Teaching techniques adapted for online delivery to achieve course learning outcomes in a virtual environment

Narcisa Roxana Moşteanu

American University of Malta, Malta

Cite: Moşteanu N.R. Teaching techniques adapted for online delivery to achieve course learning outcomes in a virtual environment. J. Digit. Art Humanit., 2(2), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.33847/2712-8148.2.2_3

Abstract. Today we are moving from traditional learning to e-learning via digital means. The entire humanity learned how to adapt overnight to digital life and leave the traditional doing things behind. Digitization has been around for several years, but its use has become a necessity with the Covid-19 pandemic. The blockade forced us to work remotely overnight, to use digital networks to communicate, make payments, learn, all sectors of activity had to adapt to the digital age in one night. This paper shows how the teaching and learning approaches need to adapt to new communication requirements and students’ needs to achieve course learning outcomes in a virtual environment. This paper uses both a quantitative and qualitative method to analyze the professors and students’ perspectives on the techniques of online teaching-learning, during the isolation period and after, and what are the best methods recommended to be used for online learning taking into consideration how students can maintain their class’s attention and how can get actively involved in a learning process. The value of this study is to develop a holistic image of online teaching-learning-assessment activities, to ensure the efficiency and quality of the educational process in the university environment.

Keywords: online teaching and learning techniques; means of engagement; higher education.

Acknowledgments. I would like to express many thanks to Harvard’s Derek Bok Center and GetSmarter team for all their support and help in conducting comprehensive research and analysis regarding teaching and learning techniques for higher education. My gratitude goes also to my colleagues from American University of Malta, for all their support during the last academic years.


  1. Mishra, L., Gupta, T., Shree, A. Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, pp. 100012 (2020).
  2. Ghory, S., Hamayoon, G. The impact of modern technology in the teaching and learning process. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies 4(3), pp. 168-173 (2021).
  3. Moşteanu, N.R. Digital University Campus–Change the Education System Approach To Meet The 21st Century Needs. European Journal of Human Resource Management Studies, 4(4), pp. 79-93 (2020).
  4. Lodge, J. M. Online Education by Design: Using Evidence and Course Analytics to Achieve Best Online Teaching and Learning Practice. Tertiary Online Teaching and Learning, pp. 3-11. Springer, Singapore (2020).
  5. Al-Rawi, I. Teaching methodology and its effects on quality learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(6), pp. 100-105 (2013).
  6. Zeliff, N., Schultz, K. Authentic assessment in action: Preparing for the business workplace / Delta Pi Epsilon (1998).
  7. Robles, M., Braathen, S. Online assessment techniques. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 44(1), pp. 39-49 (2002).
  8. Conrad, D. University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), pp. 31-44 (2004).
  9. Gold, S. A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), pp. 35-57 (2001).
  10. Lewis, C.C., Abdul-Hamid, H. Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 83-98, (2006).
  11. Zapalska, A., Brozik, D. Learning styles and online education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 24(1), pp. 6 (2007).
  12. Hung, J.L., Zhang, K. Revealing online learning behaviors and activity patterns and making predictions with data mining techniques in online teaching. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (2008).
  13. Wang, H., Cao, C., Guan, N., Huang, Z. Evaluation System Design for Application of Innovative Teaching Methods in Major of Construction Management: Case Study in a University of Finance and Economics. Proceedings of ICCREM 2018: Construction Enterprises and Project Management, pp. 157-166. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers (2018).
  14. Moșteanu, N.R. International Financial Markets face to face with Artificial Intelligence and Digital Era. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 26(3), pp. 123-133 (2019).
  15. Moşteanu, N.R., Faccia, A., Cavaliere, L.P.L., Bhatia, S. Digital technologies’ implementation within financial and banking system during socio distancing restrictions–back to the future. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 11(6), pp. 307-315 (2020).
  16. Moşteanu, N.R. Education, qualification awareness and social civism to build and sustain a healthy and developed society. Proceedings of 28th European Biomass Conference & Exhibition (EUBCE), Marseille, pp. 6-7 (2020).
  17. Jiao, Y., Li, X., Zeng, R. Finance Course Reform Exploring Based on Financial Technique Background. DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education and Human Science, (mess) (2019).
  18. Anthony, B., et al. Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: a theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, pp. 1-48 (2020).
  19. Márquez-Ramos, L. Does digitalization in higher education help to bridge the gap between academia and industry? An application to COVID-19. Industry and Higher Education, 0950422221989190, (2021).
  20. Yeigh, T., Lynch, D. Is online teaching and learning here to stay? Academia Letters, 2, (2020).
  21. Moşteanu, N.R. Digitalization and Backward Design take the finance teaching techniques and study plan strategy one step further. J. Digit. Art Humanit., 2(2), 33-50. (2021). https://doi.org/10.33847/2712-8148.2.2_2
  22. Chetty, L. Innovative interpretive qualitative case study research method aligned with systems theory for physiotherapy and rehabilitation research: A review of the methodology. African Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, 5(1-2), pp. 40-44 (2013).
  23. Angen, M. Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), pp. 378-395 (2020).
  24. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research, 3, (2008).
  25. URL: https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/how-memory-works#main-content, last accessed 2021/09/12.
  26. Brown, P.C., Roediger, H.L., McDaniel, M.A. Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (2014).
  27. Roediger, H.L., McDermott, K.B. Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), pp. 803 (1995).
  28. Epley, N., Waytz, A. Mind perception (2010).
  29. Gray, K., Young, L., Waytz, A. Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological inquiry, 23(2), pp. 101-124 (2012).
  30. Birch, S.A., Bloom, P. The curse of knowledge in reasoning about false beliefs. Psychological Science, 18(5), pp. 382-386 (2007).
  31. Nickerson, R.S. How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological bulletin, 125(6), pp. 737 (1999).
  32. Nickerson, R.S. The projective way of knowing: A useful heuristic that sometimes misleads. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), pp. 168-172 (2001).
  33. Pohl, R.F., Erdfelder, E. Hindsight bias. Psychology Press, pp. 434-455 (2016).
  34. Bain, K. What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press (2004).
  35. Weissenborn, R., Duka, T. State-dependent effects of alcohol on explicit memory: The role of semantic associations. Psychopharmacology, 149(1), pp. 98-106 (2000).
  36. Hullman, J., Kay, M., Kim, Y.S., Shrestha, S. Imagining replications: Graphical prediction & discrete visualizations improve recall & estimation of effect uncertainty. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 24(1), pp. 446-456 (2017).
  37. Gobet, F., et al. Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), pp. 236-243 (2001).
  38. Lipko, A.R., et al. Using standards to improve middle school students’ accuracy at evaluating the quality of their recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(4), pp. 307 (2009).
  39. Rose, D., Harbour, W., Johnston, C.S., Daley, S., Abarbanell, L. Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), pp. 1-27 (2006).
  40. URL:http://projectalien.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ALIEN-D2.1-Institutional-Strategy.pdf, last accessed 2021/10/09.
  41. URL:https://www.queensu.ca/teachingandlearning/modules/active/12_exmples_of_active_learning_activities.html 2021, last accessed 2021/10/09
  42. URL:https://intranet.ecu.edu.au/learning/curriculum-design/teaching-strategies/discussion-and-debate , last accessed
  43. Green, C.S., Klug, H.G. Teaching critical thinking and writing through debates: An experimental evaluation. Teaching Sociology, 18, pp. 462-471 (1990).
  44. Diamond, M.J. Improving the undergraduate lecture class by use of student-led discussion groups. American Psychologist, 27(10), pp. 978 (1972).
  45. Rao, D., Stupans, I. Exploring the potential of role play in higher education: development of a typology and teacher guidelines. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), pp. 427-436 (2012).
  46. Prensky, M. The motivation of gameplay or, the real 21st century learning revolution. The Horizon, 10(1), pp. 1-14 (2002).
  47. Crouch, C.H., Mazur, E. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results.American Association of Physics Teachers, 69(9), pp. 970-977 (2001).
  48. Sadler, P.M., Good, E. The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), pp. 1-31 (2006).
  49. Martín-Cuadrado, A.M., et al. Working Methodology with Public Universities in Peru during the Pandemic—Continuity of Virtual/Online Teaching and Learning / Education Sciences, 11(7), pp. 351 (2001).
  50. Delfino, M., Persico, D. Online or face‐to‐face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), pp. 351-365 (2007).
  51. Bruggeman, B., Tondeur, J., Struyven, K., Pynoo, B., Garone, A., Vanslambrouck, S. Experts speaking: Crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 48, pp. 100772 (2021).
  52. Singh, H. Building effective blended learning programs. Challenges and Opportunities for the Global Implementation of E-Learning Frameworks, IGI Global, pp. 15-23 (2021).
  53. Moşteanu, N.R. Digital Campus–a future former investment in education for a sustainable society. International Conference on Innovation, Modern Applied Science & Environmental Studies – E3S Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 234, pp. 00029 (2021).
  54. Moşteanu, N.R. Assessment of teaching and learning techniques for online environment. How to maintain students’ attention and achieve course learning outcomes in a virtual environment using new technology. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies. Forthcoming December 2021
  55. Al-Zaman, M.S. Digitalization and transformation of teaching and learning in Bangladesh. In: Challenges and Opportunities in Global Approaches to Education, IGI Global, pp. 56-77 (2020).

Published online 29.12.2021