Insights From a Reflective Conversation Among Two Professors and a Student: Instructional Approaches, Accountability, and Building Community in Online Courses

One only need do a search for online degree programs to reveal the prevalence of distance education in the United States. Institutions offering online degrees have ballooned and are surely not going anywhere anytime soon. According to a report by the Babson Survey Research Group authored by Seaman, Allen, and Seaman (2018), distance learning enrollment increased for the 14th year straight in 2016 and increased steadily between 2012 and 2016. This steady increase in distance learning between 2012 and 2016 contrasts with a decline in enrollment in brick-and-mortar institutions in that same time span (Seaman et al., 2018). Ongoing scholarly conversations about distance learning, therefore, are essential. Questions about best practices for teaching in distance learning settings, students’ experiences learning online, and ways of harnessing the potential of new technologies continue to emerge, and, likewise, they are relevant topics for discussion and reflection.

Instructors who teach both online and in-person courses can tell you there are overlaps but also major differences between pedagogical approaches in the two modalities. While these differences might seem straightforward, deeper reflection on instructors’ pedagogy, their students’ learning experiences, and the use of the technology in these two different instructional modalities can provide important insights.

Developing reflective practices is an important goal for all educators to pursue. Notions of reflective practice vary on a continuum, from casual retrospection to following specific frameworks for reflection (Loughran, 2002). Broadly speaking, “reflective practice is understood as the process of learning through and from experience toward gaining new insights of self and/or practice” (Finlay, 2008, p. 1). Dewey’s (1938) seminal work on the intricacies of learning from experience provided the foundation for discussions of reflective practice in the field of education. Dewey’s ideas were taken up by Schön (1983) as he conceived the reflective practitioner (Finlay, 2008, p. 3). While critiques of Schön’s work have emerged, his conception of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action continue to be a staple in education today.

Finlay (2008) contrasts Schön’s two types of reflection. Reflection-in-action is comprised of “professionals … examining their experiences and responses as they occur” (p. 3). On the other hand, with reflection-on-action “professionals are understood consciously to review, describe, analyse and evaluate their past practice with a view to gaining insight to improve future practice” (Finlay, 2008, p. 3). For both reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, making connections between thoughts, experiences, and applicable theory are important goals (Finlay, 2008). Loughran (2002) notes that “one element of reflection that is common to many is the notion of a problem (a puzzling, curious, or perplexing situation)” (p. 33). In other words, the first step in reflection is the urge to explore something of particular interest in more depth.

In the field of teacher education, a key goal is to develop in preservice teachers this drive to home in and reflect on problems, puzzles, and curious instances in their own teaching. While there is much literature on developing preservice teachers’ reflective practices on their K–12 instruction (e.g., Griffin, 2003; Lee, 2005; Pedro, 2005), literature on joint student-teacher reflection on the pedagogy college/ university students experience with their teachers (professors) is less common. In their book Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty, Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten (2014) write about various contexts where such teacher-student reflective practice has taken place. For example, at Bryn Mawr College, a program called Students as Learners and Teachers (SaLT) “pairs undergraduate students with faculty members who wish to analyze and, perhaps, revise their pedagogical approaches over the course of a semester” (Cook-Sather et al., 2014, p. xii). The undergraduate students in these partnerships observe but are not enrolled in the classes of the teacher with whom they are paired because the focus of the SaLT project is reflection on pedagogy not content: “the student consultants explore with faculty members classroom dynamics, pedagogical approaches, and the learning experiences of students enrolled in the course” (Cook-Sather et al., 2014, pp. xii– xiii).

The opportunities and outcomes of pedagogical reflection between students and teachers offers unique insights that cannot be reached by teachers reflecting by themselves. This article emerged from a goal Stefanie and Autumn had to engage in such collective reflective practice with a student. Our reflection here differs from the SaLT program in that ours was a onetime reflective session and in that Aja was a student in Stefanie’s class. Our reflective session is similar to the SaLT approach in that our reflection focused not on content but on pedagogy (i.e., classroom dynamics, instructional strategies, and students’ learning experiences). Unique in our student-teacher reflection is a focus on how these factors operate in the online learning space as well as noting similarities and differences with face-to-face learning spaces.

Stefanie and Autumn are both new faculty at our institution and our master’s program in reading includes both face-to-face and online classes. Both Stefanie and Autumn have taught online classes in the past but are seeking ways to improve our online pedagogy and incorporate new technologies. Aja is a student who is in her first year in our master’s program. She completed her fully face-to-face undergraduate degree at this same institution. The online courses she has taken in our master’s program are her first online learning experiences.

Stefanie and Autumn have reflected a lot about our approaches to online teaching and ideas for revising our courses, but we felt that we could get deeper insights about online teaching through hearing a student’s perspective. Stefanie had met Aja prior to her joining the program and felt comfortable approaching her to ask if she would be willing to embark on a reflective project about online teaching and learning. At the beginning of the 2018 spring semester, we asked if Aja would keep notes about her experience taking an online class with Stefanie with a plan to reconvene to discuss Stefanie’s class near the end of the semester.

In late March of 2018, we gathered via Google Hangouts and had a productive 90-minute discussion about Stefanie’s online class. We recorded our discussion so that we could revisit it and reflect further. Stefanie discussed her instructional choices and quandaries; Aja shared her thoughts about Stefanie’s comments and offered her critiques, experiences, and insights; I (Autumn) asked questions and looked for parallels or departures from her prior experiences online. She will be teaching online classes in the upcoming year, so this conversation was important to her future planning as well. We transcribed our discussion and returned to reflect on our conversation and pinpoint the most salient ideas.

In what follows, Stefanie and I share what we see as the three most important topics from our conversation with Aja: choosing instructional methods, accountability beyond discussion boards, and building community. To enrich our discussion of these topics, we include excerpts from the transcription of our reflective conversation that capture how we grappled (and continue to grapple) with particular issues. We offer take-aways from our discussion and experiences and pose questions for readers to ponder.

As online course offerings have increased, so have the options for delivering information and interacting with each other in the online setting. In many online courses, there is a predictable sequence of activities each week (e.g., readings, discussion boards, online lecture) to ensure that students know what to expect. One tension that I experienced was between replicating my style of teaching in a traditional setting and maintaining consistency to eliminate confusion. For example, one strategy that I often use in the classroom is jigsaw. Jigsaw is a cooperative learning strategy in which students are assigned a “home” group in which each member breaks off to specialize in one aspect of a topic and then returns to the home group to teach them what they learned. I knew this was a powerful learning experience for students in the traditional classroom because of the high level of motivation related to peer accountability. I was able to replicate the jigsaw in an online setting but it required me to provide very clear directions and models prior to the lesson. I used a video describing the strategy and a written explanation to ensure that all of my students were able to participate. When I gave the directions for the week, I also included a video explaining the jigsaw strategy and a classroom example so they would be able to imagine how this would look in their K– 12 classrooms. Further, I offered options for the ways that students would interact. In a traditional classroom, they would meet in small groups, but in this online setting, I was able to allow students to choose to interact via a private discussion board, in a Wiki, or through a Google Hangout meeting. These choices allowed groups to maintain the flexibility that is an appeal of online learning, but also offered opportunities to interact in ways that suited their needs and interests. Likewise, when they presented to their groups they had similar options for presenting. During our conversation, Aja pointed out that doing the jigsaw in a Wiki or discussion board actually provided an increase in the accountability and potentially the rigor of the conversation.

Although my teaching style in a face-to-face class is to keep students actively engaged through cooperative learning strategies, there are times that require some level of direct instruction. I struggled with ways you present this type of instruction in an online class. I have seen instructors use video lectures, PowerPoint slides with voice-overs, or simply posting a PowerPoint presentation for students to review. In this course, I tried a range of those methods so this conversation was an opportunity to hear Aja’s thoughts about the dissemination of that information.

In contrast, we all felt that the use of long video lectures were the least effective methods but short videos such as ones that may precede a class reading may be useful. I created 2-3 minute videos that served as an introduction to the article or chapter and set the purpose for students before they read. We agreed that this type of short burst of information helps keep students focused on the purpose of the week’s module.

In considering the use of instructional methods, another challenge that I faced was time management. In a face-to-face course I am able to implement a range of instructional strategies while monitoring the time and adjusting the activity accordingly. In an online format, the activities are assigned at the start of the week and there is little room for adjustment because students are not working in synchrony. During our conversation, I expressed my concern that there were times that I did not provide enough content, while Aja’s perception was much different.

We concluded that it is a difficult balance and one way that we can help students better manage the load is by clearly explaining the time expectations during the introductory week of the course. It is important that students understand that they should allot the 3 hours for the weekly course content but also plan for time for assignments and any traditional out-of-class time for work to prepare for class or complete assignments. Further, it is ideal for the instructor to check in regularly with students to find out how much time each module is taking and adjust accordingly.

We are in a time where online class availability is much more widespread than our knowledge about how to best instruct in an online format. However, issues surrounding the use of particular instructional strategies and time management are prevalent in online and face-to-face courses. It is important for teachers to continue to be willing to try new strategies to best meet the needs of their students. This process also requires reflection on and modification of practices based on those reflections. These are best practices for teachers in all instructional settings, so we should not forget to apply them in an online classroom.

What are some of the issues that you face in creating online courses? What effective instructional strategies do you use in person that you are also using online? How do you allow for variety in your instructional choices, but also avoid confusion among your students? Which components of your online course can be consistent and where can you introduce variety? How do you gauge the time students will need to spend on each module? How do you help students manage their time so they are not overwhelmed or not committing enough time to get a proper depth of understanding?

One topic that came up in our discussion was how to create accountability for student participation and engagement in online classes. Accountability for student participation is an essential component of classes and one that can be tricky to parse in face-to-face classes, let alone in online classes. In face-to-face classes, beyond the non-negotiable aspect of attendance, descriptions of requirements for student participation almost always include active engagement in class discussion and any in-class activities. Teachers of face-to-face classes encounter the challenge of assessing the quality of students’ engagement. Who is participating in the discussion? Do their contributions to the discussion evidence that they have read the texts and are going beyond the surface level? Are they listening to their classmates in the discussion? Are they taking an active role during small group work?

In online courses, attempts to replicate the discussion routines in face-to-face classes are most often in the form of discussion forums of one sort or another. However, in online classes, how do we capture elements of face-to-face classes beyond discussion—the variety of small-group work and activities or other tasks (e.g., asking students to take 8 minutes and draw a mindmap connecting main ideas across texts and then be ready to share out)? And how do these map onto online classes in terms of accountability? In a face-to-face class, these activities are not usually graded—they are just an inherent part of class and sometimes are developed on the spot by the instructor in response to students’ needs in the class (e.g., the instructor realizes, based on discussion, that a certain concept needs to be unpacked more).

Stefanie tried out multiple strategies to try to mirror these types of interactions and activities and, similar to small group work and brainstorms in a face-to-face context, she did not grade these activities. One strategy she used was embedded in the PowerPoints she posted each week. At different points throughout her slides, Stefanie would embed a link to a shared Google Doc. Students would click on the link and then respond to questions posed based on the content presented in the slides as well as to each other.

Similar to a face-to-face setting where the instructor might stop and ask students to turn to a partner and talk about something for 3 minutes and then return to the discussion, students were not given an explicit grade for their contributions to the Google Doc in Stefanie’s online class. Because of this, Stefanie found that, while students like Aja found the Google Doc interaction meaningful, some students simply did not participate. Further, in some of her PowerPoints, students would have to click on the Google Docs or insert comments in order to progress through the PowerPoint. So if students had not done this, Stefanie could see that they had not even listened to the lecture.

Stefanie also experimented with using VoiceThread to prompt these types of intermittent contributions among students when they were watching videos. Students could insert VoiceThread recordings at different points in the videos Stefanie posted to comment on the content or pose questions. In our conversation, Aja explained her experience with VoiceTh-read in Stefanie’s class.

Despite the enthusiasm about the advantages of VoiceThread expressed by Aja, VoiceThread use was sparse among students in Stefanie’s class overall. Stefanie had some students report that they had trouble with the technology. She hypothesized that others, similar to the Google Docs, did not participate because they were not being held accountable by a grade.

During the discussion between Stefanie, Aja, and I, we devoted a good deal of time to grappling with how or whether students should be held accountable for these online equivalents of the in-class small group work and brainstorms found in face-to-face classes that are not individually graded. We discussed the nature of a continuum ranging from completely micromanaging every aspect of online participation to expecting that online students should be intrinsically motivated, engaged, and able to self-regulate their online learning. Aja is a highly engaged student who took advantage of the learning opportunities afforded by the embedded Google Docs and VoiceThreads. She and Stefanie compared and contrasted how participation in ungraded activities unfolds with different students.

As with many instructional difficulties, there is not a clear or single reason why students are not participating. It is possible that some students may not participate because they perceive that they already have a strong grasp of a particular concept and do not feel they need the extra practice; however, we concluded through our reflective conversation that if we want all students to participate in these online equivalents of “breakout activities” found in face-to-face courses, then students will have to be held accountable for them.

Even if we believe that our online students should have the motivation to complete ungraded interactive components in a course, such as writing in embedded Google Docs, posting VoiceThreads while watching a video, we cannot count on them doing so. In a face-to-face class students are held accountable for taking part in things like small group breakout discussions or completing a brainstorm before doing a think-pair-share simply as a function of being present in the room. Including additional interactive components in a online course that are above and beyond discussion forums is surely a best practice, but due to the online format, if we want all students to participate in these activities and be “present” we may have to do more micromanaging in terms of accountability (i.e., grading little interactive components) than we might think (or desire). We need to make it clearer that the expectation is that students participate in all of the activities that are posted.

What degree of intrinsic motivation for interactive engagement between students do you see in your classes? What interactive components beyond discussion forums do you use in your online classes? What technologies have you found most effective for these types of interaction beyond discussion forums? Do you require participation in all of these activities or only some? Should there be some ungraded components of online courses that serve, essentially, as enrichment opportunities for students who are particularly motivated to interact with their online peers and further engage with content?

Across learning environments and contexts, building a learning community improves students’ learning experiences and outcomes. The teacher plays a significant role in setting the stage for building a learning community, from class configurations (in a face-to-face setting), to the amount of group work, to creating a safe space where students feel comfortable sharing about themselves and their lives. At the core of creating a learning community is communication between the teacher and students and between students and their peers. In an online setting, building a learning community can be more of a challenge because the primary mode of communication is in written exchange both between students and between students and their instructor. Technologies such as VoiceThread are great in that students can hear and see each other comment and respond. Obviously, synchronous communication via some video platform is the best way to have communication, but given the asynchronous nature of online courses, this is not always possible and cannot always be required.

The importance of building community was a topic that Aja and Stefanie talked a lot about in our discussion. Aja completed her face-to-face undergraduate education at this institution and is completing this master’s program here too. She expressed that it was hard switching from what she could do in terms of working collaboratively with classmates in the face-to-face undergraduate program versus the online courses in our master’s program.

Stefanie agreed with Aja about the importance of developing these relationships between students. The three of us talked further about how a cohort model in a program has the advantage of having a group of students that move together across courses and can build those relationships that strengthen over time.

While Stefanie had made the virtual sessions she offered optional, she expressed that she wants to find more ways to front load virtual sessions early in the semester so that students would be more comfortable reaching out to each other independently to meet virtually.

While our online classes do not currently require any synchronous virtual sessions (at our institution, online courses are considered asynchronous; synchronous online components cannot be required unless a synchronous requirement is specified in the course listings), Stefanie pondered whether incentivizing such sessions (such as through extra credit) would encourage participation. Aja suggested changing the requirements so virtual interaction was built in.

Making virtual sessions like the voluntary ones that Stefanie held on Wednesday evenings required (as an outcome of this reflective conversation and analysis, Stefanie and I have specified a synchronous component for our program’s future online courses in our course listings) would also ensure the establishing of a deep relationship between Stefanie and the students. Stefanie felt that for the students in the class who she had not met on campus or had in another class, it was the voluntary virtual sessions that helped build a relationship with them.

In Aja’s case and for the students in our program, there is the advantage that since our program has both online and face-to-face classes it means that all the people in the classes live in the area. So it is possible for students to get together outside of the online platform if they take the initiative to do so. This is not a reality for all students in online programs. But even in Aja’s case in our program, there is a disconnect between students in the class, and even though they live in the same area they do not necessarily feel comfortable reaching out to each other. As instructors in online courses, we need to consider adding required synchronous virtual components to the otherwise asynchronous format. Institutional and/or programmatic constraints as well as the locations of the students (e.g., all in one state, all in the United States, versus in different countries) will impact whether mandatory synchronous sessions are feasible. But as online instructors, we need to actively consider how to encourage as much virtual interaction as possible between students and between students and ourselves in order to create a strong online learning community.

In what ways do you try to build a strong learning community in your online classes? How do you try to foster strong relationships between students and between students and yourself? Do you require virtual synchronous sessions in your otherwise asynchronous classes? How do students respond to synchronous sessions? Do students seek out opportunities to meet virtually of their own volition or do you need to structure these opportunities? What platforms have you found work best for virtual synchronous meetings?

As educators, reflecting on our practice and continually aiming to improve and innovate is at the essence of the work we do. The reflection we participated in embodies what Schön coined as reflection-on-action. Together, the three of us made a concrete plan to “consciously to review, describe, analyze and evaluate [our] past practice” (Finlay, 2008, p. 3). In our case, Stefanie focused on her practice, while Aja focused on her experiences and made connections between her experience and Stefanie’s pedagogy. Autumn mediated the discussion and posed questions informed by her prior experiences teaching online and her discussions across the semester with Stefanie about her online course. Stefanie and Autumn see our reflection-on-action conversation as a foundation for making informed goals for changes and additions to our online pedagogy and in shaping decisions we make about online courses in our reading program going forward.

In online classes, troubleshooting and improving upon pedagogy sometimes includes more twists, turns, and puzzles than in face-to-face classes. Educators can gain much from reflecting on their own practice as well as pairing with other colleagues to get feedback. However, Stefanie and I found that taking part in shared reflection with a student elevated our reflective practice and provided us with constructive feedback, insights, and recommendations that made us think more deeply about our pedagogy than had Stefanie and Autumn simply reflected together. Further, this kind of in-depth student-teacher reflective conversation allows for a kind of rich dialogic interplay with students about the pedagogy they experience that is simply not possible through the end-of-course evaluations they complete online. Inviting more than one student into such reflective conversations would also allow students to bounce ideas off each other. It could also allow us to see where students’ experiences of online learning coincided and diverged. These types of reflective conversations between online students and their teachers can take place via technologies like Google Hangouts, Zoom, Skype, and more. We recommend that other instructors of online classes reach out to students to have these reflective conversations and share their insights with others in the field.