Addressing Transactional Distance Through Teaching Presence Strategies in Online Journalism and Mass Communication Courses

Andragogy

Knowles (1970, 1980) originally developed the Theory of Andragogy to address shortcomings of traditional pedagogical approaches with adult learners. Knowles felt traditional pedagogies were ill-suited to maximize adult learning potential. Instructors should, he theorized, care for adult learners’ actual interests rather than what the instructor believed would best suit the student (Blondy, 2007; Carlson, 1989). Knowles (1980) established six principles of andragogy that inform online teaching and learning today: Adults are (a) self-directed learners (b) who bring rich experience to the learning process, (c) ready to learn upon enrollment, (d) looking to address specific problems or questions, (e) internally motivated, and (f) desire understanding of why they are learning something. These principles, or assumptions, have been foundational to course development, delivery, support, and evaluation methods in online learning modalities. Hagen and Park (2016) connected cognitive neuroscience research from each andragogical assumption as a means of strengthening the literature’s understanding of how cognition and memory are inherently present within andragogy. However, in a comparative study of over 600 online college students and controlling for age, Kennan and colleagues (2018) found no evidence that adult learners preferred to “connect their learning to their real-world life and work experiences” (p. 173). Instead, the authors found four preferences for teaching behaviors predicted by the age of online students. Older online students preferred teachers to (a) leave evidence of their participation, (b) provide deep and meaningful feedback, (c) create a learning environment of respect, and (d) present content in an understandable structure (Kennan et al., 2018).

Instructional Design

Instructional design is “the design of practice and the organization and presentation of information” (Sweller et al., 1998, p. 262). Effective instructional design considers variables like learning environment, level of existing knowledge, accessibility, technological capacities, time, and others, to motivate knowledge construction and deep learning. It is informed by empirical research from different disciplines like neuroscience, psychology, education, and sociology. In online learning environments, instructional design quality is associated with the level of quality interaction as well as student outcomes (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Innovative learning technologies have steadily transformed higher education for decades. However, recent breakthroughs particularly in network connectivity, video conferencing, mobile technologies, and learning management systems have broadened access and afforded online students with improved learning experiences (Ko & Rossen, 2017). Instructors can meet face-to-face with students in virtual settings, provide interactive feedback, orchestrate collaborative activities, and foster strong professional relationships. A number of constraints can preclude these improvements from occurring. Both instructor and student comfort with technology is critical to teaching and learning success. Furthermore, Ladyshewsky and Pettapiece (2015) found that adult learners require additional support with common communication technologies like email and video conferencing.

Innovative technologies have brought increased focus on accessibility. Colleges have been taken to court for inaccessible content in potential violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (McKenzie, 2018). Partly as a response to accessibility concerns and from a desire to improve student experiences in online classrooms, many colleges have invested in instructional design units. Instructional designers are trained with technological pedagogical knowledge that can be utilized in online and on-campus learning environments. Often, instructional designers collaborate with faculty and adjuncts to develop and deliver online courses.

Teaching Presence

Emphasis on teaching presence can positively affect social presence and cognitive presence in an online course to create a COI (Garrison, 2008; Garrison et al., 2000). A COI “is a collaborative environment founded upon open but purposeful communication” (Garrison, 2008, p. 352).

Teaching presence is positively associated with student satisfaction, perceived learning, and community building (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). It is multidimensional and occurs in different ways during course development, delivery, and evaluation stages of an online course. Teaching presence is the design of a welcome video in Week 1, the pacing of course assignments to maximize instructor time for feedback, or the personalization of the faculty bio page. Teaching presence is probing or reflective responses to discussion board posts, timely email replies, direct instruction, or accessible office hours. Teaching presence is utilizing student feedback to improve future iterations of a course, or introducing students to faculty with similar interests. In part because of targeted teaching presence, online students can more readily construct knowledge through sustained communication (Garrison et al., 2001; Zhao & Sullivan, 2017). This enhances cognitive presence, which in turn positively supports interaction and collaboration (Zhao & Sullivan, 2017).

Andragogy elicits understanding of adult learner preferences. Instructional design emphasizes efficient and accessible infrastructure and support necessary to optimize learning experiences. This is now commonly facilitated through technology. Instructor knowledge and implementation of those factors can lay the groundwork for a robust approach to teaching presence. Teaching presence, in turn, reduces the type of negative transactional distance that can push students to stop out or drop out of online courses and degree programs. Collectively, these factors play an important role in building strong community within online learning courses. That importance is amplified when subject matter dictates students engage in and complete simulated or authentic tasks within their distanced environment to develop specific skills. Research that examines factors related to successful and engaging online programming at JMC schools is still emerging. A handful of studies or commentaries have been published (see Blankenship & Gibson, 2016; Bright, 2020; Cervi et al., 2020; Henson, 2012; Loizzo et al., 2018; J. Moore, 2014; Weissman et al., 2019), although considerable gaps remain.

This article was guided by the following two questions:

Participants

Through a case screening procedure (Yin, 2005), informal discussions with administrators at each school identified interview participants: one full-time faculty instructor, one adjunct instructor, and one JMC school–oriented instructional designer. Both full-time and part-time faculty were identified intentionally for the following reasons: Adjunct instructors (a) comprise a large percentage of the postsecondary instructor pool, (b) do not maintain the same campus presence as full-time faculty, and (c) capture any potential differences in pedagogical training, support, or implementation opportunities between the two categories of instructor. Instructional designers were intentionally included because they are critical to the online course development, teaching, support, and evaluation processes at each case. Furthermore, these instructional designers collaborated with full-time instructors, part-time instructors, and administrators, and their perspectives were important for triangulating data collected from interviews with their colleagues. The inclusion criterion for interviewees was having taught or supported online JMC courses at either the undergraduate or graduate level for more than 1 academic year. Notably, the case screening procedure confirmed that each school enrolled significant numbers of adult learners in their programs. This helped ensure another layer of commonality among the four case sites.

Interview protocol was developed through engagement with two pedagogical frameworks from the online learning literature: COI (Garrison et al., 2010) and Online Human Touch (Authors). First, participants were asked about their background, current role, and demographics. Next, each participant was asked the same six open-ended questions. The questions broadly addressed their experiences and philosophies pertaining to course development, training opportunities, technological resources, pedagogical strategy, experiential learning, and communication methods. Asking the same questions of each participant standardized the interview to strengthen data comparability and reduce interview bias (Patton, 1990). Follow-up questions were asked to elaborate on key topics and were unique to each interview. Interviews were conducted in 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) using a video conferencing system. They averaged 35 min. Transcripts were then member-checked with each participant. Data were also collected through observations of archived professional development resources made available to JMC instructors through campus units focused on teaching excellence. See Table 1 for school and participant characteristics.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Characteristics for 4-Year, Public JMC Schools and Interview Participants by Case.

Case	Case location	Adjunct instructor	Full-time faculty	Instructional designer
1	Southwest United States	Teaches courses on marketing strategies, search engine optimization and analytics, and entrepreneurial journalism	Teaches courses on journalism ethics and digital audiences	Works with JMC school, teaches training course for online teaching, and leads course development processes
2	Southeast United States	Teaches courses on mass communication theory, public speaking, and writing	Teaches courses in sports journalism, multimedia reporting, and sports management	Works with JMC school and supports courses when live
3	Midwest United States	Teaches courses in public relations and marketing	Teaches courses in multimedia journalism and social media	Works with JMC school and creates professional development programming for online teaching and learning, and education technologies
4	Mid-Atlantic United States	Teaches courses in sports journalism, media writing, and media ethics	Teaches courses in media ethics and mass communication theory, and holds administrative role related to online learning	Works with JMC school and leads course development processes

Note. JMC = journalism and mass communications.

Data Analysis

The authors utilized a first and second cycle coding approach (Saldana, 2013) to code interview data. The qualitative analysis program NVivo was utilized. In the first cycle of coding, the authors created descriptive codes for text responses from each of the 12 participants. The authors conducted memoing to further clarify context related to certain coded entries. The second coding cycle reevaluated the first cycle codes, merged related codes together, eliminated redundant coding, and established umbrella categories for subsets of codes (see Table 2). Coding was then evaluated on an individual case basis, which preceded cross-case analysis. This form of pattern coding resulted in 320 total coded references, categorized into 70 codes, and reorganized within six emergent themes of analysis. Those emergent themes were andragogy, course communication, course design, human touch, instructor support, and interpersonal communication. Findings are presented through cross-case analysis of similarities and differences pertaining to those themes. Data addressed instructor and instructional designer experiences with low enrollment (1–25 students) and high enrollment (25+ students) courses but not massively open online courses (MOOCs).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Emergent Themes, Codes, and In-Vivo Coding Across Interviews (n = 12).

Theme	No. of codes	Sample code	In-vivo for sample code
Andragogy	14	“Empathy for Online Students”	“. . . have some sense of empathy for someone who is trying to go back to school, has a full-time job, has a family, and recognizes the value of flexibility.” (Adjunct Instructor, Case 3)
Course communication	31	“Announcements”	“Sometimes with an email, I’ll draft a long response to the student and then I’ll say (to the rest of the class), I’m answering this question.” (Adjunct Instructor, Case 1)
Course design	20	“Large Enrollment”	“What is the best way I can get them to do that task or to present this information? . . . If I do this assignment this way, if the class grows from 50 to 250, would we have to do it differently?” (Full-Time Faculty, Case 1)
Human touch	28	“Video Feedback”	“I record videos of myself and send them in the online class so they can see me and hear me talk about things, and I constantly offer to talk to them on the phone or to have Zoom meetings.” (Full-Time Faculty, Case 4)
Instructor support	39	Learning management system	“We had an online course that was developed in-house . . . just to get us familiar with the infrastructure of (the learning management system) and the processes of instructional design.” (Full-Time Faculty, Case 2)
Interpersonal communication	17	“Teacher-to-Student”	“I’ve let students call me, I’ve let students text me.” (Adjunct Instructor, Case 1)

Course Design

The organizational and systematic design of a course was perceived to greatly influence teaching presence during a course. All four instructional designers emphasized the relationship between course development and design with enhanced instructor self-efficacy and effective communication strategies. Part of that design was instituting guiding supports—like strategic welcome messages, video tutorials, and “Start Here” tabs—for students with varying degrees of experience in online courses:

I’ve often found that students, especially online students, come to the online environment and they neither have the will nor the skills to communicate online. Especially within discussion groups, live audiences on discussions, those types of contexts. I think too often, our instructors assume that they have the skills to do that. (Instructional Designer, Case 4)

A comprehensive syllabus can be a one-stop guide for online students with inflexible schedules who require answers during narrow windows of availability to complete coursework. Syllabi included detailed assignment descriptions, rubrics, and links or references to sample submissions for assignments. Course design also addressed course pacing. Whether a compressed 8- to 10-week term or a full 15-week semester, instructors needed time to evaluate constructed response items. Well-paced courses enabled instructors to maximize constructive feedback that drove knowledge acquisition. Educators at each school also emphasized alignment during the course development and design phases. Instructors created course objectives that aligned with weekly objectives, which informed outcomes for activities and assignments, which dictated selection of content materials. The instructional designers at each school believed this organizational approach helped focus the course while decreasing types of avoidable, nonessential instructor–student interactions.

Human Touch

Participants at each school spoke continuously of the importance of humanizing their courses and interactions with students. The characteristics of adult learner populations informed this approach. Adult learners typically meet at least one of the following criteria: They are at least 25 years old, parents, caretakers, employed, or first-generation students.

I know most of them have outside jobs and I encourage them to pick topics for assignments that might help them with their current positions. (Adjunct Instructor, Case 3)

The educators in this study identified several considerations related to adult learners in online environments. The faculty member at Case 3 said their institution accounts for bandwidth limitations for students relying on mobile learning technologies or with marginal internet access. Multimedia content materials were utilized strategically. Educators humanized their courses by adding students to alumni groups on social media, which exposed students to job postings, industry networks, and ongoing dialogue. Furthermore, several educators monitored LMS engagement analytics to confirm students were accessing content materials in a given week. If a student exhibited a prolonged absence, the instructor emailed the student to see whether support was needed. In higher enrollment courses (25+ students), steps to humanize the course were implemented, but with less frequency than in lower enrollment courses. As an example, the faculty member at Case 1 intentionally answers each student’s discussion board post in Week 1. In subsequent weeks, the faculty member answers some students but not all.

I like the other students to see that I am interacting with students, even if I’m not interacting with them (specifically). (Faculty Member, Case 1)

Andragogy

Andragogical practices that directly or indirectly addressed teaching presence emerged consistently during analysis of interview data. Educators at Case 2 emphasize active learning measures for online JMC courses. In a communications context, active learning moves beyond instructional communication (Lubbers & Gorcyca, 1997). Students participate in their own learning through writing, analysis, evaluation, speaking, or some other form of expression. The adjunct instructor at Case 2 said she designs her active learning assignments so students can select topics relevant to their work or research interests.

Elements of teaching presence strategies were visible in philosophies toward discussion board interactions, formative and summative feedback, grading, peer feedback, group projects, and selection of content materials. An example: The instructional designer at Case 1 encouraged instructors to integrate current events materials each week as a supplement to the existing lesson plan. This freshened the course and personalized it for the students.

If something happened in the news last night that relates to teaching, share it with the class and share why it relates and why it is important. That, again, really emphasizes the personal communication. (Instructional Designer, Case 1)

Constructive feedback was a core emphasis at each school. Instructors used LMS features to leave voice notes on assignments, record video or audio feedback on written assignments, or utilize discussion board interactions to push students toward quality peer responses. Tying back to the section on Course Design, a rubric for quality discussion board prompts was suggested to be included in the syllabus.

Course Communication

The primary and most obvious form of teaching presence in an online course is direct course communication between instructor and all students. This occurs most commonly through instructor announcements and discussion board posts. Announcements are useful to introduce content transitions from week to week or to remind students of upcoming deadlines. Interview data across schools emphasized the importance of consistency in messaging. Participants believed the instructor should maintain a consistent presence each week through updates and discussion.

We feel like that is really critical . . . Students can tell if the teacher’s presence and communication was there throughout the course. I think that makes a huge difference to get those students motivated to continue their work. (Instructional Designer, Case 2)

Instructor Support

At each case, an instructional design unit operated as a collaborative support system for instructors and students. Each JMC school worked with an assigned instructional designer, who had the resources of their unit available to support a variety of instructional initiatives. This structure was empowered by top-down support from JMC administrators. Instructional designer roles ranged from project manager in course development processes (Cases 1, 2, and 4) to consultant on issues of technology and andragogy (Case 3) to just-in-time support while the course ran (all cases). Almost unanimously, faculty and adjuncts agreed that instructional design support was critical for creating efficient and effective learning and communication experiences through technology.

In 2015 when I first got thrown into teaching an online course, on short notice, I didn’t know how to use (the LMS). I didn’t know how to set up anything. I was learning it as I went very quickly, but I didn’t know about the nuances. I didn’t know how to do all these different things. How to set things up for timed release, how to make something a pre-requisite to get to the next module, how to set up a complicated rubric. There are just a bunch of things that the instructional designer was able to do that I would have just found a way not to do. That made the course better for students. (Adjunct Instructor, Case 1)

At each case, instructors could access professional development programming specific to online teaching. The instructional design unit at Case 1 delivered a 2-week training course for online faculty to communicate best practices for the LMS, pedagogy, communication, and assessment. Case 4 offered a series of courses that address topics like best practices for teaching online and writing assessments for online learning. Instructional design support also helped instructors stay within their limits technologically. For example, the instructional designer at Case 3 advised her instructors to use video response only if technological difficulties can be minimized.

If they are not really that comfortable with it, I don’t want them to use it on their discussion board and mess it up. Then the students do not have faith in their teacher. (Instructional Designer, Case 3)

Interpersonal Communication

In lower enrollment courses, instructors valued opportunities to build connections with students. This was apparent in the variety of communication methods instructors used to interact with students. Preferences differed depending upon the instructor. Four out of eight instructors explicitly stated they encourage students to call or text their mobile phones. One instructor utilized a third-party collaborative mobile application to host course communications. Two instructors created individual and small-group communication through social media, specifically Twitter and Facebook Group pages. Instructors also encouraged students to set video conferencing appointments in lieu of virtual “office hours.” Several instructors who held virtual office hours ultimately ceased for lack of student participation. Instead, instructors hosted optional synchronous live sessions to discuss a specific assignment or complex question. Those sessions were recorded and then uploaded to the LMS as a course resource.

Protocol for email response time was sometimes guided by department policy. Cases 2 and 3, for example, had a 24–48 rule for weekday/weekend response time. However, two instructors stressed that they believe 24 hr was not fast enough:

(I try) responding to their emails within 30 minutes of them emailing me. That’s what I try to do, if not faster. I just want them to know that I am there and that I exist. (Adjunct Instructor, Case 2)

Recommendations

There are seven recommendations from this study that JMC educators can utilize to help strengthen teaching presence in online courses. These recommendations account for variables related to technological accessibility, student and instructor levels of prior knowledge related to online learning, class size, and asynchronous communication. Educators should (a) plan ahead through course design strategies, (b) seek knowledge of student efficacy with online learning, (c) integrate technological knowledge through collaboration, (d) understand the need for just-in-time supports, (e) exhibit consistency with response time, and (f) adopt a humanizing approach to online instruction and communication. Relatedly, administrators should (g) introduce and uphold department policies that prioritize professional development and support for online instruction.

The course development and course design phases are critical to strengthening teaching presence. Each case in this study emphasized—albeit to varying degrees—a collaborative approach to course development and design. Primarily, this was accomplished by the instructor collaborating with a member of an instructional design unit who provided technological pedagogical knowledge specific to online environments. This process took anywhere from weeks to months for courses that were new or being overhauled. These collaborations accomplished two primary tasks. First, they worked to ensure the course adhered to evidence-based pedagogical and online instructional design practices. This included addressing critical legal issues related to accessibility and copyright, as well as formatting and functionality on mobile devices. Second, these collaborations helped reduce instructor workload before and during the course. Instructional designers contributed multimedia content, instructional design and pedagogical elements, and evaluation methods while troubleshooting technology-related issues in real time.

During the course development phase, instructors can sketch out templates that address core messaging like welcome pages, instructor biographies, weekly announcements, or tabs for frequently asked questions. In addition, instructors can develop rubrics, discussion board prompts, technology tutorials, and assignment details that clearly communicate expectations to students. The syllabus should also be comprehensive, particularly for asynchronous courses where students complete assigned tasks on their own weekly schedules. The importance of these steps is magnified in high enrollment courses (25+) when instructors have less time to address student needs at the individual level. Instructors at institutions without formal instructional design resources can often find technological pedagogical support through teaching resource departments or librarians. Lacking those resources, it is recommended that instructors self-educate, simplify their online course design by modeling high-quality exemplars, and concentrate on consistent forms of high-touch communication.

JMC educators teaching online should seek to understand their students’ level of experience and comfort with online learning. It can often be incorrect to assume that student fluency with digital technologies translates to fluency in online learning. Educators can use preassessments and mid-course evaluations to gauge this. Several educators in this study offered students the option of texting or calling the instructor. That remains a personal choice. However, it is recommended that instructors outline a clear, high-touch communication policy at the beginning of the course and adhere to it throughout. If students send a steady stream of questions to the instructor through private channels, the instructor can address those questions and save time with one public announcement or course-wide email. Furthermore, educators should humanize (Pacansky-Brock et al., 2020) their interactions with students as often as possible. The preassessment is one way to do this. A personal introduction on the Week 1 discussion board is another. According to Pacansky-Brock and colleagues (2020), instructors can use informal, “unpolished” videos to communicate brief messages that put students at ease and establish trust (p. 17). Finally, top-down administrative policies help cement online instruction as a priority. They help organize professional development opportunities, resources, and support for both full-time and part-time instructors. Professional development is a predictor of awareness “of evidence-based practices among higher education instructors, instructional designers, and administrators” (Betts et al., 2019, p. 9). Administrative policies communicate expectations and standards for instruction and communication, and enable a healthy infrastructure and culture. Each can directly contribute to a better understanding of teaching presence and its role in online instruction.

Communication and engagement are central to the online experience and student success. According to Garrison (2008), increased teaching presence has been shown to increase student cognitive presence and course social presence in an authentic COI (Garrison, 2008). This study revealed that JMC faculty at all four schools prioritized teaching presence from the conceptualization of a course through its delivery. Driven by proactive instructors, these techniques, strategies, and school policies can help guide (a) JMC administrators whose programs are considering offering, or just starting to offer, online courses and programs; (b) JMC instructors teaching online for the first time; or (c) experienced JMC instructors looking to improve their online pedagogy.