f2 f to online

Face-to-Face to On-lineAddressing the Concerns of the Faculty

Michael OudshoornDepartment of Computer Science

Montclair State University

Michael Oudshoorn (6/3/2011) 2

Outline• About me – background introducing on-line courses• Why introduce on-line courses?• Why the resistance?• Why the acceptance?• Addressing the concerns• Making it work• Conclusions• Discussion


About Me• PhD in Computer Science – naturally pre-disposed to using technology.• Served as an Associate Professor and Associate Dean (International) at the

University of Adelaide, Australia (1984-2003).– Pressure to increase tuition revenue from international sources.– University highly ranked and very protective if its envious international

reputation. – University against on-line teaching because it was concerned about

quality.– Publically stated that students should experience the University of

Adelaide in order to get a University of Adelaide degree.• Either spend at least 1 year on the campus, or• Spend at least 1 year exposed to University of Adelaide faculty.

– Several international programs: twinning, articulation, degree completion. All satisfied the 2 requirements above.

• The University of Adelaide is only recently started to consider on-line education in a very limited way – no subjects from computer science.

• An example of institutional resistance.


About Me• Served as Professor and Head of Computer Science at Montana State

University (2003-07).• Started dual degree programs with Istanbul Technical University.• Started PhD program with Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco.• Faculty had little interest in on-line teaching.

– In fact, senior faculty actively opposed any on-line courses.• University did not identify it as a priority. More interested in increasing

diversity on campus through international students and Native American students.

• Montana State University has very few course available on-line – only one from Computer Science and it is not an introductory class so it is available to very few students.

• An example of faculty-wide resistance within a department.• Little encouragement from university administration.


About Me• Served as Dean of the College of Science, Mathematics and Technology

and as professor of Computer Science at the University of Texas at Brownsville (2007-10).

• Catchment area for students was limited and bounded by other institutions to the north and west, to the south by the Mexican border, and to the east by the Gulf of Mexico.

• Many courses taught face-to-face and on-line.• Faculty were concerned by low enrolments and administrative pressure to

increase tuition revenue.• On-line perceived as a mechanism to reach more students in a wider

geographical area.• Participated in the University of Texas virtual campus making courses

available across the State of Texas and beyond.• An example of acceptance and engagement with on-line education.


About Me• Serving as Professor and Chair of Computer Science at Montclair State

University.• Growing on-line presence on campus. • MS in Computer Science will go on-line from Fall 2012.• Faculty buy-in took a year to achieve.• Support in the way of instructional designers is available.• Unfortunately, minimal standardization in technology for delivery.• An example of an institution in transition.


Why Was This Background Necessary?• Our background and experiences shapes our attitudes, actions and

willingness to try new things.• All of the faculty and administrators have different backgrounds and,

therefore, attitudes.• This background will help you understand (and appreciate?) my interest

in, and attitude toward, on-line education.• Faculty attitudes can result in impediments to introducing on-line courses

and programs, or in implementing them successfully.• Take time to explain your motivation and listen to the concerns raised by

colleagues. Think about their experiences and backgrounds as a means to understand their attitudes.

• Many factors contribute to our desire to participate in, or resist, on-line education.


Preamble• Every institution is different• Every department is different• Every discipline is different• Every faculty member is different• Every department chair is different• We share common issues• We share common concerns• We share common pressures• We share a common concern for the students and the quality of our

programs.• This talk describes the presenters experiences, thoughts and biases.

Application of what is discussed should be tailored for your unique circumstances.


Why Introduce On-Line Courses?• There are many reasons that may drive the introduction of on-line

courses. Some are:– Fiscal concerns – generate revenue/tuition– Enrolment concerns (70% of programs are cut because of low

enrolments)– It is the right thing to do– Everyone else is doing it– It is what the students want– It is what the institution wants– Need to remain relevant– Increase our reach – recruit from a wider geographical area– Increase our visibility/profile– Increase flexibility for students and faculty– On-line education has come of age– Technology support has improved sufficiently– Reduce costs and increase productivity


Why Introduce On-line Courses?• Many of these reasons reflect an impediment being overcome.• Some reflect the need to generate more students and more revenue.• Some reflect a genuine belief that on-line education is legitimate, high

quality, and relevant.• Whatever the motivation, be clear, open and transparent in discussions

with faculty.• Also be prepared for resistance…


Why the Resistance?• Not everyone is at the same point you are in accepting on-line education.• Fiscal concerns, enrolment numbers, and administrative pressure have

little real effect on faculty (unless they believe it will negatively impact on them personally).

• Faculty jealously try to protect their workload– On-line courses are often seen as more work.

• Faculty like to protect their research time– more students = more teaching

• Don’t want to learn new technology• Like interacting personally with students• My subject can’t be done on-line • The (unfounded) belief that on-line courses are lesser quality• The (unfounded) belief that group work can’t be done on-line• On-line teaching is perceived as more difficult


Why the Acceptance?• Not everyone resists on-line education.• Why do they accept/embrace it?

– Like the flexibility.– Have previous positive experience with it as either instructor or

student.– Have observed someone take an on-line course (their child, for

example).– Are current in the education literature and aware of the benefits and

drawbacks– Recognize that on-line education is now mainstream.– Understand and appreciate the pressures on departments to generate

revenue and offer high-quality students to a wider audience. – Awareness of the political landscape in the State and on the campus.– Looking forward to the challenge.– Think that poor instruction will be more difficult to detect (no

classroom observations). Not all the reasons are positive.


Addressing the concerns• Let’s examine the various potential impediments to the introduction of

on-line courses and programs and how they might be addressed.• Remember, what works in one department may not work in another

department because of the different departmental culture and dynamics, and different faculty experiences/attitudes.


Individual Versus En-masse Concerns• Faculty can resist individual or as a whole.• Often, whole of faculty resistance to on-line education is because of a small

number of strong individuals resisting. If you get them on board, the others often follow.

• When faced with mass resistance, ask if it is the right time to pursue on-line programs? Resistance often equates to poor engagement of faculty if it is forced on them.

• Individual faculty members may have their own reasons for resisting participation.

• There are also general reasons why individual faculty members may resist:– Resistance to change – It will kill the face-to-face program– Apathy – Technology– Workload – Student interaction– Quality concerns – Teaching style– Intellectual property – Reward for development and design– Academic integrity – Tenure and promotion impact


Resistance to Change• Probably the most likely “group” resistance.• Arguments include:

– We have never done it that way before– Why change what works?– What if it doesn’t work?– If it isn’t broken, why fix it?– Face-to-face teaching is best

• Faculty, for some reason, are naturally resistant to change.• Need to convince faculty that change is necessary/desirable. • Provide data that can’t be challenged

– Current situation and trends from past few years– Documentation about future needs of students– Evidence of what the competitors have done


Resistance to Change• External drivers for change often help.

– Dean, Provost, President etc encouraging change and providing reasons for why it helps the institution and department.

– Carrots work better than sticks, although sometimes a stick is handy.• Overcoming resistance to change takes time. • Change is generally accepted if it is minimal and slow.

– Moving toward an on-line program is seen as radical and rapid change.• Plant the seeds for on-line education and work with select individuals to

slowly change the perception of the faculty as a whole.• Need to create a culture of change• Need risk management plan and clear goals: how do you know if you have

been successful?– Many faculty are goal oriented


Apathy• There may be many reasons for apathy amongst the faculty:

– Proximity to retirement.– I’m happy doing what I have been doing for a long time.– Let the younger faculty do the work– I am more interested in my research than teaching– It isn’t going to affect my tenure or promotion application

• Appears more prevalent in older faculty. • Younger faculty tend to be more accepting of on-line education.

– Closer to the millennial generation with video games, E-mail, social networking sites, twitter, …

• Need to motivate faculty to get engaged.– Clearly and consistently explain the rationale for pursuing on-line

programs. Have the data readily available to support your claims.– Seek help/support from dean and provost – subtle pressure may help


Apathy• Can you move forward with your plans if a small number of faculty do not

participate in on-line education?– Once they see how it works, they may want to participate later.

• Don’t force participation. Faculty won’t suddenly be more interested simply because they have to do it.– Increases friction– Increases resentment

• Encourage participation.– There are roles other than teaching: quality assurance, mentoring

younger faculty, …– Don’t rule out participation at a later date.– Offer incentives if possible.

• Make strategic hires in future – faculty with on-line experience or interest. Build a support base.


Technology• Faculty may fear the technology or be unwilling to learn new technology.• Does the campus have a standard platform for delivery of on-line classes?• Does the campus offer support for students and faculty with respect to

the technology used?• Make sure funds are available to acquire the technology needed;

– Webcams, screen capture, video creation, collaboration software, …• Make sure that students have access to all the technology they need and

the tools to use it properly.– Servers needed? – Software licenses– 24/7 technology help.

• Some of this is institutional responsibility as opposed to departmental responsibility.


Technology• Provide training for faculty.• The technology will help in face-to-face delivery as well as on-line delivery.• Get the technology in place well in advance of starting the on-line

program. Give faculty time to get used to it.• Faculty like stability – work with the campus community to determine

standard platforms for on-line delivery.


Workload• Perception that on-line education is more work than face-to-face classes.

– The work is different.– There may be more preparatory work, or work associated with the

first delivery of a class. Hopefully this cost can be recovered in second and subsequent offerings.

– Ensure that faculty who invest time to develop on-line materials “own” that course for a number of years to “recover” their investment.

• Perception that on-line education is more difficult than face-to-face classes.– The work is different.– Can’t just do what you have done for the past 10 years.– One hopes that faculty are interested in excellence and relevance of

education and pedagogy.– There is a learning curve to become familiar with technology and on-

line techniques. Part of being an educator!


Workload• Perception that you have to be available 24/7 to address on-line student

questions. – Faculty should set boundaries.– Determine virtual office hours. Times you are available via Skype, deal

with E-mail, etc.– Resist the temptation to quickly answer a student at 3am. They will

expect it in the future.– Faculty need to exercise some discipline.


Student Interaction• Some faculty believe asynchronous communication with students is

inferior and that on-line education is correspondence education.– Student interaction should not be inferior!– Need to engage the students

• Use the tools they are familiar with: twitter, blogs, wikis, …• You do not need to be in the middle of every on-line conversation.

Let your students demonstrate their expertise and provide useful contributions.– Some students are more comfortable with on-line discussions

than face-to-face discussions.• Group work is possible• Humanize the content buy focusing on the students rather than

the method of delivery.– Technology should always support learning goals and the

students.


Student Interaction• Students take courses on-line in preference to face-to-face because it suits

them better.– Flexibility in time– Style of delivery

• Faculty are used to face-to-face delivery and synchronous communication.– Use video messages– Use E-mail– Make handouts more explicit – anticipate questions and answer them

in the assignment instructions


Quality Concerns• Perception that on-line education is lower quality than face-to-face

education.– I learned face-to-face and that is clearly the best model.

• This also demonstrates that a poor reputation takes a long time to overcome!

• Many prestigious institutions offer courses on-line. Are these institutions or these courses suddenly poor quality?

• Quality is in the control of the instructor!• Understand the student’s needs and understand the tools available and

use them appropriately.• Set engaging and relevant assignments.• Students are different now to what they were 20 years ago, even 10 years

ago. They are much more technologically savvy, used to multitasking, comfortable with electronic communication.– Time for faculty to adapt and catch up!


Teaching Style• Faculty are used to teaching face-to-face and are concerned that on-line

education requires a change in what they regard as an otherwise successful formula.

• Asynchronous delivery does require a change in style! • Discussion and student engagement is still possible, but needs to be done

differently: Blackboard, discussion groups, E-mail, wikis, …– Technology needs to be used.– Focus on the content and the student rather than the delivery mode

• Need to deliver material in short segments (5-15 minutes) rather than 50-75 minute orations.

• Training should be available to faculty• Technical support should be provided by the institution


Academic Integrity• Faculty are concerned with academic integrity especially with respect to

exams.– How do you know the right student sat the exam if is taken on-line?– How do you know they did not use books and other materials during

the exam?• Generally it is accepted that if a student logs into Blackboard, for example,

then they have authenticated themselves and it is assumed that they are the student taking the exam.– How do you know that the right student takes the exam if you have a

face-to-face class of 100+ students?• Use tools to detect plagiarism

– TurnItIn, SafeAssign, …• Establish a code of conduct and clear consequences for academic

misconduct


Academic Integrity• If you really do not want an open book exam, can force students to go to a

testing center or have the exam proctored.• Faculty need to understand and accept the differences between on-line

and face-to-face. – Adapt without sacrificing academic integrity


Intellectual Property• Who owns the intellectual property?• This is an institutional issue.• Same question exists for courses delivered face-to-face.• Difficult to argue that the faculty member owns the IP exclusively when

instructional designers etc may have helped in the content development.


Reward• What’s in it for me? Why should I go through the effort of offering a

course on-line?• Reward desirable behavior (when appropriate and possible)

– 1 credit additional recognition for developing an on-line course– Recognizes the extra work involved the first time the course is

delivered on-line.– Better to reward desired behavior rather than punish resistance

• Positive reinforcement helps build support for on-line programs.• Sometimes reality of serious negative consequences (e.g., closure of

program) is sufficient to get faculty buy-in, but insufficient to ensure quality delivery.


Tenure and Promotion Impact• Tenure and promotion guidelines do not recognize on-line education as

different to face-to-face delivery.• Work with administration to decide how on-line courses will be evaluated

and count toward tenure and promotion.• Faculty like well defined rules that govern their future• Most impact on younger and newly appointed faculty

– These are the ones most likely to support on-line education• No impact of established full-professors

– Encourage the senior faculty to take the lead in on-line education– Older faculty likely to resist for other reasons


Can’t Do “X” On-Line• Often accompanies other reasons for resistance• Often lots of counter examples that show it can be done

– Faculty need to be creative and use the technology to advantage.• Is sometimes a legitimate issue

– Would you want brain surgery from a surgeon who only learned his skills through an on-line course?

• Sometimes are difficult, but not impossible.• Technology is constantly getting better. Virtual dissections etc. Fine for a

biology class maybe, but not for a surgical class?• Just because students have always done “X” in a face-to-face class, does

that mean it is the best thing to do.– Opportunity to assess what we do and why

• Often regarded as a “cop out” excuse by supporters of on-line education


It Will Kill the Face-to-Face Program• Data shows that there are students who prefer face-to-face and those that

prefer on-line education. • If you don’t offer on-line courses now, chances are you are predominantly

getting students who would prefer face-to-face classes.• Offering on-line classes should attract a new group of students to the

program.– These students are, in all likelihood, taking on-line classes elsewhere

right now.– On-line courses represent an opportunity

• Increased student numbers• Increased revenue stream• This is why administration often encourages the development of

on-line programs.• On-line education should complement face-to-face delivery, not compete

with it.


Making it Work• Offer faculty development opportunities to prepare them for on-line

delivery.• Encourage sharing of successful and unsuccessful approaches.

– Understanding what does not work for your department/discipline/faculty/students is just as important as understanding what does.

– Don’t punish failure (at least not initially).• Develop tools for evaluating on-line courses and teaching

– Faculty evaluations for on-line courses are generally lower than evaluations of face-to-face courses.

• Mentor faculty• Solicit student feedback early and often• Provide the necessary tools: hardware, software, support, guidelines,

training


Making it Work• If faculty really don’t want to teach on-line, don’t use them in that

capacity – it won’t be good for anyone!– Good teaching transcends course format.

• Maintain a strong focus on quality. Your reputation is important.• Make employers aware that the quality matches your traditional offerings.• Engage the students in the courses being offered.• Listen to what the students want, and why.• Reward faculty for participation – incentives • Consider impact on accreditation of programs• Put quality assurance processes in place to ensure a quality product• Plan, plan, plan


Conclusion• On-line education is now mainstream• On-line education is not for everyone• Understand your motivation for on-line education, and your colleagues

attitude toward it• Understand the political and educational environment in which you work• Be flexible – your way is not necessarily the right way or the only way.

– Compromise can lead to increased buy-in from those that might otherwise oppose it

• Make sure you have the resources to be successful


Discussion

f2 f to online

Education

university of adelaide

online teaching

university administration

online presence

online courseswhy

university of adelaide

montana state university

international students