Definition of E-Teaching and its Advantages
E-teaching on the other hand, is the means to deliver the material to the student. It is the actual teaching to the students of e-learning programs. The two complement each other, either of which could not exist without the other. The most important role of the instructor in online classes is to ensure that there is a high degree of interactivity and participation. This means designing and conducting learning activities that result in engagement with the subject matter and fellow students. As discussed in the previous chapter, coursework should focus on assignments and projects that are relevant and realistic in nature. It should involve plenty of opportunities for input from the instructor and fellow students.
According to Kearsley (2003) in e-teaching, the pedagogies reflected in the contest entries ranged from very traditional didactic approaches (e.g. weekly lectures with quizzes/exams) to novel discovery and problem-based learning methods. Most courses emphasized student participation in online discussions and group interaction. The majority of instructors reported that their courses involved active learning by virtue of the high level of student participation that occurred via discussions or completion of assignments. Overall, the instructional methods and strategies employed in online courses are essentially the same as those used by instructors in their traditional classes, with the exception of student interaction and collaboration. One interesting difference across courses was the extent to which the personality of the instructor was present. Courses developed by single individuals tended to be quite distinctive whereas those created by teams using authoring systems were often fairly impersonal in nature. Courses involved a variety of different means for student assessment. The most common method was to have students respond to assignments, exercises or exams via email to be graded by the instructor or teaching assistants. Many courses used online forms for quizzes or tests, which were automatically scored when completed, with immediate results displayed to the student. Most courses had some type of weekly assignments and major projects. There was a lot of emphasis on group work in completing assignments and extensive use of peer evaluation schemes. The latter could be as simple as having students comment on each other's responses in a forum to a complex rating system. A number of courses required students to keep online journals or create portfolios for evaluation of their progress.
The existing framework in which a structure of e-teaching and e-learning is to be set up and integrated may thus be defined as follows (Barron, 2000):
- superannuated academic staff
- a pattern of values in which the economic added value from research, projects with outside funding and consultant’s reports takes on a dominant position
- a system of self-government and service regulation that encourage inertia and resistance
- teaching that has a low standing in the university culture and
- a university culture in which teaching does not generate any public reputation for professors
(Hesser, Hartung, and Koch, 2002)
Differences between E-learning and E-teaching and Critique
The core difference between the two subjects discussed is that e-learning references the material and technical methods used in order to create an environment through which students all over the world can be educated in their selected discipline, whereas e-teaching is related to the development and delivery of the material to be taught through e-learning. As Baron (2000) puts it, one cannot exist without the other. E-teaching is the basis upon which e-learning is built. Accordingly, a change in the teaching at attendance-based universities can also closely linked with the skills of university teachers in using multimedia techniques to prepare teaching materials (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). When developing e-learning concepts, there should not be a concern about the availability of detailed didactic-methodological and multimedia skills. However, one skill that should be acquired is the ability to make decisions on which didactic-methodological models and techniques (methods of structuring) are to be used in designing and preparing the subject matter of the department for presentation on the Web. This decision should be made in an informed selection process with support from competent advisors.
The above discussion makes it clear that the introduction of an e-learning platform leads to a discussion of the system of values of university teachers and that of the institution. In the case that it is assumed that both partners have “benefits” from a successful and respected university, then it will be possible to create general conditions that cause a change in the use of resources in order to achieve the “aims” in both actors’ system of values, i.e. those of the professors and of the university. If professors employ the resources at their disposal according to their personal priorities and objectives, with the result that teaching sometimes plays a minor role in the use of this resource planning. As university teachers are free to make decisions on their resources, they – and especially young university teachers – will initially employ these according to an established order in their system of values (McCrea, Gay, & Bacon, R., 2000).
It is important to note, that if both parties acted differently, they would not be “acting economically”, i.e. with the maximum benefit in terms of the existing order of priorities in their system of values (Magalhaes, & Schiel, 1997). E- teaching and the professors that develop the e-learning materials will not alter their behaviour unless they are convinced of the value added (higher benefits) of another course of action. As a result this means that the value added of another way of acting must be demonstrated and at the same time this must be within the context of their system of values. If it is additionally shown that the new field of activity – development of e-learning course units – requires investment, the value added of which does not lead to a greater reputation nor to comparable monetary advantages, as is the case for example with consultant activities or outside funding for research, then only limited involvement of the university teaching staff may be expected.
The structuring and implementation of an e-learning study culture at an attendance-based university is not so much determined by the multimedia equipment and functionality of a certain e-learning platform, of the hardware and software, and not at all by a sophisticated didactic-methodological concept, etc.. On the contrary, the focus of a successful, i.e. sustainable implementation of an e-learning culture, tends to be the existing system of values of university teachers and the institution, i.e. the university and hence the university management and the academic committees. Because of their legal position, professors should be thought of as actors who define the priorities of the target elements in their system of values/target system according to their own personal creative constraints, and these do not always match the system of values/target.
The transformation of traditional teaching towards a multimedia teaching and study culture should be part of these changes. It will be possible to measure the managing bodies and committees of universities by the dynamics of the change, i.e. by the successful positioning of their university undertaking amongst the competitors.
But the most important overall impact of online courses is the emphasis they place on critical thinking and discourse (Schutte, 1996). The one thing that happens in all online courses, regardless of the discipline or grade level, is that students communicate a lot more with each other and with the instructor. They discuss ideas, analyze, evaluate, argue, debate, and question. Online education redirects learning towards a constructivist and experiential mode on a large scale (ibid.). This is a significant contribution of technology to improving any educational system.
One factor that strongly affects the amount of student interaction and participation is the level of instructor involvement (Schutte, 1996). If the instructor regularly posts messages in the discussion forum or provides comments to students via email, this increases student involvement and participation in a course. So a cardinal rule of good online teaching is that the instructor must participate a lot to get students to do likewise.
A primary task of the teacher is provide feedback (ibid.). In online courses, teacher feedback will mostly take the form of email messages about assignments or comments made on the assignment and returned to the student. The latter will usually involve marking up the original file submitted by the student and having them download it to see the comments. Ideally individual feedback is provided to each student, as well as group feedback. Group feedback can take the form of messages posted in a discussion forum or conference which summarize/synthesize the individual responses made on a given topic or activity.
One of the implications of making a course highly interactive and providing good feedback to students is that it creates a high workload for instructors. As a rule of thumb, the higher the level of interactivity and participation in a course, the more work involved for the teacher. Online teachers (and institutions) need to develop strategies to successfully manage this increased workload.
It has been mentioned previously in this paper that online teaching requires good moderating and facilitation skills. Moderating involves encouraging students to participate in discussion forums and conferences, ensuring that certain students don't dominate, keeping discussions focused on the topic at hand, and summarizing/ synthesizing the highlights of discussions. Facilitation means providing information that will help students complete their assignments, suggesting ideas or strategies for them to pursue in their course work, and getting students to reflect on their responses and work.
There are many factors which determine the effectiveness of online teaching (Kossen, 2003). Experience and comfort with online teaching is one of the most obvious. This includes general familiarity with the nature and techniques of online teaching as well as mastery of the particular system and software used in a given course.
Just as online courses offer many opportunities for student interaction, they also provide many possibilities for collaboration among teachers. While teachers usually like to collaborate, it is often difficult to do so in a conventional classroom setting (O’ Leary, 2000). However, an online class makes it quite easy to do so.
One aspect of online teaching which often generates considerable concern for teachers is evaluation of student performance (O’ Leary, 2000). They worry that they will not be able to assess student understanding or participation properly. Ironically, student evaluation can be done far more effectively online than in a traditional classroom setting because of the ease of creating online tests and other forms of assessment.
Another major difference between e-learning and e-teaching is the means of deploying and developing e-teaching, which is highly structured, follows a time schedule, and is implemented on a time-basis that resembles the semester terms, in most cases. E-learning on the other hand, is time-free, self-paced (in most cases) and at the discretion of the student in regards to its completion (Sun, 2002). This difference is a main one, as both issues examined are at opposite sides regarding their development and completion, respectively.
Lastly, it should be noted, that the development of e-teaching material can be rather costly for the institution that promotes it, as it needs several resources in order to be implemented. This is due to the fact that in order to develop e-teaching material, an institution needs competent professors, that need to convey their knowledge through proper pedagogical methods – which can be rather costly; in lieu to the above the cost of transforming the knowledge into e-learning material can also be large, and combined with the technology needed to support it, in terms of hardware, software and network resource, the cost can be very high. On the other hand, e-learning for the students is rather an education of a much lower cost, when compared to traditional tuition fees.
Conclusion and Recommendations
It has become evident throughout this paper, that when properly combined, e-teaching and e-learning are transformed according to the learning cycle of the student into training and development of the individual or of organisation that attends (Porumb, 2001). Despite their differences, these two issues are closely interrelated and dependent upon each other.
Concluding, it should be noted that the vast movement towards e-learning is clearly motivated by the many benefits it offers, as mentioned above. However much e-learning is praised and innovated, it is believed that computers can never completely eliminate human instructors and other forms of educational delivery. However, the emergence and development of e-teaching attempts to minimise this belief. What is important is to know exactly what e-learning advantages exist, while e-teaching developments eventually can outweigh the limitations of the medium. Being two sides of the same coin, e-learning and e-teaching combined can create the premises for the new era in education. In order for both of these means to succeed, there is a need to abide by basic academic rules and moral principles, in terms of teachers preparing the best possible materials in true academic spirit, with any means that make the e-lesson an exciting learning experience, while e-learning rules and conditions need to ensure academic honesty trough assessments and paper submissions.
We live in a fast paced society where we are bombarded with an enormous amount of information at an alarming speed. Today’s environment is knowledge based. Knowledge provides competitive advantage, which translates to power. E-learning is a method with which knowledge can be obtained quickly, efficiently and at anytime and just in time, by anyone who needs it, is ready and willing to learn. E-learning is using an electronic means to access information and learn about a topic, be it for personal interest, job at hand or career advancement. The e-learning train is picking up speed in the United States and in Europe. It is evident that e-learning is by no means the panacea to learning, and that it has its time and place and is not always suited to all training. E-learning is another method of learning, it is flexible and adaptable to the knowledge and learning style of the user. It allows for training to be done consistently, any place or at any time of the day to one individual at a time or to as wide an audience as the systems permit. The means by which e-teaching is developed is pivotal for the success of e-learning.
It is evident that distance learning is quite useful in the modern era, where most people are lost for time, and money. Despite its usefulness, distance learning needs to overcome several obstacles in order to become widely accepted from all academics (Peek, p.2). However, a proof for its usefulness is the fact that distance learning programs appear in the curriculum of esteemed universities like Harvard, Columbia and MIT (Kathimerini Special Report, p.7). Research showed, that distance learning is “considered a part of normal operations” at a large number of universities and colleges all over the world (Sun Microsystems, White Paper, p. 16). Thus, it can be deducted that if such esteemed academic institutions from around the world view distance learning as part of normal operations, its usefulness is self-evident.
There exists a compelling need to understand that distance learning is equal to traditional learning. Laws and regulation on this manner is pertinent. The 1976 Copyright act “differentiates between teaching face to face and teaching at a distance” but as Gassaway puts it, “the best solution for education is to amend the Copyright act to make it clear that distance learning is the modern equivalent of face-to-face education” (p. 2), which is the definition of higher education. Thus, given the equality of programs in distance learning and traditional environments as well as the modern era of telecommunication and its capabilities, a virtual classroom should be considered an equal, if not a supreme, form of higher education. Concluding, it should be noted that in its essence knowledge and learning are summed up by the word of M. G. Moore who states that:
That each scholar can and should pursue knowledge in his own idiosyncratic is a fundamental assumption of the university and one of the most ancient traditions”
(p. 661)
Overall, E-learning is here to stay as the fast changing pace of technology, the shortening product development cycles, lack of skilled personnel, competitive global economy, the shift from the industrial to the knowledge era, the migration towards a value chain integration and the extended enterprise (Mcrea, Gay & Bacon, 2000), whereas e-teaching provides all of the primary information and advice resource needed for learning and teaching matters for all academic methods of e-learning, using traditional pedagogical methods with modern, cutting edge technologies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
APEC Economic Leaders’ Declaration. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. 21/10/2001.
-
Asian Pacific E-learning Alliance Report. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, 2003.
-
Barron, Tom (2000). The future of digital learning., E-learning May/June 2000, Vol. 1, No.2, pp. 46-7.
-
Bessant, Ceridwyn (2000). Key challenges for the future of management education - the views of the Deans. Birmingham: Working paper for the British Academy of Management Conference.
- Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
-
Gassaway, Laura. N. (1998) Copyright: a Challenge to distance learning, part 1, Information Outlook, October 1998.
-
Hesser, W., Hartung, M and Koch, K. (2002). Implementing an e-learning structure at an attendance-based university. Hamburg: ILIAS Conference
-
, 2004.
-
http://, 2004
-
Kathimerini Special Report (2003). Learning the Internet. Online Education, Vol. 11. Athens: November 2003.
-
, Greg (2003). Online Education: New Paradigms for Learning and Teaching.
-
Kossen, Jeremy S. “How the Web Can Work for You”, eLearning Professionals Online Publication, 2003.
-
Kruse, Kevin. “The Benefits and Drawbacks of e-Learning”, , 2003.
- LearnFrame. “Facts, Figures & Forces Behind e-Learning”, LearnFrame Publications, August 2000.
- Leontios, M. and Gavanas A.D. (2003). Information Technology. Athens: V. Giurdas Publications.
-
Magalhaes, M. G. & Schiel, D. (1997). A method for evaluation of a course delivered via the World Wide Web in Brazil. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(2), 64 -70.
- McCrea, F., Gay, R. K., & Bacon, R. (2000). Riding the big waves: A white paper on B2B e-learning industry. San Francisco: Thomas Weisel Partners LLC.
-
Moore, Michael Grahame (1993). Toward a Theory of Independent Learning and Teaching, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XLIV, No. 12, December 1993, pp. 661-679.
-
O’ Leary, Mick (2000). Distance Learning and Libraries: Industry Overview, Online, July 2000.
-
Peek, Robin. (2000). A Distance Learning Reality Check, Information Today, February 2000.
-
Porumb, Elena (2002). E-Teaching & E-Learning in the Age of Access: An exploration of new roles, best practices and trends. Romania: University Babes-Bolyai.
-
Sun Microsystems (2002). A White Paper. E-Learning Application Infrastructure. California: Sun Microsystems Publications.
-
Schutte, J. G. (1996). Virtual teaching in higher education: The new intellectual superhighway or just another traffic jam?
-
Wasny, Garrett (2002). E-Learning 101: What Is E-Learning And Where To Find The Best E-Learning Resources Online For Free. http://www.howtoconquertheworld
- Wentling, Tim L., Consuelo Waight et. al. (2000). The Future of e-Learning: A Corporate and an Academic Perspective. Illinois: The University of Illinois, Press.
- Zwass, Vladimir (1998). Information Systems. New York: McGraw Hill International.