J Comput High Educ (2011) 23:60–77 DOI 10.1007/s12528-010-9040-5
A process-oriented framework for acquiring online teaching competencies M’hammed Abdous
Published online: 9 December 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract As a multidimensional construct which requires multiple competencies, online teaching is forcing universities to rethink traditional faculty roles and competencies. With this consideration in mind, this paper presents a processoriented framework structured around three sequential non-linear phases: (1) before: preparing, planning, and designing; (2) during: facilitating, interacting, and providing/gathering feedback; and (3) after: reflecting and considering lessons learned. Grounded on existing models and on our experience designing and working with faculty designing and teaching online courses, this framework provides a systemic understanding of the various roles and competencies associated with online teaching. Use of this framework should enable higher education institutions (HEIs) to develop comprehensive and effective faculty development programs, capable of helping faculty create and facilitate effective learning opportunities for all students. Keywords Online learning Online teaching roles and competencies Faculty development
Introduction The convergence of technological innovations in hardware, software, and telecommunications, combined with the ubiquity of learning management systems and social media applications, is reconfiguring the higher education landscape (Amirault and Visser 2009; Harasim 2006; Laurillard 2008; Tapscott and Williams 2010; Abdous and Yoshimura 2010). The traditional lines between face-to-face teaching
M. Abdous (&) Center for Learning Technologies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
123
A process-oriented framework
61
and learning (F2FTL) and online teaching and learning (OTL)1 are becoming progressively blurred, predominantly because of the dramatic rise of online and blended or hybrid offerings (Means et al. 2009; Parsad and Lewis 2008; Vaughan 2007). In the midst of this paradigmatic shift, faculty roles and competencies are being reconsidered, particularly as they pertain to workload, teaching time, space, and presence. This unbundling, reconceptualizing, and rethinking of faculty roles and competencies is being driven by the confluence of a number of contextual factors, among them the infusion of technology into teaching and learning, the exponential growth of online learning, the increasing demand for access from nontraditional students, and changes in the curriculum (McShane 2004). Even though Bawane and Spector (2009) argue that the competencies required to teach online are not substantially different from those needed to teach in an F2FTL environment, numerous studies have attempted to define and clarify the roles and competencies associated with online teaching. While this attention has attempted to clarify the ambiguity surrounding these roles (Easton 2003), it has also assisted in creating a better understanding of the organizational and personal developmental challenges with which online teaching is associated (Briggs 2005). Indeed, the lack of clarity about the processes, procedures, and policies associated with online teaching has often been a source of confusion and mismatched expectations for both faculty and students. This lack of clarity is likely to inhibit institutions’ ability to overcome some of the traditional barriers built by their faculty’s unwillingness to participate in online teaching. More importantly, a comprehensive understanding of faculty roles is a prerequisite for establishing the foundation for a comprehensive faculty development program (Thach and Murphy 1995; Bawane and Spector 2009; Briggs 2005; Williams 2003). Once established, a thorough faculty development program should address the lack of understanding of online teaching pedagogy among faculty, while bolstering their efficacy (Shepherd et al. 2007). While most of the studies in the literature have identified key roles and competencies, it has been hard to find a comprehensive framework which distinguishes faculty roles and competencies prior, during, and after the online teaching experience. This paper, in response, proposes a process-oriented framework grounded in practice and structured around three sequential non-linear phases: (1) before: planning and design; (2) during: facilitation, interaction, and feedback; and (3) after: reflection. The main goal of this paper is threefold: to propose a systematic and practical framework capable of clarifying competencies associated with online teaching; to enable faculty to create and facilitate effective learning opportunities, and to help HEIs to establish a comprehensive and effective faculty development program for teachers of online courses. For this purpose, we first review some of the classifications proposed to clarify the competencies associated with online teaching. We then discuss the basic assumptions which support our framework, and follow up with a detailed discussion 1
As a generic concept, online teaching refers to any learning experience which mixes three interdependent dimensions: (1) delivery and interaction tools (hardware and software); (2) remote location; and (3) synchronous or asynchronous meeting time.
123
62
M. Abdous
of various facets of the framework. We conclude with some practical recommendations aimed at helping in the implementation of the framework.
Previous classifications of online faculty roles and competencies Although the literature regarding online teaching provides ample references to best practices in OTL, few studies/classifications have systematically addressed the ambiguity which surrounds the faculty roles and competencies associated with online teaching. One of the earliest classifications was proposed by Paulsen (1995) more than a decade ago. Building upon the pioneering work of Feenberg (1989), Hiltz (1988), and particularly Mason (1991) regarding moderating computermediated communication (CMC), Paulsen proposed a classification structured around three inter-related roles: organizational, social, and intellectual. The organizational role is intended to set the agenda by clarifying the discussion objectives and timetable and by outlining the procedural rules and decision-making norms. The social role aims at creating a friendly, social environment, conducive for learning, in which faculty members welcome students and encourage participation by role modeling and by providing constructive feedback in a friendly and responsive manner. The intellectual role is intended to keep the discussion focused on crucial points, while summarizing key ideas and encouraging students to expand and build on each other’s comments. Following this classification, Berge (1995) proposed a model organized around four dimensions: pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical. With the exception of the addition of a technical role (aimed at ensuring faculty technical skills), the components of this model were similar to those in Paulsen’s (1995) model. Although Berge’s model was recently revised to include a discussion of virtual environments, such as Second Life, the new model reiterates that the roles identified more than a decade ago are still valid and appropriate (Berge 2008). Following similar classifications, Coppola et al. (2002) used a pattern analysis approach to identify three roles that faculty would need to develop when transitioning from F2F to an online or ‘‘virtual’’ environment: first, faculty need to develop their cognitive role which pertains to the mental processes of learning, information storage, and thinking. This role forces faculty to shift into a deeper level of cognitive complexity. Second, faculty need to develop their affective role which relates mainly to the instructor’s and students’ relationship, and requires that faculty learn new tools to express their emotions. Third, faculty need to develop their managerial role when dealing with class and course management, since online courses often require the adoption of additional and new ways of monitoring students. For their part, Goodyear et al. (2001) attempted to understand and categorize online teaching competencies, building upon the results of a workshop involving practitioners and researchers from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other European countries. Their study attempts to answer several questions, including how to recruit, train, assess, and certify faculty as teachers of online courses. To this end, they identified eight different roles (process facilitator, advisor/counselor,
123
A process-oriented framework
63
assessor, researcher, content facilitator, technologist, designer, and manager/ administrator) associated with specific tasks executed by faculty. As an overall outcome, their classification aims to help learners to take responsibility and control of their own learning, while fostering collaboration and inclusiveness in online teaching and learning. Using a theoretically grounded perspective, Mishra and Koehler (2006) offer interesting insight to technology integration in teacher education and faculty development. Building on Shulman’s (1987) idea about the interplay of content, pedagogy, and knowledge in shaping effective teaching strategies, Mishra and Koehler extend this concept by adding a fourth technological dimension. In this framework, the authors argue that the TPCK (Technological, Pedagogical, Content, and Knowledge) model facilitates effective technology integration at the theoretical, pedagogical, and methodological levels, while helping to design pedagogical strategies for teaching with technology. More recently, Lee and Tsai (2010) extended the TPCK model to include a web dimension. In doing so, they attempted to provide a framework for understanding teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge-Web (TPCK-W), while integrating Web technology into their pedagogical practice. This extended model was used to investigate teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in terms of their TPCK-W. As a result, Lee and Tsai reported, among other things, that high self-efficacy correlates with positive attitudes toward online teaching. Closely related to these classifications, several studies have reported that online teaching leads to some unintended benefits or ‘‘reverse impact’’ (to reuse the expression of Roblyer et al. 2009). Online teaching experience enables (and sometimes even forces) faculty to reconsider their deep-rooted beliefs about teaching and learning. Indeed, Ellis and his colleagues argue that faculty often transfer some of the best practices learned in teaching distance education courses (such as organizational and managerial habits, attention to detail, and anticipation of students’ misunderstanding) into traditional face-to-face teaching environments (Ellis et al. 2006). Similarly, Lowes (2008) reports that teaching online courses has encouraged faculty to use innovative pedagogical practices that encourage greater student participation, meta-cognition, and reflection. In the same study, some faculty reported developing a new empathy and sensitivity to students’ needs. In summary, with some minor variations, the emerging consensus from these various classifications seems to want to include all four—pedagogical, managerial, social, and technical—roles and competencies. The pedagogical dimension considers content preparation, interaction, collaboration, and assessment skills and competencies, whereas the managerial dimension focuses on logistics and readiness issues. The social dimension focuses on community building, interaction, and collaboration, while the technical dimension is centered on proficiency in computer use and in course management. However, it is difficult to map these roles to the online teaching experience phases, hence our proposed model. In the next section, we discuss our framework assumptions and follow-up with a detailed discussion of its components.
123
64
M. Abdous
A comprehensive framework for competency in teaching online courses Before describing our proposed framework, we should note that our framework is rooted in four basic assumptions. First, competency is perceived as the knowledge, skills, ability, and attitudes required to effectively perform roles within an organization (Richey et al. 2001; Paquette 2007). In this regard, it is critical to bear in mind that perceived self-efficacy influences faculty’s overall readiness and comfort to teach online (Graff 2008). Consequently, the effectiveness of any faculty development program hinges on the ability to identify variations in faculty readiness and motivation and the ability to design activities which target various groups of faculty (ex. beginning, mid-career, and senior faculty). Second, learning is perceived as a personal enterprise with social and organizational implications, an enterprise which puts the student at the heart of this dynamic process. From this angle, faculty are viewed as instrumental in guiding, challenging, and widening students’ individual/social learning processes. Third, technology is viewed as a tool for the realization of learning as construction and as a social process of meaning appropriation (Salomon 1998). To fulfill this, it is imperative to approach technology from the instrumental standpoint, in which tool selection is based on a thorough understanding and analysis of the characterstics of faculty, the students, and the curriculum (Dede 2008). However, we must concede that technology is not merely a passive tool, but rather a ‘‘medium of human expression’’ (Murphy 1986), capable of shaping our habits of mind and our patterns of thinking (Morrisett 1996). Hence, it is critically important for faculty to understand the dialectical relationship between technology and content and the ways in which they afford and constrain each other (Mishra and Koehler 2006). Finally, online course development is envisioned as a team-based effort requiring both a streamlined workflow and the collaboration of several specialists (subjectmatter, instructional, and technical) working together in a team environment. This assumption is critical in delineating the roles and competencies associated with online development and teaching. The complexity of the broad range of technologies involved in designing quality courses makes it impossible for an incoming online faculty member to possess knowledge of all of the best practices; hence, the need for a team-based approach (Phillips 2005; Abdous and He 2008a). With these assumptions in mind, and drawing from OTL practice and theory, we propose a process-oriented framework outlining specific activities structured around three sequential non-linear/iterative phases (see Fig. 1) which follow the unfolding of the online teaching experience. In proposing this framework, we posit, with Mishra and Koehler (2006), that online teaching requires the interplay of three main components: content, pedagogy, and technology. Before: preparation, planning, and design Preparation In the preparation phase, faculty are encouraged to actively participate in appropriate professional development activities to acquire (1) adequate understanding of online
123
A process-oriented framework
65
Fig. 1 A process-oriented framework for acquiring online teaching competencies
teaching fundamentals and pedagogy, including adequate computer and information literacy skills (in order to use productivity tools, course management systems, browser, email, and videoconferencing applications, information literacy, etc.); (2) adequate knowledge about various teaching and learning technologies’ capabilities and limitations; (3) adequate knowledge about copyright, fair use, privacy, and intellectual property issues; and (4) a basic understanding of the characteristics of different types of learners, based on demographics, learning styles, and needs (technical, content, affective, and cognitive). During this preparatory phase, faculty are invited to reflect on their transition from the F2FTL to the OTL environment while identifying the similarities and differences between these two environments. This reflection should lead them to rethink their role as teacher and perhaps their overall perception of how teaching and learning unfolds in the OTL environment. Active participation in this preparatory phase is critical to the overall preparedness and effectiveness of faculty new to teaching online courses. Planning In the planning phase, faculty are encouraged to develop a learner-centered syllabus (LCS) that is detailed, structured, paced, and flexible. As the backbone for the course, a well-designed syllabus provides students with a roadmap for an engaging
123
66
M. Abdous
and successful learning experience, whereas a poorly designed syllabus can impede communication between faculty and students, can increase student anxiety and potential complaints, and can reduce overall teaching effectiveness (Abdous and He 2008b). In addition, faculty should inventory their existing content and resources to identify any gaps or missing content. Subsequently, this inventory will be used to brainstorm (with the production team, if one is available) options and appropriate tools and techniques for various learning activities. In sum, this phase is focused on using the LCS to outline the course structure and flow while inventorying existing and needed resources and/or learning activities. Design Following these two phases, faculty will be engaged in working with instructional designers to set up a well-organized course site with clear directions, guidelines, and completion criteria. This structure is used to align various learning activities and resources with course objectives, as it streamlines and scaffolds them into a course with a paced and logical flow. During this design phase, faculty are encouraged to include the critical elements of effective OTL environments, such as the development of student-centered syllabi, the alignment of objectives with the content matrix, the use of engaging and diversified learning activities, the offering of opportunities for interaction and collaboration, and, of course, the opportunity for meaningful assessment and feedback (Hosiea et al. 2005; Abdous 2009). This phase necessitates close coordination and collaboration among team members to achieve a shared and realistic view of the overall course design. In sum, this first phase (preparing, planning, and designing) is critical in providing the online course with a structure which integrates effective learning activities that are aligned with learning objectives, while remaining mindful of various technical and logistical constraints. It entails tapping into the collective intelligence of all production team members to ensure faculty readiness and to work with faculty to design meaningful, challenging and effective learning experience. In this regard, we agree with Wiesenberg and Stacey (2005) that time spent on the course pre-delivery planning phase reduces time spent solving course delivery problems, once the course is underway. During: facilitation, interaction, and feedback Facilitation Subsequently, during the actual teaching of the course, facilitation, interaction, and feedback become the core activities of online teaching. Faculty are expected to ensure learners’ overall readiness by directing them to various institutional resources ranging from advising to technical requirements to library resources. In addition, students should be offered a learning management system (LMS) orientation which will explain the course’s navigation and flow. Following this phase, faculty should welcome learners to the learning environment and should
123
A process-oriented framework
67
clarify expectations, weekly time commitment, and deadlines. During this phase, faculty should help learners take responsibility for their own learning, articulate their expectations, develop effective work study habits, stay organized, and remain focused on learning tasks (Bangert 2004). Indeed, the active engagement of students at this phase will ensure a successful and effective learning experience, particularly when faculty maintain a positive personal rapport with their students (Lohman 1996; Bailey and Card 2009). Similarly, monitoring the completion of assignments and the preparation of the students, while fostering academic integrity and inveighing against plagiarism, is vitally important to student success. Interaction Interaction is the cornerstone of the learning experience (Moore 2002; Bolliger and Wasilik 2009). After they establish the ground rules of the course (including communication and feedback protocols), faculty should provide their students with clear guidelines and expectations in terms of the students’ contribution and participation. Establishing a sense of a learning community among participants is a prerequisite for meaningful and in-depth interaction. This aspect is critical in overcoming some of the reported drawbacks of online teaching, including students’ feeling of isolation and their lack of motivation and interaction (Bernard et al. 2009; Mullins-Dove 2006). During this phase, faculty are encouraged to initiate and keep discussions open, focused, and relevant. To this end, they need to share, listen, answer questions, and show enthusiasm, while paying careful attention to students’ needs, providing direction, and drawing students toward active engagement and participation in the discussion. To ensure the effectiveness, relevance, and usefulness of interaction, faculty should provide clear guidelines and expectations and should link interactive activities to assessment (Brindley et al. 2009). In sum, the availability of online communication and moderation skills is a pre-requisite for effective interaction (Salmon 2002). Feedback Providing timely and meaningful feedback to students taking their online courses is another foundational pre-requisite for a successful online teaching experience (Eom et al. 2006). Faculty are expected to give timely feedback about a variety of aspects of the course. Students anticipate prompt and high-quality feedback about assignments and questions, complete with detailed explanations and justifications (Brindley et al. 2009; Rovai 2004). Faculty who provide constructive criticism and reassurance will motivate and engage students, particularly when the response is worded in a friendly and conversational tone. Along the same lines, faculty are encouraged to collect regular (weekly, mid-semester) feedback from students and to address issues promptly. Data collected from students provides a practical appreciation of the effectiveness of the course content and activities.
123
68
M. Abdous
After: reflection and lessons learned Reflection As a self-improvement tool used within the process of continuous learning, reflection is critical. Before the semester is over (while their experience is still fresh), faculty are encouraged to analyze and reflect upon their experience as an online teacher. They are encouraged to keep a journal to record and reflect on their experience; this journal will provide them with valuable insights about their overall experience. Data collected during this phase should also be used to identify lessons learned and to establish a plan for course revision, if needed. From this perspective, reflection should be practiced both in-action (during the course) and on-action (after the course) (Scho¨n 1987). By mirroring the linear unfolding of the course (before, during, and after), we hope that our framework will provide a roadmap capable of delineating the critical tasks associated with each phase, while guiding faculty throughout the continuum of online teaching and learning. In the following table, we detail majors tasks associated with each phase (Table 1).
Practical considerations for the implementation of the proposed framework To be used as a practical roadmap, the proposed framework requires a supportive environment that explicitly supports and recognizes online teaching as an effective delivery mode capable of improving upon F2F teaching and learning, while reaching non-traditional students. In correlation to this institutional enabling condition, successful implementation of the framework requires the following practical considerations and conditions: 1.
During the planning phase, the clarifying of faculty’s expectations is critical, in order to gain their buy-in and participation. This clarification of expectations hinges on four contextual considerations: a. Develop policies to demonstrate institutional support for online teaching, including policies governing ownership of intellectual property, workload, copyright, and evaluation (Orr et al. 2009; Wallace 2007). b. Establish an action plan to address the traditional barriers of faculty participation in online teaching. These include compensation, funding, workload, rewards, recognition in tenure and promotion, and faculty development (Muilenburg and Berge 2001; Wallace 2004; Hiltz et al. 2007). c. Conduct a pre-assessment to identify faculty readiness, particularly in terms of technical literacy, as lack of technical expertise is commonly cited as barrier to online teaching and learning (Bolliger and Wasilik 2009). d. Establish a faculty development program which covers and connects all pedagogical, managerial, social, and technical roles and competencies. It is equally important to establish a peer mentoring program to encourage
123
Seek feedback from colleagues, request peer review, and participate in quality assurance programs
Work with students to develop a personal learning plan including how to develop effective work study habits, stay organized, and remain focused on task Help learners to take responsibility for their own learning, to articulate their expectations, and to develop the basic knowledge and skills to be a successful online learner Learn about learners’ characteristics (demographics, expectations, learning styles, etc.) Refer learners to appropriate sources of support (academic, technical, advising, etc.)
Adequate computer literacy skills, including productivity tools, learning management systems (LMS), browser, email and videoconferencing applications
Adequate knowledge about various teaching and learning technologies’ capabilities and limitations
Adequate knowledge about copyright, fair use, privacy, and intellectual property issues
A basic understanding of the characteristics of different types of learners based on demographics, learning styles, needs (technical, content, affective, and cognitive), etc.
Manage end-of-semester online course logistical issues (LMS course backup, archives, etc.) and plan for future offerings
Create both an exported backup copy and an archive copy of the course site from Bb and save them to your network drive
Reflect on your experience and consider using it for a research project. Reflection should be practiced in-action (during the course) and onaction (after the course)
Establish a revision plan based on students’ feedback, course evaluation, and teaching journal notes
Welcome and introduce learners to the course learning environment: clarify expectations, weekly time commitment, and deadlines
Adequate understanding of online teaching fundamentals and pedagogy
Review, analyze and reflect upon data, experiences, and records of online teaching to draw lessons
3.1 Reflecting
Facilitate learners’ readiness (technical requirements and pre-requisites, LMS orientation, etc.) by using various communication channels (chat, audio/video, discussion board, etc.). Provide them with practice opportunities on various technologies used in the course
2.1 Facilitating
1.1 Preparing
After: reflecting and drawing lessons learned
Participate in appropriate professional development activities to acquire:
During: facilitating, interacting and providing/ seeking feedback
Before: preparing, planning and designing
Table 1 A process-oriented framework for acquiring online teaching competencies
A process-oriented framework 69
123
123
Develop a student-centered syllabus that is detailed, structured, paced and flexible, and demonstrates a basic understanding of the characteristics of different types of learners
1.2 Planning
Explore peer support opportunities and learn effective time-saving techniques from experienced colleagues
Reflect on your role as a teacher and about your perception of how teaching and learning unfolds: content, interaction, assessment
Reflect on the transition from face-to-face to the online learning environment to identify similarities and differences
Adequate understanding of online teaching communication requirements: clarity, accuracy
A basic understanding of value of various media: text, image, audio, video, etc. and ways to combine them effectively
Before: preparing, planning and designing
Table 1 continued
Foster academic integrity and plagiarism intervention and ensure authenticity of student work
Recognize disruptive behavior and address it promptly and effectively
Recognize and acknowledge good behavior, participation and timeliness
Review overall course activity weekly and address any issues related to student participation and completion of any outstanding requirements
Monitor learners’ progress and completion of learning activities and assess their achievements
During: facilitating, interacting and providing/ seeking feedback
After: reflecting and drawing lessons learned
70 M. Abdous
Clarify roles and expectations of PT members
1.3 Designing
Create a warm and inviting atmosphere that promotes the development of a sense of community among participants
Work with production team [(PT), (Instructional Designer and Instructional Technologist, etc.)] to identify appropriate tools and techniques for various learning activities
Initiate and maintain interactive discussions; keep discussions on a productive path; guide discussion in keeping with lesson goals and objectives
Develop relationship with your learners by discussing content and non-content related topics and nurturing trust, respect, and understanding
Establish overall ground rules: communication and feedback protocols. Establish and maintain an effective learning, coaching relationship with all learners
2.2. Interacting
During: facilitating, interacting and providing/ seeking feedback
Develop a content inventory of (1) existing content and resources and (2) additional content and resources that will be needed
Align course objectives with content presentation, learning activities, and assessment plans
Develop a course outline that includes an introduction to the course, course objectives, relevance of the course, estimation of workload, list of topics (segmented into relevant subtopics), proposed plans for content presentation, learning activities (readings, lectures, interaction, collaboration, submitted assignments, etc.), formative and summative assessment plans, and finally, a course summary
Before: preparing, planning and designing
Table 1 continued After: reflecting and drawing lessons learned
A process-oriented framework 71
123
123 Encourage learners to bring real-life examples into the discussion and share their professional expertise Ensure active participation of all learners by contacting and encouraging learners who are not participating Promote learning through group interaction while reinforcing contributions from participants Summarize key points in a discussion
Work with PT to design/identify effective and meaningful learning activities that require minimal instructor intervention
Work with PT to design/identify effective and meaningful assessment activities that are aligned with learning objectives
Work with PT to provide learners with rubrics, checklists, project examples, etc.
Work with PT to provide learners with self-reflection and self-assessment opportunities, such as keeping a journal and taking short quizzes with instant feedback
Encourage learners to respect assignment due dates and agreed-upon working times
2.3 Providing/Seeking feedback
Intervene to provide direction, give information, manage disagreements, and maintain a collegial atmosphere
Work with PT to design/identify learning activities that are consistent with the technology’s constraints and capabilities
Reflect on initial phase and suggest ways to improve various tasks associated with this phase
Manage communication: share, listen, show enthusiasm, establish and maintain motivation
During: facilitating, interacting and providing/ seeking feedback
Work with PT to design/identify effective and meaningful learning activities aligned with the course learning objectives (small group activities, debate, case studies, role playing, simulations, blog, etc.)
Work with PT to set up a well organized course site, with clear directions, guidelines and completion criteria
Before: preparing, planning and designing
Table 1 continued After: reflecting and drawing lessons learned
72 M. Abdous
Before: preparing, planning and designing
Table 1 continued
Keep an ongoing Teaching Journal, making notes each week of what worked, what didn’t work, what you might do differently and considerations to explore for new approaches
Provide opportunities to students to reflect on their own learning and progress, and encourage self and peerassessment
Collect regular feedback about the effectiveness of various learning activities and resources (record events, review threaded discussion, LMS stats, etc.)
Encourage learners to complete course evaluation
Collect regular feedback (weekly, mid-semester) and address issues promptly
Post grades according to University policy and deadlines
Give prompt and high quality feedback about assignments and questions: explanations, justifications, constructive criticism, and reassurance
During: facilitating, interacting and providing/ seeking feedback
After: reflecting and drawing lessons learned
A process-oriented framework 73
123
74
M. Abdous
experienced faculty to share their expertise and experience with new faculty teaching online (Shepherd et al. 2007). 2.
During the design phase, it is critical to provide a support structure capable of attenuating the front-end effort and additional workload associated with the design of quality online courses. In this regard, it is critical to: a.
Set up a production team (instructional designer, instructional technologist, multimedia and graphic specialist), either centralized or decentralized, to provide sustained support for faculty during design, facilitation, and maintenance process. b. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of each production team member involved in the design and development of the online course. As part of the production team, faculty are viewed as the subject-matter experts (Spector 2005). c. Provide faculty with design templates, rubrics, and checklists to ensure consistency and quality throughout the design process, while encouraging innovation (Abdous and He 2008a). 3.
During the facilitation phase, a double consideration is necessary: a. On the academic staff side, faculty preparedness has a significant impact on the way in which online teaching unfolds. Thus, providing both development opportunities and ongoing technical support is critical for an effective OTL experience. Additionally, tailoring the faculty development program to faculty readiness, interest, and motivation is equally important. If the faculty development activities can be provided via both a face-to-face and an online format, this flexibility in delivery method can enable the instructor the affordances of online learning (flexibility and individualization) while simultaneously providing him or her with the chance to experience online learning, first-hand. b. On the student side, students’ readiness, technical literacy, and study strategies and tactics can influence their level of interaction with the content. The author believes, with Ehlers (2004) that the outcome of any learning process does not hinge exclusively on the production process, but rather on student enablement and empowerment (which can be enhanced by providing online orientations, ongoing support, and regular and systematic feedback).
With these considerations in mind, it is important to reiterate that the proposed framework is an operational tool, a practical roadmap that can be used to help organizations to implement efficient and systemic faculty development programs. The success of its implementation hinges on the organization’s ability to navigate several key enabling variables by working within the contextual variables associated with the culture of the specific organization and by garnering the strong support of both faculty and students. Finally, the establishment of a systematic evaluation program to examine the effectiveness and usefulness of the program in improving online students learning outcomes will even further strengthen the framework’s value.
123
A process-oriented framework
75
References Abdous, M. (2009). E-learning quality assurance: A process-oriented lifecycle model. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 281–295. Abdous, M., & He, W. (2008a). Streamlining online course development process by using project management tools. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 181–188. Abdous, M., & He, W. (2008b). A design framework for syllabus generator. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 541–550. Abdous, M., & Yoshimura, M. (2010). Learner outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison of live videostreamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Computers & Education, 55(2), 733–741. Amirault, R., & Visser, Y. (2009). The University in periods of technological change: A historically grounded perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 62–79. Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of experienced instructors. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3), 152–155. Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217–232. Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competency-based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30. Berge, Z. L. (2008). Instructor’s changing roles in multi-user virtual environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 407–414. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., & Surkes, M. A. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116. Briggs, S. (2005). Changing roles and competencies of academics. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(3), 256–268. Brindley, J., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/675/1271. Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169–189. Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43–62). New York: Springer Science. Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87. Ehlers, D. (2004). Quality in E-learning from a learner’s perspective. Proceeding of the Third EDEN Research Workshop, Oldenburg, Germany, 4-6 March. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/ materials/contrib/2004/Online_Master_COPs.html. Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 244–256. Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235. Feenberg, A. (1989). The written world: On the theory and practice of moderating educational computer conferences 89 computer conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communications, computers, and distance education (pp. 22–39). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., & Spector, J. M. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72. Graff, R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of readiness to teach online. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/33/34/3334462.html.
123
76
M. Abdous
Harasim, L. (2006). A history of E-learning: Shift happened. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 59–94). Netherlands: Springer. Hiltz, S. R. (1988). Teaching in a virtual classroom. In A virtual classroom on EIES: Final evaluation report (Vol. 2). Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology. Hiltz, S. R., Kim, E., & Shea, P. (2007). Faculty motivators and de-motivators for teaching online: Results of focus group interviews at one university. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Hosiea, P., Schibecib, R., & Backhausc, A. (2005). A framework and checklists for evaluating online learning in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 539–553. Laurillard, D. (2008). Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3/4), 521–533. Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21. Lohman, J. (1996). Characteristics of exemplary teachers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 65, 33–40. Lowes, S. (2008). Online teaching and classroom change: The trans-classroom teacher in the age of the internet. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(3), 5. Retrieved from http://innovateonline.info/ pdf/vol4_issue3/Online_Teaching_and_Classroom_Change-__The_Trans-Classroom_Teacher_in_ the_Age_of_the_Internet.pdf. Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS, 1(19). Retrieved from http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason.html. McShane, K. (2004). Integrating face-to-face and online teaching: Academics’ role concept and teaching choices. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–16. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/final report.pdf. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Moore, M. G. (2002). Editorial, what does research say about the learners using computer-mediated communication in distance learning? American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 61–64. Morrisett, L. (1996). Habits of mind and a new technology of freedom. First Monday, 1(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/483/404. Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. L. (2001). Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7–22. Mullins-Dove, T. G. (2006). Streaming video and distance education. Distance Learning, 3(4), 63–71. Murphy, J. W. (1986). Humanizing the use of technology in education: A re-examination. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift fu¨r Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue Internationale de l’Education, 32(2), 137–148. Orr, R., Williams, M., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34(4), 257–268. Paquette, G. (2007). An ontology and a software framework for competency modeling and management. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 1–21. Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 200607. First Look. NCES 2009-044: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubSearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009044. Paulsen, M. F. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and the online classroom, Vol. III: Distance Learning (pp. 81–89). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Phillips, R (2005). Pedagogical, institutional and human factors influencing the widespread adoption of educational technology in higher education. In Goss, H. (Ed.), Balance, fidelity, mobility? Maintaining the momentum? Proceedings of the 22nd ASCILITE Conference. Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology, 4–7 December 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/62_Phillips.pdf.
123
A process-oriented framework
77
Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M., (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. ED453803. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2b/6d/70.pdf. Roblyer, M. D., Porter, M., Bielefeldt, T., & Donaldson, M. B. (2009). Teaching online made me a better teacher: Studying the impact of virtual course experiences on teachers’ face-to-face practice. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(4), 121–126. Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79–93. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page. Salomon, G. (1998). Technology’s promises and dangers in a psychological and educational context. Theory into Practice, 37(1), 4–10. Scho¨n, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shepherd, C., Alpert, M., & Koeller, M. (2007). Increasing the efficacy of educators teaching online. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 173–179. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Spector, M. J. (2005). Time demands in online instruction. Distance Education, 26(1), 5–27. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2010). Innovating the 21st-century university: It’s time! EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 45(1), 16 - 29. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE?Review/ EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume45/Innovatingthe21stCenturyUniver/195370. Thach, E., & Murphy, K. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57–79. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81–94. Wallace, R. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the internet. American Education Research Journal, 41, 447–488. Wallace, L. (2007). Online teaching and university policy: Investigating the disconnect. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 87–100. Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2005). Reflections on teaching and learning online: Quality program design, delivery and support issues from a cross-global perspective. Distance Education, 26(3), 385–404. Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45–57.
Author Biography M’hammed Abdous is the Assistant Vice-President for Teaching and Learning with Technology and the Director of the Center for Learning Technologies at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, where he provides leadership and assistance to the Provost’s Office and to the Distance Learning office to (1) conceive, implement, and evaluate processes for effectively integrating technology into teaching and learning practices, and (2) manage and produce quality online programs and courses. His responsibilities include, among other things, the development of institution-wide faculty development programs and the management of online program/course production projects. Dr. Abdous’ research interests include emerging technologies, process re-engineering, and quality assurance for online courses. Dr. Abdous works also as a UNICEF consultant for the Tunisian and Syrian Ministries of Education, where he has conducted a series of workshops on program and project evaluation, textbooks and curriculum design, and evaluation and project review.
123
