Current Issues in Education, 25(1)  1 

 
 
Volume 25, Issue 1   04/7/2024   ISSN 1099-839X 
 

Transforming Courses Across Teaching Modalities in Higher 
Education 

 
James A. Bernauer, Richard G. Fuller, Alicia M. Cassels 

Robert Morris University 
 
 

Abstract: This article explores the transformation of courses among online, traditional, and 
hybrid modalities with a special focus on transforming an online course into a traditional 
classroom format. While there has been much written about transforming courses from 
traditional to online, especially as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has not been 
much written about the reverse kind of transformation; that is from online to traditional. We have 
found that you cannot simply use the same course shells and methods that were used in online 
instruction. This article provides both a context and specific advice regarding how to conduct a 
successful transformation from online to traditional modalities based on both failures and 
successes with successes primarily emanating by enlisting students as full partners in this 
transformation. The article uses three voices (instructor, student, program director) to explore the 
context of the problem as well as to offer direction to those who undertake such transformations. 
Although the course cited in this article is a doctoral course in statistical procedures, we think 
that the lessons learned here transcend this specific course and can be useful in most other 
courses whether taught face-to-face or online. 
 
Keywords: Teaching Modality; Integrated Assessment; Online Instruction; Traditional 
Instruction; Hybrid Instruction; Learning Management Platform, Simulcast 
 
Citation:  
Bernauer, J.A., Fuller, R.G., Cassels, A.M. (2024). Transforming courses across teaching 
modalities in higher education. Current Issues in Education, 25(1). DOI: 
10.14507/cie.vol25iss1.2157 
 
Accepted: month/day/year
 
 

Introduction 
 

This study was initiated because of the challenges encountered when we were trying to 
convert an online course to a face-to-face traditional modality. Although the particular class was 
a doctoral-level class in statistical procedures, the authors were immediately intrigued by the fact 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   2 

that while much attention in recent years has been directed to transforming traditional classes to 
an online modality, especially beginning with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, to our 
knowledge, little attention has been directed to transforming from online to traditional 

While this article focuses on the transformation from online to traditional, it is important 
to contextualize this article by first providing a description of the different teaching-learning 
modalities and how these modalities might be transformed across higher education. In addition, 
as we continued our collaboration, we realized that there were larger issues regarding course 
modalities and transformations that have emerged during the past few years which may have 
been accelerated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, to offer insight into the broader 
challenges and opportunities related to transforming higher education courses for adult learners 
across delivery modalities, we employed a descriptive case study, informed by constructivist 
theory and adult learning principles, to provide practical insights and recommendations for 
instructors engaged in course transformation. 

 
Literature Review 

Teaching Modalities  
 

Moore (1997) explains this in his theory of Transactional Distance, the concepts of 
distance education and learning relationships, as the separation of the learner and instructor 
through both time and space. Asynchronous learning is separation of learner and instructor by 
both time and space, while synchronous learning is separation by space but simultaneous.  
Traditional or face-to-face learning occurs when the instructor is at the same time and space.  
Moore (1997; 2006) further explains that distance learning also creates a communication or 
psychological separation, where more dialogue and less structure reduce the distance between 
student and instructor, while less dialogue and more structure increase the distance. Much of this 
is also driven by learner autonomy or learner control. This is at the heart of adult learning theory 
or self-directed learning.  

The pandemic taught us how to utilize the three basic modalities of face-to-face or 
traditional classroom learning with online synchronous and asynchronous opportunities resulting 
in a broad variety of online settings of teaching and learning (Fabriz et al., 2021). Faculty and 
institutions began to find the right balance to reduce the distance between students and 
instructors through the use of integrating all three modalities in what has traditionally been 
termed Blended, Hybrid, flipped classrooms, or HyFlex. By necessity, institutions and faculty 
found that they could meet student needs by blending a variety of pedagogies within the three 
modalities. Faculty began coming back on campus responding to students who were not able to 
attend physically and needed to remain remote. The integration of synchronous equipment in the 
classrooms allowed face-to face-students to sit alongside students at a distance. Through a 
Simulcast system which allows for students to engage in technology-enhanced learning whether 
in the classroom or via computer off-campus through a number of different platforms such as 
Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Adobe, and others. We realized that this was the best of 
both worlds allowing students to learn with the same instruction and with the same positive 
results. During the pandemic, many of the aforementioned synchronous providers evolved their 
platforms to provide significant viable pedagogical opportunities. For example, Google Meet 
increased capabilities to include breakout rooms and question and answer polling. There were 
many challenges, mostly the need to clarify roles and responsibilities (Flumerfelt & 
Banachowski, 2011, p. 236) and gain a better understanding of the best pedagogies to employ. 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   3 

Much was learned about when and how to coordinate them, and what worked and what did not 
work. Traditionally, there are some things that are taught better online than in a traditional 
setting and others that are better traditionally rather than online. This has not changed. 
 
Adult Learners 
 

Despite changing times and opportunities, faculty should not forget that many students 
are adult learners with specific needs. Adult learning theory can be described in terms of self-
directed learning, clear course goals, structures, and subject matter content being of critical 
importance that result in a feeling of safety (Milheim, 2012; Philips et al., 2017). Most adult or 
non-traditional learners return to school bringing rich life experiences and perspectives that serve 
as a solid platform on which to continue learning. This distinguishes the adult learner from high 
school students who do not have this range of life experiences. Consequently, the learning 
experiences of adults should be considered transformative in nature (Mezirow, 2000; Taylor, 
2008) and to internalize new knowledge and theories, an adult’s prior experiences and former 
perspectives should serve as the foundation to introduce new knowledge and skills.   

Knowles (1984) suggests that adult learners are more motivated to learn if the content is 
relevant to their goals and has an immediacy of application. Due to their maturity, adult or 
nontraditional learners (as they are sometimes referred to), are characterized as autonomous self-
directed learners who take responsibility for their own learning to fit the needs of their chosen 
roles. Day, Lovato, Tull, and Ross-Gordon (2011) also found that adult learners should be 
provided with structure to comfortably and effectively organize their learning. While adults do 
not always know the specifics of what they want or need to learn, they are nonetheless self-
directed in achieving personal goals albeit not understanding all that goes into achieving those 
goals. Adult learners’ preference for relevance to life situations and autonomy fit nicely with 
principles of constructivism (Huang, 2002), where educators serve to model the way for adults to 
emulate in achieving their goals. The purpose of teaching adult learners should be to inculcate 
lifelong, profound learning practices and related processes into learning experiences that build 
upon one another (Kroth et al., 2022). 

 
Constructivist Learning Theory 
 

The goal of instruction can be seen to create or develop pedagogies that will enhance a 
student’s abilities to engage in the learning process through active rather than passive actions.  
The constructivist theory of learning argues that students learn by creating new knowledge based 
upon their experiences (Gredler, 1997; Uredi, 2013). The constructivist model emphasizes that 
learners must have a solid base of knowledge, a foundation that is built through traditional 
teaching and learning methods of reading and lecture and out of class assignments. The 
Constructivist Model promotes “active construction of new knowledge by the learner based on 
experiences” (Paily, 2013, p.39) and that “active involvement of students helps them to construct 
knowledge (Cubukcu, 2012, p. 52). The constructivist theory of learning supports the value of 
models of instruction where student-centered activities enhance learning through active and 
reflective processes that are applied and processed in the classroom (Paily, 2013). Learning is not 
necessarily an individual or passive process but rather a social activity that is related to what is 
already known by the learner (Pritchard & Woollard, 2010). Dewey thought that learning should 
be integrated with life and be grounded in active engagement in the real world. “The inclination 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   4 

to learn from life itself and to make the conditions of life such that all will learn in the process of 
living is the finest product of schooling” (Dewey 1916, p.51; Frenette, 2015). 

Constructivist learning theories place “less emphasis on the sequence of instruction and 
more emphasis on the design of the learning environment” (Jonassen, 1994. P. 35). The 
classroom-learning environment is one that promotes active participation of students and real-life 
experiences (Uredi, 2013). Research supports positive effects of the constructivist-learning 
environment such as enhanced academic success of students, promotion of critical thinking 
skills, increased creativity and positive teachers and student perceptions (Uredi, 2013). In 
constructivist learning environments “active learning can develop by thinking about the detail of 
thoughts, experiences, perception, and emotions that come about during experiences” (Cubukcu, 
2012, p. 51). 
 
Cognitive load  

No discussion of learning in any modality should occur without a conscious awareness of 
cognitive load theory. With increased pedagogical opportunities comes the need for faculty to 
become aware of the volume of work that is posted or required given the increased pedagogical 
modalities that can be blended using online synchronous, asynchronous, and face-to-face 
instruction. Cognitive load theory (Paas et al. 2003; Sweller et al. 1998, 2011) uses an 
understanding that working memory (WM) is limited in capacity and duration and helps us to 
understand the relationship between working or short-term memory and moving concepts into 
long term memory systems. Understanding this relationship helps both faculty and instructional 
designers to maximize learning opportunities without supplanting proficient with nonproficient 
pedagogies. Through the expansion of new technologies and learning modalities such as 
synchronous and asynchronous learning environments, research has expanded so that the 
learning environment can influence WM load and learning (Liu et al. 2014). Through the field of 
forensic psychology, Vredeveldt et al. (2011), illustrate that while working on a task, working 
memory can be consumed through focus on the learning environment. The assumption is that 
instructional strategies and emotional factors need to be considered when designing learning 
environments and choosing which learning modalities or combination, and the overall volume of 
work will best meet learner needs. 

Each of the three authors had an understanding and appreciation of the importance of 
teaching and learning modalities, adult and constructivist learning theory, and cognitive load, 
prior to undertaking this study. However, because of our different roles and experiences, our 
perspectives reflected these differences which helped us to develop a deeper appreciation of the 
phenomena that we sought to investigate. 
 

Methods 
 
The course that is the subject of the current study was transformed during the COVID-19 

pandemic from online to traditional modality. Unlike the many higher education courses that 
were quickly posted online for delivery during the initial COVID-19 lockdowns, the 
transformation of this course from online to traditional took place about one year after the 
emergency COVID-19 campus closures ended. At the time of course delivery, many faculty, 
were forced to try new online course delivery options. These faculty adopted these new 
technologies as part of everyday teaching in the classroom. Among the new opportunities that 
presented themselves were the use of synchronous platforms where faculty and students were 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   5 

separated by space but were teaching and learning at the same time. Real time interactions in this 
synchronous modality or methods to augment online asynchronous have been used previously 
but not to the scale seen during the pandemic. 

This collaborative effort could probably be most clearly hypothesized as action research 
since it emerged as an integral part of our work. Edwards-Groves and Rönnerman (2022) 
contends that action research is indispensable as a form of educational inquiry because it allows 
professionals to direct their own practice transformations by eliciting and applying new 
understanding. Hoppe (2019) noted that action research attained greater legitimacy with 
innovation-focused journals in recent decades, with higher-tier journals increasingly publishing 
articles that incorporate action research methods. David Coughlin, when talking about action 
research said, “… let’s go after things that matter and do research on how we build collaboration 
to address them and build rigorous, relevant and reflective methods to cogenerate actionable 
knowledge” (personal communication, May, 2019). The researchers employed a descriptive case 
study approach to explore the real-life challenges, opportunities, and insights derived from the 
experience of transforming a course. The case study approach allows investigators to “study 
current, real-life cases that are in progress so that they can gather accurate information not lost 
by time” (Creswell, 2018, p. 97). In this case, investigators collected real-time observations from 
multiple perspectives, took detailed notes, examined real-time course discussion board postings, 
and engaged in reflective discussion of their experiences to uncover insights and develop 
recommendations for future practice addressing the following questions:  

 
1. What factors should be considered when transforming a course for adult learners from 

one modality to another?  
2. How can instructors leverage formative assessment data to inform real-time changes in 

course delivery? 
 
What follows are the voices of Instructor (Jim), Student (Alicia), and Program Director 

(Rick) who viewed the problem of transforming from an online to a traditional modality from 
their unique perspectives which subsequently expanded into a more general examination of 
transforming among modalities. The use of “voices” as a dialogic approach in inquiry can be 
used to invite readers into a pseudo-conversation (Bakhtin, 1975; 1981) and in this way these 
voices can be used to contextualize the investigation of phenomena. There can be multiple 
participants and voices as in this article or just one person who uses different voices in an 
imaginative manner (e.g., Bernauer, 2012; Um, 2021). However, voices were used here as the 
most practical way to draw a more complete picture of what actually happened while trying to 
transform a course from an online to a traditional classroom approach based on the perspectives 
of critical actors in this process. Because this study does not fit into a traditional qualitative 
design (such as phenomenology or grounded theory), we did not use coding per se but rather 
viewed it using critical thinking and drawing on our experiences as educators (see Bernauer, et. 
al, 2013). 
 
Three voices 

While we did not explicitly identify this study as ‘action research”, it dawned on us that 
this was the research design that emerged naturally after we began exploring and writing. 
Although we taught and were similarly taught to identify the research design prior to “collecting 
data”, action research is an approach where there is a seamless transition between practitioner 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   6 

and researcher (see Gaskill, 2013). We suppose this study could also be classified as a case study 
since the “boundaries are quite explicit given its focus on only our university. However, because 
this article emerged from our immersion in our “practice” and our respective roles in this 
practice, it seems that we have indeed engaged in action research.  

Jim will first describe what he encountered when he was assigned a traditional classroom 
setting to teach a doctoral-level course that he had previously taught online for ten years and his 
perspective as to what transpired as the semester progressed. Alicia will then describe this 
process from her perspective as doctoral student in this class while Rick, as doctoral program 
director as well as director of faculty professional development, will then provide a more holistic 
and practical view of this phenomenon. We think that this three-part approach will allow readers 
to appreciate this problem in a more complete context which will then hopefully facilitate their 
ability to transfer findings to their own settings. 

 
Instructor’s Voice 

(Jim) 
Perhaps the best way to set the stage for this article is captured in an online discussion 

that I had with one of my master’s students (Noah Firmstone) in an online course that I taught 
simultaneously with this doctoral class where he talked about the struggle of adapting from a 
traditional modality to an online one: 

Dr. B., When the pandemic began in March of 2020, I was in my last semester of 
completing my undergrad degree. The transition to online learning was certainly strange, 
but at the time seemed to be the only option.  I found myself with a lack of motivation to 
tune into online classes that were not engaging or interactive in any way.  Often times 
classes would be canceled and we would be left with assignments that just felt like busy 
work with no real purpose, again adding to the lack of motivation.  It was hard to focus 
and it was often impossible to find a quiet place to actually be able to tune into 
class.  Being at the college level during this time, I know this was even more difficult for 
younger kids.  Young children who were thrown into online learning fell significantly 
behind in their learning levels when compared with kids in prior years who were in 
person.  The burden for parents was extreme also as many were forced to play teacher 
with a lot of the actual teachers either going through the learning curve into teaching 
online or simply not putting forth the effort.   

Here is my response:  
Noah, thanks so much for sharing your experience! I am currently dealing with a reverse 
issue; that is, converting/transforming an online course back to traditional classroom -- I 
am finding it to be a surprisingly challenging and so since my goal is always to create a 
"learning classroom" (Cooper & Garner, 2012) I am now asking my students for their 
ideas and advice as to how we might do this together. And, like any good academic, I am 
currently collaborating with a colleague and one of my students on an article whose 
purpose is to describe and analyze this whole matter in order to create a better learning 
experience and to offer practical advice on how to go about this.  

 
First, it is important to note that I use assessment-driven instruction which I refer to as 

“integrated assessment” (Author, 1997) in all of the courses that I teach, whether undergraduate, 
masters, doctoral, online, or traditional courses (Author, 1998; Author, 2017). It should be noted 
that the course from which this study emanated is a doctoral-level course in statistical procedures 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   7 

and so the criterion of transferability should be kept in mind by readers. This course is not a class 
on statistics per se but rather how to use statistical procedures and SPSS to analyze quantitative 
data and is one of the first classes required of our doctoral student cohorts. It is also the case that 
because my co-authors and I view teaching as more art than science that the same course taught 
be different instructors can vary greatly both in the way it is taught and the way it is received and 
perceived by students. As Dewey (1938) so aptly put it: 

It is not enough that certain materials and methods have proved effective with other 
individuals at other times. There must be a reason for thinking that they will function in 
generating an experience that has educative quality with particular individuals at a 
particular time (p. 46) 

 
Because integrated assessment is a central component of what follows, generalizing to 

other contexts and instructional approaches needs to take this into account. While assessment-
driven instruction can sometimes be described as “teaching to the test”, which has been 
perceived both positively and negatively, I have found that if assessments are consistent with the 
following three criteria that they can serve as powerful forms of instruction. 

1. Comprised of essay/open-ended items vs. selected response items such as T/F. 
2. Captures the knowledge and skills that the instructor has identified as most important. 
3. Given to students at the beginning of a course to help guide both learning and instruction. 

As an early opponent of assessment-driven instruction, I am reminded of hearing 
something like this from a proponent -- “teaching to the test is OK if the test is a good one.” 
However, the arguments against high-stakes tests-driven instruction are longstanding (see for 
example, Harris et al., 2011; Madaus et al., 2009.). Teaching to the test or tailoring your learning 
to tests or assignments may indeed, not only result in narrowing of the curriculum, but also 
require large amounts of instructional time being spent on preparing students to do well on high-
stakes tests. The problem, as many teachers in our nations K-12 schools have discovered, is that 
these tests may not mesh with their instructional goals or whose timing when administered may 
be out of synch with instructional plans. However, at the higher-education level, I have found 
that if assignments are well-constructed and match to my instructional goals then they provide 
both my students and myself with a roadmap to follow as the term progresses. I have tried to 
develop assignments that, while they “drive” instruction, are also flexible enough so that 
individual approaches to learning are honored. In the present case, where the course I taught was 
a doctoral course on statistical procedures, the assignments were designed to facilitate student 
understanding of the concepts underlying these statistical procedures and linking these concepts 
to practical applications using SPSS statistical software, so that students could develop the skills 
to effectively analyze numerical data. I think that this same approach, focusing on important 
concepts and then linking these concepts to their practical applications, can also be used in other 
types of courses and disciplines including English, history, math, science, social studies, etc. 
While the content and applications may differ, the underling rationale is the same. 

Another contextual element is that the course that I was asked to teach in a traditional 
format was taught in the Spring, 2022 term after nearly two years of the Covid-19 pandemic 
where the world learned to do online what it had previously done in-person. In my case, I had 
actually taught the doctoral statistical procedures class online since 2012 when the online 
doctoral program was launched alongside the traditional program. Hence, I was quite acclimated 
to teaching online well before the pandemic began; in fact, I had converted the traditional 
statistical procedures course (as well as other courses) from traditional to online in 2012. 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   8 

Subsequently, when I was asked to teach this class in a traditional format in 2022, I had a 
modicum of concern because I had become comfortable with online teaching and learning. 
However, while I sensed that I might encounter some challenges as I sought to transform my 
LMS shell and my instruction from an online to a traditional modality, I thought that any 
required modifications would be relatively minor and that finding solutions would be painless. I 
soon discovered that I was mistaken on both counts -- even with a small doctoral class of seven 
students, the challenges were much more daunting than I had anticipated. As an online instructor 
for ten years, I had developed an approach that was honed over those years and which I found to 
be effective based on student feedback and my own sense of teacher efficacy. One of the first 
lessons I learned was that teaching online required teacher presence, the level of intervention and 
degree of visible involvement demonstrated by the instructor is dependent upon the pedagogical 
choices and personal preferences of the instructor (Bowden, 2012; Costley, 2015; Ravenna, 
2012). The pedagogical choices are critical to the learning process and the role of the instructor, 
while interacting with students in an authentic way (Cranton & Carusetta, 2004).  Establishing an 
LMS course shell, even if well-organized with weekly goals, simply does not adequately engage 
most students in learning just as lecturing in a traditional classroom without connecting with 
students is often simply an exercise in academic rhetoric. As I began the academic term asking 
students who had always been in a traditional setting to adopt and integrate online practices such 
as working collaboratively to respond and interact to discussion prompts during the week, I 
found that a mismatch began to emerge almost immediately – similar to trying to fit the 
proverbial square peg into a round hole. I continued to try and ameliorate this mismatch for 
approximately two weeks until the students (most notably my co-author Alicia) made it clear that 
things were simply not working – and it was from student discontent and the forthcoming 
suggestions from these students that led to what turned out to be a successful transformation 
from an online LMS and teaching approach back to a traditional format. 

I had to ask my doctoral students only once for their help because as adult learners, they 
immediately proceeded to not only suggest changes but to actively re- structure how we went 
about learning and teaching reciprocally during our Wednesday evening class. I used a flipped 
classroom approach where students are more actively involved and helped me shape both what 
and how I did things in the classroom – while there were seven students in this doctoral class, 
there were indeed eight teachers! 

Probably the first thing to notice about this forum that was originally developed for an 
online class is the number of items and their complexity which was based on the assumption that 
1) students made the decision to take online classes which in this case they did not; 2) there was 
24/7 access to respond asynchronously; 3) students recognized that online learning requires a 
special kind of self-discipline since most (but not all) work was done asynchronously and where 
the routines of the traditional classroom are absent. In retrospect, none of these assumptions were 
met when I was trying to overlay this forum on a traditional class setting which led to the need to 
be open to how I might transform this class which then led to listening to and encouraging 
students to suggest needed changes! See Figure 1. 

First Class Session 
What follows are the steps that I followed at the first class for this course on statistical 

procedures. While this is where I tried to overlay my online teaching approach in the traditional 
classroom setting. I have placed clarifying comments in brackets at the end of each step: 

1. I stressed that assignments serve as Advance Organizers (Ausubel, 1963) and include 
references to relevant sections of the text to promote self-learning that includes 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   9 

knowledge, understanding, and application which is consistent with “assessment-driven 
instruction” (see Assignment A1 Appendix 1). (This same approach was used when the 
course was taught online so thus far no “mismatches” arose!). 

2. I then stressed the underlying concepts or “Big Ideas” in relation to Assignment A1. This 
continued my use of Advance Organizers. [I’m not sure to what extent that I did this 
when teaching the course online, but I just felt for this group of students in the traditional 
setting that it was important to do so-see Assignment A1]. 

3. When it came time to decide what teams would work on which items on Assignment A1 
for the next class, students decided this for themselves (This was a change to what I had 
done online where I randomly assigned teams prior to the first-class session. In 
retrospect, I could see clearly that students had come to know each other and to form 
teams based on their predilections—after all these are adult learners. It may be the case 
that students in a traditional setting get to know each other better than online students 
which suggests to me that perhaps more synchronous sessions may be beneficial for 
online students so they have the opportunity to get to know each other better. In addition, 
perhaps some sessions should be without the instructor present to give students more 
freedom to be themselves and to learn from each other).  
Students would work on the questions posed during the week and they would then do a 
formal team-led discussion on class day. While this seemed like a reasonable approach, 
whether I did have some lingering doubts. Then came that first class where Alicia (after 
talking to her classmates) explained to me that students were simply doing double-work. 
To complicate matters (but as it turned out helped matters). I always use a flipped 
approach based on “measurement driven” instruction (Author, 1998; Author, 2017). 
Students respectfully let me know that there was simply a lot of extra work going on 
because while online offers a 24/7 window for learning, these students signed-up for a 
traditional format because that is how they prefer to learn. Online learning requires a 
different kind of discipline compared to the traditional classroom; for example, whereas 
students and instructor in a traditional face-to-face classroom have direct visual contact 
and interact intimately via both visual and auditory cues (including assignments), online 
learners are physically distant and typically engage in mostly (though not completely) in 
asynchronous interactions. Thus, the impetus for completing readings, assignments, etc. 
must emanate primarily from self-directed or intrinsic motivation.  
 

 

Figure 1 

 Individual Parent and Family Factors 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   10 

 

This does not mean that the traditional classroom setting also does not require self-direction but 
that online learning requires that students regularly set aside time for focused study and posting 

1. Your first task is for each of you to update us on anything you would like to share on the 
Introduction Forum -- new jobs, new house, new kid, new dog etc.!! 
For the following questions, please place the question number in front of each of your 
responses so that we can keep our discussions clear and organized both for your own team 
and for other teams as they "snoop"!!! 
2. How about sharing any questions regarding anything that you are unclear about in terms of 
the syllabus or assignments? Hopefully your team members, other team members, and maybe 
even me (if I know the answer) will chime in and help!! 
3. Assignment A1 (Statistics Fundamentals) Part I asks that you first indicate your emerging 
sense of your area of inquiry. This may require some of you to transform Research Questions 
into those that can be answered by collecting quantitative data--a variation of Creswell's 
"turning the story"! So, how about sharing your Problem Statement and Research Questions that 
can be answered by collecting quantitative data and consequently using statistical procedures to 
analyze these data. You might even want to ask teammates for advice regarding how to 
transform qualitatively-focused questions into quantitative questions! 
4. Part I also asks that you write a paragraph that explains in your own words what various 
statistical terms mean and how they connect to each other and to your Research Questions. 
These terms include Populations, Samples, Variables, Parameters and Statistics, Descriptive and 
Inferential Statistical Procedures, and Sampling Error. After you read pp. 2-10 of the Gravetter 
text and have worked through the Learning Checks, how about discussing some important 
things you have learned and any questions? 
5. Regarding A1b, you are asked to explain data structures and to describe how you might use 
each in your own study which will again may require you to "turn the story" in terms of your 
Research Questions. Maybe you can begin to share your ideas and questions -- we are all eager 
to collaborate! 
6. A1c: "Constructs" are what we are really after in research -- these include things such as 
motivation, anxiety, achievement, self-efficacy, satisfaction, etc! However, because we cannot 
directly see these invisible constructs we develop "operational definitions" and "variables" to 
represent these constructs. These variables can be defined in different ways (such as discrete and 
continuous) and then can be further defined by their "levels of measurement". This stuff is 
important when we get to statistical procedures and so the assignment asks you to describe "in a 
nutshell" what you have learned. Can you share some of your thoughts here? 
7. A1d: The only way to learn "statistical notation" is to read the assigned pages (25-29), work 
your way through the Learning Check on page 28 and Demonstration 1.1 on pp. 30-31. Notice 
that you do not need to submit any report for A1d; however, how about sharing insights and 
questions with teammates? 
8. Part II is hands-on work. How about if your team shares your work here for problems 7,11. 
You can snoop on the other teams for the other problems! NOTE: Each of you individually need 
to submit your work for problems 19 and 21 as part of A1. Please remember that the purpose of 
these exercises is to increase your understanding, so please try and work through these problems 
before peeking at the answers at the back of the book! Share any questions here!! 
9. Finally, how about "snooping and posting" on the other two teams including to see how they 
solved their assigned problems for Question #8??!! 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   11 

to discussion boards which is sometimes quite challenging when children, household tasks, jobs, 
and a myriad of other responsibilities are constantly clamoring for attention. 
 
Interim one-week Period between Classes 1 and 2 and Class 2 
At this point, while I was feeling some angst about teaching this course in the traditional 
classroom, I still thought that required changes would be minor. 

1. Students and Instructor posted responses to the Blackboard tasks for the second class 
[While some students posted responses to the assigned prompts, it was nowhere near the 
engagement when I taught this class online. However, I still labored under the illusion 
that with but a few “tweaks” to my online shell and teaching approach all would be well. 
In retrospect, this was indeed an illusion!]. 

2. Week 2 Forum: I continued to trust that my online format would work with this 
traditional class. Also notice that while I did. See Figure 2. 

 
Third Class Session 

When I told Rick that I think all of these students are going to earn an “A” grade, he said 
something like “so…what is the problem…they are all learning and demonstrating a high level 
of achievement – why shouldn’t they all earn an “A”: grade?” He was exactly right – why do we 
feel the need to issue grades based on the Normal Curve especially for doctoral students? While 
rigor in learning is important, it comes about based on effective teaching practices that are 
informed by relationship-building and relevancy-building (see Cooper & Garner, 2012). I should 
have been celebrating student success rather than bemoaning a lack of “spread” among student 
grades!  

It was at this session that we began to hit our stride in transforming from an online to an 
on ground approach! If you look at the Blackboard forum for Week 3 (Figure 2), you will see 
that we became even more “assessment driven” but in a way that allowed space for each student 
and student-team to approach tasks on Assignment A2 in a way that made the most sense to 
them. Each student exhibited great diversity in how they led us through their responses to each 
Figure 2 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   12 

Week 3 Overview 

 
task with some projecting their work using PowerPoint while others used SPSS (our statistical 
program) and others used a combination of methods including engaging the class in dialogue. 
Most importantly, was their recognizing and exhibiting the admonition from Week 3 – 
“However, you are not expected to always know exactly what to do or how to answer a 
question—that is what our class sessions are for—to learn collaboratively” that I found most 
satisfying. Indeed, that is what we did including me as both instructor and fellow learner. I 
listened to my adult-learner students and began to shape and transform this class to “meet them 
where they were” and in the process ended up with something new and exciting! 

I conclude by saying that although I had been teaching this same topic at two universities 
for about 15 years, that this was the most exciting learning experience that I had! While it all 
began with relatively high hopes as I sought to transition from an online to a traditional 
classroom format and encountered confusion along the way, this experience ultimately led to a 
renewed appreciation for both the subject matter and a re-affirmation that there are no limits to 
pedagogical creativity. I was reminded that the purpose of education is not to categorize students 
and issue grades but learning and growth itself. I hope to carry this realization throughout the 
remainder of my career.  

 
Student’s Voice 

(Alicia) 
I entered the program with a small cohort of seven learners and we likely fit the profile of 

students who would do well in an online program. Our group included several teachers, an 
instructional designer, a former daycare center director, and a social service agency director. All 
of us were familiar with online learning. Since the COVID-19 pandemic had forced educational 
institutions to quickly offer socially-distanced learning options in 2020, most members in our 
cohort were actively designing or delivering online instruction in their professional roles. Several 
cohort members had completed all or part of their master’s degrees online. I had worked in the 
development and delivery of online instruction in higher education settings for more than ten 
years. Despite our experiences with online teaching and learning, we had each elected to enroll 

Based on our class discussion, we decided to refashion our forums to focus directly on 
the assignments starting with A2.  We also parceled out who would work on specific items 
during the week and would then lead discussions on those items in class. 

However, you are not expected to always know exactly what to do or how to answer a 
question--that is what our class sessions are for—to learn collaboratively.  So, here is who we 
decided will sorta lead the discussions for questions on A2 on 3/23-- 
Q1:  Ariel and Rob 
Q2:  Roe 
Q3:  Alicia 
Q4:  Ashleigh 
Q5:  Monica 
Q6:  Lauren 

See the forums below for each of these questions and I encourage discussion among us 
as we move boldly forward with this new approach! 

Thanks! 
Captain Kirk 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   13 

in the on-ground Instructional Management and Leadership Ph.D. program in the summer of 
2021, when health and safety concerns related to attending class in person were significant. Our 
decisions were based on our personal learning preferences and needs. For example, I had 
selected the on-ground program because I found engaging with my instructor and peers in a face-
to-face setting important. I appreciated that most interaction with the instructor and my peers 
would occur during the established class session days and times. I valued the autonomy that on-
ground learning afforded for completing reading and homework assignments independently, at 
days and times that fit my schedule. As adult learners, each of us had established strategies for 
completing schoolwork within the context of our professional and personal commitments that 
enabled our success over the first year. And so, we entered the statistics course at the end of our 
first year in the program. 

As an instructional designer, my role involves working with on-ground and online 
courses. As the time for class grew close, I looked forward to engaging with the instructor and 
the course materials. At first review of the online course shell in the university learning 
management system, I noticed that the content was well-aligned with the course learning 
objectives. The instructor developed and posted an extensive collection of lectures and 
assignments in the learning management system. I noted immediately that the instructor’s 
passion for the role of statistics in our research was evident and almost contagious. I also noticed 
that, curiously, the assignments involved substantial online interaction and discussion. The 
course featured multi-step activities and discussion board interactions to be completed and 
submitted online before class each week. In short, the class seemed structured as an online class. 
It was a well-designed online class, but an online class, nonetheless. Our instructor posted eight 
online messages before the first class to welcome our group and provide guidance about the 
requirements to be completed and submitted as online discussions before the first meeting. In 
response to the online posting requirements, cohort members posted nearly thirty comments, 
items, and replies on online discussion boards in the first week. As a result, it was necessary to 
log into the online course shell regularly to upload completed assignment content and comment 
on the posts made by the instructor and peers to remain engaged with the conversation. 
Coordinating assignment completion activities with assigned team members required additional 
time. Even if learners kept up with reading and homework during the week, those unable to 
review discussion boards and post comments regularly feared they were falling behind. Several 
cohort members expressed confusion about the online requirements.  

It is important to note that the content we were reading in the text was excellent. The 
lectures provided by the instructor helped illuminate concepts in meaningful ways, and the 
assignments provided opportunities to apply what we were learning. Nevertheless, the online 
requirements presented a cause for concern. What we were learning was not the 
problem. How we were required to engage with course content, the instructor, and our peers was 
beginning to present barriers for us as on-ground learners. Challenges included the requirement 
that students work remotely to complete online group assignments during the week, post 
completed work in online discussion boards, and engage in online discussions about the content 
we had posted before presenting the same content in the on-ground class session at the end of the 
week. Over the first two weeks, it was clear that our collective efforts at coordinating ongoing 
group work online, posting assignment content, and generating meaningful online discussions 
were a bit shaky. We were murky about the purpose of online and on-ground presentations of the 
same content to the same cohort. For adult learners, the situation was problematic for at least two 
reasons. First, cohort members had already shown a willingness to incur risk to attend in-person 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   14 

class sessions despite the availability of online options. We valued and thrived on the 
opportunity to engage in live, on-site discourse. One of the primary benefits of in-person 
learning, in-the-moment discussions about class content, was diminished because we had already 
presented and discussed course content online before each live class. The overlapping 
expectations for in-class and online discussions left cohort members unsure where and how to 
best engage. Although our professor sent multiple messages to generate meaningful discussion 
online, they were to no avail. Presenting the same work in class that we had already submitted 
and discussed online made in-class discussions seem redundant. A second concern was the 
requirement that we log into the online course shell frequently to review and post discussion 
board contributions to build meaningful, week-long discourse online. Instead of stimulating 
meaningful online discussion, the required chat board postings pressured learners to make 
changes to work schedules, created barriers for those unable to post regularly, and led to 
confusion about the purpose of presenting the material again during live class sessions.   

In week three, a change occurred. The instructor invited collaboration with learners to re-
imagine how we might complete assignments. Through discussions about course transformation, 
learners voiced the value each of us placed on live engagement in class. The instructor used 
formative assessment data collected through the first two weeks of class and through 
collaboration with learners to make adjustments to the course delivery strategy. The course 
assignments and learning objectives did not change. Instead, on-ground class meetings were 
established as the primary setting for student presentations and discussions to better align with 
our needs as adult learners who had selected on-ground as our learning modality. Instead of 
throwing out the online discussion board, the new design allowed learners to leverage the 
discussion board, which now served as a resource site for posting authentic questions and 
relevant information when we needed assistance building presentations for upcoming class 
meetings which were structured as flipped class sessions. Instead of repeating information we 
had posted online, student-led in-class discussions focused on explaining solutions to homework 
due later in the week. This learner-developed content was augmented in real-time by discussion 
presented by the professor and input from cohort members. Instead of grading comments posted 
on the discussion board, the professor began to grade the content presented in live presentations 
and discussions. Rather than passively listening to peer presentations, learners focused closely on 
the content that would help us complete weekly assignments and asked questions to ensure our 
understanding. Contributing to the now graded in-class discussions required that we prepare for, 
learn from, and contribute to the presentations of our peers. Class discussions naturally began to 
delve more deeply into meaningful content areas as each of us was responsible for contributing 
to in-class discussions as a primary means of demonstrating our understanding. As a result, we 
experienced an authentic enhancement to our learning that fit well within the context of the on-
ground modality and addressed our needs as adult learners. It was a transformation of the course 
modality and the learning trajectory!  

Researchers have highlighted the importance of using formative assessment data from 
learners to make real-time changes in course delivery to support learner achievement (Veugen, et 
al., 2021). Black and Wiliam (2009) noted that the defining value of formative assessment is that 
it provides data that can be used by learners and instructors to make changes that promote 
improved learning outcomes. In this case, the instructor used formative assessment data from 
discussion boards, in-class discussions, and performance on assignments when collaborating 
with learners to transform the course from an online to an on-ground modality. Several areas 
stand out to me as a learner: First, more online use does not always lead to better engagement 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   15 

and achievement, especially in cases where adult-learners have selected on-ground as their 
course modality. The instructor used formative assessment data to determine that the use of 
technology and the assignment completion procedures presented barriers for learners and made 
the decision to adjust the strategy. Next, the instructor worked collaboratively with cohort 
members to reimagine assignment completion procedures and leveraged technology to increase 
learner engagement. Collaborating with learners to address how we wanted to engage through the 
technology supported self-directed learning skills and promoted our achievement of course 
learning objectives. Next, consistent with adult learning principles, the instructor restored learner 
autonomy by adjusting online posting requirements to reflect the on-ground modality leading to 
more meaningful discussions during class and more authentic use of the discussion board. 
Finally, because the formal assessments were already fully aligned with the course learning 
objectives, it was not necessary to change them. Instead, the instructor used the assessments to 
guide the transformation and generate data to keep learning on track.  
 

Program Director’s Voice 
(Rick) 

As the Director of the Center for Innovative Teaching (the faculty training and 
development department of the university) and the Director of our Ph.D. program, I have a close 
and personal perspective of faculty growth and development as well as student perspectives. 
Over the past two years, forced by the necessity of the pandemic lockdown, faculty moved to 
online synchronous or asynchronous environments. Moving all the educational activities online 
showed that many universities already had the tools and resources necessary for digitalization 
and for implementing effective decisions (Strielkowski, 2020). During this pivotal time, faculty 
learned a great deal about pedagogical opportunities beyond their traditional comfort zones. 
They discovered that there were other viable alternatives to teaching and that some things were 
better taught synchronously while others were better taught asynchronously and still others better 
taught using traditional face-to-face strategies (f2f). These lessons, after moving out of the 
pandemic and transitioning back into, a “new normal” have brought new opportunities and new 
ways for higher education faculty to think about and practice their teaching craft. Dumelescu and 
Mutiu (2021) pointed out that an adaptive institution is oriented by taking unpredictable contexts 
and turning them into impactful opportunities for constituents and that openness to change and 
becoming resilient are essential dimensions of the challenges facing higher education. The 
pandemic triggered many challenges but also produced many new opportunities for growth and 
change. 

 They have kept pedagogies that have worked and redeveloped others to maximize the 
learning opportunities and many no longer view education as an either or but an inclusive set of 
teaching perspectives with an enhanced “tool box” of possibilities to differentiate instruction to 
meet learner needs. By combining or blending modalities, new pedagogies and higher levels of 
flexibilities were and are still being created. With the use of enhanced technologies that use 
virtual cameras, hardware, and software, faculty have the option to teach f2f students alongside 
distance students in what we term a Simulcast format. Through synchronous computer 
connections, while incorporating asynchronous platforms and other software and Internet tools, 
faculty can now create a seamless network of strategies that increase student interaction with 
content, other students, and the instructor in real time (virtually and f2f) as well as 
asynchronously, separated by time and space.  



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   16 

 All of these changes have created a phenomenon of Transitional Pedagogy that 
has allowed faculty who have taught and used online materials, asynchronously and 
synchronously, to see that it is not an either-or situation but a menu of potential combinations 
(Figure 3). Faculty can now see the integration of different modalities used on a sliding scale that 
is dependent on their understanding of the content, their student’s needs, and the modality that 
matches best to different lessons or lesson components to convey the knowledge, skills, and 
attitudes necessary for learning and the internalization of course content. Transitional Pedagogy 
provides greater flexibility in the choices that faculty can employ in their teaching from lesson to 
lesson and from course to course. Because of all the pedagogical options that faculty have 
available to them to achieve course and lesson objectives (i.e., Lecture, Presentations, Direct 
teaching, Demonstration, Cooperative Learning and Group Activities, Debate, Case Study, 
Discussion, Guest Speakers, Journaling, Learner Presentations, and Problem Based Learning) 
faculty are no longer limited to a single modality but have options that can be used to 
differentiate instruction.  Because of these pedagogical opportunities, teaching in the higher 
education classroom is not a static method but a dynamic paradigm (Author, 2015) where faculty 
utilize their powers of observation, knowledge of content, and understanding of their learners to 
decide what methods and modalities should be used. The hard edges of solely using, f2f, 
synchronous, or asynchronous approaches have been softened and different pedagogies and 
modalities can be integrated based upon the proprietary techniques that faculty choose to 
employ.  
 
 
Figure 3 

Graphic Depiction of Transitional Pedagogies 

 
 

As Figure 4 illustrates, we now have pedagogical options that transcend face to face, 
synchronous, or asynchronous modalities. To employ these properly, faculty must be constantly 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   17 

aware of adult learner needs as well as cognitive load.  This awareness assist faculty to make 
proper modality choices and decide which pedagogy is best for student learning. This ongoing 
assessment goes beyond formative assessment and moves into a unique form of data driven 
analysis that informs practice. Faculty including the instructor in this article, listened to his 
students and what they are telling him they need, which is at the heart of adult learning theory 
and self-directed learning. Empathetic teaching practices that take into consideration the real-
time needs of students are paramount. Choosing, developing, and continuously improving 
practices are the educational foundations for deliberately developing profound learning (Davin, 
Carr-Chellman & Rogers-Shaw, 2022 p. 34). 
 
Figure 4 

Venn Diagram Depiction of Hyflex Pedagogies  

 
 

As noted earlier, awareness of Cognitive Load is imperative for an instructor to 
effectively make the transition from one modality to another or the integration of new 
pedagogical modalities when transitioning as Jim did. When moving from onground to online or 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   18 

onground to online the instructor must develop and practice transitional pedagogies while being 
cognizant of the work load required of students. In transitioning from online to onground, the 
instructor has an increased number of pedagogies already in place and may be more likely to 
“pile on work” believing that more is better. This can have a deleterious effect on learning and 
the learner especially in relation to working and long-term memory.     

Incorporating varying levels of the three modalities in Figure 4 provides a unique 
opportunity when curriculum mapping and understanding the overall value of education through 
outcomes measurement. “Data-Driven” means far more than just testing, it relates to using 
formative assessment data to informs practice. As student-centric instructors, we can focus on 
student needs and their perspectives on which to build our pedagogies rather than being driven 
primarily by a need to rigorously “cover the material.” Through increased teaching opportunities 
we find that faculty also have developed skills to map what they are teaching back to program 
and any outside curriculum standards (i.e., discipline specific goals or outcomes, state standards, 
accreditation standards, department or school goals). Mapping also provides greater opportunity 
for both formative and summative evaluations through the combination of modalities that can be 
utilized for individual and group outcomes measures. Faculty can now employ online or 
traditional exams, online or traditional projects (i.e., papers, projects, presentations etc.…) and 
use the inherent properties of online software and platforms to design interesting and effective 
outcomes measures. They also have the capabilities to formatively assess (as demonstrated in the 
dialogue between Jim and Alicia) their students through more effective forms of online review.  

In a traditional f2f setting, faculty must rely on their abilities to read body language 
through questioning techniques in order to know if students are comprehending and ready for 
new information. With the inclusion of online asynchronous and synchronous opportunities, 
faculty can utilize a variety of ongoing assessment reviews (i.e., synchronous polling and 
questions, asynchronous review of discussion board, blog, wiki posts, assignment posts etc). 
These help faculty to assess a student’s understanding of content. Through the use of the 
different modalities faculty are able to apply more tools to establish outcomes measures. In this 
new learning environment instructors have both the opportunity and responsibility to decide what 
might work best. 

As director of the Ph.D. program during the pandemic, I was approached by a group of 
first-year doctoral students who had signed up with the understanding that the program would be 
a traditional face to face program with all classes meeting on campus and in person. Due to the 
restrictions of the pandemic and the lockdown, all classes at our university and the vast majority 
of higher education across the country and the world, were moved to remote learning described 
by Hodges et al. (2020) using synchronous platforms. During one meeting with these first-year 
students, they requested to talk about the way things were working. I was initially expecting 
mostly negative feedback only to hear that they were quite pleased with the remote instruction of 
two different courses and stated that if I wanted to run the entire program this way, they would 
be supportive! 

As discussed earlier, some things are better taught and assessed f2f and others taught and 
assessed better online through synchronous or asynchronous modalities or a combination. One 
example is the use of discussion boards. An instructor may see value in the f2f discussion at one 
time while at another time they see the benefit of an online discussion board or both for a 
particular concept. Having the choice to use a variety of options provides greater freedom to 
choose the best pedagogy in the appropriate modality to meet the established objectives and 
curriculum. Choosing how to meet the objectives in their individual courses is based upon their 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   19 

perspectives, discipline specific nuances, and perceived student need to differentiate instruction. 
We hear a great deal about differentiating to the needs of students which to many has been 
extremely difficult to meet. Now with the integration of multiple modalities on a sliding scale the 
opportunities become limitless to accomplish this task.  
 

Voices of Reflection 
Instructor’s Voice 

What actually sparked my interest in investigating the problem of course transformation 
was the unexpected challenges encountered when trying to convert an online doctoral class using 
Blackboard as the LMS into a traditional f2f class. While I had transformed courses from a 
traditional to an online modality, I had never done the reverse. Although I vaguely felt that there 
might possibly be some minor issues in this transformation, I thought that because I have taught 
at the university level for more than 15 years, that I would be easily be able to resolve any issues 
with the help of my students. Well, while I was right about the willingness of students to help, I 
was wrong about the issues encountered being “minor”; rather it required a major overhaul to the 
way that I teach and how the Blackboard shell was constructed. 

What I learned almost immediately from my students is that “more is not better”. Alicia 
in particular helped me (and the rest of the class) understand this. Because I had taught several 
doctoral level courses online since I transitioned these courses from a traditional to an online 
format in 2016, I had confidence that I could use the same learning processes again with a 
traditional class with minor adjustments. However, as noted this has not been the case. Whereas I 
recall there was not a great deal of difficulty transforming traditional to online classes, the 
reverse transformation proved much more difficult. Faculty were always told that the quality of 
our online and traditional classes should be equal; however, I do not think it was emphasized 
enough that while quality might be equivalent that it would need to be attained in different ways. 
While I am not sure to what extent there will be a need to transform courses from an online to an 
on ground modality as the pandemic and other circumstances continue to unfold, I now feel like I 
am more ready to face the challenges of course transformation. 

 
Student’s Voice 

What is most remarkable about this case is the instructor's openness to considering 
options for how assessments would be completed and graded. This openness was instrumental in 
transforming the course from an online class into a custom offering that effectively addressed the 
needs of adult, on-ground students while leveraging technology to enhance learning. The 
experience was one of the most formative learning experiences of my graduate career. In 
addition to acquiring valuable statistics knowledge that I applied in completing my dissertation, I 
have had the opportunity to participate in the real-time transformation of a course from one 
modality to another from the learner's perspective. I witnessed what can happen when an 
instructor carefully monitors and applies assessment information, changing course delivery 
strategy to ensure that learners meet the target learning outcomes. Although I have participated 
in course transformation in my work as an instructional designer, this was the first time I 
experienced course transformation from a learner's perspective. I will apply the lessons learned 
in my research and instructional design work.  

 
Program Director’s Voice 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   20 

We are seeing a shift in expectation from faculty and students as well as some new 
opportunities that have emerged for higher education. The dynamics of either face to face or 
online learning as divergent options have grown into a different set of expectations for higher ed 
teachers, learners and for universities in general. Through the use of technological opportunities, 
we are now seeing, what used to be some crossover through blended learning, flipped classrooms 
and hybrid approaches has exploded into an entirely new combination of learning environments 
where faculty can employ and learners can learn through a variety of traditional, synchronous 
and asynchronous online pedagogies. No longer is higher education limited to the uniqueness of 
one way. All need to be aware of these new teaching and learning modalities and the 
implications they have for practice. From a faculty’s perspective, it opens up so many new 
options for deploying a mixture of dynamic pedagogies that can better serve the learners based 
upon the instructors understanding of the content, discipline and student needs.  From the 
learner’s perspective, they now have more opportunities for learning and internalizing content in 
ways that differentiated instruction to strategies that are preferred and more convenient for adult 
learning styles.  From a university’s perspective, this not only provides better opportunities for 
teaching but also can open and expand learning markets. Online asynchronous has done that to a 
degree over the years but now with what was learned about the inclusion of synchronous 
learning coupled with asynchronous a new world of online learners becomes possible. There has 
always been a certain faction of learners who didn’t want to learn at a distance because of the 
limited real time interactions of asynchronous LMS alone modalities. This can now be rectified 
and provide distance learners with an appealing alternative through Simulcasting.   

Coll & Ruch (2021), stated that leaders must guide their institutions to be student-
oriented, have technologically based programming, and have relevant fiscal plans in place. This 
implies the need for rapid innovation by administrative leaders in higher education with 
awareness in how to respond to COVID or other threats to instruction and pedagogical designs. 
The constructivist theory of learning supports models of instruction where student-centered 
activities enhance learning through active and reflective processes that are applied and processed 
(Paily, 2013) which hyflex provides through the transitional pedagogies providing an enhanced 
or broadened set of opportunities. 

Moore (1997; 2006) opines that distance learning creates a communication or 
psychological separation where greater discussion and less structure reduce the distance between 
student and instructor and less interaction and more structure increase that distance. Much of this 
is also driven by learner autonomy or what could be described as learner control. This is at the 
heart of adult learning theory and models of learning. Consequently, the learning experiences of 
adults are considered transformative in nature (Mezirow, 2000; Taylor, 2008) and to internalize 
new knowledge and theories, an adult’s prior experiences and former perspectives serve as the 
foundation to introduce new knowledge and skills through new and fresh educational modalities. 
Day, Lovato, Tull, and Ross-Gordon (2011) also found that adult learners should be provided 
with structure to comfortably and effectively organize their learning which the hyflex model with 
the transitional pedagogies supports.  This provides the instructor with an expanded set of tools 
and pedagogical modalities to deliver content in manners that best fit adult learner needs 
blending the clarity of real time learning through either f2f or synchronous interactions with the 
self-directed nature of asynchronous content connections as depicted in Figure 4.   
 

Limitations and Delimitations 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   21 

There are, of course, both limitations and delimitations of this study. Regarding the latter, 
we were concerned only with our university and did not place transferability (“generalizability”) 
at the forefront of our study. Therefore, we have with kind intentions placed the onus on our 
readers to determine the extent to which our environment and circumstances (context) resemble 
those that they confront or are of interest. All three of us hereby make ourselves available for any 
further clarification that you may need, and we wish you the very best in your own explorations. 

 
Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations 

The “three voices” reflect our unique perspectives based on our roles as instructor, 
student, and program director and what we each took away from this “actionable knowledge” 
since we got to learn from each other as we reflected on the same phenomenon.  

 
Specific findings that we think are important to note include the Student Voice (Alicia) 

related to formative assessment where she notes how vital it is for instructors to be open to their 
students’ voices. Since all three authors have engaged in teaching in higher education, we all 
agree that without student feedback, we would have blithely gone our own way thinking that all 
was well. While this is sometimes the case, most often it is not. Because of his unique position 
and vantage point, The Program Director (Rick) due to his unique vantage point has been able to 
discern that that while good teachers can thrive under many different circumstances, pedagogy 
itself has been transformed as a consequence of the pandemic and how technology can be 
blended in diverse ways with both traditional classroom teaching as well as with online teaching. 
Finally, while the Instructor (Jim) started off this inquiry based on the surprising challenges he 
encountered when transforming an online class to a traditional class, he benefitted tremendously 
from the depth, breadth, and richness that resulted from collaboration with Alicia and Rick.  

This collaborative effort resulted in a mosaic depicting a more complete gestalt compared 
to what we each would have learned in isolation about traditional and online learning and 
teaching – it was almost like a literature review in real time. What we learned or more accurately 
re-learned is that student-centered teaching is much more than an oft-repeated expression but 
rather gets at the heart of the matter – what do we want students to walk out of our classroom 
door with at the end of a course with, whether that door is real or virtual, in terms of knowledge, 
understandings, appreciations, and predispositions to continue learning and growing? The 
Instructor Voice re-learned this lesson when reminded by the Student Voice that teaching 
modalities cannot trump student needs and that formative evaluation (aka listening to students) is 
a powerful component of quality instruction. The Program Director’s Voice is one that provides 
a kind of wisdom that accrues from being intimately connected to the uniqueness of both 
students and faculty in terms of who they are and how they learn and teach – and the value 
inherent in this uniqueness. Because of our collaborative efforts, the Three Voices are now more 
in harmony with each other and open to future opportunities to improve learning and teaching no 
matter the modality. 

Because every university, program, students, and teachers are unique, we hesitate to offer 
sweeping recommendations; however, if one thing stands out as essential, it is that by creating a 
culture of collaboration wonderful synergistic things can happen. We look at this article as one of 
these because it far transcends an academic exercise. Rather, it has set the tone for expanded 
collaborative efforts based on nurturing the “small” ideas that a faculty member may have and 
creating a field of inquiry that can go far beyond an individual’s vision. In a word, it can be 
exhilarating and we hope that others can create their own unique versions of collaboration! 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   22 

 
Instructor Voice 

Addendum 
During the writing of this article, we have passed inexorably from one semester to 

another and now I find myself teaching yet another course that I originally developed in the 
online modality which I now am teaching face-to-face. I felt that it was important to not only 
reinforce the lessons that I learned based on what we wrote above but to share this lesson with 
yet another group of doctoral students. Here (Figure 5) is what I announced to them prior to our 
second class meeting-- 
 
 
Figure 5 

Announcement to a New Group of Students 

 
All Three Voices now fully understand and agree that the days of fixed demarcations 

among teaching approaches are outdated and that learning and teaching should no longer be 
circumscribed by shopworn labels. Rather, it is time for us to be open to innovative and multiple 
approaches that are authentic to real-life learning and designed to engage, excite, and energize 
our students. 
 

 

Dear Students, 
Old habits die hard as I continue to put a bit of an online spin on a face-to-face class -- 

such as calling this Week 2 instead of Class 2! 
As I mentioned previously, I learned from a previous class that we can't just overlay an 

online modality on a face-to-face class. Face-to-face students (such as yourselves) chose this 
modality because it is you preferred way of learning even though you are aware of the 
convenience and flexibility that online learning offers. However, one of the most important 
characteristics of online learning is that learning is seen as 24/7 and not confined to particular 
class meetings.  

Based on this preamble, I try to offer the best of both worlds when teaching a face-to-
face class by doing a few things like providing all assignments at the beginning of the term so 
that you can integrate these assignments with collaborative team planning and discussions during 
the week in our online forums. This in turn should help each of your teams prepare to take these 
discussions "live" at our Thursday class. 

For our class session this week, your teams will lead us in discussing the following 
Chapters from our text which are EXTREMELY relevant at this stage of your scholarly journey- 

Chapter 4: Scholarly Reading as a Model for Scholarly Writing 
Chapter 5: Working with Tensions: Writing for Publication During Your Doctorate 
Chapter 6: The Process of Transforming the Dissertation into Publication 

 
I look forward to more great learning experiences both online and face-to-face! 
Thanks and see you Thursday! 
Jim 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   23 

References  

Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Grune & Stratton. 

Bakhtin, M.M. (1975/1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by MM Bakhtin. University 
of Texas Press. 

Bernauer, J.A. & Cress, K. (1997). How school communities can help redefine accountability 
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 71-75.  

Bernauer, J.A. (1998) Teaching for measurable outcomes. Journal of Excellence in College 
Teaching, 9(2), 25-46. 

Bernauer, J.A. (2012). The unfolding of methodological identity: An autobiographical study 
using humor, competing voices, and twists. 

Bernauer, J. A., Lichtman, M., Jacobs, C., & Robertson, S. (2013). Blending the old and the new: 
Qualitative data analysis as critical thinking and using Nvivo with a generic approach. 
The Qualitative Report, 18, 1-10. Retrieved from 
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/bernauer2.pdf  

Bernauer, J.A. & Fuller, R.G. (2017). Beyond measurement-driven instruction: Achieving deep 
learning based on constructivist learning theory, integrated assessment, and a flipped 
classroom approach. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 28(2), 111-132. 

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational 
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-
008-9068-5 

Bowden (2012). Online graduate education: Developing scholars through asynchronous 
discussion. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(1), 
52-64. 

Choi, H. H., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on 
cognitive load and learning: towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational 
Psychology Review. 

Coll, K. M., & Ruch, C. P. (2021). Academic Deanship in a Post Pandemic Institution. 
International Journal of Higher Education, 10(5), 132. 

Cooper, N. & Garner, B.K. (2012). Developing a learning classroom. Corwin. 

Costley, J. (2015). The effects of three types of instructor posting on critical thinking and social 
presence: No posting, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. International Journal 
of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(2), 26-47. doi: 
10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.002. 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   24 

Cranton, P., & Carusetta, E. (2004). Perspectives on authenticity. Adult Education Quarterly, 
55(1), 5-22. 

Creswell, J.W. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage.  

Cubukcu, Z (2012), Teachers' evaluation of student-centered learning environments, Education, 
v133 n1 p49-66. 

Day, B. W., Lovato, S., Tull, C., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2011) Faculty perceptions of adult learners 
in college classrooms. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(2), 77–84. 

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Free Press. 

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education. Simon& Schuster. 

Dumulescu, D., & Muţiu, A. I. (2021). Academic Leadership in the Time of COVID-19—
Experiences and Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648344. 

During Coronavirus pandemic: The current trend and future directive at Middle East European 
Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN). (2006). Theory and theorists: Michael G. 
Moore. Evolution of Theory of Transactional Distance http://www.eden-online.org 
Powerpoint presentation retrieved 28 July 2011 from Google search 

Edwards-Groves, C., & Rönnerman, K. (2022). Action Research conceptualised in seven 
cornerstones as conditions for transforming education. [Investigación-Acción 
conceptualizada en siete pilares como condiciones para transformar la 
educación] International Journal of Action Research, 18(2), 116-133. https://doi-
org.reddog.rmu.edu/10.3224/ijar.v18i2.03 

Fabriz S, Mendzheritskaya J and Stehle S (2021) Impact of Synchronous and Asynchronous 
Settings of Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education on Students’ Learning 
Experience During COVID-19.Front. Psychol. 12:733554.doi: 0.3389/fpsyg.2021.733554 

Gaskill, P. (Ed.). (2013). Special issue: Fifty years of Theory Into Practice: Learning from the 
past, looking to the future. Theory Into Practice, 52, 1-150. 

Gredler, M. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, 
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 

Harris, P., Smith, B.M., & Harris, J. (2011). The myths of standardized tests. Rowman & 
Littlefield. 

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., and Bond, A. (2020). The difference between 
emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educ. Rev. 27, 1–12. 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   25 

Hoppe, M. (2019). Choosing an Outlet for Action Research: Publication Patterns in Innovation 
Journals. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(4), 66–77. 
https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1234 

Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. 
British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37. 

Johnson, N, George, V. and Seaman, J. (2020, June) U.S. Faculty and Administrators’ 
Experiences and Approaches in the Early Weeks of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Online 
Learning Journal – V24, 2 pp 6-21. 

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying principles of adult learning, San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Kroth, M., Carr‐Chellman, D. J. &; Rogers‐Shaw, C. (2022) Formation as an organizing 
framework for the processes of lifelong learning. New horizons in adult education & 
human resource development, 2022, V34,(1), 26-36. 

Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of prior knowledge on learning from different 
compositions of representations in a mobile learning environment. Comput Educ, 
72,328–338. 

Madaus, G., Russell, M., & Higgins, J. (2009). The paradoxes of high stakes testing. Information 
Age Publishing. 

Moorhouse, B. L. & Kohnke, L. (2021). Thriving or surviving emergency remote teaching 
necessitated by COVID-19: University teachers’ perspectives. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 
30(3), 279–287 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00567-9 

Mohmmed, A. O., Khidhir, B. A., Nazeer, A., & Vijayan, V. J. (2020). Emergency remote 
teaching.  

Moore, M. (1997). Theory of Transactional Distance. In Keegan, D. (1997). (Ed.). Theoretical 
Principles of Distance Education. Routledge, pp. 22-38.  

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent 
developments. Educ Psychol, 38,1–4. 

Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social 
learning. London: Routledge. 

Ravenna, G. (2012). The effects of increased workloads on online instruction. International 
Journal of Education, 4(4), 125-133. doi: 10.5296/ije.v4i4.2269 

Roache, D., Rowe-Holder, D., & Muschette, R. (2020). Transitioning to online distance learning 
in the COVID-19 era: A call for skill leadership in higher education institutions 
International Studies in Educational Administration, 48(1), 103-110). 



 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   26 

Strielkowski, W. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and the digital revolution in academia and higher 
education. Preprints 2020040290. doi: 10.20944/preprints202004.0290.v1 

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional 
design. EducPsychol Rev, 10, 251–296. 

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory (vol. 1). New York: Springer. 

Siegelman, A. (2019). Blended, hybrid, and flipped courses: What’s the difference? 
https://teaching.temple.edu/edvice-exchange/2019/11/blended-hybrid-and-flipped-
courses-what%E2%80%99s-difference. 

Um, S.J. (2021). The chimera: Multiple selves, conflicting desires, and fluctuating power 
relations in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 26(5), 1693-1704. 
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4705  

Uredi, L. (2013). The relationship between the classroom teachers’ level of establishing a 
constructivist learning environment and their attitudes towards the constructivist 
approach. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(4), 50-55. 

Veugen, M.J., Gulikers, J.T.M., den Brok, P. (2021). We agree on what we see: Teacher and 
student perceptions of formative assessment practice. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 
70, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101027 

Vredeveldt, A., Hitch, G., & Baddeley, A. D. (2011). Eyeclosure helps memory by reducing 
cognitive load and enhancing visualization. Memory & cognition, 39, 1253–1263. 

 
 

Author Notes 
 

James A. Bernauer, University Professor Emeritus (Corresponding author) 
ORCiD http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2480-5087 
Affiliation Robert Morris University  
Email bernauer@rmu.edu 
 
Richard G. Fuller 
Email fuller@rmu.edu 
 
Alicia M. Cassels 
Email cassels@rmu.edu 
 
 
 

More details of this Creative Commons license are available at 
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Current Issues in 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2480-5087
mailto:bernauer@rmu.edu
mailto:fuller@rmu.edu
mailto:cassels@rmu.edu
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


 

Current Issues in Education, 25(1)   27 

Education is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education 
at Arizona State University