The first issues considered in the adaptation process should be instructional modality and interactive organization of the course (Boettcher & Conrad, 2004; Bonk, et al. 2000)(4)(5). Residential course meeting times and location are determined by university administration. Teaching on the Web eliminates boundaries of time and space, allowing for flexible instruction. Bonk et al. (2000) provide a framework for integrating three modes of instruction into a course: adjunct, mixed, and wholly online. Following a continuum of Web integration (see Table 2), modes of instruction range from primarily informational usage of the Web (adjunct); to a blend of occasional face-to-face meetings, online discussions, and Web-based supplemental course materials (mixed); to the entire course being taught in a Web-based environment (wholly online). Within this mode of instruction, determination of the degree of Web integration will guide course development procedures and pedagogical decisions. Applying the Bonk et al. (2000) Web continuum framework to the large, traditional, lecture-based, residential course being adapted to the Web, it will be necessary to make all course design decisions at Level 8 on Table 2. This level defines interactivity for an alternative delivery system for residential students.

Boettcher and Conrad (2004) also divide Web integration into three modalities: WebCourse, WebCentric, and WebEnhanced. The WebCourse is delivered wholly online and can be accessed anywhere, anytime via the WWW. Students can take the course from any location in the world as long as they have access to the Web. A WebCentric course shifts the focus from the physical classroom to the Web, as the classroom environment. Course communications, resources, testing, project, and learning are accomplished using Web technology. With a WebCentric course, students and instructor are on the same campus, giving them the ability to schedule FTF meetings if necessary. A WebEnhanced course looks a great deal like a campus course that is strengthened by the use of the Web. The Web is used to present course administrative documents, resources, and class projects, but the majority of learning takes place in the traditional classroom.

Bonk et al. (2000) and Boettcher and Conrad (2004) have captured the types of Web integration that can be incorporated into Web courses. They agree Web integration can range from instruction taking place completely on-line or partially on-line, to the Web as an information dissemination tool for a FTF course. Bonk et al. (2000) split the three basic types of Web integration into several sublevels. The levels provide guidelines of Web integration for different instructional situations. Boettcher and Conrad (2004) discuss the same types of Web integration as Bonk et al. (2000) list in their Web continuum. The sublevels of the Web continuum provide an organized framework for the amount and type of integration into a Web course design.

In addition to instructional modality, Bonk and Dennen (2002) stress the importance of considering the amount and form of instructor-to-student and student-to-student interactivity. Determining the desired Web interaction provides the communication framework for the course, meaning the types and depth of communication. The communication framework defines what synchronous and asynchronous communication tools are used, e.g., e-mail, electronic bulletin boards, and chat rooms (Boettcher & Conrad, 2004)(4). The Web's ability to increase interactivity among users enables instructors of large courses to integrate activities into the curriculum that would otherwise be extremely difficult due to large enrollments and constraints imposed by the large lecture hall. The interactive Web environment allows for threaded discussions among students, thereby facilitating student participation (Boettcher & Conrad, 2004)(4). Students generally do not participate in discussions of any type in large, residential courses. This interactivity provides more opportunities for increased interaction. A key element of the large course adaptation process is to design and develop the course according to current research and practice, which indicate that small, learning communities facilitate learning best in Web-based environments (Hiltz & Turoff, 2002)(10). According to Carlson and Everett (2000), the ideal small group size is 5-10 members. If the purpose of the group is to collaborate to complete a paper or case study, the smaller number of people in a group is better. Their research indicates that undergraduates do not work well in on-line groups and need more assistance and input from the instructor. For undergraduates, specific guidelines for conducting online discussions should be posted, and team leaders should be appointed to facilitate (Carlson & Everett, 2000)(8).

Operational issues include student computer hardware and software requirements, and the availability of technical support. Ensuring students acquire the required hardware and software to actively participate in learning communities is another key issue to consider. LaFleur (2004) also suggests bandwidth, speed of communication lines, and cost of materials as issues to consider. Course management software for student submissions or information distribution should also be considered. The more experience instructors have dealing with operational issues, the easier it will be to direct students, and the greater the possibility for interaction.

Research and experience with undergraduate students indicate that eliminating all ambiguity on directions and project procedures increases opportunities for student success and decreases opportunities for confusion (Cooper & Robinson, 2000)(9). Dealing with operational issues early in the adaptation process allows instructors to identify areas of possible student confusion and misunderstanding and eliminate the problems before students engage in course materials.

Course objectives and learning outcomes for a Web-based course may remain the same or change from the FTF course based on instructor or departmental expectations. Bichelmeyer et al. (2001) recommend determining course objectives and learning outcomes as the initial step in the adaptation process since these decisions will guide all subsequent design decisions, rather than determining instructional modality first. Interestingly, Carlson and Everett (2000) fail to address issues of modality or interactivity as an initial step but argue that course goals, objectives, and learning outcomes should be the first consideration. They believe that decisions directly affecting course setup are not considered part of the instructional design process because those decisions may be determined by administrators rather than faculty. Carlson and Everett (2000) suggest that choosing the courseware should be one of the last steps an instructor should consider when adapting a course to the Web. They believe it is better to choose a courseware system that meets the needs of the course design, rather than designing a course around the courseware system. I support Carlson and Everett's (2000) argument, because the courseware system can constrain the instructor's design decisions due to the availability of tools within the system. However, for the novice Web adapter, designing a course around the courseware system can provide an intact communication framework for delivering the course that can save a great deal of time during the design and development stages.

Current practice indicates both course objectives and learning outcomes will change slightly when the learning environment changes to the Web because it offers teaching strategies unavailable to instructors of the large, residential course. The course objectives and outcomes can differ based on the availability of interactive resources.

Bichelmeyer et al. (2001) advocate that the instructor defines critical content components of the course and contemplate how these components fit within the Web-based instructional environment. Identifying critical course components requires the instructor to focus on essential information to be taught while eliminating extraneous materials. Although Bichelmeyer et al. (2001) discuss gathering and preparing materials for the Web-based environment at this time, their study fails to address instructional methods or media selection. LaFleur (2004) emphasize identifying types of learning students will encounter, which will be determined by the critical content. She suggests determining which instructional methods will foster the types of learning identified and the ones that will allow the instructor to maintain the intended purpose of the course. The methods available for implementation in Web-based instruction can be quite different from those available for the instructor of the large, residential course (Boettcher & Conrad, 2004)(4). For instance, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, discovery-based learning, engaged learning, and problem-based learning are various methods that are often difficult to implement in the large lecture hall because of classroom size, seating arrangements, as well as large group facilitation issues. The time involved in assessing and assigning grades to these types of activities can be an overwhelming task for the instructor of a large course.

LaFleur (2004) maintains that instructional methods will drive media selection. Most media are flexible, in that each can be used for a variety of teaching functions. Accordingly, while most media can present abstract knowledge and ideas, which are mainly conveyed through the use of spoken or written language, few media are able to present concrete examples of objects, processes, and events. When instructors adapt their course to the Web, it is important to be sensitive to the advantages and disadvantages of the virtual classroom. Web-based instruction is well suited for collaborating, communicating, and information dissemination, but is not good for reading long text files (Boettcher & Conrad, 2004)(4). It is best to minimize text-based lectures and utilize other media available. Video material is a very rich and flexible medium capable of conveying both abstract knowledge and concrete examples, so it is particularly valuable for demonstrating procedures or events.

LaFleur's (2004) approach entails selecting instructional methods that foster the types of learning identified. Generally in large courses, the types of learning addressed in the lab sections are procedural learning, learning by doing, and problem-solving skills. Those activities generally addressed in the large lecture are facts, concept-discrimination, and problem-solving skills. The enrollment size and classroom constraint of the large course often prevent integration of other types of learning.

The Web allows instructional materials to move away from the linear format of the traditional, residential course to a non-linear format supported by hypertext. Initial development of online course materials is a very labor-intensive process, and instructors must give themselves adequate time to develop effective instructional materials that support the course learning goals and objectives. It is important to combine materials in print, video excerpts, voice, and audio excerpts to develop non-linear, linkable content (Carlson & Everett, 2000)(8). They also suggest, as instructional materials are developed, it is crucial to keep students' access and availability to the technology in the forefront of design decisions, "don't use a technology so sophisticated that your students are not likely to have access to it" (p. 3). If students are unable to access streaming audio or video material with the technology available, then the material should not be included in the course.

Once critical content is determined and methods, media, and materials are selected, the Web environment provides the large-course instructor with instructional sequence freedom. Large-course research indicates that when the physical constraints of the classroom are removed and a new learning space is created on the Web, the instructor will be given the opportunity to restructure content and to sequence instruction to incorporate once separate components into one interactive, integrated experience (Cooper & Robinson, 2000)(9). Merging previously separate components, such as lab and lecture, into one cohesive course requires the instructor to examine pedagogical decisions (Boettcher & Conrad, 2004)(4).

When adapting a course to the Web, the first pedagogical question any instructor should ask relates to the basic purpose of the course. According to LaFleur (2004), each instructional experience should be chosen to support the course purpose. She suggests a continuum to help instructors extend the traditional classroom model to one improved by electronic processes and global resources available on the Web. One of the goals for adapting, a large, residential course to the Web is to move from static content toward supporting knowledge production through interactive learning environments; an interactive learning environment supports structured interaction between communities of learners (Boettcher & Conrad, 2004)(4). The question instructors should then consider is how the purpose of the course changes with the integration of the active learning environment.

Research indicates students need to be self-regulated while working independently on the Web (Twigg, 2003)(18). A Web-based learning environment allows a shift toward student-centered instruction, and requires philosophical changes in the roles of the instructor, student, and type of instruction. Bonk, Kirkley, Hara, and Dennen (2001) believe that a shift in thinking is required from information transmission to viewing the goal of instruction as student engagement with the material. This assumption provides a framework for large-course instructors to consider when adapting their courses to the Web, rather than concentrating solely on information consistency issues. Instructors can now consider integrating active learning, collaborative learning, and cooperative learning activities into the curriculum. New approaches to teaching and learning can help foster an environment prohibited by the constraints of the large, residential course.

Moving from the traditional classroom environment to an active learning, Web environment requires instructors to rethink the entire process of evaluating student learning. Evaluation must be continual and ongoing if it is to be fair and accurate within the Web (Kahn, 2005)(11). Without visual and oral cues available in residential classrooms, the instructor may be unaware of student confusion or misunderstanding. The goals of testing are to determine if learning objectives have been accomplished, help students assess their level of knowledge of course material, and provide the instructor with levels of student comprehension. Feedback is widely referred to as communication with a learner to inform him or her of the accuracy of a response to a question (Kahn, 2005)(11). The purpose of feedback is for students to improve their learning. They need to receive appropriate and focused feedback early and often; they also need to learn how to assess their own learning. Because Web-based instruction typically provides a self-contained learning environment, it is critical to pay especially close attention to the kinds and amount of feedback incorporated into the course. While research does not indicate a particular kind of feedback to be superior, it has been suggested that feedback must be quicker and more in-depth than in a FTF course.

Hiltz and Turoff (2002) review evaluation issues from a larger perspective than mere student achievement. They propose the use of formative feedback and summative evaluations to appraise the course. These evaluation methods assess the curriculum for strengths and weaknesses rather than student satisfaction in the environment. The goal of this type of evaluation should be continuous improvement of the course.

In the large, residential class, the focus of instruction is on delivery of content, and on the Web, the focus shifts to how students engage with the information. In the large, residential course, there is often little interaction between the instructor and student. McKeachie (2005) defines this as a "perceived distance" (p. 213). Lack of interaction has been a major source of student dissatisfaction with the large, lecture course. Increasing interaction through the Web removes the barriers of perceived distance between instructor and student and helps create an online community of learners (Hiltz & Turoff, 2002)(10). Developing an online community of learners is one method to increase instructor-to-student and student-to-student interactions as well as increasing overall student satisfaction with the course.

The Web provides a learning space for cooperative and collaborative learning activities, eliminating the physical constraints imposed by the large lecture auditorium. Students now have the opportunity to explore material in greater depth and interact with both peers and instructors on a deeper level (Bonk & Dennen, 2002)(6). Instructional activities available through Web-based environments far exceed those available to the large, residential course instructor leading to greater learner satisfaction.