Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(1): 46-54, 2015 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2015.030107 Institutional Environment(s) for Online Course Development and Delivery Ralph B. McNeal Jr. Department of Sociology, U-1068 Storrs, CT 06269 , University of Connecticut, United States *Corresponding Author: [email protected] Copyright © 2015 Horizon Research Publishing All rights reserved. Abstract There is a lot we know about online courses, [1]; Oblinger and Hawkins, 2006 [12]), and on assessing the but a lot is yet to be discovered. We know quite a bit about effectiveness of the online learning environment (e.g. how to develop these courses, as well as how to deliver them. Russell, 2001 [15]; Dutton, Dutton and Perry, 2002 [4]; We know quite a bit about assuring the quality of these Dutton and Dutton, 2005 [3]; Fjermestad, Hiltz, and Zhang, courses, and how to assess student performance. We know 2004 [5]; Schultz, Schultz and Round, 2008 [16]; Sussman quite a bit about how to “incentivize” faculty to develop and Lee, 2010 [18]; Urtel, 2008 [19]). What is missing is a these courses, and about their equivalence to hybrid and discussion of the administrative, socio-cultural, political and traditional classroom-based courses. What we do not know, institutional barriers individual faculty encounter when and what Sociology can contribute to the discussion, is how trying to develop and/or deliver online courses. This paper the institutional environment affect’s individual faculty briefly explores these topics; each concept is covered member’s propensity and ability to develop and deliver theoretically, followed by a discussion of a case study to online courses. This manuscript attempts to tackle these illustrate the concept(s). issues and discusses nine different elements that affect the The case on which much of this discussion is based development and delivery of these courses including the corresponds to the development of an online course in 2004 technological/teaching context, the political environment, at a large research university in the Northeastern United faculty and administrative resistance, competing agendas, States. The university prided itself on being technologically course ownership, resources, specialists and technology, and savvy and near the forefront of the online course the human touch. Each of these areas is discussed in the development process among traditional colleges and/or article then linked to an individual case study at a large universities. It had an Institute for Teaching and Learning research University in the Northeastern United States. (ITL) that “provides pedagogical and technology support for Keywords Online Course Development and Delivery, faculty, graduates and undergraduate students in a variety of ways.” The ITL provided support for, among other things, Institutional Environment audio-visual technology services, media development, and instructional design and development. The institute also provided an Instructional Resource Center for faculty, graduate students and adjunct instructors. One purpose of the 1. Introduction instructional design and development mission was to help plan, design and implement distance education courses -- When it comes to online courses, there is a burgeoning including online classes; at the time, the ITL had been literature on several fronts. There is an established body of providing support for online course development for the literature on how to develop online courses from the previous 2 years. The university had a full complement of administrative or institutional perspective (Knowles and online courses and offered some degree programs with Kalata, 2007 [7]; Oblinger and Hawkins, 2006 [12]; Porter, extensive online components; two examples are the Masters 2010 [13]), how individuals should go about developing of Accounting and the Bachelors of General Studies degrees. online courses (Horton, 2000 [6]; Knowles and Kalata, 2007 It is within this context that the examples are drawn to [7]; Ko and Rossen, 2003 [8]; Powell, 2001 [14]), how to illustrate the key theoretical concepts. deliver online courses (Powell, 2001 [14]), how to assure the quality of online courses (Chao, Saj and Tessier, 2006 [2]; Koontz, Hongqin and Compora, 2006 [9]; Smith, 2008 [17]; 2. Technological / Teaching Context Vai and Soculski, 2011 [20]), on the incentives and/or “coercive” measures used by administrators to convince One important element that affects an instructor’s desire instructors to develop and teach online courses (Berg, 2002 and ability to adequately develop and deliver online courses Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(1): 46-54, 2015 47 is the institutional technological and teaching environment of part of this culture. In short, they both have intellectual and their home institution. There are at least three factors to political agendas that may be similar or dissonant with each consider. First, to what degree does the institutional culture other. generally support technological advancement as a whole? A university or college, as an institution, is no different. Second, to what degree does the institutional culture support There are multiple organizational units and each has its own teaching innovation? Third, to what degree does the agenda or culture in which online course development takes institutional culture focus on teaching excellence? These place. This is evident in the literature regarding the three factors are inter-related and are hard to separate from incentives to offer online courses; in many cases university each other as some are dependent on others. For example, administrations pushed for online courses without duly one could argue that there is a link between technological considering the effectiveness of the courses (Urtel, 2008 advancement as a whole and teaching innovation as [19]), nor the maintenance cost for the faculty developing innovation in today’s age almost inevitably includes and teaching these classes (Oblinger and Hawkins, 2006 technological advancement of some form. [12]). In 2008, a taskforce was developed to address several The university in question had a strong commitment to issues (4 years after the initial wave of course development). technological advancement. New, technologically advanced Only at that time were development and maintenance costs classroom buildings were being erected. The entire campus first raised organizationally. was wireless. The university undertook the use of i-clickers As for the supporting case study, there was strong support several years later and faculty were encouraged to use from the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic technology (the web / blogs / various websites) in their Affairs (Provost), the Associate Vice-Provost and Director classrooms. The university also had a full complement of of the Institute for Teaching and Learning (Associate online courses; at least one online course was offered in each Vice-Provost), and the Dean of the College of Continuing of the University’s Schools or Colleges except for Medicine Studies (Dean CCS). Their offices collectively provided and Dental Medicine. There were funds available to develop financial support for early online course development. These online General Education courses. There were also funding administrators were also behind the expansion of the ITL. mechanisms to convert traditional classroom pedagogy and Their finances ultimately provided curriculum specialists, assessment in such a manner as to be consistent with existing course development specialists, and computer programmers and emerging technological advances. – among others. In this case, the general climate at the In terms of recognizing excellence in teaching, the university was supportive of online courses -- at the university presented several annual awards. In addition to beginning. As an enticement, faculty members were offered teaching scholarship, the university recognized teaching an initial cash stipend to support their developing online excellence among graduate instructors, adjuncts and faculty. courses; the stipend was most frequently granted to cover The local chapter of the American Association of University summer time spent on course development. In the literature, Professors recognized teaching excellence among junior cash stipends are often conceptualized as “coercive” faculty, excellence in teaching mentorship and innovation in measures used by administrators to convince instructors to teaching. The alumni association recognized faculty develop and teach online courses (Berg, 2002 [1]; Oblinger excellence in teaching. There were also several awards for and Hawkins, 2006 [12]). One shortcoming was the teaching excellence given out by various student University’s determination of course quality and organizations. Furthermore, teaching quality and excellence effectiveness. While there were rubrics that were tightly are essential components of the tenure and promotion followed when developing some courses, they were not processes. consistently used across all courses. Furthermore, while the In such a setting, it was easy to conceptualize and pursue rubrics were critical component, there was no scientific online course development. It was often viewed as a evaluation or measurable elements for course effectiveness. technological savvy, innovative teaching technique that Similarly, support for course maintenance costs were should be encouraged. But the story is not complete if you variable – a topic I will return to later. just look at the broad, institutional structures since there is a The support by all parties was not necessarily driven by an wide array of actors involved in how, and whether, online interest in technological or pedagogical advancement per se, courses are fully developed, supported, and implemented. but sometimes often as a means to an end. While the Associate Vice-Provost had a strong interest in the 3. Political Environment pedagogical value and usefulness of online instruction, other administrators saw online courses as a way to expand The general political climate, especially at the enrollment without placing additional demands on physical administrative and faculty levels, is also crucial to resources or as a way to garner additional income. In fact, a understanding online course development and delivery. As taskforce that was formed to study online course with any institution, there is an organizational culture at both development was explicitly charged to make “suggestions on the executive and “worker” levels. What the executives want prioritizing focus areas with greatest potential for return.” or foster is not necessarily what the workers want or foster as (emphasis added) While one can contend that “greatest 48 Institutional Environment(s) for Online Course Development and Delivery potential for return” could be conceptualized as value-added discontinue offering the course. This University operates academic outcomes, it is much more likely an issue of fiscal under a Strong-Head model whereby the Head has a stronger returns. influence on curriculum than would a Department Chair. The emphasis on online course development coincided Following these issues, there was a slowdown of online with nearly unprecedented enrollment growth and building course development. One interpretation is a general “chilling” expansion. To make matters worse, there was concern about effect on online course development; on the other hand, one the growth of the university and the carrying capacity of the administrator recently stated that the slowdown, in his physical facilities. It was initially thought that eliminating opinion, was more closely tied to not having available current classroom buildings might first be necessary to build “incentives.” At this time, the number of online courses new classroom facilities in their place. Combined with rapid being developed slowly declined. Simultaneously, coupled growth, this meant there was the possibility of not having with the recognition that the growing concerns had to be met, any “replacement” seats available. Online courses were the Provost later formed a task force to study the issues (2008, viewed by the Provost as one potential means to resolve the while the initial resistance/concerns emerged in 2004). The problem in a fiscally inexpensive manner. 2008 taskforce was composed of twelve members, four of There were unanticipated developments during the whom had developed and taught online courses. The process of online course development that affected the taskforce had several charges, including among others: political climate. The Provost, who was very supportive of  Examine the expectations and qualifications of the online movement, left for an administrative post at faculty who seek to develop an online course another university. Although the Associate Vice-Provost was  Explore intellectual property policies that maximize strongly supportive, there was nobody “in charge of the ship” financial benefit to all parties per se; a key advocate was missing. The loss of the Provost  Provide a summary of views on the role of formal may have been one contributing factor to the small but instructional design in online course development growing resistance to online courses that was exhibited  Investigate the needs and methods for new course several years later. approval and year-over-year evaluation of course quality  Make suggestions on prioritizing focus areas with 4. Faculty and Administrative greatest potential for return Resistance Within these charges, the taskforce was to take into As with any new innovation, online courses were not consideration “….the current financial realities” and overwhelmingly supported by members of the institution “…should carefully consider cost containment and revenue themselves. There can be organizational resistance at many generation as critical factors in all of its conclusions and different levels and for any number of reasons. There can be recommendations.” They were further asked to explore organizational resistance by those in positions of authority “…the financial and reputational opportunities and risks for driven by a number of concerns for the institution’s prestige the university of an online education initiative.” In other and image and/or as threats to the more ‘traditional’ words, where do online courses fit financially in terms of education. There can be resistance by faculty due to a sense cost to develop, maintain and deliver AND in terms of their of jealousy or possessiveness and concern(s) about the profitability? In response to quality concerns, the taskforce quality of a student’s education. Both of these forms of was also charged with developing guidelines or methods to resistance became evident at the university shortly after the determine the quality of online courses; this is a standard that first wave of online courses were developed. is not always present or applied to face-to-face classes. When Approximately two to four years after the first wave of one committee member questioned whether the University online courses were developed, a small collection of would simultaneously assess each “face-to-face” class and individuals emerged on campus that opposed online courses. whether they would have to meet the same standard, that Among other things, some administrators and faculty were member was mysteriously not asked to attend later meetings skeptical about the role of online courses at the University, of that taskforce nor to be a member of a later taskforce. the ability to develop and deliver online courses, and the At the colleague or faculty level, some faculty asked if quality and integrity of online courses. In at least one case, an they could teach “your / my course”, with the assumption online course already developed was prohibited by that the online course would be available to the Department department administration from being taught again until faculty as a whole. Another colleague mentioned the unfair there was solid scientific evidence that the online course was advantage of being able to teach the course “from the South at least as effective as a face-to-face class. This requirement of France.” Other colleagues insisted on the course only was set in place despite the extensive evidence from the being taught a second time if it could be empirically proven “no-significant-difference” literature where Russell (2001 to be equal to a face-to-face course. Even after this was [15]) has already documented their equivalence. Similarly, a established via a quasi-experimental study, and with the second course was in a Department that changed no-significant-difference literature being widely administrative leadership and the decision was made to documented elsewhere, the course was not approved to be Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(1): 46-54, 2015 49 offered subsequently – until summer 2011 - a seven year lag. fiscal purposes; some might have a vested interest in the At that time, a course previously developed was “refreshed” pedagogical or technological value of online courses; some and offered during summer school; the course has not been might have more practical concerns such as enrollment subsequently offered, a 3-year lag. On another note, this pressures or demands. Department has never offered an online course during the In this particular case, the agendas included those set forth standard academic year. by the Provost, the Associate Vice-Provost, the Dean of CCS, Finally, the resistance in some disciplines was sufficient the technical support staff and the faculty members enough that there was a reduction in course development. themselves. The Provost is often charged with looking out After the taskforce made their recommendations, there was a for the academic welfare of the university as a whole. In this gradual increase in course development, although there was case, the Provost provided financial support for online no longer any direct institutional financial support to do so. course development – primarily through technical support Several years later, the university “incentivized” course staff. The Provost saw online courses as a means to an end. development – meaning faculty members were once again These courses allowed expanded enrollment without paid for course development. additional demand on physical resources such as classroom In summary, there was some opposition to online courses seats. In theory, online courses have a near limitless composed of an odd collection of faculty and administrators enrollment capacity and need only sufficient instructional (1) who had little faith in the validity of online courses, (2) support. Virtual enrollment and expansion remained one of who saw online courses as a way to undermine enrollment in the Provost’s key agenda items. face-to-face classes, (3) who were concerned about the The Associate Vice-Provost also had an agenda. The online courses eroding the traditional college curriculum, Institute had an academic and professional interest in the and (4) who saw online courses as having an inherent online courses. The main goal, as espoused by the Associate advantage for the faculty who was offering the course. Vice-Provost, was to assure these courses were developed Nobody in opposition necessarily seemed to be concerned following rigorous academic standards and that they were about the non-financial cost to develop or deliver the course. evaluated scientifically; the need for rigorous academic While the initial financial incentive was a summer stipend, standards is one of the recommendations that the Taskforce the concerns of lost research productivity while developing ultimately made. This meant that the development process the course, loss of credit toward merit for developing the took more time than anticipated as each course went through courses, nor the manpower or resources on the part of the an intensive instructional design process. The ITL also faculty member to maintain the online course were largely provided funding for course development via specialists and unaddressed. One administrator, during a recent computer programmers. To date, there has still not been an conversation, claimed that conversations took place on a empirical assessment of the courses’ effectiveness. case-by-case basis. Follow-up conversations with three The Dean of the CCS also had an agenda: increased faculty from the first wave of development reveal these summer enrollment and the accompanying revenue. One conversations never took place. There is no way to determine issue facing Universities in general is the loss of revenue which side’s story is accurate, although the 3-1 ratio is from summer school for students taking summer courses telling. “back home”; a large majority of students take courses at Some faculty suddenly found themselves in the midst of a their local institution. These courses are then transferred to power struggle between those in opposition of online courses their home institution. This University is no different. This and those in support. Some departments went ahead with leads to two problems. First, as previously mentioned, there subsequent online courses while others stopped delivering is a loss of revenue. Second, there are often matriculation and offering online courses altogether. Furthermore, in at concerns when summer school courses do not have a least one case, a course that was previously taught was corresponding partner at the home institution. discontinued because a new Department Head was opposed The Dean of CCS also pushed to offer online Bachelor’s to the online curriculum. The active resistance, despite only degrees for the non-traditional students; while the entire limited long-term success, effectively derailed some of the degree was not online, she by and large succeeded at short-term momentum of online course development. Key developing BGS online courses despite opposition by some administrators contend online course development is now in faculty and departments. Given the unusual funding full-swing, but also admit some Departments have chosen arrangement between the CCS and the rest of the University, not to participate in the online course development process. the more students taking courses through CCS, the more profitable the CCS became. In short, online courses were 5. Politics and Competing Agendas perceived as a revenue generator. As an aside, partial funding from three administrative units (Provost’s office, There are various political agendas that the instructor ITL and CCS) led to some unanticipated problems with might encounter when developing and delivering online developing online courses. courses. This is particularly true when there are competing Finally, there was the faculty member. The faculty agendas. Some might want the online courses to succeed for member’s agenda varied from one instructor to the next, but 50 Institutional Environment(s) for Online Course Development and Delivery most were intrigued with the idea of online course delivery seminars and workshops on online courses, that they owned and instruction and had an intellectual interest in seeing that the copyright due to a work-for-hire arrangement. the course(s) were developed scientifically and rigorously. A Some technical support staff contended that they owned few, however, held the misguided belief that the online the copyright, or at least had a significant say in the product’s course would somehow mean less work after the initial future, since it was their unique intellectual property. investment in course development. In reality, these faculty Lacking a clear vision of online course development, and members discovered that developing and teaching online paying little attention to branding in the early stages, each courses can lead to a heavier workload than a regular course was “unique.” Everything from the access portal, user face-to-face class. One particular element that lead to a interface, presentation of materials, and assessment was heavier workload was the high maintenance cost that the unique. It truly was a situation where each support staff and faculty incurred once original course development was technical specialist created and developed their own courses; completed. The faculty member’s agenda is also nested it was thus easy to see why they claimed some ownership in within the other political agendas, which further mires their the project. The University now has a relatively consistent desire and ability to develop online courses. delivery portal / interface, although individual faculty are These agendas primarily affect a faculty member’s allowed to deviate from this format at their choosing. propensity to develop online courses. Political agendas set a Finally, some faculty members claimed ownership of the general tone regarding online courses as a whole and copyright since ultimately it was their substantive individual member’s propensity in specific. The goals or intellectual property including lesson plans, presentation impetus for course development is of critical importance to material, and assessment methods and materials. This led to many faculty members. While some may be sympathetic to tension between the parties and a work slow-down for a short organizational needs for more seats, they may feel that it period of time in some courses until the copyright issue could undermines the quality of a student’s education. Some be resolved. The ultimate decision was that the copyright faculty members may be sympathetic toward students’ needs issue would remain unresolved and would be addressed if for summer courses and matriculation concerns; others may and when an issue arose; in the interim, the Task Force was not. charged with tackling the topic. The Taskforce later recommended that the University establish guidelines and possibly contract language detailing 6. Ownership the funding and intellectual ownership of online classes. At other universities, guidelines have already been established Ownership of online course material has drawn much and online courses are owned entirely by the university and attention in the past several years (Kranch, 2008 [10]; Loggie, their development is treated as a work-for-hire arrangement Barron, Gulitz, Hohfield, Kromrey and Sweeny, 2007 [11]). (Loggie, et al., 2007 [11]). This is the complete opposite While it seems the issue should be relatively straight-forward, model of intellectual property being retained by the faculty it is highly controversial and should be resolved prior to any member. Each will differentially affect course development course developing taking place. Is online course material and delivery. Clearly, ownership of the online product is similar to scientific innovations where the university owns something that should be explicitly addressed to foster online the patent? Is it a work-for-hire often found in the consulting course development. At this University, there is now a world where a faculty member relinquishes the rights to the Memorandum of Understanding between the University and material to the university or a particular division within the the faculty union providing guidelines for course university? Is it similar to a publication where the faculty development, and more importantly course ownership and member retains copyright privileges despite having used copyright university resources to help create the product? Who has the right to retain the copyright – the university, a particular division of the university, the technological experts, or the 7. Resources faculty members? In the current case, since so many different entities From an administrative perspective, one of the most contributed to the development and delivery of the online pressing concerns is resources. If nothing else, developing, course(s), it should come as no surprise that ownership, or delivering and modifying online courses are resource-hungry copyright, became an issue. The Provost contended that beasts that must be fed. The range of support is quite since his office provided substantial funding that the impressive. It takes resources to propose, develop, University would own the copyright. The Associate technologically support, establish assessment protocols, Vice-Provost contended that they controlled the copyright, transform existing assessment materials into something while recognizing the University’s primary claim of compatible with the online environment, provide teaching ownership, because they provided the support staff that assistants, and provide technical support and resources for helped develop the curriculum and the interface for online later revisions and modifications. course delivery. The Dean of CCS contended that since they From where these resources come is important. As seen provided summer funding for faculty, and some initial earlier, receiving resources from multiple administrative Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(1): 46-54, 2015 51 units is complicated. Whose agenda most closely aligns with require students to interact in a blog-type of environment. In the instructor’s interests and needs? Clearly, receiving most of these cases, there is a technological need. funding coincides with an expectation of outcome that is This need for access to specialists is not always readily compatible with the given unit’s agenda. It is best if there is a available, nor does it come cheaply. Some institutions college or university-wide systematic agenda under which provide a full compliment of support staff; others have more online course development operates. limited resources. In either case, faculty face the need for The model that developed at this university was one where specialists in developing, maintaining and updating courses the Provost paid for developing online courses, the Associate that are often lacking in many institutions. In the current case, Vice-Provost provided the technical support and the getting through the initial investment tended to be the most Department is expected to provide the teaching assistant modest commitment. The greater commitment, and often support. However, this was not always the case. In a few unmet, is in maintaining and upgrading the course over time. cases, faculty members were met by opposition from their The examples of this technological / specialist need Department Heads that either refused to schedule the online involved two courses. In one course, there was a simulation course or refused to provide much needed teaching assistant predicting political coups. In the second course, there was support. In at least two cases, the Department Head at the high-quality audio overlay for PowerPoint presentations that time of course development was very supportive of the involved renting time in the University’s performing arts online course, but a newer Department Head was not and center’s sound booth. Both courses needed technological was reluctant to or refused to offer the online course. specialists such as computer programmers and sound While universities financially support developing online engineers. This is pricey and introduces the possibility of courses, few realize the extent of the resources necessary to inconsistency over time since the specialist may change. maintain an online course versus a face-to-face class. For In terms of specialists and technology, there is the problem example, if the presentations are streamed, they need to be of technological consistency. It is most desirable for the re-streamed every semester in order to incorporate items course to be consistent in terms of its technology use. such as current events. If they are power-point presentations, Technological consistency means being consistent across they must be updated every semester to be contemporary. courses and consistent within a given course over time. This requires resources such as money, equipment, and staff. Given the relatively haphazard model of online course If the instructor changes his textbook, the course may need to development early on, and the belief that each discipline be substantially modified depending on the extent to which would need completely different portals, interfaces, your class presentations were tied to that text. To address this presentation styles, etc., there was little technological concern, one faculty developed his courses from scratch, consistency across courses in the early stage of development. starting with course objectives and topical objectives There were no less than 3 course developers working on five independent of a textbook. However, this was no consistent courses, resulting in 5 different course styles and formats. across all initial classes. All of these concerns may exist for This was widely viewed as an institutional or organizational traditional, face-to-face classes, but they are more issue. pronounced for distance learning courses. There is greater What proved to be more cumbersome from an individual latitude in how, when, and the degree to which faculty must faculty member’s perspective was the lack of technological modify and/or update their lectures in a more traditional consistency over time in each individual course. In some face-to-face classroom setting than there is in an online cases, much of the technical work was done by graduate environment. students. The resulting products were a series of .flash files that students could scroll through at their own leisure. When it was necessary to update one portion of the course, the 8. Specialists and Technology graduate student who created the material was no longer at In today’s world, when it comes to technology, nobody is the University. None of the current students or technical an expert at everything. It used to be that there were few support staff was able to re-create the same file format and technologies to master relevant to teaching distance courses. style. For example, some early correspondence courses needed to The faculty member was thus faced with two deal with the technology of delivering and receiving non-appealing selections. Choice one, the faculty member assessments. There was generally one method, and could produce those two files in a different format, thus everybody quickly mastered the method. But today, taking away from the parsimony and seamlessness of the delivering asynchronous courses involves much more design. Choice two, the faculty member could reproduce all technology than in years past. of the class presentations. The former option was chosen for Good courses involve more than just uploading a few the first revision. After several years, the course PowerPoint presentations and having students “read along.” presentations represented a hodgepodge of presentation Many courses now include more interactive elements, such styles including PowerPoint presentations that could be as simulations. Other courses involve providing navigated via flash file, PowerPoint presentations that had complimentary lectures to the PowerPoint slides. Still others audio overlaid, and a PowerPoint presentation that was 52 Institutional Environment(s) for Online Course Development and Delivery basically a live-recording of a simulated lecture. There was a Second, an instructor used podcasts to field specific loss of institutional memory and since there was no questions; students would post messages on a blog and the consistent strategy for course development and creation the instructor would use technology to broadcast actual verbal course quality quickly degraded. The course was overhauled responses. Third, an instructor would regularly monitor the during a later revision but it is unclear whether this will lead blog / message board and update the questions / answers in a to a consistent, long term product. fairly quick manner; this allowed him to see whether the Faculty members must take into consideration the type students ‘got it’ by their responses to the questions he posted and consistency of technical support and the degree to which on the blog. Fourth, an instructor held real-time, there will be institutional memory. Better yet, the institution synchronous office hours to be more engaged with his should develop a basic framework under which all faculty students. These are but a few examples; there were a host of members must deliver their courses. Not only a consistent methods individual faculty implemented to try and stay in branding interface or portal, but a consistent method of closer touch with their students. content delivery. This relates to the institution’s cultural, political or The faculty member must also carefully consider the role organizational culture in that there may be established technology plays in not only course development, but course protocols that must be followed. For example, a university delivery. It has quickly become fairly standard practice for may either encourage or prohibit the use of Tweeting or online courses to use some combination of Facebook, Facebook. As for the example used throughout this Twitter, Podcasts and Blogs to facilitate communicate manuscript, a senior faculty member later began to use between instructors and students and between students podcasts to reach his students and make his class more themselves. One implication of using this approach may be personal in a face-to-face setting. This was so successful that the students’ expectations that the course follows a model a seminar was offered to encourage faculty to use podcasts in closer to the 24/7 approach than a more traditional schedule. their classes, both face-to-face and online. The use of One student even complained about a faculty member not technology as a form of communication is vital for online promptly responding to an email inquiry made on Saturday classes and there is a range of choices. The institution’s role that was not responded to by Sunday evening! Twitter itself affects the development and delivery of online courses either may be an issue given the spontaneous nature of the through active involvement and intervention or through communication and its instant accessibility. There has been passive acceptance. The instructor’s own comfort level and more than one widely publicized account of public figures competence may also prove to be critical factors. getting in trouble using Twitter; there are also several documented accounts of students and teachers getting in 10. Conclusions trouble using Facebook and Twitter. The university should have a policy that deals with the use of certain technologies, Faculty members operate in an organizational such as Facebook and Twitter, to provide faculty members environment that affects their behavior and choices in with a greater sense of comfort regarding the boundaries of numerous, seemingly innocuous ways. They are key players technology use. in the burgeoning development of online courses. They are often offered “incentives” in the form of cash stipends, 9. The Human Touch reduced teaching loads, and other benefits to develop online courses. They are often not told of the many hidden costs While not tied to the institutional environment per se, associated with developing these courses: loss of research there is a concern about faculty losing the “human touch” productivity, possibly lower merit raises, commitment to when it comes to online teaching and learning; face-to-face future offerings, time invested in maintaining and improving interactions that often comprise good teaching are lost. For the course, lack of institutional support, and technological example, the instructor is not able to scan the classroom to limitations or complications. They are often unaware of the “read” faces or body language to see whether students role of a university’s commitment to teaching technology understand the topic. Instructors are left to other mechanisms and excellence and how this affects online course such as message boards, email, or blog postings to determine development and delivery. whether students “get it”. Alternatively, instructors can Faculty members are similarly unaware of the potential resort to a series of small assignments or quizzes meant to tap concerns regarding the political environment associated with understanding, but it is still a weak proxy for the interaction online teaching. There are often competing political agendas, that occurs in the classroom. competing interests in ownership and a broader political An instructor can help mimic the “human touch” by environment in action. In this particular case, there were including audio as part of the course presentation and posting three distinct administrative units providing financial student profiles. In the case presented here, there were support for course development – all with different interests. numerous strategies built into different courses to address the The faculty members needed to negotiate their way through concern. First, lectures were recorded and overlaid to the thickets to satisfy, to some extent, the Provost, the PowerPoint slides so the students could ‘hear’ the instructor. Associate Vice-Provost and the Dean of the College of Universal Journal of Educational Research 3(1): 46-54, 2015 53 Continuing Studies. Online Students Differ from Lecture Students?” Journal of There was also an unexpected reaction from some faculty Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(1). http://www.aln.org/ publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_dutton.asp members and administrators that were opposed to full-scale online course development. When it was colleagues, there [5] Fjermestad, Jerry, Starr Hiltz, and Yi Zhang. 2004. was tension, but when it was the administration the concern “Effectiveness for Students: Comparisons of “In-Seat” and ALN Courses.” Pp. 39-81 in Learning Together Online: was greater. In at least two cases, faculty members Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks, edited by developed online courses that were caught in the cross-fire; Starr Hiltz and Ricki Goldman. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum the faculty member invested hundreds of hours in Publishers. instructional design and online course development for the [6] Horton, Sarah. 2000. Web Teaching Guide: A Practical course to be taught once. Any subsequent offerings were Approach to Creating Course Web Sites. Yale University blocked by Department Heads. In this case, the cost of Press. New Haven: CT. developing the online course was substantial and unexpected. [7] Knowles, Evelyn and Kathleen Kalata. 2007. “A Model for Enhancing Online Course Development.” Innovate: Journal Finally, there are issues of the needed resources for of Online Education 4(2)http://www.innovateonline.info/ind continually maintaining and revising the course. As more ex.php?view=article&id=456 courses are developed there is a cumulative demand on resources; it takes a certain amount of personnel to develop [8] Ko, Susan and Steve Rossen. 2003. Teaching Online: A Practical Guide. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York: new online courses and to maintain online courses - this NY. demand grows over time. This means that there either is a continued expansion of support personnel and technical [9] Koontz, Franklin, Li Hongqin and Daniel Compora. 2006. specialists or the faculty members of already designed Designing Effective Online Instruction: A Handbook for Web-Based Courses. Rowan and Littlefield Education. courses must take on a growing share of the technical work Lanham, MD. to maintain their courses. This is yet another constraint on subsequent course development since the course becomes so [10] Kranch, Douglas. 2008. “Who Owns Online Course much work that the faculty member is reluctant to develop Intellectual Property.” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 9(4): 349-356. future courses. This has occurred in at least two cases in the current study. [11] Loggie, Kathryn Ann, Ann Barron, Elizabeth Gulitz, Tina What does all of this mean? There is a general Hohlfield, Jeffrey Kromrey and Phyllis Sweeney. 2007. organizational, socio-cultural and political environment that “Intellectual Property and Online Courses.” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 8(2): 109-125. has the potential to serve as a facilitating mechanism for online course development and delivery. Unfortunately, in [12] Oblinger, Diana and Brian Hawkins. 2006. “The Myth of this study, that is not the case. As these factors become more Online Course Development: “A Faculty Member Can Individually Develop and Deliver an Effective Online widely known, there may be a reduction effect on future Course.” EDUCASE Review 41(1): 14-15. online course development. To avoid this potential slow-down, colleges and universities must take action to [13] Porter, Lynnette. 2010. Developing an Online Educational remedy the various limitations and concerns facing faculty Curriculum: Technologies and Techniques. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA members that might influence online course development and delivery. Similarly, faculty members need to be made [14] Powell, Gary. 2001. “The ABCs of Online Course Design.” aware of the quagmire that they must navigate in order to Educational Technology 41(4): 43-47. successfully develop and deliver online courses, both [15] Russell, Thomas. 2001. The No-Significant-Difference initially and over time. Phenomenon: A Comparative Research Annotated Bibliography on Technology for Distance Education. The International Distance Education Certification Center. Montgomery, AL. REFERENCES [16] Schultz, Marian, James Schultz, and Gene Round. 2008. “Management of Academic Quality: A Comparison of Online Versus Lecture Course Outcomes.” Journal of College [1] Berg, Gary. 2002. Why Distance Learning? High Education Teaching and Learning 5(10): 23-28. Administrative Practices. Praeger Press, Westport: CT. [17] Smith, Robin. 2008. Conquering the Content: A Step-by-Step [2] Chao, Tracy, Tami Saj, and Felicity Tessier. 2006. Guide to Online Course Design. John Wiley & Sons. San “Establishing a Quality Review for Online Courses.” Francisco, CA. EDUCASE Quarterly 29(3): 32-39. [18] Sussman, Stephen and Lee Dutter. 2010. “Comparing Student [3] Dutton, John and Marilyn Dutton. 2005. “Characteristics and Learning Outcomes in Face-to-Face and Online Course Performance of Students in an Online Section of Business Delivery.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Statistics.” Journal of Statistics Education 13(3). Administration 13(4). www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v13n3/dutton.html http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/sussman_ [4] Dutton, John, Marilyn Dutton, and Jo Perry. 2002. “How Do dutter134.html 54 Institutional Environment(s) for Online Course Development and Delivery [19] Urtel, Mark. 2008. “Assessing Academic Performance [20] Vai, Marjorie and Kristen Sosulski. 2011. Essentials of Between Traditional and Distance Education Course Formats.” Online Course Design: A Standards Based Guide. Taylor & Educational Technology & Society 11(1): 322-330. Francis. New York: NY