Optimizing The Relationship Between Id And Faculty


Published on

Sloan Presentation by Phyllis Duryee and Dr. Dawn Snyder, Franklin University

Published in: Education, Design
  • 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

Optimizing The Relationship Between Id And Faculty

  1. 1. Optimizing the Relationship between Instructional Designers and Faculty to construct Effective Online Learning<br />Professor Phyllis Duryee<br />Dawn M. Snyder, Ph.D., C.P.T.<br />Franklin University<br />
  2. 2. Expectations<br />?<br />
  3. 3. Our Objectives for the Presentation<br />Examine the research findings on collaborative roles for online development<br />Present formal role definitions adopted by the design community of a university whose online courses dominate the curriculum<br />Discuss best practices for collaboration to create effective online learning<br />
  4. 4. Online vs. Traditional Course Development<br />Development of course objectives and selection of content similar; looking at programs (vs. courses) can be a plus<br />Key challenge is to create learning environment, focus on interactivity<br />Create an environment where students receive instruction without face-to-face contact<br />Transformation vs. translation<br />Pedagogy is paramount<br />
  5. 5. Distance Learning Impacts<br />Unbundling of faculty roles (Howell and Williams, 2009)<br />Need for faculty development for new role (numerous)<br />Need for teams/collaboration (Xu, 2007)<br />New development “model”<br />New reward structure <br />
  6. 6. Collaborative RolesWhat Research Says<br />“instruction is no longer an individual’s work, but the work of teams of specialists—media specialists, knowledge specialists, instructional design specialists and learning specialists. (Moore 1998 in Laidlaw, 2003)<br />Models: Parallel-linear model, interdisciplinary team model—work together simultaneously and separately<br />
  7. 7. Model (Power, 2008)<br />Analysis<br />Module-Building<br />Teaching Activities Development<br />Learner Support Activities Development<br />Student Performance Assessment Instruments Development<br />Items for Ongoing Improvement<br />
  8. 8. Franklin University<br />All courses delivered online and face-to-face, with achievement of equivalent outcomes promised<br />All faculty involved in development<br />Custom LMS is robust “template” for instruction, accommodating both modes<br />Design process is repeatable as designer/developer teams typically create multiple courses <br />
  9. 9. Franklin University<br />Using Power (2008) model:<br />Analysis<br />Module Structure<br />Learner Support Activities and Assessment<br />Interaction Activities<br />Teaching Activities Development<br />Items for Ongoing Improvement<br />
  10. 10. Formal Role Definitions<br />Designer<br />Developer<br />Content Contributor<br />Plus Librarians, Multi-media team, Technical Team<br />
  11. 11. What skills and abilities do collaborators bring to the table?<br />Designer: Pedagogical strategies and options for analysis, presentation of content, interaction, project management, assessment <br />Developer: Knowledge of content, current and relevant best practices in the field, learner perspective and needs<br />Content contributor: Credentialed person in academia and/or industry. Adds content as well as currency and international experience<br />
  12. 12. Recommendations (Hixon)<br />Have understanding of own role and expectations and the roles of others<br />Have understanding of how communication should occur and how often<br />Have a designed project manager and time keeper (Franklin = designer)<br />Faculty maintain control of instructional decisions<br />
  13. 13. What agenda items might a faculty member focus on?<br />Assessment information and input from Advisory Board, adjunct faculty, and others<br />Choice of text and supplemental readings for content presentation<br />Accuracy and level of depth of content <br />Type of performance required of students as represented in activities and assignments<br />Assessment of outcomes at the program and course level<br />
  14. 14. What boundaries for participation need to be negotiated?<br />Number of meetings and focus of agenda<br />Who writes what (assignments, activities, alternative formats)<br />Milestones and deadlines<br />
  15. 15. How does course effectiveness remain a priority?<br />Focus on learning objectives (matrix)<br />System ensures learning objectives are met<br />System identifies artifacts identified for assessment<br />
  16. 16. What are typical collaboration challenges and ways to overcome them?<br />Competing priorities<br />Faculty (developers) comfort with online elements<br />Team comfort level with collaboration<br />
  17. 17. Questions?<br />
  18. 18. Refererences<br />Hixon, E. (2008). Team-based online course development: A case study of collaboration models. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Vol XI. <br />Howell, S. & Williams, P. (2009) Seven faculty distance ed trends: Academic Leader, p.7.<br /> Laidlaw, J., et al. (2003) The design of distance-l earning programmes and the role of content experts in their production: Medical Teacher, 25, 182-187.<br />Power, M. (2008). A dual-mode university instructional design model for academic development: International Journal for Academic Development. 13, 5- 16. <br />Xu, H., & Morris, L.V. (2007) Collaborative course development for online courses: Innovative Higher Education, 32, 35-47.<br />