Internet Teaching By Style: Profiling the On-line Professor
Black Hills State University
Spearfish, South Dakota 57799 USA
Tel: +1 605 642 6038
Rena Faye Norby
College of Education
Black Hills State University
Spearfish, South Dakota 57799 USA
Tel: +1 605 642 6859
BHSU Faculty Development Coordinator
Black Hills State University
Spearfish, South Dakota 57799 USA
Tel: +1 605 642 6405
College of Arts and Sciences
Black Hills State University
Spearfish, South Dakota 57799 USA
Tel: +1 605 642 6040
As universities strive to meet the needs of today's students by developing on-line courses and degree programs, more and more faculty will be required to adapt their courses for on-line delivery. Consequently, this pilot study is the result of the authors' personal interests in teaching on-line and finding ways to promote faculty development to meet the challenges of teaching in the twenty-first century.
Our experiences with teaching on-line and faculty development for those faculty beginning to teach on-line suggest that some preferred teaching styles may be more compatible with the dynamics of distance learning formats. This pilot study attempts to determine successful teaching styles for on-line courses. Through an awareness of preferred teaching styles and personality tendencies, more effective faculty development programs can be developed to assist others in successfully transitioning into the cyber-teaching and learning environment.
The introduction of new computer technologies to higher education has created a change in how instructors deliver information to students. This change has followed the pattern for the diffusion of innovations defined by Rogers (1995). He ranked those accepting any change as (a) innovators, (b) early adopters, (c) early majority, (d) late majority, and (e) laggards. Rogers also defined critical mass as "the point at which enough individuals have adopted an innovation so that its further rate of adoption becomes self sustaining" (p. 313). Based on a yearly survey of the adoption of technology in higher education, Green (March/April 1996) stated that the use of information technology has reached the point at which a critical mass of 15 to 20% of college faculty has adopted the innovation of computer assisted instruction. Geoghegan (in Gilbert, March 1995) presents these characteristics of early adopters: favor revolutionary change, visionary, have a strong technology focus, risk-takers, experimenters, largely self-sufficient, and horizontally networked, that is they have a high proportion of interdisciplinary and cross-functional links in their personal networks.
Faculty development has often taken on the role of assisting in making the change from the traditional classroom to computer assisted educational environments, but faculty development professionals have had to create their own path in doing so. Experience with computer environments from outside academia may provide some insights into the problems that may be encountered and suggest solutions to the problems. Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire (Oct. 1984) found problems in making the change to computer mediated communication came from pressures of time, an absence of regulating feedback, the absence of nonverbal behavior weakening social influence, the absence of status and position cues, social anonymity leading to depersonalization, and lack of established norms and etiquette leading to a breakdown of established boundaries. However, Pfaffenberger (1986) found that these new communication environments, such as electronic mail, bulletin boards, and computer conferencing, have the potential to "democratize" the educational space because they obliterate social barriers and status distinctions. Kerr (1986) suggests effective leadership styles and skills necessary for moderating on-line meetings and facilitating electronic groups include sensitivity to the needs of participants, knowledge, persistence, willingness to spend the time and effort, enthusiasm, creativity, and flexibility.
These changes in the educational environment have caused a rethinking of the role of the teacher. Cooper & Selfe (Dec. 1990) found that computer conferences created non-traditional discourse forums for students to resist teacher-centered pedagogy, creating new teacher/student dynamics which some instructors may find unsettling. Berge (1995) states that the online instructor must be clear, flexible, encouraging, non-authoritarian, objective, accepting, facilitative, informal, responsive, and patient.
As a profile of successful traits of on-line instructors evolves from the research, it may prove helpful to find reliable ways of identifying preferred teaching styles of those who will be required to teach on-line. Several researchers have used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to determine preferred teaching styles in relation to distance education (Ehrman, 1990), willingness to use technology in teaching (Grant & Cambre, 1990; Knupfer, 1989; Pfeifer, 1983), and willingness to embrace innovation and change (Hetrick, 1993).
Ehrman (1990) builds upon the previous work of Lawrence (1984) to chart preferred teaching models of the four scales of the MBTI.
When it comes to using technology tools in instruction or in making changes in teaching models, Hetrick (1993) and Grant and Gambre (1990) found that Myers-Briggs "S" tendencies were less willing to adopt new methods and more interested in preserving the status quo. Hetrick (1993) also found that in the case of school administrators in his study the Myers-Briggs type "N" was most likely to be visionary and to see new possibilities for change.
Using the Gregorc Transactional Ability Inventory to measure preferred learning styles among teachers, Herbster (1987) found that of the 4 possible combinations (Concrete-Sequential, Concrete-Random, Abstract-Random, and Abstract Sequential), Concrete-Randoms were more intuitive and more inclined to risk-taking. The study also suggested that Concrete-Randoms and Abstract-Randoms tended to be more people oriented, while Concrete-Sequentials and Abstract-Sequentials were more product oriented and had a greater need for structure and control.
If those who are successful and who enjoy the teaching and learning environment of Internet-based instruction tend to be flexible, people oriented risk takers with a lower requirement for structure and control, then we would anticipate that, using the MBTI as an indicator,
Using the Gregorc Transactional Ability Inventory, we would anticipate that most instructors would be either Concrete-Random or Abstract Random.
Does personality type and preferred teaching style influence the comfort level for providing online instruction?
This pilot study examined the personality traits and teaching style preferences of faculty who elected to teach an on-line course. It utilized a battery of personality assessments, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory. Although no other studies were found to measure instructor tendencies when teaching on-line, these instruments were selected because of their validity and credibility in the educational psychology field of assessing teaching style. In addition, a researcher-developed survey was used to inquire about the subjects' previous experiences with distance education, current reaction to on-line teaching and learning, and attitude toward participation in on-line instruction in the future.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), developed by Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers, is based on the work of C.G. Jung, a psychiatrist who studied human behaviors for many years. The MBTI functions as a tool to help people understand themselves and their behaviors. It describes personality preferences rather than measuring skills or abilities and purports that all preferences are equally important. It has been well documented and researched in hundreds of scientific studies over the past forty years.
The eight MBTI preferences and descriptions of each in work situations and communication methods are presented in Table 1.
The Transaction Ability Inventory was developed by Anthony Gregorc to describe adult methods of transacting with their environments. In coordination with Kathleen A. Butler's extensive research efforts, a styles summary was created to identify specific teaching approaches. The purpose of this instrument is to aid in the identification of the natural ways of interacting with one's world. Like the MBTI, it is self-administered and compliments the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This instrument generates four styles of interaction which are described in Table 2.
Table 2. Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory styles
Finally, a structured written questionnaire was developed by the researchers to assess teacher satisfaction with the on-line instruction experience. Questions included: How many distance education courses have you taught using video conferencing? Satellite? RDTN? Internet? How many distance education courses have you taken as a student? How would you describe this experience in on-line instruction? Exciting? Stimulating? Frustrating? Difficult? Worthwhile? Are you interested in teaching additional on-line courses?
Utilizing the results of these psychological assessments, a preliminary analysis of the personal characteristics of college professors who chose to teach on line is presented.
Pilot Study Subjects
This pilot study included 20 faculty members from a small, midwestern state university in the United States who volunteered to teach an on-line course during the spring 1999 semester for the Technology for Teaching and Learning Workshops (TTL) participants. This course titled "Using Active Assessments to Measure Student Learning" was designed for in-service South Dakota teachers who had participated in a South Dakota state sponsored 4-week technology workshop the previous summer. At the end of the course, each instructor received a packet of self-reporting instruments, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Gregorc Transactional Ability Inventory, and the researcher-developed satisfaction survey to complete and return. Of the 18 respondents, 50% were female, 22% were male, and the other 28% did not report their gender. The average age of respondents was 45.
Pilot Study Results
Instructors’ Previous Experiences. The majority of the respondents had very little or no experience previously teaching at a distance or via the Internet; however, they had at least one or two experiences learning via video conferencing, satellite, or another television delivery system, or via the Internet. More than 50% of the respondents had experience with some courses using computer based communications in education.
Questions 6-10 reflect the current experience with on-line teaching and learning. When asked how the respondent found this course experience, the responses are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Responses to Teaching and Learning Experiences
The majority of the respondents found teaching the course to be exciting, stimulating, frustrating, and worth the time and effort invested. These feelings are not necessarily mutually exclusive; classroom teachers are frequently found to be excited and stimulated by their work while experiencing frustrations due to a number of uncontrollable factors relating to content or pedagogical issues. Forty-one percent agreed teaching the course was difficult. As this was the very first experience with teaching at a distance for 76% of the respondents. For the most part, instructors and students never met face to face or talked by telephone, so the method of delivery was very different from what the instructors had experienced in previous teaching experiences.
When questioned about their future with Internet-based teaching and learning,
82% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that:
I would be willing to teach another TTL course on-line;
I would be interested in teaching more Internet based courses;
I would be interested in taking Internet based courses;
71% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that:
I would recommend this form of teaching to my colleagues;
and, 88% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that:
I would recommend Internet based courses for other adult learners.
Instructors' Teaching Styles and Tendencies. The standardized instruments used to ascertain the respondents’ preferred styles of working and natural means of transacting with their environment were the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and the Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory.
For the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, classifications are Introversion or Extroversion, iNtuition or Sensing, Thinking or Feeling, and Perception or Judgement.
The respondents’ results are presented in Table 4:
Table 4. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator results
Myers Briggs Type Indicators were fairly balanced, except for the predominance of the Intuitive type over the Sensing type, for this group of educators.
When relating the Myers Briggs results to the respondents’ Gregorc results, the following trends were noted:
When looking at combination scores on the Myers Briggs, it is of interest to note that there were:
The general trend indicated by these results is the "J" type person is more likely to not be willing to teach another TTL course on line, is not interested in teaching more Internet based courses, is somewhat more likely to be male, and would not recommend teaching Internet based courses.
Results of the Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory are as follows: 35% were of type AR, 35% were of the type CR, 23.5% were of type CS, and one of the 18 respondents did not complete the Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory. No one in this group of respondents scored as an "AS" on the Gregorc inventory. (See appendices 1 and 2 for statistical results)
In conclusion, the results of this pilot study reflect that most respondents were enthusiastic about the undertaking, within the limits of a first time experience, and would enjoy teaching on-line again. Faculty who find the change in instructional strategies especially challenging in relation to their MBTI and Gregorc inventory results may need special assistance and support to transition to teaching in the cyber-classroom. Thus, the findings of this pilot study offer suggestions for faculty development, implications for instructional design, and a personal reflection about using the research for decision-making to teach on-line.
Suggestions For Faculty Development
It seems that particular teaching tendencies and styles may benefit from faculty development programming to become more effective in the virtual classroom. For example, faculty who are identified as ISTJ (Introversion Sensing Thinking Judgment) according to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator may need to become more considerate of the human element. They may need to be reminded to communicate deserved appreciation to the students enrolled in an on-line course as well as to develop patience for those cyber learners who ignore standard operating procedures when trying out new techniques. The faculty member who has the preferred style ISTP (Introversion Sensing Thinking Perception) may need to be reminded to open up and share concerns and information with the cyber learners. In addition, these faculty need to plan and develop perseverance when designing an on-line course.
The faculty member type ESTP (Extraversion Sensing Thinking Perception) may need to curb their assertiveness and take their cyber-student's feelings into consideration. They need to look beyond a quick fix by planning ahead and developing stick-to-itiveness for teaching on-line to be satisfactory. The faculty member type ESTJ (Extraversion Sensing Thinking Judgment) may need to consider all perspectives before designing the on-line course including the human element. In addition, this teaching type may need to be prodded to look at the benefits of change and to take time for reflection. They need to be reminded to show appreciation for their cyber learners' work for teaching on-line to be successful.
The ISFJ (Introversion Sensing Feeling Judgment) teaching type may need to work at seeing the future in positive, global terms. They need to develop more assertiveness and become directive in their teaching approach. In addition, they may need to be reminded to remain open to different ways of learning. The ISFP (Introversion, Sensing, Feeling, Perception) teaching type may need to develop a way to analyze information rather than just accepting it. They may need to learn how to give negative feedback to their cyber learners; yet keep the learners motivated.
The ESFP (Extraversion Sensing Feeling Perception) teaching type may need to include logical implications in making instructional decisions. They need to plan ahead in on-line course development and manage their time when delivery an internet-based course. The ESFJ (Extraversion Sensing Feeling Judgment) teaching type may need to learn how to value and manage conflict. They need to "listen hard" to what their cyber learners need and want for on-line teaching to be successful. They need to consider the logical, global implications of their instructional decisions.
The INFJ (Introversion iNtuition Feeling Judgment) teaching type may need to develop political appropriate and assertiveness skills to present their ideas. In addition, they may need to learn how to give constructive feedback to their cyber learners in a timely manner. The INFP (Introversion iNtuition Feeling Perception) teaching type may need to learn to work with reality rather than expecting the perfect response from their cyber learners. They may need to develop more tough-mindedness and know when to say no. In addition, this teaching type may need to factor in facts and logic when designing their internet-based course including timelines and action plans.
The INFP (Introversion iNtuition Feeling Perception) teaching type needs to set priorities and develop follow-through. They need to focus on important details in designing on-line instruction. They need to learn and apply time management skills in the development and delivery of internet-based courses. The ENFJ (Extraversion iNtuition Feeling Judgment) teaching type may need to recognize the limitations of their cyber learners and guard against unquestioning trust. They may need to learn to manage conflict productively and pay as much attention to the details of the task as to the cyber learners. In addition, they may need to suspend self-criticism and listen carefully to the cyber student's feedback.
The INTJ (Introversion iNtuition Thinking Judgment) teaching type may need to solicit feedback and suggestions from the cyber learners. They may need to learn how to appreciate their on-line learners. In addition, they may need to focus more on the impact of their instructional design on the learner. Furthermore, they may need to learn when to give up an impractical idea. The INTP (Introversion iNtuition Thinking Perception) teaching type may need to focus on practical ideas and develop follow-through when designing on-line courses. They may need to make efforts to state things more simply. They need to show appreciation of cyber learners' input. In addition, they may need to get to know more about other faculty and student perceptions about on-line teaching and learning.
The ENTP (Extraversion iNtuition Thinking Perception) teaching type may need to pay attention to the here-and-now when designing on-line instruction. They may need to acknowledge and validate input from the cyber learners. In addition, they may need to set realistic timelines and instructional priorities. They will need to learn how to work within the system of their on-line delivery program. The ENTJ (Extraversion iNtuition Thinking Judgment) teaching type may need to factor in the human element and appreciate their cyber learner's perceptions. They may need to check the practical, personal, and situational resources available before plunging ahead when designing their on-line course. In addition, they may need to take time to reflect and consider the learners' view before making instructional decisions.
Regarding the Gregorc's Transactional Ability Inventory, the CS (concrete sequential) teaching style needs to step back to see the forest! This style can easily become overwhelmed when designing a course for internet delivery. When designing instruction for on-line delivery, they need to consider the process in achieving the product. These faculty have difficulty taking action without specific direction; consequently, developing an on-line course for teaching on the internet will be very challenging. In addition, they need to set reasonable expectations for themselves and their cyber learners. The AS (abstract sequential) teaching style needs to lighten up and be less concerned with perfection! Because they have trouble working cooperatively in group discussions, they need to be willing to try teaching on-line. In addition, they need to work on facing the unpredictable (which technology can be!). The AR (abstract random) teaching style needs to see the trees in the forest. When designing an on-line course, they need to become aware of and focus on critical time limits for themselves and their cyber learners. They need to attend to important details and student assignments for successful on-line learning. In addition, they need to explain fully and clearly before assuming the cyber learners will understand. The CR (concrete random) teaching style needs to learn to prioritize when designing on-line coursework. They need to persevere and follow-through when managing an internet-based class. In addition, they need to learn how to pace themselves and the course flow for successful on-line teaching and learning.
Implications for Instructional Design
Most instructional design models include an analysis of the learners and consideration of learning styles; however, instruction can also be designed to support preferred teaching styles. If the instructor's preferred style of interaction is known, the course design and the types of learning and interaction activities can be selected to meet both instructor and learner needs.
Overcoming the Faceless Classroom. For those extraverts who rely heavily on the verbal and nonverbal feedback of their face-to-face students, on-line communications can be frustrating and unrewarding. Additionally, many of the students may have the same difficulty in making connections in a faceless, asynchronous environment. Planning class discussion assignments that include sharing of some level of personal information early in the course may help faculty and students alike in constructing mental models of each other and in beginning to understand the personal tone of each participant's electronic writing style. One professor at Black Hills State University was extremely frustrated with this lack of personal connection with his students, and in desperation, challenged his students to go to his personal web page, read his curriculum vita and, based on the information they found, guess his favorite football team. The students responded quickly and enthusiastically, and their electronic responses took on an entirely different tone. The instructor responded to the students with his own style of informal banter, and the students responded back to him and to each other. He reported that this exercise, begun in frustration, proved to be such a good way of establishing an on-line rapport that he plans to use something similar in all of his future on-line classes.
Adapting to a Student-centered Teaching Approach. The Internet and World Wide Web alter many of the control dynamics of a traditional classroom. Control of class time or class pacing are now in the hands of students who log on to the course at all hours of the day and night and work at their own pace. For those who feel more comfortable in an environment of predictable routine where they can maintain structure and control, on-line instruction may not be a pleasant prospect. Consideration of the faculty need for structure in addition to the learners' needs may ease the transition for those teachers with sequential styles of interaction. One professor found that by using the calendar tool in WebCT she could create a course structure with established deadlines and scheduled events that resembled the structure she was used to on campus. For another faculty member, one who traditionally does not enjoy or use a lot of structure in her classes, using the Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory made her aware of others' need for structure. As a result, she began adding more structure to her Internet supported instruction, much to the relief of some of her students.
Managing Time and Technique. Of all the issues surrounding Internet-based instruction, the one that usually rises to the top of faculty concerns is the amount of time these courses require. The time required for reading and responding to individual responses to discussion forums and to private e-mail is piled on top of the time required to read and respond to written assignments and class projects that are part of both on-line and face-to-face instruction. Additionally, many faculty find that the lack of an assigned time and place for class time creates a structural void in their schedules that is too easily filled by other work. For those who prefer to shun formal structure, this can mean that meeting an on-line course falls into a sporadic, helter-skelter pattern that may leave students feeling abandoned and discouraged. If faculty understand their preferred informal interaction styles, they can plan for providing some necessary structure by formally placing a specific time for meeting their classes on line and posting it along with their office hours and face-to-face schedules. They can close their office doors and hang a sign that says "In Class. Do Not Disturb." These schedules can quickly become as inviolable as traditional classroom meeting times.
In regard to the many faculty who find all of their time eaten away by the seemingly endless stream of student e-mail, we offer one final example of how knowledge of preferred interaction and work styles can be the springboard to a solution. When one of our on-line teachers complained about the amount of time required to answer each e-mail or bulletin board question, he was asked how he normally tackled his student feedback. Being a strongly sequential person, he would open each e-mail, read it and answer it, file it, then move on to the next. Upon further questioning, he revealed that it never occurred to him to review the entire list of e-mails before answering any; he said that was too disorderly. Knowing his need for order and sequential activity, the instructional designer worked with him to find an alternative approach that provided a new sequential structure that was more efficient for the task. Rather than answering each e-mail, he read all e-mails and sorted them according to type of response needed. Then he provided comprehensive responses that answered all similar questions once. Then he addressed those single questions that required a more individual response last. Finally, he re-examined his assumption that all e-mails must be answered immediately and provided his students with a specific time schedule of when he would read his e-mail each day and when they could expect feedback. The time spent reading student contributions remained the same, but the time spent in responding was reduced significantly, and by providing a clear time structure for responding, he was able to free himself to complete other duties and still meet his students' need for timely feedback.
Establishing the Learning Community.The challenge of teaching an on-line course is to find a way of maintaining the feelings of collegiality and community with the students that are part of the pleasure of teaching a face-to-face course. Most faculty are accustomed to taking cues from students' facial expressions, body language, and extemporaneous questions to help the teacher know how the students are progressing with the material to be learned. Suggestions for creating this learning community in the virtural classroom include the following:
Using the Research to Make A Personal Decision about Teaching Online
Finally, the following reflection offers one faculty member's personal experience as a participant in this study:
I understand fully the need for college level courses to be delivered online. At the small state university in western South Dakota where I teach, many of our students commute long distances for class, so online education would allow them to take their coursework from home without the commute. Many of our students are returning adults with family responsibilities, community commitments, and employment to juggle as well as taking coursework. These highly motivated students are excellent candidates for online education offerings. While I can rationally understand the need for online courses, and have been willing to offer my written communications classes through the internet for the last three years, the experience of researching on-line teaching in the midst of teaching on-line has provided me the opportunity for in-depth self-reflection about my teaching practices. While teaching the TTL course studied here, I was also in my fourth semester of teaching college composition online. At the same time, I was learning how to use the WebCt course delivery package for my composition class, a mind-boggling experience in on the job training. Looking at the preferences inventories, it is apparent that being willing to attempt new experiences comes out of my Intuitive, Concrete Random style of operation. Without this study I might have arrived at my current conclusion that I am not best suited to teach online; however, the findings have only confirmed what I was experiencing. As a result of the self-reflection this research engendered, this will be the last semester I teach composition online -- at least for a while.
Even after six semesters of teaching composition online, I still feel uncomfortable with the experience. I teach composition from a very student-centered, process-oriented, confidence-building perspective. In a classroom situation I determine what concepts or skills I need to present to the students as they reveal their strengths and weaknesses as writers. The online environment does not seem to favor this way of approaching teaching. I am instead required to think of everything my students might need to know, explain those concepts and skills fully in writing, and require all students to read through all the materials I have presented, whether they need this instruction or not. I spend a lot of time with students in my writing classes focusing on their current writing process and suggesting alternative strategies for improving their process while they are producing a piece of writing. While I have improved in this area over the course of teaching online, the online environment still does not seem as conducive to intervening in the writing process as the classroom environment allows. Finally, I spend much time helping students to overcome writing anxiety and build confidence in themselves as writers. Much of this is done through personal interaction in the classroom. In delivering the course online, I miss seeing their faces, kidding with them about their lives, and encouraging their efforts at writing -- all activities I can do naturally in a classroom setting. This research into personality and teaching preferences has enabled me to see that while teaching online has been an interesting experience, I am not best suited to this course delivery system. I urge my students to find their strengths as writers so they can use those strengths to develop a better writing process; it's time I took my own advice about teaching.
Looking at the Myers-Briggs personality type and the Gregorc Teaching Styles helped me to see why I was experiencing discomfort teaching online. As an Extrovert I strive in my classroom for dialogue, cooperative study, and discussion, all aspects that were difficult to establish online. Additionally, as an Extrovert I chose teaching because I like having people around and prefer face to face over written communication. I still feel uncomfortable and even inconvenienced by working alone communicating with my students through the computer. As an Intuitive, I personally like self-instruction and independent study. While I favor those experiences myself, I found it difficult to engender them in all my online students. As a result, many students did not complete the course, which only made me feel inadequate. Additionally, according to type, I enjoy learning new skills more than using them, but once the newness has worn off, I'm ready to move on to other experiences. My Feeling characteristic seeks involvement with other people, something I found very difficult to experience in the online environment. I found that the online environment required me to be much more teacher-directed than I prefer. Additionally, as a perceptive, I like to focus on the process, the result of my graduate training and my personal preference. I additionally enjoy flexibility; however, the online environment focuses on the task and seems more inflexible and settled than I prefer.
The Myers-Briggs inventory defines my personality preferences well, but I have more difficulty finding my preferred teaching style using the Gregorc inventory. I definitely have a random teaching style, but I share characteristics with both the abstract and concrete preferences. Like an abstract random, I am reflective and flexible but need freedom from external control. I have used the experience of teaching online to reflect on myself as a teacher and hope I have improved as a result of the experience. However, I felt the environment to be inflexible and I felt controlled by it. I additionally relate well to others, personalize information, and prefer to be part of a group, but I found it difficult to use these characteristics while teaching online. However, like a concrete random, I like to experiment, am a risk taker, have a high degree of curiosity, and use trial and error, all characteristics which led me to enter this new world of teaching online. And now that I have done it for three years, I have learned much about myself, and know it is time to return to the (traditional) classroom where my strengths as a teacher can be better utilized.
Relationship of Respondents' Finding Course to be Exciting to Other Survey Variables Using Gamma, A Nonparametric Measure Of Relationship
Relating Willingness To Teach Another TTL Course And Interest In Teaching More Internet- Based Courses To Other Variables Measured
Gamma1 = Willing to teach TTL Internet course again