CHAPTER NINE

LESSONS LEARNED IN THE VIRTUAL CLASSROOM

What key lessons have we learned in our exploration of all the myriad issues and concerns involved with the design, development, and delivery of online courses and programs? We end this book with a review of the most important lessons from the virtual classroom: we take another look back, an additional look at the present, and then a look ahead into the near future of online education. Changes are occurring rapidly, making it almost impossible to see very far into the future of distance learning. However, some predictions are being made based on current developments that are encouraging yet also indicate a need for caution and measured action. We organize the lessons as those for faculty; support staff who support faculty, such as instructional designers and faculty developers; and administrators responsible for online courses and programs.

A Look Back

It's hard to believe that online learning hasn't been part of the academic landscape for very long. We began our own work online in 1992, using a primitive dial-up electronic bulletin board with little to no security and the ability to post only text messages that were not linked to one another in the form of discussions as we know them today. The precursors to this form of learning were correspondence courses, broadcast television courses generally delivered over public television, interactive TV, and computer-based training. The World Wide Web as we know it now was not available to the public until 1994, and online searches for the beginning of online education cite the dot-com boom, which occurred between 1999 and 2001, as the point at which online learning was born.

We now see the introduction of new technologies, such as mobile technologies, as having a significant impact on the ways in which teaching and learning happen online. Bandwidth has increased, as has access to computer technology and the Internet. Collaboration and networking are now the norms. Despite this, we cannot forget that there are still students who have to dial up to access their online courses and may not have the most up-to-date technologies. The digital divide still exists, although it may have narrowed a bit. And questions about the quality of online courses still persist. With this as a backdrop, we can explore the lessons learned and take yet again another look ahead.

The sections that follow present the lessons that may be taken from the virtual classroom. First, we explore some myths that continue to surround online learning and that have an impact on the lessons learned.

The Myths

Despite the ubiquity of online learning today, these myths persist:

• Classroom instruction offers a higher quality of education as compared to distance learning. As the recent Allen et al. (2012) study indicates, instructors continue to hold this belief, which leads to skepticism of and resistance to teaching online.
• Online students lose interaction with instructors and other students. As we have discussed, a well-designed online class should be highly interactive and should promote collaboration and a sense of community. Many students comment that they feel closer to their student colleagues and professors in online courses that are interactive and well facilitated.
• Employers value degrees earned from classroom instruction more than those earned from an online school. Although this was true in the past, the increasing acceptance of online learning has helped to reduce this practice. Brain Track (n.d.), a website that assists prospective students in finding courses and programs, interviewed job recruiters who noted that for the most part, employers seek qualified graduates of accredited universities and are not concerned about whether the degree was earned online.
• The role of the professor is less important in online learning programs. We contend that the role of the professor online is extremely important. As we have discussed and others have also noted, if the instructor is not present in the course, participation wanes. Some have pointed to the emergence of MOOCs (massively open online courses), which we discuss later in this chapter, as evidence that an instructor is not needed. Even MOOCs, however, when done well are constructed to facilitate networking and the development of a sense of community.
• An online degree is easier to earn than a degree from a traditional school. As we have been stressing, online learning is not the softer, easier way to earn a degree. Participating in an online course requires more time and effort on the part of both instructors and their students. Students may enter an online course with this myth in mind but quickly find the opposite to be true. Communicating this to students as part of an orientation to online learning is extremely important.

Lessons for Faculty

Instructors Need Not Fear Online Learning

A 2012 survey of faculty views of online education (Allen, Seaman, Lederman, & Jaschik, 2012) indicates that instructors both fear and avoid online learning because of concerns about quality. A response to the survey by a professor who participated in it notes, “Learning how to teach online probably would be one of the best steps a professor could take to assure viability in the 21st century. The most dysfunctional response by a professor today would be to dismiss or ignore both the technology and the social consequences online learning has” (Thelin, 2012, para. 2). The survey itself states that those who teach online hold online learning in higher esteem than those who have never done so.

A look at the history of online education shows that some form of teaching at a distance has been in existence in education throughout its history. Thelin (2012) indicates that online education is a part of higher education's heritage and that new formats and media for the delivery of education have always been attractive to what he terms “outstanding scholars.” He suggests that online education can and should coexist with the more traditional methods of teaching, such as lectures, seminars, and fieldwork, with the ability to support and cross-fertilize one another rather than eliminating one another. Instead of fearing the quality of online learning, instructors need to work together to address these concerns to create online courses that are robust and rigorous.

Course Development Needs to Focus on Interactivity, Not Content

The key to success in an online class rests not with the content that is being presented but with the method by which the course is delivered. To reiterate a point we made earlier, the most beautifully designed course—complete with audio, video, and other graphic and multimedia tools—can fail dismally if the instructor is not a skilled online facilitator working to build a learning community among the learners. A well-delivered course provides multiple means by which students and the instructor can interact, including e-mail, discussion boards, and careful use of synchronous discussion. The effective use of the means by which interactivity is fostered deepens the learning experience and creates a more satisfying outcome for everyone. Content can be creatively delivered through facilitation of effective discussions, collaborative assignments that promote teamwork and interaction, Internet research, and links to interesting websites outside the course site. Content that is delivered in multiple ways also addresses different student learning styles and creates a more interesting course overall. But it is the interaction and connections made in the course that students will remember as the keys to learning in an online course. Pedagogy, not technology, is what is critical to the success of an online course.

Instructor and Student Roles Need to Change

In order for a high degree of interactivity to occur in an online course, the roles of instructors and students need to change: instructors need to be willing to give up a degree of control and allow the learners to take the lead in learning activities. Although this sounds easy, both instructors and students bring previous educational experience and expectations to the online classroom. Students expect to be “taught,” and instructors expect to “teach.” Consequently, students need to be oriented to their new role and the ways in which learning occurs online. A formal training program can assist in this process. However, when a training program is not available, instructors can get students started by posting material to the course site in the form of an initial discussion item, static information that students can access at any time, an audio or video presentation orienting them to the course and their expectations, or a frequently asked questions file about the online learning process.

What is most important is to encourage instructors to move away from the lecture mode of teaching and toward the use of more active learning approaches. Instructors should be encouraged to take stock of their pedagogical approach and ask themselves: How do I see myself as a teacher? How do my students respond to my teaching style? What types of learning activities do I currently incorporate into my classes? What changes in those activities do I need to make to move into the online environment? Many instructors—ourselves included—have found that the changes required to deliver an online class successfully also work well in the face-to-face classroom. Our own face-to-face teaching has changed as the result of our experiences online. The use of the collaborative, interactive, active learning techniques we have described can thus enhance the learning experience of students in the traditional classroom. Once again, learner-centered pedagogy is everything when it comes to teaching online or face-to-face.

Lessons for Instructional Designers and Faculty Developers

Both Faculty and Students Need Training

In order to understand the key lessons of the need for interactivity and the changes in faculty and student roles, both faculty and students need training. Rather than focusing on technology, however, training needs to address what it takes to teach and learn online successfully. Other faculty development concerns include the importance of customizing an online course developed by another entity or faculty member, dealing with students and student problems in the online classroom, working with online classroom dynamics, and matching the ways to use technology and approaches to teaching in order to address student learning styles. Both faculty and students certainly need training in the technology they will be using in online classes, but this should not be the primary concern.

Training should not be a one-size-fits-all proposition. In The Excellent Online Instructor (2011), we proposed a model of training that meets faculty where they are in terms of their expertise and experience with online teaching. Novice instructors need very different training from those who are considered master instructors and have taught online for many years. Creating training that matches experience levels helps to engage all instructors and meet a variety of training needs. Master instructors can be recruited as trainers and mentors for those just entering online teaching. Their experiences are invaluable and will assist novice instructors in avoiding time-consuming and frustrating mistakes.

Faculty Who Teach Online Need to Feel Supported

Instructors who teach online need to feel supported in addressing course and student issues. An instructor trying to deal with a difficult student needs to know the parameters within which he or she can operate in order to respond to the situation with minimal disruption to the rest of the group. Faculty orientation to the online environment in a given institution should offer policies or at least some discussion of resources that can be used if a difficult situation is encountered. Instructors teaching online can feel isolated from the institution. If the instructor's ties to the institution are strengthened in any way, it will result in an overall online program that appears cohesive and well planned. Furthermore, in order to build a learning community, instructors need to be able to create a safe container within which the learning community can flourish. To do that, they need to feel supported by the institution, meaning that the institution must deal swiftly and fairly with the student problems they encounter. When student problems are not adequately addressed, a sense of safety may not prevail.

Based on our own experience, we can say that when an instructor does not feel a sense of institutional support for the action he or she needs to take in the online classroom, the results can be almost disastrous: students may leave the course or program; they may become very vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction with the way a situation was handled; and, most important, learning outcomes for the entire group may not be achieved. Our students are our customers. Providing them with a successful learning experience takes more than putting a course online, training an instructor to deliver it, and hoping for the best.

Lessons for Administrators

Support Online Faculty Through Fair Compensation

Instructors are more likely to engage in online course design and teaching if they have reasonable compensation for the work. This means that online teaching should be included in the faculty workload and not be viewed as additional work, putting instructors into an overload situation. They also need compensation for course development in the form of pay or release time. If master online instructors are used to support the development of novice instructors, they should also be compensated for this work.

Institutions Should Develop a Strategic Plan

Institutions need a strategic plan focused on technology as well as policies related to course and program development, ownership, and governance. Rather than muddling through in order to get courses online and compete with other institutions that are doing the same, institutions are better served to use a strategic planning process. The process should include discussion and development of policies related to course and program development, course ownership, and governance issues including decisions about which courses and programs should be taught online, faculty compensation, faculty teaching loads, and enrollments.

Furthermore, preparation for the development of such a plan requires a realistic market assessment. Too often assumptions are made about the students who are likely to enroll in online programs without any research to validate those assumptions. Often administrators assume that online courses will dramatically extend the reach of the institution. Aslanian and Clinefelter (2012), however, found that 69 percent of online students live within fifty miles of the campus of the institution in which they are enrolled and 80 percent live within one hundred miles. If online courses and programs are offered, then, which students will the institution likely attract? Would such offerings serve on-campus students in addition to extending the institution's reach off-campus?

Answering these questions should help to determine which courses to offer and which programs to develop in response to student needs. Including faculty in this process is critical in order to move these decisions through the institution's regular governance process. In addition, an inclusive process can help to alleviate disagreements over course ownership and intellectual property issues. The key to success in this area is reaching agreement on issues of governance, ownership, and faculty compensation before embarking on the development of courses and programs.

Institutions Should Develop an Infrastructure First

Faculty and students need administrative and technical support in order to teach and learn online effectively. When institutions decide to put a course or two online, they often do so without first creating an adequate structure for faculty and student technical support. Significant problems may result:

• How will students register for online courses?
• How will faculty receive enrollment information?
• Will faculty be expected to enter student information into their courses, or will that be done by someone in registration or instructional technology?
• Who responds when students or faculty encounter technical difficulty?
• What happens when and if the server crashes and both faculty and students are unable to access the course site?
• What happens when the technology used for online courses becomes outdated?
• How do decisions about technology purchases and upgrades get made?

These are but some of the questions that need to be adequately answered in order for online courses and programs to be delivered smoothly and professionally.

Once again, we have learned from experience that institutions that do not address these questions will eventually face these issues whether they want to or not. We were hired to conduct an online faculty training for a department in an institution that intended to offer online courses with or without institutional support, as the institution had not responded to their requests for help to develop online programs. One participant decided to experiment with the student information tool embedded in the course management system and practice entering students into a course she had created as a part of the training. Although she had been given information about the correct way of doing so, she chose to create a softer, easier way. It crashed the server that housed the system and took three days for the one instructional technologist hired by the institution to clean up the damage. And it took less than a week for the institution to engage in discussion to create policies for entering student information into courses, including who does so and how to do it. The result was the removal of the student information tool from the course management system. Information is now generated by the registrar's office, which also is responsible for course enrollment.

Technology Should Be Chosen by an Inclusive Committee

Administrators often ask us, “How can we sell faculty on the idea of teaching online? This is the greatest obstacle we face.” Our answer is that inclusion in the decision-making process around the adoption and use of technology can greatly assist faculty in buying into the development and delivery of online courses and programs. They will feel more comfortable with the process if their voices are heard and the focus remains on teaching and learning rather than maximizing profits. Furthermore, when faculty are involved in the process, they can help to identify their training and support needs. If they are included in the planning process and there is a realistic assessment of student learning needs, that can help to avoid myriad problems and lead to the development of a responsible and responsive online program.

Faculty resistance also stems from fears that they will be overloaded in online course development and teaching responsibilities, especially in an area that may not contribute to promotion and tenure decisions. As we have noted, this is less of an issue than it was ten years ago, but still needs attention in some institutions. Developing clear policies in this area that recognize this work as scholarship and providing stipends or release time can help. Faculty fears and resistance can also be minimized with good training that focuses on pedagogy and support for the delivery of courses. When instructors realize that it is the process of good teaching—a process they know about—that leads to success in the online classroom, and not the technology itself, their anxiety level decreases.

Pay Attention to the New Regulatory Environment

Government oversight of online courses and programs is increasing and is likely to continue to do so due to concerns about the level of student loan debt that exists and continuing concerns about the quality of online courses and programs. Interestingly, the highest level of concern is directed toward the for-profit institutions that are offering fully online degrees. However, Aslanian and Clinefelter (2012) found that 65 percent of those enrolling in online courses and programs are doing so at nonprofit colleges and universities; only 35 percent enroll at for-profit institutions. Although concerns about quality and adherence to regulations need to occur in all sectors, it appears that the focus on for-profit institutions may be somewhat misplaced. Regardless, courses and programs need to be designed with an eye toward career development as well as efficiency of delivery without sacrificing learning and academic quality.

A Look into the Near Future

As we look at the lessons from the virtual classroom that we have learned thus far—some of them painful, others positive—we continue to think about what the future holds for online education. What can institutions, instructors, and their students expect to see over the next few years as online learning becomes an even greater part of not only the academy but the K–12 world as well? Although there continue to be no certain answers to these questions, we suspect that we will see more changes in the following areas: technology, course, and program quality and development; professional development; the ways in which faculty and students interact; and increased research into online education.

As we explore each of these, we begin to fit together the pieces of the mosaic that is the future of online education and higher education as a whole.

Technology

With the move to mobile technology, which has become increasingly affordable, access to online courses is improving, and the ability to use chat, audio, and video will continue to become more accessible and therefore more usable in an online class. At the same time, commercially developed and owned course management systems have become increasingly expensive, allowing open source course management systems to flourish. Both commercial and open source systems have become more responsive to user demands and needs, incorporating social networking tools, wikis, and blogs into the systems and generally becoming more robust, allowing inclusion of multimedia tools.

It has been predicted, however, that course management systems may become a thing of the past as personalized learning spaces become the norm. Students may be given spaces on a server individually or in groups, or they may establish their own space online using applications such as Google Apps, where they can collect learning objects, interact with others, and collaborate on projects to pursue their own learning goals. McLoughlin and Lee (2009) note that with the advent of Web 2.0 and social networking tools, learner control over the learning process needs to be encouraged. They state, “Digital-age students want an active learning experience that is social, participatory, and supported by social media” (p. 639). Personalized learning spaces allow students to create learning experiences by accessing and engaging in learning communities across the globe and piecing together learning that is meaningful to them. Personalization allows students to determine what they learn as well as when and how. In personalized learning, learners are guided by a teacher who helps to co-create and co-design the learning experience. Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) note that this is an important means by which to create more flexibility in learning experiences, but they also warn that this should not simply be used as a means by which to incorporate more multimedia into learning. They express the concern that personalized learning could be mistaken for something deeper than what it is. The debate about personalized learning spaces is likely to occur for quite some time as more traditional academics wrestle with the concept and more learners gravitate toward it.

As the demand for online education continues to grow, we are likely to see additional means by which this form of education can be delivered. Simultaneously, as universities become more informed consumers of technology, increasing demand for responsiveness and quality is likely.

Course and Program Quality and Design

There is little agreement at present as to what constitutes a quality online course or program. Furthermore, the accrediting of Jones International University by the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges in 1999 raised significant concerns on the part of faculty and traditional institutions about how the accreditation of completely online programs might be accomplished. Questions included these: “Can accreditors truly evaluate a university based solely on distance learning—with classrooms, libraries, and faculty members located somewhere in cyberspace—in the same way that they evaluate a traditional institution? Can we really call those institutions ‘colleges' or ‘universities' if they lack both a critical core of full-time faculty members and a system of governance by which the faculty is responsible for developing curricula and academic policy? Can accreditors actually determine that new, on-line institutions meet the same basic criteria for quality—or at least equivalent criteria—that traditional accredited institutions must meet?” (Perley & Tanguay, 1999, p. B4).

These questions, first posed more than a decade ago, are still being asked, begging the need to develop quality standards that are accepted across institutions. The Quality Matters Program (QM) has been one response, and the QM rubric has become increasingly recognized as a good measure of quality in an online course. A course that bears the QM stamp of approval is generally recognized as a good one. QM, however, deals with design only, not the facilitation of the course, although these standards are now in development. In order to truly assess course quality, both must be taken into account. Thus, continued work needs to occur on what is considered best practice in online facilitation. The International Association for K–12 Online Learning standards developed for K–12 online teaching are a good example and could guide higher education as well.

Despite this, we hope that standards will be created with an eye toward academic freedom. There is wide variation occurring in current course development, yielding a need for discussions of quality in online program development. The ideal outcome of those discussion should be a range within which faculty and institutions can comfortably work.

Professional Development

What does it really mean to be a “guide on the side” or a “learning facilitator” rather than an instructor? How does an instructor successfully make the transition required to teach an online course so that students become empowered learners and take charge of the learning process? Is it possible to develop every instructor into a good online instructor? How can institutions tell the difference between someone who will do well online and someone who will not, be they faculty or student?

The questions are designed to help stimulate thinking about what might be needed in a good training and development program for faculty. However, they also point out that we need to think carefully about who should be encouraged to teach online. Earlier in this book, we made the point that not all faculty are suited to the online environment, just as not all students should consider taking online courses. We even put forth the fairly controversial idea that faculty who are highly entertaining face-to-face may not make the best online instructors. Not all faculty, even after participating in online teacher training, will do well in that environment. And although some authors predict that the face-to-face, traditional classroom will go the way of the Model T (Barone & Luker, 2000), we believe it is more likely that most colleges and universities will deliver at least a portion of their course offerings online, a trend that is already emerging (Allen et al., 2012). Consequently there will be room for those who choose to teach in the classroom along with those who choose to teach online.

Greater attention should be paid to what instructors need to be able to teach online successfully. Rather than focusing on the technology itself, training and faculty development should focus on increasing interactivity in online classes, building a learning community among the learners, delivering course content in new and creative ways, incorporating collaboration into the learning process, empowering learners, and evaluating learners and learning outcomes in ways that make sense in the online arena. As faculty become veteran facilitators online and as the online learning environment itself evolves, training and development needs will change. Consequently, faculty development to prepare faculty to teach successfully online should be fluid and responsive to the changes that are sure to come.

How Faculty and Students Interact

One of the changes already occurring that has been noted is the ways in which faculty and students interact. Today's student is less likely to be an eighteen to twenty-one year old seeking a one-time educational experience. Instead, today's online student is likely to be a member of a range of students, from those in K–12 classrooms, to those considered to be traditional undergraduates, to adults returning to school to obtain knowledge and skills needed to compete and advance in the workplace. Adult students are more likely to be lifelong learners embarking on the beginning of what may be a learning process that results in the pursuit of multiple degrees, courses, or certifications. However, even traditional undergraduates are seeking learning experiences that will lead to employment, and colleges and universities are being asked by governmental entities to demonstrate that their course and program offerings will do so. Although previously schooled to engage with instructors in traditional ways—expecting the instructor to be the expert with knowledge and wisdom to impart—lifelong learners are looking to enter a partnership that results in the achievement of their learning objectives (Bates, 2000; McLoughlin & Lee, 2009).

The partnership students seek is with an academic institution that understands their needs and is capable of meeting them. Thus, a shift is occurring in the academic world; academic institutions are recognizing that like other types of organizations, they must be responsive to those they serve. The result is a shift from the traditional faculty-centered institution to a learner focus. Consequently, the relationship between faculty and student has to change as well.

Add technology and online teaching to the mix, and other changes begin to occur. Because the most effective way to achieve learning outcomes in the online classroom is by using active learning techniques, students are encouraged to become empowered learners. Today's technologies promote the ability of learners to significantly contribute to and co-create their learning experiences. More fully engaged, active learners are likely to bring new demands to the learning situation and will not be able to return to business as usual in subsequent learning situations, face-to-face or online. We noted that the changed relationship between faculty and student in the online classroom is spilling over into the face-to-face classroom as faculty discover that active learning techniques work well there. Similarly, faculty who have historically made good use of active learning techniques face-to-face are finding that their transition to online learning is eased through the use of those techniques. Bates (2000) notes, “Modern learning theory sees learning as an individual quest for meaning and relevance. Once learning moves beyond the recall of facts, principles, or correct procedures and into the area of creativity, problem solving, analysis, or evaluation (the very skills needed in the workplace in a knowledge-based economy, not to mention in life in general), learners need the opportunity to communicate with one another as well as with their teachers. This of course includes the opportunity to question, challenge, and discuss issues” (pp. 13–14).

The emergence of MOOCs is an interesting development that is calling into question not only the ways in which instructors and students interact but also delivery models of higher education. According to Stewart (2012), the originators of the concept, Stephen Downs, George Siemens, and Dave Cormier, were looking to devise an alternative environment for learning and were not necessarily intending to disrupt higher education as we know it. Using a lecture-based model that mimics the flipped classroom, MOOCs offer snippets of lectures that are twelve to fifteen minutes long, with quizzes and other assignments to be completed in between lectures. MOOCs are currently not credit-bearing courses and are not the same as the type of online course we have been discussing, but pathways to college credit are being forged at the time of this writing, and it will be interesting to see the impact this has on the direction of online learning in the future.

Currently, MOOCs are being offered by many elite universities as well as for-profit entities that are partnering with universities to offer MOOCs. They are free and capable of enrolling tens of thousands of students. Although predominantly lecture based, some involve the ability to network with other participants. Kim (2012) comments on the differences between what are now termed traditional online courses and MOOCs by stating, “A well constructed traditional online course is not a vessel to deliver content from the brains of the professor to the brains of the students, but rather an opportunity for faculty to guide, shape, reinforce, and support student learning . . . This work requires that the faculty have the opportunity to interact with the students” (para, 9). Are MOOCs a threat, or will they help us to reexamine the ways we currently offer courses and teach?

Rather than feeling threatened by this shift in relationship and course design, faculty should feel challenged by it. Faculty too are lifelong learners. The changing relationship with their students serves to expand the network through which they can learn. When we enter a new online course, we always believe that we have as much to learn from our students as they do from us. We find this to be an exciting element of our online work and one that we welcome.

Research into Online Education

When we wrote our first book in 1999, we found a paucity of research on online learning. However, we noted that interest in the area was growing and that the research would follow. That prediction has become increasingly true as online learning has established a stronghold in higher education. Individual instructors are writing and publishing articles about their experiences online. Studies are being conducted that compare face-to-face and online delivery of the same class for outcome effectiveness. The Institute for Higher Education Policy published a report (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999) reviewing contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning. Since that time, many studies have been published looking at the characteristics of effective online courses and the critical elements practice that supports their development.

Because this is a growing area in academia with exciting new developments emerging daily, research efforts are likely to increase and continue. Those of us teaching online welcome the opportunity to contribute to this body of literature. The educational experiences that are the result of teaching online are so different from those that we have had in the traditional classroom that we want to share them with our colleagues so that they might understand the power of online teaching in delivering education in today's knowledge society.

James Duderstadt (1999) noted:

Today's technology is rapidly breaking the constraints of space and time. It has become clear that most people, in most areas, can learn—and learn well—using asynchronous learning (that is “anytime, anyplace, anywhere” education) . . . Lifetime education is becoming a reality, making learning available for anyone who wants to learn, at the time and place of their choice, without great personal effort or cost . . . Rather than an “age of knowledge,” could we instead aspire to a “culture of learning,” in which people are continually surrounded by, immersed in, and absorbed in learning experiences? . . . This may become not only the great challenge but the compelling vision facing higher education as it enters the next millennium. (pp. 24–25)

This prophetic statement has proven true. Research that documents the effectiveness of our efforts in creating the culture of learning to which Duderstadt refers has occurred and continues to emerge. Sharing our experiences and lessons learned, whether positive or negative, as we explore the territory of online learning is equally important.

We closed our first book, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, by commenting on our own experience of online teaching: “Not only are we helping to shape the creation of empowered, lifelong learners, our participation as equal members of a group of learners supports us in our quest for lifelong learning. For us, this is the power of online distance learning” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, p. 168). Stansbury (2011) supports this statement and what we have been discussing in this book by providing five characteristics of the effective educator today: anticipates the future, is a lifelong learner, fosters peer relationships, can teach and assess all levels of learners, and is able to discern effective versus ineffective technology. Today this not only remains true for us but increases with every online class we teach, every book we write, and every faculty group we train. We never cease to learn. We also never cease to wonder about and seek out what might be next. We have only begun to explore the virtual classroom and its important and powerful role in the future of education.