The Teacher as Migrant: How Teaching Online Can Change Classroom Practice

Online and face-to-face courses are often seen, and studied, as two separate worlds. In the past, most of these studies have been comparative—Is an online course in such-and-such subject more or less effective that a face-to-face course in the same subject?—but increasingly the focus is on evaluating each on its own terms (Sener, 2005). This is progress, but it still considers the two environments separately. Although face-to-face and online courses do indeed take place in separate environments, the social field of the teacher who teaches them increasingly includes both. Much as immigrants leave the cultural comfort of their home societies and move to places with very different cultures and social practices, those who teach online leave the familiarity of the face-to-face classroom for the uncharted terrain of the online classroom. And when they subsequently return “home,” they are likely to bring back ideas, strategies, and practices that worked well for them in the online environment, which may in turn transform their face-to-face classroom practice.

The metaphor of the migrant comes from some of the recent social science literature on migration. Those migrants who maintain contact with their home societies, either by physically returning for visits or by sending and receiving visitors, remittances, and information, are referred to by some migration theorists as “transnational” migrants. In a recent article, two of these researchers made a distinction between “transnational ways of being” and “transnational ways of belonging” that are suggestive for the classroom context as well. Here is the quote: “Those who engage in social relations and practices that cross borders as a regular feature of everyday life … exhibit a transnational way of being. When people explicitly recognize this and highlight the transnational elements of who they are, then they are also expressing a transnational way of belonging. Clearly, these two experiences do not always go hand in hand” (see Levitt & Glick Schiller, 2004, p. 4). In what follows, there are already teachers who not only practice in both venues—and thus exhibit a transclassroom way of being—but whose reflection on that practice has led to deliberate to changes in their face-to-face classrooms, thus exhibiting a transclassroom way of belonging.

It is the transformation, of the course and of the teaching, and the two-way interactions, or flow, between online and face-to-face classrooms, that were the focus of this study. The research on which this article is based looked at the full migration path of a teacher and a course for 215 Virtual High School (http://www.govhs.org) teachers as they moved from face to face to online and then back to face to face. This article will focus on the return path, taken by about 75% of responding teachers, and will report on how the VHS professional development course, combined with what they had learned from the constraints and affordances of teaching in an online environment, led many of these teachers to transform their face-to-face courses, both in terms of content and pedagogy.

This research began with a series of interviews of current and former VHS teachers in order to better understand the issues surrounding creating and teaching online courses. These interviews took the teachers through the entire circle: from teaching a face-to-face course, to developing and then teaching an online course, and then (where applicable) to teaching face to face. They elicited a long and complex list of the kinds of changes these teachers had made in adapting their face-to-face courses for the online environment, in teaching their online courses over several semesters, and in their subsequent face-to-face teaching. (For more information on the sample, response rate, questionnaire, and for more detailed results, see the full report at http://www.ilt.columbia.edu)

VHS was chosen as the setting not only because of its long history of offering highly rated online courses in many subject areas to students in schools across the United States, but for two additional important reasons: first, most VHS teachers also teach face-to-face courses in their own schools at the same time as they are teaching online, and second, VHS requires that all of its teachers prepare for teaching online by taking a demanding professional development course (delivered online) on the pedagogy of online teaching (Pape, Adams, & Ribiero, 2005).

As part of their professional development, new VHS teachers either create courses or (with increasing frequency as the catalog is built) take ownership of existing courses by adapting them to fit their own knowledge base and teaching styles. VHS courses follow the virtual classroom model: they are asynchronous but not self-paced. Students follow a weekly schedule and are expected to complete a number of assignments each week, some of which involve communicating with each other in discussion forums or in group projects. VHS courses are developed using the principles of “backward design” (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) and VHS professional development emphasizes student-centered teaching; collaborative, problembased learning; peer learning; small-group work; and authentic performance-based assessment. Thus all of the survey respondents required their students to use the discussion forums, and all reported that their courses included multiweek projects (98%), collaborative group work (95%), and peer reviews (84%), while 69% reported that they had their students complete multimedia assignments.

Although those working online education had a general idea, from anecdotal reports and previous interviews, that teachers do make changes when they go back to their face-to-face classrooms after teaching online, the aim of this research was to learn more about exactly what they changed. Were the courses redesigned? Was it simply that content was added (or deleted)? Or were there more subtle changes in classroom practice?

The most frequent changes (defined as those made by 60% or more of the respondents) had course design/redesign as the major component. Teachers eliminated lessons that now seemed poorly designed and designed or redesigned existing lessons using newly acquired backward design principles. In addition, they added entire units and lessons that had been successful in the online course, and added many different kinds of activities that were successful online, particularly peer reviews and group projects. (The survey asked respondents to choose from a long list of possible changes, and to rate the amount of change for each on a Likert scale that ranged from 1 [no changes] to 5 [major changes]. There were a total of 40 choices, which were grouped into six areas. Detailed results can be found in the full report.)

The second most frequent set of changes (defined as those made by between 40% and 60% of respondents) involved the transfer of a range of strategies learned from teaching online to the face-to-face classroom. Most of these revolved around fostering better communication and included providing more detailed instructions, requiring class contributions from all students, providing more timely feedback, providing more written instructions, using class time more efficiently, changing how groups were organized, and providing additional ways to communicate with students. The changes made by less than 40% of the respondents tended to be in the area of adding multimedia, presumably because it can be difficult for teachers to access the resources necessary to make these changes.

Those who reported making the most changes taught math, science, social science, and foreign languages, while those teaching computer science/programming reported making the fewest changes. English language arts and arts/art history teachers were in the middle of the ranks of changers. It seems possible that the teachers in the first four disciplines made the most changes either because these are particularly difficult subjects to adapt to the online environment and so take a lot of rethinking (i.e., math, science, foreign language) or because the online environment opens up the range of resources available (i.e., social science, which was primarily history). Computer science teachers, on the other hand, while they also struggled to adapt their courses to a more constructivist format, found it more difficult to do so and tended to make fewer changes as a result.

In a series of open-ended questions, teachers were asked to expand four areas where the constraints and affordances of the online environment seem particularly salient and therefore most likely to affect subsequent classroom practice. Although these were optional questions at the end of a very long survey, between 80 and 85% (depending on the question) of those who had taught face to face after teaching online responded, suggesting that these teachers welcomed the opportunity to reflect on the changes they had made (as indeed some of them wrote in notes to the researcher). The four areas were class participation, independent learning, questioning techniques, and metacognition/reflection.

In online classes, full participation in discussions can be mandated by requiring a certain number of posts a week, or by requiring that students respond to each other’s posts. The online teacher can easily monitor the quantity and quality of the participation, including who is participating, when, and how often. This is more difficult in a face-to-face classroom, and is a particularly knotty issue when it comes to group work and collaborative projects. For many of these teachers, teaching online had raised their awareness of the issue of participation and led them to devise ways of encouraging it in their face-to-face classrooms.

Some wrote about the specific techniques they now used for guaranteeing equal participation, sometimes drawing parallels to the online classroom. For instance, one wrote that she had students draw Popsicle sticks, which was “like seeing each name in a thread.” Here are other quotes:

• “I am more aware of who is participating and who is not. I try to make more eye contact with those not as willing to participate, and to call on them to encourage them to participate more.”

• “I give a participation grade to my face-to-face students now where I didn’t before on-line teaching.”

• “If anything, the online class requirements reinforced the understanding that all students need to participate in some way.”

• “I am more aware now and insistent upon students participating in discussions. I use a seating chart and place dots beside students that have responded.”

• “Yes, I require that my students are more actively engaged in my face-to-face classroom.”

• “I haven't changed much since I've always required participation, but I do keep track of that more religiously.”

Two described how they had used group projects to encourage fuller participation:

• “My students participate more frequently now in small group discussions where they must share their expertise. An example is literature circles, where each student in the small group is an expert in a different piece of literature but all members focus on the same question, such as the way authors reveal theme.”

• “Absolutely. More smaller group work. Use teams with leader (coordinator) responsible for communicating with me. Bring groups together to share successes and difficulties.”

And some did this directly, by importing the online discussion forum into their face-to-face classroom:

• “Yes, I accomplished this by creating a Blackboard supplement for my face-to-face classes and requiring participation.”

• “I have incorporated online discussions into my classroom using LiveJournal.com.”

• “I have one class where we actually do participate in an asynchronous discussion. I have one computer set up with the discussion posted, and students read the discussion requirements and make their posts. Students have responded well to this. I am trying to figure out how I can incorporate this type of discussion into more of my classes.”

To be successful in online courses, students need to be self-motivated, well-orga-nized, independent learners; taking an online course can help students to develop these characteristics (Lowes, 2004-2010). In addition, students cannot rely on their charm (or parental intervention) to negotiate over late assignments or poor work. For these teachers, teaching online had led to a subtle but potentially far-reaching shift in their attitude toward their face-to-face students, as teaching online made them realize that they could require more independent work. In fact, in terms of furthering constructivist teaching, this was probably the most important change they made. The teachers’ comments on independent learning showed how they brought the learner-centered focus they had developed online back to the face-to-face environment:

• “I took a stronger stand on independent learning and had higher expectations for my face-to-face students than I did before.”

• “I assume kids can get info on their own now, where before, I didn’t. I felt like I needed to spoon-feed them. Students who struggle doing that are identified early, and in most cases it is not a learning issue but one of discipline, organization, and/or motivation. A meeting with parents to develop a plan for learning has been very helpful with these students.”

• “Yes, I require that my face-to-face students work more independently and often use exemplars from my online class in my face to face. I find I give instructions and examples and then allow the students to work more independently.”

• “I think I've come to trust that kids can do more than I usually realize and that probably influences the way I design our learning time.”

• “I incorporated more project-based learning where students are responsible for the quality and completion of the project by a deadline.”

• “I like the technique of weekly assignments and then students having the responsibility to budget/manage their time accordingly. When possible I do this in my face-to-face classes.”

• “I have given more assignments that require individual research, written questions, and independent research than I did before.”

• “I have set up assignments that I began in my online classes to work in the conventional classroom… Instead of lecturing on the historical and cultural context of the story, they find it on their own.”

This was not all smooth sailing, however, and some of the respondents struggled with importing independent learning into their face-to-face classrooms:

• “I find in a traditional classroom this is perhaps the hardest part. Students tend to waste class time if given liberty to work alone or unsupervised. Students in VHS have a rigid schedule, strict guidelines, and a more one-on-one relationship with their computer.”

• “I find my face-to-face students still whine a lot and I eventually enable them.”

To work well, online discussion forums need thoughtful facilitation, including careful attention to how questions are asked. Teachers wrote about how they imported what they had learned about how to ask questions into their face-to-face classrooms. They also wrote about how they were now more confident using open-ended questions with their students—and less likely to provide answers. Others linked this to larger changes in pedagogical approach, including a reduction in the amount of time spent lecturing and a shift to role as facilitator.

Many teachers described what they had learned about asking questions:

• “I learned online that my questions have to be very clear and free of ambiguity. We can always improve in this area. My students are getting better questions now.”

• “I try to be much clearer about what I’m asking and then allow time for the students to process what I’m asking.”

• “I think I have been able to ask direct questions or focus students on the topics more easily … so they have less misunderstanding about concepts.”

• “I am much more detailed in my questions to make sure my students don’t get confused. I also am better at asking follow-up questions to get my students to dive deeper into the content and to think critically.”

• “As for questioning techniques, this is something I am constantly struggling with. I am working at asking more indepth meaningful questions in my classes, but it is difficult for me to do. I think my skills have improved. My students are beginning to use higher level thinking skills a little more often, and are willing to give me more than a yes or no, or two or three word answer.”

• “I no longer accept short oral responses from my students.”

And others wrote about using open-ended questions:

• “More open ended questioning occurs in my face-to-face classes now as a result of online courses. It has encouraged my students to be more open and willing to answer in responses and not just one word answers.”

• “My questioning techniques have become more along the line of reflection instead of just repeating back the factual information. Much more class time is devoted to critiquing situations and writing responses to events rather than to relating what the events were.”

• “I believe that I now ask more open-ended questions and I am more content to allow the students to search for their own responses instead of providing them with mine. I am more relaxed about the need to ‘cover’ a great deal of material, believing instead that it's important to balance depth and coverage.”

• “I have started to ask more open ended questions, allowing students to figure out more answers than I give them.”

• “I have been more aware of the extension questions that are asked online. I do spend more time with these types of questions in my face-to-face classes.”

Some teachers linked this to larger changes in pedagogical approach in their face-to-face classrooms, and particularly to a reduction in the amount of time spent lecturing and a shift to role as facilitator:

• “I think that I assume kids can get info on their own more now than before on-line teaching. I now do much more formative assessment by questioning and having students demonstrate knowledge rather than give out knowledge. I don’t lecture much at all now, and when I do, it is usually to clarify things student[s] have had to dig out on their own.”

• “I use more student-centered teaching so I become the facilitator. [Gives example of group project] I then provided a group and individual grade, but included significantly their evaluations of specific stages and their final evaluations of self and peer. I had earlier taught research and required individual papers. This time, students told me they really understood the process.”

• “Yes, I provide question to groups rather than just individuals.”

• “I am more willing to act as a facilitator after teaching online. I am more willing to try not to control every aspect of the classroom. Students generally respond well when they have choices.… Without my online teaching experience, I don’t think I would have been as willing to try a layered curriculum approach.”

• “I have begun breaking assignments down into smaller chunks. I used to assign short-answer analyses to poems and passages from the reading. I have added a step to the assignment where they first isolate passages and specific words from those passages that make the points they are trying to defend. There was no reason I could not do this before I began teaching online, it is just as a result of teaching online I started thinking in terms of smaller bits.”

Another affordance of the online environment is the time for thought or reflection that is a result of the asynchronous nature of the discussion forum. Although posts can certainly be off-the-cuff, in general the fact that they are written, and often graded, forces students to think before they write. In addition, wellconstructed questions can lead to reflective answers. Most of the teachers who reported changes in this area wrote about how they were now building more time for reflection into assignments in their face-to-face classrooms—not only into writing assignments, but also into oral discussions as well:

• “I allow more opportunities for students to reflect on their work and give me private assessments of the class/their own progress, i.e., private threads. Often it is as simple as asking students to put something they like on one side of a file card, and something to be improved on the other side.”

• “More use of journals and reflective portfolios; this is something I knew I should do more of anyway but VHS has pushed this issue with me.”

• “Yes, after every unit I have the class do a reflection writing piece.”

• “I now require all students to respond in writing to a daily ‘exit question’ related to the day's work. My awareness of the role of reflection in learning has definitely increased since I began teaching my online course.”

• “Tickets Out the Door concept … TODs … Students will summarize the day’s activities in a TOD before they leave the classroom each day. This is very similar to a daily posting activity. Also, it allows me to evaluate student understanding.”

• “Yes … essentially I just cut out some of the busy work…worksheets, needless vocab and writing assignments…and made the assignments we do more meaningful and require more reflective thought.”

• “Assigning thought questions for overnight/longer consideration. Giving free writing time in class. Giving a list of questions at the beginning of a unit, then asking questions off the list on the test.”

• “The discussions online also have the added benefit of a person going back and responding later. I now add this to my seminars by allowing students to return to a previous question if they have taken notes during a seminar.”

• “I am more aware of reflection time when asking questions within my face-to-face courses.”

• “I value the wait time more and have the students work in groups more than before.”

While there is now a considerable literature on the characteristics of successful online courses and on how to bring good pedagogy to the online learning environment, there is as yet little research on the effect of teaching online on the teachers who teach there and even less on the effect of teaching online on teaching in the face-to-face classroom. This study, although qualitative and confined to one setting, suggests that a teacher’s migratory journey to and from the online classroom can transform that teacher’s face-to-face classroom practice in subtle and important ways.

At the same time, it raises a number of questions, some for future research and some with practical implications. One question is central to a better understanding of what an online classroom is and how it works: How much of the change these teachers reported can be attributed to the general constraints and affordances of the online environment—particularly distance and asynchronicity—and how much to other factors, such as the specifics of the VHS virtual classroom model and, most important, to the VHS approach to professional development, or even to the self-selected nature of this group of teachers? It seems likely that the professional development experience was particularly important, but more research is needed to see if this holds true for other online teachers.

Finally, there are practical questions that are worthwhile considering as the field of online teaching grows. Can we, and should we, find ways to develop more of these migratory teachers—for instance, by encouraging, or even expecting, teachers to teach in both venues and, equally important but somewhat different, by making this a reflective practice? Looking at the issues another way, can we, and should we, deliberately find ways to encourage the transfer of the more successful aspects of online pedagogy back to the face-to-face classroom, proactively capitalizing on what these migratory teachers have learned by treating them as resources for their face-to-face classroom counterparts? This research, exploratory though it was, suggests that giving more teachers the opportunity to teach online, as well as deliberately encouraging those who do so to share what they have learned with their fellow classroom teachers, could provide an opportunity to strengthen teaching in both environments.

Acknowledgment: This research was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education to Learning Point Associates. I would like to thank Liz Pape, VHS’s chief executive officer, and Ruth Adams, VHS’s dean of curriculum and instruction at the time, who offered unparalleled support for the project, both in terms of their own time, as well as by providing data and access to VHS teachers; and the many VHS teachers, current and past, who took the time to respond, often at length, to my survey, providing valuable insights and demonstrating in the process their online voice. Parts of this research were reported in the much-missed online journal Innovate, 4(3) (February/March 2008), which ceased publication in 2009.