« October 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
November 19, 2005
Best Practices for Professional Development of Online Instructors
Reflection
Hmm... the presenters have raised some interesting issues. The lack of research linking PD activities to outcomes is "depressing." Why aren't more Faculty Development programs doing research to "determine what works."
Presenters suggest that PD programs could use a framework (e.g. Activity theory) to evaluate outcomes.
Further Questions:
Notes
Questions How are faculty / trainers prepared to teach in an online environment? How are the faculty recognized for their skills for teaching online? How are these skills supported? How are the skills reinforced? How are the skills evaluated?Findings
Most reports are anecdotal
Most articles focus on Q1
Question changes in k-12 context
How are pre-service teachers
k-12 Findings
Comparison study of technology training in teacher education
Alliance for training teachers equivalent to a 30 hr. graduate course
Modeling use of technology
Undergraduate Teacher Development Center
Higher Ed Findings
Best practices for teaching online
Barriers to Internet Instruction
Policies and practices for faculty development
MISSING: Linkage to PD program to outcomes
Institutional support
- only one article found
Conclusions
Professional development programs reported in the literature have not been subjected to statistical and analytical inquiry
Evidence to support professional development activities
Implications
PD programs for online instructors may not have been rigorously tested using qualitative, experimental, or quasi-experimental designs to empirically determine what works.
Description
Best Practices for Professional Development of Online Instructors Session 7, Salon 7, 12:25p.m. - 1:00p.m. David Stein, The Ohio State University Jennifer Calvin, Hilda Glazer, Christine Overtoom, Evan Straub, Constance Wanstreet, Abstract: This literature review examined research-based articles on professional development practices for instructors teaching in online environments. It revealed that there are no theoretically based or research-based standards against which to measure their development. The literature does not address whether what we are teaching instructors is helping them be more effective.Posted by at 01:00 PM | Comments (0)
Quality Matters: An Inter-Institutional Process for Improving Quality Online
Reflection
Wow! Quality Matters has developed a very impressive tool and service for improving the quality of online courses.Some of the best features, IMHO:
- QM is grounded in research literature, national standards of best practice, instructional design principles
- Online rubric links to examples in different formats (WebCT Blackboard)
Of interest: They are considering a membership model where other institutions would be able to participate.
A three-week online Peer Reviewer Training and a two-week f2f training program are offered.
Further Questions:
Does Maryland Online have a model to evaluate instruction
Can you talk a little more about the Research projects being conducted to investigate student learning
How do you allow access to courses that have been evaluated?
how much change occurred? What are some of the differences between the 4 iterations Fourth iteration
do you compensate the peer reviewers?
In your opinion, should an institution use the Quality Matters rubric or should they develop their own?
What is the financial model of the Quality Matters project?
How much does it cost to review a course
Can I get a copy of the handout you used for the group activity to practice evaluating various course components?
Notes
Purpose of model is to make courses betterCourse ->Peer course Review -> Feedback -> Course meets Quality Expectations
What this process is NOT
not about an individual instructor (it's about the course design)
Not about faculty evaluation (it's about course quality)
Not a win/lose, pass/fail test (it's about continuous improvement)
QM Review is:
ongoing
Focus: Design
Outcome: Course improvement
Voluntary, non threatening
Team approach that includes the faculty member
full disclosure
Major Themes
develop inter-institutional consensus
assure & improve course quality
positively impact student learning
faculty -centered activities
promote voluntary participation
Strengths
QM is grounded in:
research literature
national standards of best practice
instructional design principles
What's In It For Institutions...
validation by an external process
Strengthen reaccreditation package
Gain access to a sustainable, replicable, scalable QA process
Inform online course training & practices
Provide professional development activities
Increase course & program
What's in it for faculty
Improve your online course
gain access to instructional design support
QA validation by external peers
Expand professional community
Review other courses & gain new ideas for your won course
Useful for annual evaluations, promotion applications, professional development plan
$150 for each course
The Rubric
8 Standards
Web-based version
Links to examples in different platforms
Rubric Scoring
14 standards have 3 points (essential)
12 standards have 2 points (Very Important)
14 standards have 1 point (Important)
Team of three reviewers
One score per standard based on majority
Doesn't use a 1 to 3 scale because of the complexity
Two criteria to meet quality expectations:
Yes to all 14 Essential Standards
Receive at least a total of 68 points
Review Team
3 faculty Peer Reviewers
- 1 from home institution, 2 from others
- 1 from same discipline, 2 from others
- mix of CC & 4 yr schools
- mix of larger & small schools
- Mix of public & private schools
Faculty Course Developer
Selection Factors
- proper training to teach online
Extent of online teaching experience
Rubric Training
Provides a two-week online training program on how to use the rubric.
Emphasized that this is an inter-institutionally developed
Adapting rubric to continuing-education courses.
They are currently reviewing a course for Kaplan.
Course Review Results
Upon Initial review
- 51% meet QM expectations
- 19% missing essential 3 point elements
- 30% missing essential 3 point elements and a minimum of 68 points
Instructional design support provided if requested
Adapt rubric & process for hybrid, f2f, ContEd, commercial, professional training.
Adapt rubric & process for specific institutional needs
Description
Quality Matters: An Inter-Institutional Process for Improving Quality OnlineDescription: Quality assurance of online courses is of prime importance to various stakeholders in higher education. The FIPSE-funded Quality Matters (QM) project has created an inter-institutional continuous improvement process for assuring the quality of online courses. The credibility, reliability, and strength of this process stems from three core features of the project: 1) a process vetted by faculty experts, 2) review criteria and a rubric based in the research literature, national standards of best practice, and instructional design principles, and 3) participation by faculty, instructional designers, and institutions that is voluntary, open, collaborative, and supportive. Experienced online faculty are trained to use a rubric to review and provide faculty with feedback on their online courses. The rubric consists of elements shown to positively impact student learning. QM then provides instructional design support for implementing suggested improvements. The process and tools are replicable, reliable, scalable, and adaptable to use in a variety of ways and settings.
To date, the QM project has trained over 175 faculty from over 45 institutions to be peer reviewers; QM has also reviewed 40 online courses in various disciplines from 14 institutions, using peer reviewers from 18 institutions. The review process has provided faculty with feedback that highlights exceptional elements and offers positive recommendations for course improvement. The QM project has also trained faculty to use the rubric to review their own courses and identify needed areas of improvement. The results of these two activities indicate common areas of needed improvement in online courses. These areas provide generally applicable indicators for special emphasis during course development and/or revision, faculty training and professional development activities.
This presentation will also discuss example applications of the QM rubric and process by other institutions nationwide, and current efforts to apply the QM process to hybrid and classroom courses.
Date: November 19, 2005
Session: 5
Location: Salon 12
Time: 8:15am - 9:35am
Presenter(s):
Christina Sax, University of Maryland University College
John Sener, Sener Learning Services
Mary Wells, Prince George's Community College
Posted by at 07:25 AM | Comments (0)
November 18, 2005
Challenges & Rewards of developing a High-Quality Worldwide Learning Community
Reflection
It is interesting to see how many presentations at this conference are focusing on worldwide, international learning contexts. I chose this session thinking that the content might relate to the University of Illinois Global Campus (UIGC) being discussed in the U of I Strategic Plan.Many universities are PLANNING to expand online programs. However, too many remain in the planning mode and don't act. CalU has adopted an entrepreneurial attitude. "It's better to be first than to be best."
Notes
Administrative Support is the most important Marketing Plan is also crucial Online Infrastructure Established (registration, tuition)created a web-based program task force
starting a program in health care cost containment. Hired someone from Blue Cross to help develop content.
CalU Global
Hired a director they "stole" from UMUC
Instructional designer
financial aid
customer service people
How is the web-based program task force making their decisions about which programs need to be developed Goal is niche-based. Trying to determine what areas exist and do not exist.
How did you create faculty buy-in? Strong administrative support, with money, equipment, faculty, marketing. Skeptical faculty are listened to, but not allowed to be an obstacle.
Posted by at 03:46 PM | Comments (0)
Advancing Faculty Development as Online Course Designers/Facilitators
Reflection
It seems many institutions are creating their own course quality rubrics, with very similar structure. One difference between the rubric presented here and the one being developed by QOCI is that they include instruction (processes) and learning outcomes, whereas the QOCI rubric will not.Further Questions for presenters:
How did you get faculty to 'buy in' to the rubric?
Notes
Purpose of Rubric: advance evaluation of courses, promote learning effectiveness -both quantitative and qualitative -mechanism for self-evaluation, peer evaluation, and administrator, program director and/or dean evaluation -Design or facilitate online course development -Enhance the creation of a collaborative online elearning environmentStructure - Content, Organization, Environment
Content - Presentation of Information
Processes - Human Aspects, Relationships, Interactions, Quality
Outcomes
Pilot Tested at two universities, across three departments.
Conclusions:
- A uniform rubric can be applied to any discipline
- The rubric could facilitate evaluation of all online courses to a set standard
- Faculty and program directors can promote faculty development and subsequent learning.
Description
Advancing Faculty Development as Online Course Designers/Facilitators Session 3, Salon 4, 1:40p.m. - 2:15p.m. Mona Ternus, University of New Mexico College of Nursing Kay Palmer, Old Dominion University Debbie Faulk, Auburn University Montgomery Abstract: To advance evaluation and promote learning effectiveness, a rubric was designed to provide quantitative and qualitative standardized evaluation of online courses. The four-part rubric was designed to reflect: Structure, Content, Processes, and Outcomes. Instructors, peers, and/or program directors can use this rubric to promote faculty development and subsequent student learning.Posted by at 02:15 PM | Comments (0)
Learning as we go: Innovative online pedagogical approaches
Reflection
I chose this session because ION is getting ready to conduct a program assessment to determine value and impact. Unfortunately, the "assessment data" mentioned in the description was not the focus and the presentation was not really what I was looking for.However, there were some take-aways. The Graduate Certificate Program in Community College Teaching offered by North Carolina State University is similar to the Master Online Teacher certificate offered by Illinois Online Network.
One difference between N. Carolina's certificate and ION's certificate is that N. Carolina uses a cohort model. Presenter Susan Braken noted that there were pros and cons to using a cohort structure. One advantage is the community created by the cohort. One disadvantage is that students who have to drop are not able to get into a different cohort. I think HRE Online's structure is best -- a cohort with flexibility, so that students who drop a course can enter a later cohort.
Notes
Certificate for North Carolina and South Carolina, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Purpose of certificate to enhance teaching.5 online graduate courses. 3 of 5 are core, including adult learning, structure and strategies, and instructional designs. Cohort model. All courses in certificate are applicable to graduate programs at NC State.
A new definition of Cohort was necessary. All come from similar backgrounds. (STEM faculty - specific disciplines). Typical load for participants was 7 courses in fall, 7 courses in spring. Project was in response to a faculty shortage in the STEM disciplines. Participants were not
Both faculty and students were transitioning to online environment.
Assumed that STEM audience had strong technical skills.
Regina Smith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Small-group work in online learning environments
Course design using problem-based learning
Ill-structured problems
Student groups - same group
Description
Learning as we go: Innovative online pedagogical approaches Session 4, Salon 7, 3:15p.m. -3:50p.m. Susan Bracken, North Carolina State University Duane Akroyd, North Carolina State University John Dirkx, Michigan State University Regina Smith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Pooneh Lari, North Carolina State University Abstract: This multi-institutional panel will present examples and assessment data from three innovative models used in online instruction to enhance community college faculty professional development in enhancing their teaching knowledge base and skills.Posted by at 02:10 PM | Comments (0)
Building a Community of Virtual Adjunct Professionals: Virtual Mentoring
Florida Community College at Jacksonville has the best online faculty mentoring program that I have heard about.
Throughout the Sloan-C ALN conference, I have been hearing how higher-ed organizations are going to need to rely on adjunct instructors in order to expand their online programs. In my opinion, FCC Jacksonville's mentoring program should be emulated by these organizations.
http://www.distancelearning.org/mentors/
Florida Community College at Jacksonville
250 virtual adjuncts, about 100 full time faculty
each semester, hire 40-60 new adjuncts.
“Adjuncts are difficult to manage”
Adjuncts are surveyed each semester to produce a profile (demographics, workload, and experience)
Instructional Challenges of Using Virtual Adjuncts
- Recruitment
- Orientating and integrating distant faculty
- Retaining excellent faculty, creating instructional continuity across semesters
- Bridging the social, professional and instructional chasm between fulltime and adjunct
- closing the feedback loop in instructional evaluation
- day-to-day management of distant staff.
Supporting Virtual Online Faculty
- Quality
- Mentoring
- Evaluation
- Course design
- Orientation & Training
- Administration Processes
Virtual Mentoring
- Lead Mentors (Full Time Faculty)
- Virtual Mentors (Full time or adjunct faculty)
- New Adjuncts (up to 10 for each Virtual Mentor)
Each virtual mentor works with up to 10 online adjuncts per semester, with assignments based on factors such as academic discipline backgrounds and software expertise.
The lead mentor provides leadership for the virtual mentors, and assists new virtual mentors with mentoring processes and developing strategies fro building successful mentoring relationships.
Mentor Roles:
LEADS
Liaison between office and adjunct instructors
Encouragement to adjuncts in learning online instruction
Assistance and training for adjuncts in a variety of ways
Distribution of important information during the semester
Survey adjunct and student interactions and offer suggestions.
www.distancelearning.org/mentors/index.html
Full-time faculty can take online certification course. Receive a $500 stipend and a certificate
How much do you pay the mentors?
Adjuncts get $560 / credit hour
Mentors $175/ mentee (up to 10) + flat fee for managing discussion boards, etc.
How do you evaluate the mentors?
Uses an evaluation
Building a Community of Virtual Adjunct Professionals: Virtual Mentoring
Session 2, Salon 3, 10:35a.m. - 11:10a.m.
Maria Puzziferro, Florida Community College at Jacksonville
Abstract: This presentation will discuss recruitment, support and management strategies for distance learning programs which employ nationally-based online adjunct faculty. Florida Community College at Jacksonville (FCCJ) supports more than 250 online adjuncts, and has implemented a support program built on peer mentoring and virtual community.
Posted by at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
Sloan-C 2006: Initial Observations
I am in Orlando, Florida attending the 11th Sloan-C conference on Asynchronous Learning Networks. I am going to mostly attend presentations that focus on institutional challenges, faculty development, and quality benchmarks for online courses and programs. I will try to write a blog entry for each of the presentations I attend.
Posted by at 07:07 AM | Comments (0)