Teaching in the online realm requires instructors to exhibit many skill sets that extend beyond the skills needed in the traditional ground-based classroom. Although there are many similarities between the two delivery modalities, the complexities and nuances of the online environment necessitate instructors be skilled at functioning in the virtual classroom. There are many commonalities, however.

Online classrooms and ground-based classroom require classroom management skills, the ability to measure student progress and understanding, providing frequent and ample feedback, and providing leadership within the classroom setting. These skills sets are crucial toward ensuring students receive quality and edifying instruction.

There are fundamental differences about functioning effectively in the online classroom, which require instructors to stretch their ground-base skill sets. Teaching in the online classroom requires instructors to be expert practitioners at online communication. As many instructors may have experienced, communication in the virtual classroom can be more difficult that communicating in a face-to-face setting (Huang & Hsiao, 2012). There is the lack of non-verbal communication, which can severely limit the ability to communicate complex issues and feedback to students. The asynchronous nature of most online formats entails there is a feedback delay between the instructor and the student, in which confusion and misunderstanding can develop. The demographics of the online classroom might also present problems as the skill sets-whether academic or technological-are often diverse, requiring instructors to provide instruction and feedback more varied than in many traditional classroom settings (Dykman, & Davis, 2008). In addition, there is the process of building trust within the classroom that can be far more difficult given that lack of personal contact between instructors and students.

To help assuages such difficulties online instructors need to orient their skill sets toward the virtual realm (Shea, Sherer, Quilling, & Blewett, 2011). This entails providing detail and rich feedback to students by making use of analogies and providing examples that can help student grasp your feedback. Establishing feedback timelines can be effective for asynchronous communication models, as this will provide students with a time guideline of when they will hear back from you. One of the major issues with online education is the expectations students have of 24/7 access to their instructors; establishing timelines can help mitigate this expectation (Hawkins, Graham, & Barbour, 2011). Building trust in the online classroom can involve sharing stories, finding commonalities with your students, and bringing your whole-self to the classroom setting. By demonstrating effective virtual classroom management, we are benefiting the students in two ways: one, instructors are being effective teachers; two, instructors are preparing students to function in the virtual realm, which is important as 60 percent of mangers surveyed indicated they worked with virtual teams (Shea et al., 2011).

These are merely anecdotes about the differences between the two formats, and what researchers have indicated are effective strategies for online instructors. I am curious about your experience and your suggestions.

Thanks, 

Eric

Reference: 

Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). The shift toward online education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19, 11-16.

Hawkins, A. Graham, C. R., & Barbour, M. K. (2011). Everybody is their own island: Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 13, 124-146.

Huang, X., & Hsiao, E. (2012). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in an online environment: Faculty experiences and perceptions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13, 15-30.

Shea, T. P, Sherer, P. D., Quilling, R. D., & Blewett, C. N. (2011). Managing global virtual teams across classrooms, students and faculty. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 22, 300-313. doi:10.1080/08975930.2011.653911