Introduction

This qualitative study examined how instructors used a commercially-produced online course to teaching a theories course in counseling. The instructors used three basic course formats: completely online, face-to-face, and hybrid. The study was conducted during the semester in which the course was being taught. This made it possible to access to course websites and to the instructors themselves, both as they prepared to teach the course and as they taught it.

The overview of the problem provides the context for online teaching in higher education today, the online learning environment, and the social aspect of learning. The second half of this chapter covers the need for the study, the call for research, the purpose of the study, a list of definitions, and the research and assumptions addressed in this study. The chapter concludes with a description of the online course interface.

Overview of the problem

According to the Sloan Report, student enrollment in online learning in higher education in the U. S. is increasing more rapidly than overall enrollment (Allen&Seaman, 2007) . In the fall of 2006, 3.48 million higher education students were enrolled in at least one online course. More than two-thirds of the institutions included in the survey reported some form of online offerings. Although the largest group of students enrolled in online courses (1,904,296) were at the associate’s degree level in 2006, master’s level enrollment was roughly one-third that size, numbering 686,337 students.

Universities encourage online instruction as a way to reach underserved populations and to increase income for the university (Morgan, 2003) . One way university administrators have supported instructors is to offer course management systems to make the mechanics of online teaching easier. A course management system, such as Blackboard, provides the computer interface that online students use to access course materials and interact in the course, and the functionality for the instructor to design the course, communicate with students, post grades, and receive assignments online.

Industry experts have estimated that more than 90% of U.S. colleges and universities use course management systems (Copyright Compliance Center, 2005) . Critics of course management systems have claimed that although they may help instructors manage the administrative details of online teaching, the systems actually restrict the range of student participation to fit within the program’s templates. Bonk and Dennen (2003) criticized current online courseware for providing “templates and guidelines for warehousing students and providing static course material” (p. 330). What instructors asked for was more training in pedagogical methods that fit with web-based teaching and more tools that fostered students to think critically and creatively.

In the online environment, it can be more difficult to ascertain the emotional engagement of the learner than in face-to-face instruction, where verbal and nonverbal feedback are provided both voluntarily and involuntarily (Kreijins, 2003; Schwartzman, 2006) . In an online course, the learner using asynchronous text-based communication has a significant amount of control over the impression he or she creates (Kreijns, 2003) . The instructor could find it challenging to sense the mood of the group and understand how well an explanation is received. Furthermore, if there is to be a social environment in an online class, the instructor must intentionally construct and continually support it (Kreijns, 2003; LaPointe&Gunawardena, 2004) . Blended learning, or courses that combine the elements of an online course with those of face-to-face instruction, has become a significant mode of teaching in U.S. higher education in recent years. The measure of blended learning cannot be determined from college enrollment data, however, because it often appears identical to face-to-face classes on many institutions’ reporting systems (Allen, Seaman,&Garrett 2007) . Instead, in their exemplary study of blended learning published by the Sloan Foundation, Allen, Seaman and Garrett gathered data on blended learning through survey instruments based on opinion issues from both academic leaders and consumers of blended learning. The findings showed that blended learning is not merely part of an institutional migration strategy from face-to-face to online learning, but it stands as a discrete option for teaching in its own right. Online courses were found to be more prevalent than blended courses, with the number of online courses growing and the number of blended courses shrinking slightly. The study also revealed that there is great growth potential in the market for online and blended delivery. Consumers reported a preference for online and blended delivery that far exceeded reported experience, and expressed an openness to try both.