressors students are facing, even in the best of times,

given the multiple competing demands on our students’ lives. The ability to have high standards

while holding students accountable yet being flexible meets the needs of adult learners. We, as

educators, have found this balance challenging at times. It is important for faculty to discern when

students are having difficulties with time management versus facing challenging life issues, such as a

dying parent, a divorce, or caring for a child with special needs. The faculty response needs to be one

of respect and compassion, whether it be holding students accountable to deadlines or granting

extensions. We work closely with the professional advisor to help students persist and be successful

in meeting their goals, as discussed in Chapter 4.

Faculty presence throughout the entire course is important to keep students engaged and

motivated. This can be challenging because there are many demands on faculty time. Nursing

students vary considerably in their ability to persist in the absence of a consistent teaching presence.

We have found that one way to ensure teaching presence during particularly busy times is to

monitor student participation on a weekly basis to ensure they are engaged and to reach out to

those who have not participated. In the discussion, we find it helpful to first respond to those

students who do not have a peer response.

Faculty provide an active teaching presence by drawing attention to important scaffolded concepts

by their selection and arrangement of course materials, highlighting specific course content, and

providing responses in the discussions. Faculty may also summarize discussions by highlighting

patterns. Further, faculty model the skills they expect of their students through their own responses

and feedback (Cormier & Siemans, 2010).

Faculty need to be able to sustain a strong presence through facilitation of the discussions and direct

instruction (Garrison, 2007). Further, Edwards, Perry, and Janzen (2011) found that exemplary online

faculty maintained high expectations and challenged students to think more deeply while also

finding opportunities to affirm their personal worth by letting students know that they were

succeeding. Exemplary online faculty recognized their students’ potential and encouraged them.

Table 9-3 lists some strategies that we have found helpful in demonstrating presence and

engagement that also illustrate that we care about our students and their success.

Online Collaborative Activities

Faculty need to carefully manage individual and collaborative learning activities that build on

constructivist and adult education theory. For example, collaborative discussions that are relevant to

nursing students’ experience provide opportunities for meaningful interaction that recognizes their

experience. Online activities can be offered synchronously or asynchronously.

Synchronous online activities are those learning activities that take place in realtime through the use

of video or audio-conferencing technology. We have found synchronous activities to be helpful in

providing instructions or clarifying a complex topic and addressing questions. Synchronous activities

should be recorded so that students who could not attend can listen to the recording on their own

time. Asynchronous activities involve students engaging in the same activities at different times and

locations. We have found that asynchronous activities are one of the many advantages of online

learning because of the flexibility to complete coursework based on the student’s schedule.

Group Work

Group work in the online learning environment can be particularly frustrating for both faculty and

students, which often results in avoiding it. Different styles of how students work contribute to the

challenges. For example, some students like to start early, and others wait until the last minute.

Some students like to take control, not trusting their peers, whereas some students prefer to let

others do the majority of the work. Further challenges involve living in different time zones and

having different work schedules. Therefore, it is very important to be purposeful in planning how the

group work will be set up, keeping in mind the leveling of coursework in the program of study and

the learning outcomes you want to achieve.

We have found that the key to successful group work is providing clear instructions and assigning

individual work that needs to be done first so that every group member comes prepared to fully

collaborate in the group experience. When students initially begin working in a group that requires a

final product, faculty need to provide information on the purpose of group work and guidance on

how to work collaboratively. It is important to closely monitor the group process to ensure that

students are working well together.

Harasim’s (2017) collaborativist theory and the CoI model are different, yet similar ways of

understanding how students may collaboratively move through the knowledge-construction

process. The collaborativist theory has not been used for research purposes to the extent that the

CoI model has. Chapter 15 presents an extensive study that assesses online collaborative discourse

in discussions and group work using collaborativist theory (formerly referred to as online

collaborative theory).

Asynchronous Discussions

Special attention is given to online discussions in this chapter because of the integral part they have

in online education. Online discussions provide a space for open-ended thinking, exchange of

information, and collaborative reflection, allowing students to make connections between theory

and practice and promoting peer learning (Arend, 2009; Liu, 2019). The purpose of online

discussions is to provide an opportunity for students to explore different concepts, apply course

material to real life, or dig deeper into a concept or topic (Arend, 2009). Many online instructors find

that the built-in time for reflection in asynchronous discussions encourages more critical and

reflective thought (Arend, 2009).

Constructing the discussion forum and the importance of the trigger questions or discussion

prompts are addressed in Chapter 8. Keeping in mind Bloom’s or Fink’s taxonomy, as discussed in

Chapter 7, will guide faculty in ensuring their questions are at the appropriate cognitive level.

Examples at different cognitive levels are provided in Chapter 8. In a discussion forum, faculty pose

questions or a discussion prompt, and students are required to provide a substantial response. Some

learning management systems provide the option to hide student responses until the student has

posted an initial response. This may be an institutional policy or at the faculty member’s discretion

as a way to avoid the potential of plagiarism or encourage individual reflection on the course

content prior to collaborating with the class. However, it is important to consider if the goal is to

have individual reflection followed by collaborative reflection or to allow students to reflect on other

students’ responses before they begin their own. Faculty may consider having a combination of both

options in the course.

Online discussions replace the interactive discussions that are often a part of face-to-face teaching.

However, as stated previously, the asynchronous nature of online discussions provides the

opportunity for more reflection and the opportunity to address concepts in greater depth through

collaborative learning. It is important to provide clear instructions regarding how to participate in a

way that encourages collaboration. Some suggestions to consider include the following:

Expectations for the initial post, such as cognitive level (analysis, synthesis, application) and length

Number of references to support the discussion and whether they are required only for the initial

post, replies, or both

What is meant by a substantial response and carrying the discussion forward

Number of replies

Any requirements regarding whom to reply to (e.g., some institutions require students to respond to

faculty posts in the discussion)

Will peer responses be hidden until the initial response is posted?

Some faculty or students may refer to discussions as assignments, which we discourage because it

detracts from the collaborative learning. Table 9-4 provides an example of information that can be

provided to students to help explain the difference between collaborative discussions, group work,

and individual assignments.

Facilitating Reflective, Critical, and Analytical Thinking

The ability to facilitate learning and knowledge of how to develop a high-quality online course were

found to be the most important skills for online faculty to develop by researchers Kyong-Jee and

Bonk (2006). In a later study, Arend (2009) looked at how asynchronous discussions influenced

critical thinking among students. The nature of text-based online communication makes it

particularly useful for critical thinking by allowing for more reflective and less spontaneous discourse

(Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Table 9-5 identifies a combination of facilitation skills that Arend

(2009) found in her study and skills we have identified through our experience. We believe these

skills contribute to higher levels of not only critical thinking but also reflective and analytical

thinking.

Critical thinking is the careful evaluation of information and how to interpret it to make good

judgments. Bandman and Bandman (1994) defined critical thinking as “the rational examination of

ideas, inferences, assumptions, principles, arguments, conclusions, issues, statements, beliefs, and

actions” (p. 5). Analytical thinking is part of critical thinking. It is the step-by-step approach to

breaking down complex problems or processes into their parts to identify causes and patterns.

Reflective thinking involves consideration of the larger context and the meaning and implications of

an experience or action (Kearney-Nunnery, 2020). Reflective thinking also helps develop an attitude

of inquiry, question assumptions, and gain new perspectives for change and improvement.

Socratic Method

The Socratic method is valuable for advancing critical and reflective thinking in students through an

application and analysis of information that requires clarity, logical consistency, and self-regulation

(Oyler & Romanelli, 2014). Socratic questioning is purposeful questioning that probes beneath the

surface and helps students to:

Discover the truth of their own thinking.

Develop deeper understanding.

Develop sensitivity to clarity, accuracy, relevance, and depth.

Arrive at judgments through their own reasoning.

Analyze their thinking, including its purpose, assumptions, perceptions, inferences, concepts, and

implications in arriving at judgments through their own reasoning.

Critical thinking and Socratic questioning are connected in that critical thinking involves

metacognition and regulation of one’s own thoughts (Oyler & Romanelli, 2014). Asynchronous

online discussion is one of the most valuable formats for Socratic discourse because it allows for

reflection and ongoing research before responding and allows for multiple learners to reply

simultaneously (Kingsley, 2011). Within an online discussion, responses to Socratic questioning are

shared, with the potential of the class moving through the phases of the inquiry process as discussed

within cognitive presence aspect of the CoI model. Table 9-6 provides some examples of Socratic

questions that can be used in an online discussion.

Description

It is important to maintain a neutral stance. Faculty should not be evaluating discussion posts either

positively or negatively in the discussion forum. Statements like “I agree” from a faculty member will

often close the discussion and prevent students from presenting an opposing view. Corrective

statements or statements of disagreement from faculty may also close the discussion, leaving

students feeling “called out” and preventing them from taking future risks in presenting their

thoughts.

Facilitation Challenges

Some faculty, especially when new to online teaching, may feel the need to respond to each student

within a discussion, but this can be disempowering, leading students to only look to faculty rather

than develop a community of learners. It is a delicate balance between quantity and quality to

ensure enough faculty presence (Arend, 2009). Some students may not be used to discussing and

learning from each other when they first start taking online classes. They will need support and

guidance to get used to collaborative discussions. Faculty also need to discern when it is important

to intervene to deflect potential problems but at the same time not interfere with the flow of ideas.

Blatant bias or misinformation may require sensitive intervention on the part of faculty to correct

this for the class while at the same time remaining neutral. Individual feedback may be the most

appropriate place to address such issues. The intent of most online discussions is to have students

think in new ways about the course material. Higher levels of critical, reflective, and analytical

thinking tend to be found when faculty have the skill to know when to participate with purposeful,

neutral, and probing comments or questions.

Grading and Feedback

Quality feedback is important, regardless of the mode of learning. However, Frayer (2014) found

that students perceive faculty feedback as one of the most important dimensions of the online

classroom. Feedback serves the purpose of enhancing cognitive understanding of course material

and provides a mechanism for motivation, interpersonal connection, and engagement (Mandernach,

2018). Providing quality feedback is a critical teaching role for online faculty, and it takes time.

Faculty need to set aside time devoted to delivering quality feedback. We provide the following

suggestions, along with examples of different forms of feedback, to help faculty balance their

workload and, at the same time, enhance student learning and satisfaction with online learning.

Instructional Resources

In designing the course, include some learning activities that provide opportunities for learning that

do not require grading. We have found some great resources available online that are interactive,

and students can earn a certificate. Care needs to be taken to ensure that these resources are a

good fit to facilitate meeting the course outcomes. Some examples that we have successfully used

that students value include modules from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These agencies provide in-depth learning modules

in which students can submit evidence that the work has been completed and earn a certificate.

In organizing the learning modules, give consideration to when there will be a heavier load for

assessment, requiring the provision of extensive feedback. For example, you may want to integrate

an assignment with automated feedback that is done the week following the due date of a major

writing assignment and not have a discussion that week.

Feedback Banks

We believe that developing feedback banks or using automated-response software programs is at

the discretion of faculty. They are very useful for large online classrooms. Feedback banks are

responses that faculty use frequently because it saves time to copy and paste them. The concern is

that they may take away the personalization that faculty like to convey. We do use less personal

strategies, such as copied and pasted feedback that highlights certain learning outcomes we want to

reinforce for all students, which would be combined with feedback that is more personal and

specific to the student’s work. For example, the comment, “Examining historical events in the

context of the social and political times by using both primary and secondary sources is so important

to increase our understanding of the events” was used in an Evolution of Nursing course, followed

by an individualized comment about the student’s specific work.

Group Feedback

Group feedback can be an effective way to provide feedback to the entire class or a small group. This

could be related to seeing a common pattern of errors and used as a teachable opportunity, or it

could be motivated by a desire to highlight how the class did exceptionally well. Group feedback may

also come from a feedback bank developed in a previous semester and found to be relevant in a

subsequent class. Table 9-7 provides an example of group feedback in response to the work done for

a module on trauma-informed care. Note that the announcement highlights some things that were

done well, provides some direct teaching, and corrects some information without pointing out any

errors in thinking that came through in the students’ work.

Personalization

Feedback can be personalized by using students’ names and making specific reference to their work

or professional context. Students value feedback that is individualized, provides gentle guidance, is

positively constructive, is specific, and is written in a positive tone that suggests changes that can be

useful in other contexts (Getzlaf, Perry, Toffner, Lamarche, & Edwards, 2009). Adults, in particular,

are sensitive to feeling respected and validated and want a clear connection between their academic

and professional work (Merriam, 2001). We know that the ability to learn and be open to feedback

improves when people feel valued and respected. After receiving this kind of feedback, students will

comment that they feel motivated to learn more because their confidence is increased. Examples of

personalized feedback are provided in Table 9-8.

Grading and Timeliness

Grading in a timely manner is important not only for student satisfaction but also for student

learning. Students cannot make any needed improvements to their discussion posts, for example, if

they do not have the feedback to help them in this regard. Therefore, we make it a practice to grade

the discussions within a few days of the close of the discussion, especially at the beginning of the

course, when students are learning the expectations.

Assignments are typically graded within a week. There may be some differences in when grading

needs to be completed, depending on the length of the semester and institutional policy. For

example, in a 5- to 7-week semester, the turnaround time for grading and feedback needs to be

much shorter for students to benefit. Faculty should let students know when to expect to see their

grades and keep them updated if it is going to take longer than anticipated. There are some other

considerations that faculty need to think about when it comes to assessing assignments. Grading

major papers can be very challenging and time consuming. Table 9-9 lists some recommendations

for the assessment of written assignments.

Summary

It is important for nursing faculty to provide a learner-centered environment that facilitates a

community of learners who advance in the knowledge-construction process and develop skills that

can be applied to their nursing practice. Faculty members who maintain a strong teaching presence

within the community of learners can effectively hold students accountable for active participation.

Assessment is an intentional part of course design. Grading and providing feedback are critical

components of assessment that can have the potential to motivate or deflate a student. This is why

there is an emphasis on taking the time to provide quality feedback. Even a poor grade can be

couched with feedback that is respectful and caring to maximize the impact on student confidence.

Best-Practice Recommendations for Online Teaching

Theoretical pedagogy is critical in guiding faculty to intentionally connect theory to their teaching

practice.

Engaging in ongoing self-reflection prior to and during the teaching process is critical for faculty to

develop expertise in online teaching.

Online educators have the ability to develop a community of learners in which active participation

between and among learners and faculty can occur.

Faculty members who provide students with encouragement and compassion can support students

as they move through the process of inquiry.

Balancing high standards and holding students accountable with flexibility supports the success of

adult learners in the online classroom.

References

Anderson, T. (2018). How communities of inquiry drive teaching and learning in the digital age.

https://teachonline.ca/tools-trends/insights-online-learning/2018-02-27/how-communities-inquiry-

drive-teaching-and-learning-digital-age

Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of

Educators Online, 6(1). http://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2009.1.1

Bandman, E. L., & Bandman, B. (1994). Critical thinking in nursing (2nd ed.). Appleton & Lange.

Booth, T. L., Emerson, C. J., Hackney, M. G., & Souter, S. (2016). Preparation of academic nurse

educators. Nurse Education in Practice, 19, 54–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.04.006

Boston, W., Diaz, S., Gibson, A., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). An exploration of the

relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online

programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 13(3), 67–83.

http://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v14i1.1636

Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., … Aydin, C. (2015). Trends

in distance education research: A content analysis of journals 2009–2013. International Review of

Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 330–363.

http://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1953

Breen, H. (2013). Virtual collaboration in the online education setting: A concept analysis. Nursing

Forum, 48(4), 262–270. http://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12034

Candela, L. (2020). Theoretical foundations of teaching and learning. In D. M. Billings & J. A. Halstead

(Eds.), Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty (6th ed., pp. 247–269). Elsevier.

Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning, and

engagement. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(40), 30–39.

Edwards, M., Perry, B., & Janzen, K. (2011). The making of an exemplary online educator. Distance

Education, 32(1), 101–118.

Frayer, L. (2014). A multi-case study of student perceptions of online course design elements and

success. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), Article 13.

http://doi.org/0.20429/ijsotl.2014.080113

Garrison, D. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence

issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72.

http://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i1.1737

Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry

framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5–9.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and

practice. Routledge/Falmer. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203166093

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:

Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.

Getzlaf, B., Perry, B., Toffner, G., Lamarche, K., & Edwards, M. (2009). Effective instructor feedback:

Perceptions of online graduate students. Journal of Educators Online, 6(2).

http://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2009.2.1

Giddens, J. (2020). Demystifying concept-based and competency-based approaches. Journal of

Nursing Education, 59(3), 123–124. http://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20200220-01

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge.

Kearney-Nunnery, R. (Ed.). (2020). Advancing your career: Concept of professional nursing. F. A.

Davis.

Kingsley, P. (2011). The Socratic dialogue in asynchronous online discussions: Is constructivism

redundant? Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(5)320–330.

http://doi.org/10.1108/10650741111181599

Kyong-Jee, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education:

The survey says… EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(4), 22–30.

Liu, Y. (2019). Using reflections and questioning to engage and challenge online graduate learners in

education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(3), Article 3.

http://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0098-z

Mandernach, B. J. (2018). Strategies to maximize the impact of feedback and streamline your time.

Journal of Educators Online, 15(3).

https://www.thejeo.com/archive/archive/2018_153/mandernachpdf

Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3–14. http://doi.org/10.1002/ace.3

Oyler, D. R., & Romanelli, F. (2014). The fact of ignorance: Revisiting the Socratic method as a tool

for teaching critical thinking. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(7), 144.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (Eds.). (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for

the virtual classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Paz, J., & Pereira, A. (2015). Regulation of learning as distributed teaching presence in the

community of inquiry framework. Presentation at the Technology, Colleges, and Community Online

Conference 2015: The Future Is Now, Honolulu, HI.

Sadaf, A., & Olesova, L. (2017) Enhancing cognitive presence in online case discussions with

questions based on the practical inquiry model. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 56–

69. http://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1267525

Shackelford, J., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Sense of community in graduate online education:

Contribution of learner to learner interaction. International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 13, 228–249. http://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1339

Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online environments. Online

Learning, 10(1). http://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i1.1774

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation,

and the development of communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments.

Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017

Smith, T. C. (2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction. The Journal of Educators Online,

2(2). http://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2005.2.2

Stavredes, T. (2011). Effective online teaching: Foundations and strategies for student success.

Jossey-Bass

Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The

community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in

higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI Global.

Vygotsky, L. (1997). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.),

Readings on the development of children (Vol. 2, pp. 29–36). W. H. Freeman and Company.

(Reprinted from Mind and society, pp. 79–91, by L. Vygotsky, 1978, Cambridge University Press.)

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.