Scaling Quality For Online Education


Published on

There are numerous models for preparing faculty to develop and deliver online courses. This session examines two very different yet successful models used at diverse institutions and presents the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Scaling Quality For Online Education

  1. 1. Scaling Quality for Online Education: A Comparison of Faculty Development Models<br />Thomas B. Cavanagh<br />Assistant Vice President, Distributed Learning<br />University of Central Florida<br />
  2. 2. Why Faculty Development?<br />Rapid growth in online courses<br />12.9% growth in 2008 (national: Sloan)<br />31% growth Fall 08-09 (UCF) <br />Minnesota State system proposes 25% of all MnSCU credits be earned online by 2015.<br />Faculty who have never taught online are being assigned (or have expressed an interest)<br />
  3. 3. Why Faculty Development?<br />True online course is not simply a “remediation” of classroom presentation<br />Video/Theater analogy<br />Enable faculty success (and student success)<br />As opposed to onerous administrative requirement<br />
  4. 4. Accreditation Requirements<br />Southern Association of Colleges and Schools<br />Faculty support services are appropriate and specifically related to distance education. <br />Faculty who teach in distance education programs and courses receive appropriate training. <br />
  5. 5. Accreditation Requirements<br />Western Association of Colleges and Schools<br />The institution provides an ongoing program of appropriate technical, design, and production support for participating faculty members.<br />The institution provides to those responsible for program development the orientation and training to help them become proficient in the uses of the program’s technologies, including potential changes in course design and management.<br />The institution provides to those responsible for working directly with students the orientation and training to help them become proficient in the uses of the technologies for these purposes, including strategies for effective interaction.<br />
  6. 6. Comparison<br />Public<br />Large<br />Metropolitan<br />Multi-disciplinary Programs<br />Private<br />Medium / Large<br />Global<br />Specialized Programs<br />
  7. 7. Comparison – UCF / ERAU<br />
  8. 8. Comparison – UCF / ERAU<br />Both schools have online:<br />UG/ G programs<br />Individual courses (GEP)<br />100% online and Hybrid/Blended<br />Different emphasis<br />
  9. 9. ERAU Model<br />Four Course Sequence<br />Required to teach online<br />All faculty – tenure track, tenured, instructor, adjunct<br />All 100% online<br />No incentives provided<br />
  10. 10. ERAU Model<br />FACD 700 / 700L – Instructional Use of Blackboard (with Lab)<br />5 week online course<br />How to use CMS<br />Why to use certain features<br />Best practices<br />
  11. 11. ERAU Model<br />FACD 701 – Teaching at Embry-Riddle Worldwide<br />5 week online course<br />Audience is new online and F2F faculty<br />Responsibilities of ERAU instructors<br />Best practices for course prep and delivery<br />Special perspective on teaching in aerospace and military contexts<br />
  12. 12. ERAU Model<br />FACD 702 – Supporting Online Learners<br />7 week online course<br />Teaching focused<br />Best practices in online learning<br />Student-centered approaches to teaching<br />Instructional applications for web-based collaboration tools<br />Application in a blended environment<br />
  13. 13. ERAU Model<br />FACD 703 – Developing Online Course Materials<br />5-7 week online course<br />Design focused<br />By invitation only<br />For faculty developers of master course templates<br />Objectives, interaction design, assessment, TEACH Act, ERAU course production process, etc.<br />
  14. 14. ERAU Sequence Summary<br />
  15. 15. UCF Model<br />Different courses for different purposes<br />Four course options<br />Combination of online and blended facilitation<br />All faculty required for certain levels of access<br />Incentives provided<br />$2,000 stipend<br />Laptop computer (fulltime faculty only)<br />
  16. 16. UCF Model<br />Essentials (includes lab component)<br />Introduces UCF’s online course policies and procedures<br />Teaches faculty core skills needed to set-up and deliver a “web-enhanced” course<br />Provides safe practice environment<br />Allows faculty to demonstrate skills mastery<br />Approx. 5 hrs contact time<br />
  17. 17. UCF Model<br />ADL 5000<br />How to teach an existing W/M course<br />Pedagogy, logistics, technology topics<br />Online, self-paced<br />Approx. 35 clock hours contact time<br />
  18. 18. UCF Model<br />IDL 6543<br />Award-winning course for original design/delivery of online/blended courses<br />Broader and deeper in scope than ADL 5000<br />Taught in blended format<br />Minimum of 80 clock hours contact time<br />$2,000 stipend incentive<br />Laptop computer for successful completion<br />
  19. 19. UCF Model<br />IVD 6000 (development in progress)<br />Training program for lecture capture streaming video.<br />2 parts: online self-paced and live<br />Best Practices, examples, integrating interactivity<br />
  20. 20. UCF Sequence Summary<br />
  21. 21. Training Based on Best Practices<br />Sloan’s 5 Pillars<br />Quality Matters<br />Blackboard Greenhouse Rubric<br />SREB/SREC<br />Accreditation Best Practices<br />SACS, WASC, etc.<br />Plus others<br />Find what works for your institution and combine/modify/amend as necessary<br />
  22. 22. 6 Core Tenets re: Faculty Development<br />1) Include technology subjects<br />Use of the CMS<br />2) Include pedagogy subjects<br />Three types of interactivity<br />3) Model what you want, as much as you can<br />Try to conduct at least a portion online <br />
  23. 23. 6 Core Tenets re: Faculty Development<br />4) Involve faculty in design / review of program<br />Provide peer credibility<br />Balance against IDOL expertise of ISDs, others<br />5) Follow up with assessment<br />Did it help? What could be improved?<br />Student performance / perceptions?<br />
  24. 24. 6 Core Tenets re: Faculty Development<br />6) Require faculty development<br />Restrict modality access<br />Provide incentive, if possible<br />WCET / Campus Computing Project<br />“Managing Online Education Programs” (10/09)<br />53% of institutions report mandatory training<br />Average # of hrs: 27<br />Average # of continuing ed training hrs: 2.5<br />
  25. 25. Conclusion / Questions<br />Thomas Cavanagh, Ph.D.<br />Assistant VP, Distributed Learning<br />University of Central Florida<br /><br />