Opening up: Structure for online education

Structure matters. To effectively teach, the structure of the course matters. This includes not only the syllabus or the grading rubric, but also more importantly structure means how the class runs. The structure is immediately set at the beginning of the course. If the teacher stands in the front of the class, creating a hierarchy, this format, as far as the students are concerned, must be reproduced. For example, an English class this semester started this exact way. When the professor tried to sit in the circle we somehow pushed him back up to the front of the room, back in control of the class. Alternatively, a class that starts with an absence of hierarchy will have trouble creating hierarchy once the class is underway. The professor who enters on the same level as students will stay on that level; resistance against surpassing this level will keep the professor in place. Both styles of teaching work and can effectively foster higher learning. The point is that structure matters and is set immediately by the teacher and held in place by the students.

Think of your experience: is it easy to change the direction of a class once it is underway? Does a certain format grow inside a class that cannot be changed?

What does this mean for online teaching?

In one word: everything. Starting an online course with the wrong structure creates a situation almost impossible to correct. With the right structure, an online course can create undeliverable results that the students (and professor) do not wish to end. The tricky part, though, is determining the best structure before the students arrive. This, unfortunately, proves to be nearly impossible. (Most likely, this is the case because sticking with the same method year after year lands your teaching style into an archaic rhythm.)

Think of blackboard at Lehigh University. This is a structure full-time students understand and embrace well. But looking at how the majority of classes use blackboard, I notice that many of the capabilities blackboard offers remain untapped. (This happens for numerous reasons, but the point is that it does happen.) Students become structured to think blackboard means a place to download files, maybe a place to write a “blog” post. Anything beyond these “normal” capabilities receive backlash by the students, forcing the standard structure back into place. Now take a class of off-site students who take primarily online courses. These students only see blackboard in full force: video, audio, group work, assignments, tests, quizzes, and instant polls. The structures for primarily online classes work because it is set from the onset. (These students would think an online class absent these features would be abnormal.) But this online style, too, limits the potential because the platforms beyond blackboard become foreign. Risk increases because the professor and the students would have to learn something new. Who knows what other capabilities exist for online teaching?

So, again, what does this mean for online teaching?

On the one hand a good structure needs to be set to enhance learning, but on the other structures need to adapt for new, different students each year, each semester.

Why online?

Teaching online can pull out greater conversation from more people in one designated space that actually transcends time. No bell will cut students off from communicating. Trevor Owen writes about an experience he had with online communication (in the 1980s!), “ The students interacted in ways that were a little like ‘talk,’ but also a little like ‘writing,’ and I began to see that their online interactions were quite like the very best of class discussion, only richer, deeper, and more reflective than most of our period-bound classes could sustain. I also saw—to my horror—that it was different students who were doing the talking. And worse, that the things they had to say to one another were things that were largely unknown to me, their teacher.” He concludes that, “what happens when you change the arena of discussion [is] different people talk.”

That, my friends, is what teaching is all about. Teachers don’t have the “answers”; students don’t have the “answers”; but a collaborative discussion can bring all of us—teacher and student—a little closer to the essence of “truth.”

I have thought up a rough idea for the structure culture of conversation should take. In essence it is a “no-structure” structure. The idea came while sitting in Linderman Library watching all of the students study at the big tables that line the main floor. Wouldn’t you like to be able to go up to each table and interact with each study group? If you don’t know the subject, either move on or just listen—you may learn something. Those that do spark your interest, please add your two-cents.

I will go deeper into the implications and barriers this idea has in my next post.