“I Know Them Better Than Students in My On-campus Courses”:
Exploring a Personalized Approach to Online Instruction

Joyce E. Many
Faith H. Wallace
Judy Stephenson
Lisa Eickholdt

For a printer-ready version of this article, click here. Use your browser’s “back” button to return to the Reading Online site.

Abstract The study described in this article explored the nature of instruction in an online course in a teacher education program. Participants included the university instructor and 16 classroom teachers enrolled in a graduate-level literacy assessment course. Data included online bulletin board messages, e-mail messages, informal interviews, chat transcripts, the instructor’s teaching journal, and all modules constructed for the online course. Constant-comparative analysis revealed instructional content related to (a) the course focus of assessment and instruction for struggling readers, and (b) how to learn effectively in the online environment. Specific categories within these areas emerged with respect to the design of the course and the instructional interactions between the instructor and the teachers.

Related Postings from the Archives A Face-to-Face Graduate Class Goes Online by Jan Turbill Best Practice Goes Online by Bonita Wilcox and Linda Wojnar Exploring New Literacies in Online Peer-Learning Environments by Cynthia Choi and Hsiang-ju Ho

In recent years, researchers have begun to consider how technology can be used to improve teacher education (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, online document). One technological advancement that offers exciting possibilities for teacher education is online learning. Web-based distance learning can be an effective alternative for graduate students trying to cope with demanding schedules and after-school responsibilities. In addition, online learning has been seen as a solution for university programs facing declining enrollment in traditional teacher education programs (Turbill, 2001, online document). However, despite growing support of online learning for improving access to education and facilitating interaction across learners (Harasim, 1990; Hiltz, 1994), there seems to be reluctance among some college instructors and students to accept this approach as providing a legitimate learning situation (Cornell, 1999). Part of this reluctance may stem from the lack of human contact inherent in online courses. Several researchers have found that fostering human relations may be one of the most important factors in creating successful online courses (Hopey, 1996; Lazlo & Castro, 1995; Spitzer, 1998). Morrison and Adcock (1999) stress that students need both peer-to-peer networks and relationships with mentors in order to experience success in a distance-learning setting. Such interaction creates a learning community, which “supports and encourages knowledge acquisition. It creates a sense of excitement about learning together and renewing the passion involved with exploring new realms in education” (Pallof & Pratt, 1999, p. 163).

The need for quality social interaction has been stressed in research in teacher education. Anders, Hoffman, and Duffy (2000) note that quality teacher education programs include characteristics such as monitoring, coaching and clinical support, collaboration among different professionals, and dialogue. Interestingly, research has begun to underscore the ways in which technology can facilitate communication and teachers’ collaborative knowledge construction. Studies indicate teachers’ and students’ roles may shift in distance learning (Harris, 1993; Rice-Lively, 1994), and that students can effectively use online formats to gain both procedural and declarative knowledge through dialogue with peers (Grisham, 1997).

One study explicitly examined the quality of the discourse environment in an online literacy course at the graduate level in a teacher education program (Many, Howrey, Race, Pottinger-bird, & Stern, 2001). The authors noted that with deliberate scaffolding by the instructor and teacher-leaders, students developed a strong support community, provided mentoring and advice, and collaborated with colleagues. In addition, research has focused specifically on the nature of scaffolding that occurred in an online reading assessment course (Many, Bates, & Coleman, 2002). In that study, bulletin board postings included support from both the instructor and the class members and focused on the use of technology; clarification of assignments; strategies for learning online; understanding, assessing, and teaching literacy concepts; and understanding general concepts in education. Online scaffolding processes included modeling, supplying information, clarifying, assisting, questioning, prompting, focusing attention, encouraging self-monitoring, and labeling/affirming.

However, more information is needed to understand the overall nature of instruction occurring in online courses and the role of the instructor in such courses. Consequently, in the study described here, the following question guided the data analysis: What is the nature of instruction involved in an online graduate literacy course?

Back to menu

Methodology

Study context. The context for this study was an online course in literacy education offered in the year 2000 at Georgia State University, an urban research institution in the U.S. southeast. The course, which was being offered for the first time in an online format, focused on linking literacy assessment and instruction for struggling readers. It was originally structured in 14 modules, each of which included readings on topics addressed in the course, written reflections, and applications to classroom situations:

1. Understanding readers and the reading process
2. Attitudes, interests, and metacognition
3. Assessment/instruction — emergent readers
4. Assessment/instruction — beginning readers
5. Assessing reading comprehension — informal reading inventories
6. Assessing reading comprehension — continued
7. Assessment/instruction — literary texts
8. Assessment/instruction — content area texts
9. Study strategies and vocabulary development
10. The adolescent at-risk reader
11. Special needs, bilingual, and ESL students
12. Standardized testing
13. Portfolios
14. Literacy and technology

In addition, teachers participated in online chats and completed two literacy profiles based on tutoring sessions with struggling readers.

Teachers enrolled in the course met face to face on the first night to review the syllabus and to develop initial skills in WebCT, the software used to deliver the online course. The 24 teachers present on this evening formed support groups of 4 to 6 people each. Eight individuals dropped the course within the first 3 weeks of the semester, expressing reservations about their technology skills or surprise at the amount of work that would be required in the course. Participants, therefore, included the instructor and the 16 teachers (15 females and 1 male) who completed the course.

The research team that worked on the data analysis for this study included the course instructor (the first author), one doctoral student in language and literacy who had taken the online assessment course (the second author), and two additional doctoral students in language and literacy who were interested in instructional technology and who had taken other literacy courses with online components (third and fourth authors). The instructor framed the focus of the data analysis and led the research team meetings where results from that analysis were shared and categories were refined. The three doctoral students conducted the hands-on analysis of the data and then debriefed the instructor to gather additional information in light of working hypotheses.

Data sources and analysis. Data for this qualitative study included 588 bulletin board messages, 1371 e-mail messages, informal interviews, transcripts of support group chats, transcripts of online office hours and instructor chats, the instructor’s teaching journal, and all content components (i.e., modules, support materials, calendar, related websites, etc.) constructed for the online course. Data were analyzed using a constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Initial analysis proceeded in a recursive-generative process from literature in the field related to instructional scaffolding to identification and analysis of data containing instructional content or instructional interactions. The research team developed tentative codes by examining the e-mail feedback provided by the instructor to the teachers for the assignments for modules 1 and 2. These emerging categories were discussed in team meetings (Huberman & Miles, 1994).

As analysis progressed, attention focused on the following:

• An examination of the interactions and documents related to the course experiences of one small group
• An analysis of the overall structure and the content of the course

Data related to the experiences of participants in one small group (referred to here by the pseudonyms Mary, AJ, Melanie, Cory, and Beth) were purposefully chosen based on the instructor’s knowledge that individuals in this group demonstrated a range of successes and difficulties both in understanding course content and in working in an online environment. Analysis of the chats, bulletin board postings, e-mails, and assignment feedback for this group led to descriptions of the varying types of instructional support offered to group members by the instructor. In addition, analysis proceeded to the overall structure and content of the course modules and the ways in which the content evolved based on the instructor’s ongoing assessment of students. Follow-up interviews with the instructor were conducted to provide member checking for interpretations.

After categories were identified and defined, additional inductive analysis was conducted and attempts were made to assimilate the emerging patterns into a grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The concept of grounded theory is consistent with a pattern model of explanation in that information gathered from the field is used to build a model that serves both to describe and to explain the system (Lincoln & Guba). This final layer of analysis indicated the content of instruction within this online course was evident in relation both to the course focus of assessment and instruction for struggling readers, and to how to learn effectively in the online environment. Within these two broad areas of content, specific categories could be further grouped according to two instructional themes: the design of the course, and the instructional interactions between the instructor and the teachers. The interrelationships between the two themes regarding the instructional approach and the related categories within the specific areas of content were captured visually through the creation of a matrix (Table 1), and are discussed in the sections that follow.

Back to menu

Results

Course content: Assessment and instruction for struggling readers. Instructional support with regard to the content of the course (linking literacy assessment and instruction for struggling readers) was evident in the course design through the framework of the course modules and the materials and links posted on the course website. Support was also provided through instructional scaffolding within the online conversations between the instructor and teachers.

Course design: Framework of course modules. The instructor paid careful attention to the development of the course modules since these were the primary mode of instruction for the course. The resources for each module included chapters from the required texts, and scanned readings of additional print or online texts. In addition, each module was designed with a common framework that included a purpose for reading, before-reading strategies, after-reading reflections, and a classroom application.

The decision to create the modules in this way came from the instructor’s background in reading in the content areas. In an informal interview, the instructor cited the influence of Content Area Literacy: An Integrated Approach (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 2001), which she had used in previous courses with content area teachers. The instructor drew on the principles of supporting students before, during, and after reading as she designed the instructional approach embedded within each of the original 14 modules of the online course.

Each module began by setting a purpose for the inquiry. This provided a topical focus for the teachers as they negotiated the module and also alerted them to key concepts and terms that they would encounter along the way. The instructor used the points listed in the purpose-for-reading section as a cross-check, making certain that the after-reading reflections and the classroom application developed the teachers’ knowledge and expertise in relation to the purpose of the module.

In the before-reading section, the instructor integrated two focuses:

1. Activation of prior knowledge
2. Recommendations for how to approach the reading

To activate their prior knowledge, the instructor provided teachers with questions to prompt reflection prior to reading. For instance, in module 2, where teachers were to read about motivation and metacognition, the instructor prompted reflection by asking, “Think about what motivated you to read in school. Do you like to read now? What motivates you to read now? Is it the same? What motivates your students?”

In addition to asking reflective questions, the instructor also provided teachers with information about each assigned reading. This not only helped to activate prior knowledge, but also provided a guide to the reading. For example, module 9’s content was literary texts. There were three primary readings for this module, all scanned articles. After listing the citation for each article, the instructor provided a blurb about each focus, as in this example:

Many, J.E. (1996). When the literary experience is a difficult experience: Implications of reader-response theory for less proficient readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Disabilities, 12, 123-135.

This article will introduce you to some of the difficulties readers face when reading literary works and will provide an introduction to reader-response theory. (Module 9: Before Reading)

Similarly, in the before-reading section of the module dealing with emergent literacy, the instructor provided the following information:

The first reading, Chapter 6: Emergent and Beginning Literacy (pp. 213-278), will give you an in-depth look at emergent literacy. This chapter also provides many examples of how children learn to read and write. You will also find this chapter has useful ideas for your profile if your student is at the emergent reading stage. (Module 3: Before Reading)

As described in the course syllabus, the after-reading reflection of each module was designed to provide the teachers with the opportunity “to share thoughts and ideas with others taking the class and to learn from and about other’s perspectives.” The instructor planned the prompts to ensure that teachers were drawn to key elements that she considered important to their understanding of the course content. For instance, module 10 dealt with study strategies and vocabulary development. The after-reading reflection asked teachers to think about their own reading and studying processes and how these may have changed or been adapted in light of learning in an online course environment. The following questions were posed for teachers to answer:

Have your reading/notetaking strategies changed from what you typically have done to prepare for classes? How? Why? If you were going to have a test on the two chapters that you just read, how would your process of reading have been different this time? Why? (Module 10: After Reading)

In the module dealing with content area texts, the instructor not only provided prompts but a way to organize the information:

The graphic organizer below describes the primary concepts we are developing in this module. Pick three assessment/instruction activities that you feel are particularly valuable for struggling readers. These could have been from the readings, from the websites you visited, or from your prior knowledge. Post a brief description of these on the bulletin board. Mention in your description which of the categories below each activity would address. (Module 9: After Reading)

In addition to the after-reading reflection, each module provided teachers with the opportunity to transform theory into practice in a classroom application. In the syllabus, the instructor explained, “These assignments are crucial in ensuring that you can demonstrate an ability to move from reading about assessment and instruction for at-risk readers to applying that information to real students in real classrooms.” These applications ranged from making “guesstimates” of a group of students’ stages of reading (module 1), to administering an informal reading inventory (module 5), to trying a vocabulary development activity with a struggling reader (module 10).

Redesign of course content. While the instructor began the course with 14 modules, this was intended as a draft to be adjusted based on ongoing assessment of the teachers’ needs and abilities. This willingness to adjust content was evident early in the course and was communicated to the teachers. For instance, in a response written back to Mary, the instructor indicated,

This was very well done, Mary. I’m sorry you had doubts along the way as to whether this was what was expected. I will go back and look at the directions and see if I can revise them for clarity and will try to watch the instructions on future modules to alleviate similar confusions. (September 20; message no. 305)

As this response indicates, the instructor monitored the teachers’ comments and levels of frustration. Her perceptions of teachers’ progress and difficulties were gleaned from their direct comments to her via e-mail; in addition, she read the bulletin board postings and the transcripts of the support group chats to get a feeling for the issues, confusions, and tensions that were being discussed. Later in the semester, the instructor noted frustrations from comments made by teachers in the focus support group regarding the workload and assignments. As a result, she revised upcoming modules to ensure classroom application activities could be done in relation to the ongoing work the teachers were doing with their literacy profile students. In addition, she adjusted the required number of modules for the course and posted the following message to the teachers:

I also understand the feelings of being overwhelmed that many of you are experiencing.... Consequently I have made substantial revisions to the outline for the topics to be addressed this semester. I considered each module and how and where I might combine information or delete information. The end result is that I have reduced the number of modules we will cover in the course from 14 to 11. (September 19; message no. 278)

This support was recognized and appreciated by the teachers. Mary wrote to express gratitude to the instructor for listening to the students’ voices:

Thanks so much for giving us a chance to breathe! I think that the greatest part of this class is the literacy profile because we are able to put into practice what we are learning and see the results. I do, however, appreciate getting a chance to breathe! (September 30; message no. 428)

In the same message, Mary also commented that this particular course, while not involving in-person contact, had provided the necessary instruction and support for her:

You have been so supportive throughout this quest, and I feel that I have more communication with you than I’ve ever had with any of my other “live and in person” professors! Thanks for all of your help and support.

Course design: Resource materials and links. Content related to literacy assessment and instruction was developed in this online course through a range of resources. The instructor did not rely solely on textbook readings; instead, she also provided scanned readings and website links for specific modules. For example, module 3 covered assessment and instruction of emergent readers. In addition to the course reading from the textbook, the instructor provided a link to a website devoted to the analysis of school reading programs. From here, teachers could see how assessment and instruction of emergent readers was handled within the Reading Recovery program and could explore other approaches to early reading instruction if they chose.

When teachers were exploring assessment and instruction for beginning readers, the textbook reading was supplemented by browsing The Balanced Instruction Resource Series website and the website outlining the state’s core curriculum. The teachers were asked to “identify three activities and/or lessons you feel would be particularly effective for developing phonemic awareness or for developing children’s ability to use phonics” (Module 4: After Reading) and to discuss their favorite in light of the textbook’s description of exemplary phonics instruction. Links to online resources such as these were also found on the course materials section of the course website. This allowed teachers to return to those websites easily when they were working with struggling readers in order to find suitable activities or ideas.

The instructor also uploaded website links and other materials to WebCT as a way to support teachers’ understanding of content when specific needs arose. For example, in an interview, the instructor recounted a chatroom session in which a group of teachers was discussing the stages of reading. The teachers appeared unsure about the differences between the emergent and the beginner stages. Later that evening, the instructor uploaded a description of the developmental stages of reading to the course website materials section and alerted all teachers to this addition.

Instructional scaffolding of course content in online conversations. Instructional scaffolding took place in the highly individualized and elaborative e-mail feedback given by the instructor for all course assignments. An analysis of all such correspondence between the instructor and the members of the focus group revealed the following four categories related to scaffolding:

• Affirming
• Probing
• Providing explicit instruction
• Clarifying

The category of affirming included feedback in which the instructor cited the teacher’s work either directly or in summary as a way to stress that the teacher understood the concepts and was on the right track. For example, the instructor wrote this to Cory, one of the teachers in the focus group, with regard to an after-reading reflection: “I like the way you cautioned against letting this one test or question type be the end all — the content of the text can certainly impact a student’s performance” (October 9; message no. 553). For another group member, Beth, who was discussing the importance of building rapport during an informal reading inventory, the instructor noted, “Your comments...seem to come from an empathy for children who have struggled and who need a person they can trust and one who can support them in their efforts. Your comments were powerful” (October 12; message no. 606). Another group member, AJ, was a special education major who was not yet teaching in a classroom. AJ wrote on the same topic, and the instructor provided the following feedback: “Very thoughtful reflections on the importance of establishing rapport for the sake of developing trust with your students. Your personal connections will help others to value this aspect in ways they would not have if you had not shared” (October 12; message no. 604).

Within the affirming category were three subcategories: suggestive, continuing, and personal. In the suggestive subcategory, the instructor’s affirming responses built from comments from the individual teachers, but expanded on the thoughts expressed and suggested techniques to try or resources to explore. In one response that dealt with Cory’s work on sight-word instruction, the instructor wrote, “I’m not familiar with the approach that you mentioned, but I did note that it has you putting the words back into context and I do think that is an important element. One approach I have tried that I like is called the key word method” (September 26; message no. 399). The instructor then explained in detail how to use the key word method. In response to Beth’s work with a struggling reader, the instructor provided the following feedback: “I found the result on the phonemic segmentation task interesting — given his tendency to hear and attend to onset and rimes.... It might be good to try some analogies strategies with him as a decoding approach” (September 20; message no. 313). The instructor then provided a link to a website that had information about this approach.

Suggestive responses did not only deal with suggestions for practice, but also with resources. Melanie, a doctoral student taking the course to expand her background expertise in reading assessment, reflected on an article she read for class and received this feedback:

I truly enjoyed your reflection on the article...and the connections you made to Heath’s work.... I think...you have a good understanding of Heath’s findings and of how they relate to the article you read. Have you read any of Patrick Shannon’s work? He really focuses on this issue a great deal. (September 26; message no. 398)

In this same message, the instructor also demonstrated the continuing subcategory of affirming responses. A continuing response builds off the acknowledgement that the teacher understands the work or is on the right track and continues the line of thinking. In another part of the preceding e-mail, the instructor wrote,

I think what is most striking about the article is to realize we are still talking about many of the same issues that were addressed decades ago by Heath’s ground-breaking work. Our school literacy patterns still mirror white middle-class societal discourse — and the end result is that because of this we perpetuate the inequalities that exist in society.

Another example of feedback that featured a continuing response took place within the discussion of Beth’s inquiry into teaching English as a second language. The instructor wrote,

You gave a very detailed discussion of what you wanted to learn from your inquiry on ESL and what you did learn.... I agree with your observation that many of these [instructional recommendations for teaching ESL] overlap with recommendations for teaching special education, and I would add that these are also considered among the best practices for regular education practices as well. It seems different fields are often more in agreement regarding what comprises effective teaching than we may realize. (November 1; message no. 835).

The last type of affirming interaction was labeled personal, meaning that in addition to indicating that the teacher understood the material, the instructor added information from her personal experiences or opinions into the conversation. Although this type of response was the most infrequent, such feedback held valuable examples of scaffolding. For instance, the instructor talked at great length with Beth about the way she (the instructor) performs miscue analyses in classroom settings. The tone was very informal and friendly — just two educators sharing experiences — yet there was a tremendous amount of scaffolding within the message as the instructor eased the teacher’s frustration, reassured her of her abilities, and provided examples and clarification:

I see that you felt unsure of your abilities — but certainly your performance on administering and reflecting on the IRI was impressive.... I do not do extensive miscue analyses on every student — particularly in a class situation. But what I have found is that learning to do a miscue analysis and to be able to identify patterns in the strategies kids are using by looking at their miscues has helped me develop an expertise at listening to kids read that I didn’t have before. So now I can listen to oral reading and begin to jot notes and by the time they have made a series of miscues I can begin to note if they are using particular strategies such as rereading, self-correcting based on print, self-correcting based on meaning, miscuing on particular blends or phonemes, etc. It is that process that I use in everyday class situations. (October 12; message no. 606)

Affirmation was not the only type of response the instructor provided as a means of scaffolding course content. Responses that asked questions or raised issues to help the teachers think about a topic more deeply were coded as “probing.” In the first module, the teachers were asked to listen to five students read aloud and to make guesstimates as to their stage of reading. When Cory identified a student as being in the “building fluency” stage, the instructor provided the following feedback:

You seem to have identified a range of good approaches to aid in fluency.... I wonder about the range of strategies [this student] has at his disposal to figure out word he comes to that he does not know. Are his only two strategies to use sight words and graphophonic cues? (September 4; message no. 89)

Similarly, Melanie reflected on her attempts to assess the stage of reading of her ESL student. The instructor probed,

ESL students are always challenging to figure out in terms of their reading progress. Do you know if she can read in Spanish? I wonder about the degree to which she developed concepts of print/strategies in her first language before learning English and having formal reading instruction. (September 6; message no. 133)

An additional example of probing was found later in the course, after Cory explained her work to assess comprehension with a struggling reader. The instructor wanted Cory to think more deeply about the student’s reading process, and wrote, “I found it interesting that she made such good predictions and seemed engaged in the story Anansi and yet could not answer questions. Any ideas on why?” (September 20; message no. 275)

Another type of instructional conversation provided explicit instruction of course content. This type of response directed the teachers to a specific area where they needed to develop more understanding. Additionally, the instructor offered ways for the teachers to refine their understanding or she clarified a concept directly. For instance, when AJ was working with a group of readers to guesstimate their stage of reading, the instructor provided the following explicit instruction:

Your guesstimates did make me wonder about your understanding of the stage of emergent literacy. You had four students who were more or less successful at their attempts to read from print classified as being at the emergent literacy stage. When kids begin to read words from print they are in the beginning reading (or what I like to think of as the “building strategy” stage). (September 11; message no. 170)

The instructor continued to explain, in detail, this stage of reading and used the information AJ presented about his readers to illustrate characteristics of the stage.

Mary, another group member who was an experienced special education teacher, also needed explicit instruction with regard to her understanding of the stages evident as readers develop their literacy abilities. The instructor provided explicit instruction in light of the teacher’s own work with a struggling reader:

What I would look at closely is what types of reading strategies he has in place at this time for decoding unfamiliar words. If he can employ a range of strategies (i.e., sounding out, decoding by analogy, rereading, using context, skipping and then coming back, etc.) but is slow — he may be at the building fluency stage. (September 4; message no. 96)

Because the feedback was highly individualized, the instructor developed a way to track the teachers’ progress. She created a “module feedback file” consisting of a table summarizing the nature of her feedback on each module’s after-reading reflections and classroom application for each student (Table 2).

By reviewing the nature of her comments for individuals over several modules, the instructor could examine patterns of feedback when a teacher continued to struggle with the same concepts over a series of assignments. In such cases, the instructor provided feedback that was coded as “replay.” For instance, AJ’s work with a group of readers indicated that he continued to struggle with the stages of reading into the second module. After reviewing her feedback to AJ on module 1 the instructor wrote,

I did find myself wondering about your comments about [the student].... You seem to have some misconceptions about what children can do when they are in the emergent reading stage (such students are not yet reading from print). In the last module I recommended you go to the course materials section and look for my notes on “Stages of Reading”... If you haven’t done this, you probably should because it seems as though you still need clarification on this stage. If you look over the notes and still have questions — give me a call or drop me a note. (September 12; message no. 199)

Such explicit feedback did affect teachers’ later work in the course. For instance, in responding to AJ’s one-on-one work with a beginning reader, the instructor wrote, “As I thought about [your student’s] difficulties with phonemic segmentation and rhymes, I began to consider the types of activities that might work well. I think I might try the ‘make a word’ by Cunningham, which is described further on our website under the teaching of phonics section.” The instructor went on to explain how the activity is done and gave suggestions for other phonics activities AJ might use with his student. In a later assignment, AJ noted, “Lastly I implemented the ‘Make a Word’ activity...,”; and then he went on to discuss its effectiveness at helping students learn letter-sound correspondence.

The last type of response that was seen as scaffolding teacher’s understanding of course content was labeled clarifying. In a clarifying response, the instructor indicated that she was not clear if an area was understood by the teacher. At times in such responses, the instructor requested more information to be sure the teacher understood the concept. In other cases, the instructor noted she was not clear if the teacher understood a concept, and she simply offered to clarify it if the teacher would like more information. For instance, when Beth was working to identify stages of reading for a group of students, the instructor was unclear as to why Beth had placed one student at a particular stage. The instructor wrote,

Your descriptions...mention the students’ interest in reading and that they have improved in their reading skills but you [do not] explain enough of what behaviors would make them be more at the building fluency stage.... It is not that I would necessarily put them in a different stage — just that, based on what you included in your description, your understanding of the focus of the building fluency stage is not as clear as it could be. (September 6; message no. 129)

During the third module, the teachers had a chance to assess an emergent reader’s strategies. Cory wrote up the assessments she used, along with a reflection of what she had learned. However, the instructor needed clarification:

The only area I needed more information on was [the student’s] responses to the questions on the second survey. You mentioned her response to the first question and that she showed good literacy knowledge — but there was not enough information for me to know what she was able to answer or say that led to this interpretation. (September 20; message no. 312)

In summary, the instructor used the online conversations in this course to scaffold the teachers’ understanding of how to link assessment and instruction when working with struggling readers. Analysis indicated instructor’s comments to be highly detailed and individualized in light of the specific needs of individual teachers’ work with their students. The instructor noted this emphasis herself in the following bulletin board posting to the teachers:

I think one of the biggest changes that I have felt as a teacher is that I am teaching much more to the particular — the specific — than I have previously. My teaching for this course is often done one-on-one as I see elements in response and classroom applications that I can clarify, provide information about, focus attention on, etc. The resulting dialogue is sometimes much more individualized and personally meaningful to individual students than an overall lecture. (October 11; message no. 557)

Instruction on learning in an online environment. The instructor also provided instructional support to aid the teachers in learning in an online course. She organized the course in a way that supported the use of specific strategies for learning online, and included course design aspects and instructional scaffolding that supported teachers’ technology use and course navigation.

Course design: Strategies for learning online. Learning in this course was done independently, and there were no in-class meetings after the first night. However, the instructor provided support for learning online by recommending the use of specific strategies within particular course modules. First, for several course modules, the instructor offered suggestions of how to read particular information. For example, in the before-reading component of module 10 (focusing on vocabulary and study strategies), the instructor provided the following:

Read the chapter on Study Strategies first. This chapter provides you with a range of strategies that readers can use to help them learn information from text. Think about the study strategies you read about in the first reading. As you read the second chapter on vocabulary development, consider the study strategies you use to read this section. Pay attention to what you do before, during, and after reading. We will come back to this reflection in the after reading section of this module.

In some instances, the instructor not only provided an order and purpose for reading, but also a method of reading. For example, module 7 focused on the adolescent at-risk reader. The instructor provided a series of think-and-reflect questions in the before-reading section. Then, the following instructions were listed:

If you were able to easily respond in-depth to these questions, then the information in Chapter 8 may be a review for you and you may choose to use the reading strategy of “skimming” in some of the sections of the text. Others of you may have worked primarily in elementary settings and you may have found it difficult to respond to questions 1 and 2. Your responses may have lacked...depth and/or breadth. Consequently the purpose you have in reading Chapter 8 may be quite different. You may need to read slower and take notes as you go.

Besides offering order, purpose, and strategies for reading, the instruction also included models of how to organize and synthesize information. For instance, the content of module 4 focused on assessment and instruction of beginning readers. The instructor provided the following guide for the before-reading component:

Children at the beginning reading stage need explicit instruction to help them acquire the range of strategies they need to be able to read effectively from print. Before reading the material for this section, create a graphic organizer which includes the following areas: Title: Beginning Readers’ Areas of Development; Sight word vocabulary, Word analysis, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, and Listening Comprehension. As you encounter information on these areas in each of the readings, flesh out your graphic organizer by making notes of details, ideas, and your reactions.

As discussed previously, the module framework (purpose, before reading, reading, after reading, and classroom application) was consistent for all modules in the course. This design modeled the importance of activating prior knowledge, reading with purpose, and reflecting on reading. The instructor noted that her use of detailed support on how to read the content was unique to this course and that she made the decision to provide it in light of the heavy emphasis on learning from independent reading that was required by the online design.

Course design: Technology support. This was Georgia State University’s first WebCT course within the language and literacy unit, and it caused much frustration due to technical requirements. Instructional support with regard to technology happened in a variety of ways: through support groups, through the creation and distribution of helpful hints, and through instructional scaffolding in online conversations.

One way the instructor addressed teachers’ needs in learning new technology was to create opportunities for peer networks. On the first night of the course, the instructor strategically created support groups. Each group included a member who had experience at the elementary level, another who had worked at the middle or secondary level, a veteran teacher, and a teacher who considered him- or herself technologically savvy. This way, each group member could assist the others in her or his area of expertise. Further, teachers had someone other than the instructor to go to when questions arose, particularly with regard to technology. In addition to reading one another’s after-reading reflections on the bulletin boards, group members participated in an online chat together every three weeks.

In addition to including a technologically savvy member in each support group, the instructor made explicit helpful hints available both in hard copy on the first night of the course and electronically on the course materials section of the website. The document was categorized (e.g., calendar, mail messages, attaching files) and provided a detailed step-by-step walk-through of each technical function. For example, under the mail message function, the instructor wrote,

To send a mail message click “compose mail message.” Then “browse” for the name of the person to whom wish to mail a message. Type the “subject” of your message in the subject box and the text of your message in message box. Click “send” to send your message. When you have new messages, green lines will appear around the “mail” icon on the homepage. Simply click on the icon to go to your new mail. Click on the “inbox” to read messages which have been sent to you. You can view the messages you have sent others by clicking on the “outbox.”

Finally, individual interactions between the instructor and the teachers provided necessary scaffolding for technically quandaries. For instance, during the first module, the teachers were to send their classroom application work to the instructor via WebCT e-mail. When Mary sent her work, she indicated that there was an attachment, but no attachment came through to the instructor. The instructor promptly replied,

Hi Mary — I got your message but not the attachment. When you try to attach — make certain you do 2 steps (see 1 and 2 at the bottom of the screen by the paper clip). First you browse and locate the file’s name on your computer and you open it. Then you will see the name of the file in the box by the number 1. Next you have to “attach file” — see number 2. If you do it correctly a message will appear below number 2 that tells you the file has been attached. (September 3; message no. 82)

In the same module, AJ had a similar problem. The instructor provided the same message she had sent earlier to Mary, but also included her fax number in case of further problems. In each instance, the instructor responded one day after the original postings. The teachers’ needs were met without needing to wait until their class meeting to seek or receive assistance from the instructor.

Course navigation. Undertaking this online course meant accessing and learning from the content of course modules, understanding a range of assignments with different submission requirements and grading criteria, and keeping up with both short- and long-term projects. The instructor supported students’ navigation of the course through the way in which the website was designed, by providing benchmarks and sample work, and through instructional scaffolding that monitored and supported teachers’ ongoing performance.

In general, the course website provided support for course navigation by inclusion of a calendar function which tracked chat schedules, assignments due dates, and other course events. Both the instructor and the teachers could post information on the calendar, and the calendar was set up to alert users to new entries each time they logged on to the website. The website also allowed for uploading of links when necessary, so transcript chats and hints for taking self-assessment quizzes were available. Additionally, links to other helpful websites were provided, such as the state’s quality core curriculum website, a website on balanced instruction, and a website analyzing school reading programs.

Another way the instructor supported the teachers’ success in the online environment was through the use of color-coded directions throughout the online modules. For instance, blue text indicated what aspect of the assignment the teachers were accessing (before reading, after reading, etc.). Red indicated how to use the technology to turn in assignments or how to follow through with the assignment (e.g., where to post the after-reading reflection, how to send the classroom application to the instructor privately). All details were written in black. This was consistent for all course modules.

With each module, the instructor consistently included benchmarks indicating where teachers should be with their literacy profiles, the long-term course project. For the profiles, teachers worked with two readers (one at the emergent/beginning reading stage and one at the building fluency/building complexity in comprehension stage) over a series of literacy sessions and compiled written profiles of each reader. Included in the benchmarks were examples of what the project might look like, how to organize the project, and what resources might be helpful. This information was included at the end of each module under a link entitled “Working on Your Literacy Profile.” For example, in the benchmark included within the first module, the instructor provided a starting point for work on the literacy profile:

By the end of the first module, you should have chosen the student with whom you are going to work for your first literacy profile. The student should be at the Emergent Reader or Beginning Reading stage of reading development. You may have to talk with a child’s teacher, the parents, and the child to determine if the child would be at this stage of reading development. You will also need permission of the parents to work with the child.

To further assist teachers in initiating their project, the instructor also provided a literacy framework outline and a completed write-up from a session she had done with a beginning reader.

When teachers were finishing their first profile, the instructor provided both a benchmark for completion and a method for starting to synthesize work, which suggested use of a concept map. An example of what this concept map might look like was also provided. The instructor noted that such detail might not have been included for students in one of her regular on-campus courses, but rather that the material she provided to her online students represented the type of informal advice she might share orally in class in discussion of an upcoming assignment. The inclusion of the benchmarks and samples was a way of sharing her own experiences with such activities, and she hoped they would support the teachers’ progress in the online environment.

Instructional scaffolding of course navigation. During interactions with the teachers, the instructor individualized the scaffolding for course navigation through ongoing monitoring of the teachers’ performance. These comments included both encouragement and status checks.

One result of monitoring teachers’ performance resulted in the instructor’s use of encouragement in her feedback. Unlike scaffolding of conceptual information related to assessment and instruction, such feedback singled out a particular aspect of the content. For example, the instructor wrote this to Mary regarding her reflections dealing with emergent literacy:

Nice job discussing your responses to these questions — you provide an in-depth glimpse of your thoughts and help others to understand the points you are making. Your connections between the concepts addressed and your life experience help illustrate the value of understanding these issues. (September 15; message no. 249)

The instructor noted that one purpose of such feedback was to emphasize the general quality of the response in terms of what was expected in the teachers’ postings. Similarly, when Beth wrote up her reflections and thoughts after working one on one with a struggling reader, the instructor wrote,

You were so descriptive I could see [the student’s] head drop in embarrassment as she revealed she was not a good reader and needed help, and my heart went out to her.... Your careful description of her verbal and nonverbal behaviors was excellent. (September 20; message no. 312)

After reading about the websites Melanie had found during a particular module, the instructor provided this feedback:

As always, I was impressed with your tendency to draw on multiple outside readings to support your contentions — your background knowledge and ability to synthesize across literature in the field is sophisticated and makes important contributions to the quality of our discussions. (October 9; message no. 549)

Not only did these comments motivate the teachers, but they also helped to point out the expectations the instructor had so that expectations could continue to be met. Pointing out the strengths of a teacher’s performance served as reinforcement of what to do in the future.

Other scaffolding episodes related to teachers’ performance as they navigated the online course could be described as providing a status check on particular assignments. In these interactions, the instructor provided information about teachers’ progress which was not necessarily specific to their understanding of the literacy content addressed in the course. In some instances, the feedback directed the teacher to the instructions for a particular assignment. For example, the instructor provided the following feedback to AJ after he posted his after-reading reflection to module 1:

You gave an effective general reflection on the readings — but you did not really address the prompt that was given for the After Reading reflection. You were to discuss how factors related to the reader, the text, and the context might influence the stage of reading at which a child appears to be performing. You touched on some reader aspects briefly but did not go into depth on this area or discuss factors relating to the text or the context. (September 11; message no. 170)

During the same module, the instructor provided a similar type of feedback to Melanie following her posting of her after-reading reflection:

I felt overall you did a good job of explaining reader factors and you did fine on text factors; however, I would have liked to have seen a more detailed discussion of context. You alluded to context by mentioning the beachm but you did not really elaborate on the factor of “context.” (September 6; message no. 33)

This type of feedback pushed teachers to read instructions with a more critical eye and allowed them to reflect on topics that they had not addressed completely.

Other interactions included either clarifications or queries about status. For instance, the instructor, realizing that she had not received AJ’s classroom application for module 3, initiated this interaction:

Hi AJ — just checking on you — I don’t think I received your module 3 classroom application (but I will go back and double check). I wasn’t certain if the problems you have been trying to talk to me about on the literacy profile might be related to why you haven’t turned it in. (September 20; message no. 321)

During module 4, Beth sent the instructor a message because she was not sure that her after-reading reflections had been received, and the instructor replied,

I’m not at home right now and don’t have my notes to check — if you haven’t heard from me on the reflections — it may simply be that I haven’t gotten to your group yet in my responses — I finished two groups Wed afternoon and still had two groups to go. (October 5; message no. 496)

When teachers had questions or problems with assignments, they could e-mail the instructor and be provided with almost immediate feedback. For example, Mary sent a plea for assistance regarding the literacy profile. The instructor provided an in-depth response to her questions immediately, but also encouraged Mary to call if she had more questions. Sensing that others might be feeling the same frustration, the instructor also sent a message to each teacher’s e-mail account with the same in-depth response that she had sent to Mary. AJ, who had been feeling the same frustration, thanked the instructor in a subsequent message.

Back to menu

Discussion

This study focused on the nature of instruction in an online graduate literacy course focused on assessment and instruction for struggling readers. Findings indicate that the instructor provided instruction on both the course content and how to learn effectively in an online environment. This instructional support was incorporated into the course design and was also apparent as scaffolding that occurred in online conversations. Specifically, the findings indicate several crucial aspects of the instruction in this online course:

• Instructional scaffolding through a carefully designed infrastructure as well as through ongoing conversations
• Highly personalized assignments and feedback
• Consideration of the needs of individuals as online learners

The nature of instructional scaffolding in an online course. Scaffolding occurs through social interaction that enables an individual to accomplish tasks or reach understandings at a higher level of development than he or she would have been capable of reaching independently (Vygotsky, 1978). This study demonstrates that scaffolding can occur in a virtual environment when the instructor makes the decision to create instruction that is highly personal and individual. The scaffolding that was provided involved a decision-making process that required the instructor’s thought and reflection. As Laboskey (1994) asserts, “The immediate purpose of reflection is to resolve the problem, but the long term purpose is the growth of the individual and the culture” (p. 4).

Research has demonstrated that there are both temporary and permanent structures inherent in scaffolding (Graves, 1983; Roehler & Cantlon, 1997). In this virtual classroom, the instructor provided her students with both. The temporary structures of scaffolding follow the lead of the student, changing as they grow in their understanding of concepts (Graves). Temporary scaffolds in this online environment included the individual feedback the instructor provided each teacher regarding the course content in the form of affirming comments, probing, providing explicit instruction, and clarifying. These are similar to types of scaffolding seen in conventional classrooms (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990; Many, 2002, online document; Roehler & Cantlon). If a teacher understood a concept, the instructor affirmed that understanding. If the instructor was unclear whether the teacher understood a concept, she probed to find out what he or she did know. Once the instructor understood what the teacher knew, she offered explicit instruction regarding the concept or clarified growing understandings. These temporary structures assisted the teachers as they grew in their understanding of the course content.

The instructor further scaffolded the teachers’ learning through the use of critical permanent structures. When an instructor sets up predictable structures, it allows students to anticipate what will occur in the learning environment. This enables them to focus on the instruction that is taking place, as opposed to spending time each day trying to sort out what will happen and what is expected of them (Graves, 1994). Permanent scaffolding structures in conventional classrooms may consist of the literacy cycles that instructors have in place (Roehler & Cantlon, 1997), the consistent structures instructors use as they converse with students in a workshop setting (Graves; Many, 2002), or integrated approaches used to structure a school’s literacy curriculum (Many). In this study, the design of the course modules provided the teachers with a permanent form of scaffolding. Each module included a purpose for reading, a before-reading section, an after-reading reflection, and a classroom application section. This consistent structure enabled teachers to focus on what they needed to learn regarding the course content, as opposed to having to spend time before each module trying to figure out what the instructor expected. These permanent, anticipated structures and the consistent framework assisted teachers in becoming independent learners using the WebCT format. In fact, due to the lack of face-to-face contact in courses such as this, one could argue that permanent structures are even more important than in conventional classrooms.

The temporary and permanent features of scaffolding embedded in the instructional support of this online course provided the infrastructure to make this a successful learning experience for the teachers. Research indicates that the strength of the infrastructure within inservice professional development programs — in terms of providing necessary time, support, and materials — is crucial in helping teachers make changes in their instructional approaches (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000). Although drafts of the modules for delivering this course were created prior to the beginning of the semester, the instructor appreciated the importance of providing the teachers with enough time and support to implement new instructional approaches. Consequently, she modified the course and provided ongoing feedback to assist the teachers as they worked with students. As has been found in previous research (Borko, 1997), the instructor’s practice of providing information as needed or requested by the teachers and helping teachers understand how to modify existing resources to try out new ideas was integral to the teachers’ success.

The importance of personalized instruction and feedback in an online course. This study also demonstrates that an online course can result in a highly personalized learning experience. The importance of one-on-one mentoring, dialogue, and quality social interaction has been underscored in research in online learning (Hopey, 1996; Lazlo & Castro, 1995; Morrison & Adcock, 1999; Spitzer, 1998), as well as in literacy teacher education (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000). The teachers in this online environment noted a sense of surprise at the amount and quality of interaction that occurred in the course. The instructor underscored a similar sentiment, stating in an interview, “I know them better than I know the students in my on-campus courses.” Because of the personalized feedback provided to teachers on a weekly basis, the instructor felt she was teaching to the specific needs of each teacher rather than making general statements to the class as a whole, as she generally did in an on-campus setting. The intensity of the individualized feedback was such that the instructor estimated she spent approximately twice the amount of time teaching the online course as she would have spent in a typical on-campus version of the same course.

The personalized nature of the class required the teachers to be involved in active learning by trying out new ideas in their own settings. The ongoing classroom applications included in each module meant that the teachers each spent more time considering specific content in relation to work with students than they might have done in a typical on-campus course. By reflecting on the teachers’ work with their own students, the instructor in this study was able to provide information specific to each teacher’s unique needs and in this way she helped make their learning of the theories and pedagogy personally meaningful.

At the same time, social interactions specific to individual needs occurred not only between the instructor and the teachers, but also among the teachers in the support groups. The instructional approach the instructor used in the course required the teachers to read and reflect on one another’s bulletin board postings for each module and to participate in online chats. The instructor’s weekly feedback included reinforcement for high-quality postings and helped to create a discourse community (Many et al., 2001) in which peers interacted meaningfully about the content of the course and collaborated to solve problems that arose.

Support for learning in an online environment. Finally, a unique aspect of the instructor’s approach to this literacy education course was the extent to which she provided instruction to support the teachers’ strategies for learning online. Unlike in an on-campus course, for which teachers may read a text to get an overview prior to a class discussion, in this virtual classroom, the teachers had to adjust their reading styles to ensure that independent reading resulted in an in-depth understanding of the content. The instructor’s approach to the course modules alerted teachers to the purpose for reading, recommended specific reading strategies to use to learn from the text, and provided organizational schemas for notetaking and synthesizing information. In addition, she made specific resources available to help teachers navigate the course effectively and to troubleshoot technology problems. An expanded frame of reference, from considering the needs of teachers as educators to considering their needs as learners, may be crucial to the success of online courses for providing professional development for teachers.

Back to menu

Summary

Careful course design and the use of detailed instructional scaffolding can effectively support teachers as they learn new approaches to literacy education and try these approaches in their classrooms. University instructors, concerned by the lack of human contact that would appear to be inherent in online approaches, may find their concerns allayed by the findings from this study. However, success in this environment may depend on the willingness not only of the students but also of the instructor to devote considerable time to individualized learning. By integrating attention to both course content and online learning, instructors may find online delivery models to be an effective alternative when looking for viable support systems for today’s educators.

Back to menu

References

Anders, P.L., Hoffman, J.V., & Duffy, G.G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. 3, pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back

Borko, H. (1997). New forms of classroom assessment: Implications for staff development. Theory Into Practice, 36, 231-238.
Back

Cornell, R. (1999). The onrush of technology in education: The professor’s new dilemma. Educational Technology, 39(3), 60-64.
Back

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R.G. (1990). Teaching mind and society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Back

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.
Back

Graves, D.H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Back

Graves, D.H. (1994). A fresh look at writing.. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Back

Grisham, D. (1997). Electronic literacy learning: Teachers’ on-line dialogue journals. In C.K. Kinzer, K.A. Hinchman, & D.J. Leu, Jr. (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (pp. 465-473). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Back

Harasim, L.M. (Ed.). (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger.
Back

Harris, J.B. (1993). An Internet-based graduate telecomputing course: Practicing what we preach. In D. Carey, R. Carey, D.A. Willis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual(pp. 641-645). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Back

Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Back

Hopey, C. (1996). Distance learning and new technologies: You can’t predict the future but you can plan for it. Adult Learning, 8, 22-23.
Back

Huberman, A.M., & Miles, M.B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Back

Laboskey, V. (1994). Development of a professional practice: A study of preservice teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.
Back

Lazlo, A., & Castro, K. (1995). Technology and values: Interactive learning environments for future generations. Educational Technology, 35, 7-13.
Back

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Back

Many, J.E. (2002). An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is woven into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 376-407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.4.3
Back

Many, J.E., Bates, C.C., & Coleman, T. (2002, December). When the zone of proximal development becomes a virtual zone: An examination of scaffolded instruction in an online literacy course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami Beach, FL.
Back

Many, J.E., Howrey, S., Race, C., Pottinger-bird, R., & Stern, M. (2001, December). Monologues, dialogues, and interactive conversations: Exploring an on-line discourse community for literacy educators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Back

Morrison, G., & Adcock, A. (1999). Distance education research: Messages to the field. Tech Trends, 43, 14-18.
Back

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (ch. 5; NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available (retrieved July 2004): http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm
Back

Pallof, R.M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the on-line classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Back

Readence, J.E., Bean, T.W., & Baldwin, R.S. (2001). Content area reading: An integrated approach Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Back

Rice-Lively, M.L. (1994). Wired warp and woof: An ethnographic study of a networking class. Internet Research, 4, 20-35.
Back

Roehler, L.R., & Cantlon, D.J. (1997). Scaffolding a powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6-42). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Back

Spitzer, D.R. (1998). Rediscovering the social context of distance learning. Educational Technology, 32, 52-56.
Back

Turbill, J. (2001, July/August). A face-to-face graduate class goes online: Challenges and successes. Reading Online, 5(1). Available: www.readingonline.org/international/inter_index.asp?HREF=turbill1/index.html
Back

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Back

About the Authors

Joyce Many is a professor of language and literacy education at Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA, USA; e-mail). She has more than 25 years of teaching experience at the elementary, middle school, and college levels. Her current research interest focuses on describing the scaffolding processes teachers and peers use to support student learning.

Faith Wallace is an assistant professor of adolescent education and literacy at Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw, GA, USA). She has also participated as a member of the University System of Georgia’s Reading Consortium. Faith’s areas of interest include professional development of teachers of reading and the role of reading in the content areas.

Judy Stephenson works as a reading specialist in Gwinnett County, Georgia, USA. Judy has a Ph.D in teaching and learning, with a focus in language and literacy education. Her experience includes over 20 years of classroom work with special education students and second language learners, in both Canada and the United States.

Lisa Eickholdt has been an elementary school teacher for over 12 years, and has worked as a kindergarten, first grade, Reading Recovery, and Title I teacher. She recently completed her doctorate in teaching and learning with an emphasis in language and literacy at Georgia State University. She works as a reading specialist in Lawrenceville, Georgia.

Back to top

For a printer-ready version of this article, click here.

Citation: Many, J., Wallace, F.H., Stephenson, J., & Eickholdt, L. (2004, September/October). “I know them better than students in my on-campus courses”:
Exploring a personalized approach to online instruction. Reading Online, 8(2). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=many/index.html

Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted September 2004
© 2004 International Reading Association, Inc.   ISSN 1096-1232