ArticlePDF Available

Learning to teach online: An exploration of how universities with large online programs train and develop faculty to teach online.


Abstract and Figures

There is an increased demand for online courses and programs. As a result, institutions are experimenting with different ways to train and support faculty to teach online. There is very little recent literature, though, describing the various ways that institutions actually train faculty to teach online. In this article, we report on the results of our inquiry into how institutions with large online programs train faculty to design online courses and teach online.
Content may be subject to copyright.
• Patrick R. Lowenthal, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725. E-mail: patricklowenthal@
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 20(3), 2019, pp. 1–9 ISSN 1528-3518
Copyright © 2019 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
© 2020
An Exploration of How Universities
With Large Online Programs Train
and Develop Faculty to Teach Online
Patrick R. Lowenthal Dana Shreaves
Boise State University Pacific Lutheran University
Megan Gooding Jennifer Kepka
University of Texas of the Permian Basin Lane Community College
There is an increased demand for online courses and programs. As a result, institutions are experimenting with
different ways to train and support faculty to teach online. There is very little recent literature, though,
describing the various ways that institutions actually train faculty to teach online. In this article, we report on
the results of our inquiry into how institutions with large online programs train faculty to design online
courses and teach online.
There is an increased demand for online
courses and programs (Allen & Seaman, 2017;
Bichsel, 2013). As a result, colleges and uni-
versities are investing in institutional support
for faculty to design and teach online courses
to meet this increased demand (Chen, Lowen-
thal, Bauer, Heaps, & Nielsen, 2017; Magda,
2019). While faculty often like to think of
good teaching as good teaching, online
instruction requires a skill set that many fac-
ulty lack and/or need additional training and
support to further develop (Baran, Correia, &
Thompson, 2011; Palloff & Pratt, 1999;
Salmon, 2012). While faculty may have expe-
rience designing and teaching face-to-face
courses, they often lack experience with the
technologies, instructional strategies, commu-
nication processes, and organizational struc-
tures involved with teaching online (Baran et
al., 2011; Davidson-Shivers, Rasmussen, &
2 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 20, No. 2, 2019
© 2020
Lowenthal, 2018; Salmon, 2012). As a result,
faculty often find themselves needing addi-
tional support as they learn how to design
courses and teach online (Bichsel, 2013;
Magda, 2019). Given this problem, we set
forth to investigate how universities with large
online programs, with high enrollments, train
and develop faculty to teach online.
Institutions have various approaches to support
faculty new to teaching online, ranging from
highly structured to very informal types of
training and support (Herman, 2012; Meyer,
2013; Meyer & Murrell, 2014). On one end,
there are institutions that use a for-profit
“enterprise” type of model where they central-
ize online course development and online
teaching; at these institutions, among other
things, faculty are often required to complete
formal programs before teaching their first
course online (Lowenthal & White, 2009). On
the other end, there are institutions that simply
provide faculty with a blank course shell in a
learning management system, along with
access to a technical help desk for support,
before teaching their first course online
(Lowenthal & White, 2009). The literature,
coupled with our own experiences working at
different colleges and universities, suggests
though that most public or nonprofit institu-
tions lie somewhere in the middle of this cen-
tralized versus decentralized continuum (cf.
Meyer, 2013; Meyer & Murrell, 2014). That is,
these institutions might provide faculty some
type of support to learn how to teach online or
to design an online course, whether that be
pedagogical or technical, but faculty do almost
all of the course development or teaching
themselves. The support faculty have available
in these types of institutions likely comes in
the form of traditional face-to-face training
programs, online workshops or seminars, or
just-in-time support (Lowenthal & Davidson-
Shivers, 2019; Meyer, 2013; Meyer & Murrell,
The University of Colorado Denver and
Boise State University are two examples of
institutions that lie somewhere in the middle of
this continuum. The University of Colorado
Denver has historically taken a decentralized
approach to online course development, online
teaching, and training and support. At this
institution, individual faculty have, for the
most part, decided what, if anything, they want
to teach online. The institution has a central-
ized unit for support if faculty and/or depart-
ments decide they want to use it; the support
ranges from just-in-time instructional design
support, regular workshops, an online seminar
learning to teach online, and annual events to
support faculty developing online courses
(Gasell & Lowenthal, 2015; Lowenthal &
Thomas, 2010), but the majority of faculty do
not take advantage of these services. Boise
State University also lies somewhere in the
middle of the continuum, though perhaps leans
a little more toward the centralized end.
Boise State University has a centralized unit
called eCampus. In terms of training and devel-
oping faculty to design courses and teach
online, the eCampus center developed the
eCampus Quality Instruction Program. The
program consists of three components: a design
and development seminar, a teaching online
seminar, and a Quality Matters peer review of
online courses. Faculty can choose to complete
one of these components or all of them. The
eCampus center also offers a series of faculty
development workshops and just-in-time sup-
port to further train and develop faculty to teach
online. But departments, programs, or faculty
at Boise State for the most part do not have to
use any of these supports or other eCampus ser-
vices (e.g., resources to develop complete
online programs) if they do not want to. As a
result, some faculty and programs rely heavily
on the eCampus center to help train and
develop faculty while other programs do not.
Overall, though, given the continued
growth of online learning at colleges and uni-
versities, we contend there is comparatively
little literature on how institutions train and
develop faculty to teach online (in terms of
Learning to Teach Online 3
© 2020
both designing and facilitating online courses),
as well as which training and development
strategies are the most successful.
The purpose of this study was to explore how
institutions prepare and support faculty to
design and teach online courses. More specifi-
cally, we were interested in identifying and
describing the various ways public and non-
profit institutions with large online programs,
with high online enrollments, train and support
faculty to teach online. Thus, this study was
both exploratory and descriptive in nature. We
began by identifying institutions with large
numbers of online enrollments. Working from
a list of the top 50 institutions with the highest
numbers of students taking at least one online
course (based on the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System database) created by
Hill and Menard (n.d.), we identified 30 public
or nonprofit institutions. We then identified
personnel (e.g., administrators, instructional
designers) involved with online learning at
each institution to survey. We created a brief
survey to learn how these institutions train and
develop and support faculty to teach online.
Personnel from 16 of the 30 institutions com-
pleted the survey. We then conducted follow
up semistructured interviews with personnel
from one large public institution, one large pri-
vate institution, and one large community col-
lege. The goal of the follow-up interviews was
to learn more about what each of these institu-
tions do to support faculty to teach online. The
interviews were recorded, transcribed, and
analyzed. Rich descriptions of each institu-
tions approach to supporting and developing
faculty were created.
Phase 1: Survey
We first asked participants about their insti-
tutions’ total enrollments and what percent of
these enrollments were completed online. At
these 16 institutions, enrollments ranged from
19,000 to 120,000, with an average total
enrollment of 55,000. Members of these par-
ticipating institutions estimated that 10% to
100%, with an average of 46%, of their total
enrollments were completed online. Overall,
10 of the 16 institutions, or 62.5%, reported
that they required faculty to take part in some
kind of training to teach online at their institu-
How Do Faculty Learn to Teach
Online at Colleges and Universities
With Large Online Programs?
We then asked the participants how faculty
learn to teach online at their institutions. At
this point, we did not define what we meant by
“teach online”; in other words, we did not dis-
tinguish (nor ask participants with this ques-
tion to distinguish) between learning how to
design online courses verses learning how to
teach online courses. While responses to this
open-ended question varied to a degree, every
institution reported offering some type of sup-
port for faculty to learn to teach online. These
responses ranged from consultations with
instructional designers, webinars and work-
shops (both face-to-face and online), mentor-
ing and coaching, to multiweek online courses.
These supports were offered either at the
department, school, or college level. The fol-
lowing are a few examples of how the partici-
pants described how faculty learn to teach at
their institution:
We have a required certification course that
consists of 4 self-paced modules, 2 instruc-
tor-led modules, and a semester of required
A required 2-week certification course;
required membership and activity in an
online teaching group of peers for duration
of time teaching online; available
(optional) coaching and other online devel-
opment opportunities (training modules,
webinars, short courses, etc.).
4 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 20, No. 2, 2019
© 2020
Through a variety of workshops, primarily
offered online, but also in person. The pri-
mary one is an “Introduction to Online
Teaching Course” that takes about 20
hours/4 weeks to complete.
Presentations, workshops, and courses are
offered in face-to-face and online formats.
Many instructors do complete training.
Instructional designers also work one-on-
one with faculty on the design of courses
and discuss teaching techniques in online
We then specifically asked what types of
training and support each institution offered
their faculty. The most frequently types of sup-
port offered where technical support/training
(e.g., workshops on how to use a learning man-
agement system) (93.8%), followed next by
pedagogical support/training (e.g., workshops
on rubrics) (93.3%) and multiday online work-
shops, programs, and seminars (e.g., 3 week
online workshop) (75%). However, over 50%
of the institutions also offered synchronous
online workshops (e.g., a 1-hour webinar)
(62.5%), mentoring (62.5%), and face-to-face
(F2F) workshops (e.g., a 1-hour workshop)
(56.3%). Multiday F2F workshops, programs,
and seminars (e.g., week-long institute)
(37.5%) were offered least. See Figure 1 for a
comparison of each.
How Do Faculty Learn
to Design/Develop Online Courses
at Colleges and Universities
With Large Online Programs?
Large online programs often have more per-
sonnel to help support the programs (e.g.,
instructional designers, student support, online
administrators, etc.). We were first interested
in learning how the online courses were
designed and developed in these large pro-
grams to help better understand the role that
Types of Training and Support Offered
Learning to Teach Online 5
© 2020
faculty played in designing and developing
courses in these large programs and in turn the
needs they might have with training, develop-
ment, and support with designing and develop-
ing online courses. We found that 9 out of 16
(56.3%) of these institutions require faculty to
take part in some training to design and
develop online courses. We then asked at what
level of the institution were online courses
designed/developed. There was a general trend
toward either developing online courses at the
university level, 7 out of 16 (43.8%), or at the
department level, 6 out of 16 (37.5%). Though,
one participant did point out that things are
becoming more centralized over time as cap-
tured in this comment:
Traditionally they have been developed at the
dept level by individual faculty, however, we
have a strong centralized unit of instructional
designers and have been moving more
toward a centralized unit working with each
college to develop a strategy and support
model for that college.
We also found that 10 out of 16 (62.5%) used
some type of “master course” approach to
designing and developing online courses; this
is a type of approach where a course is
designed and developed by one or more people
but then copies are made each semester for
other faculty to teach using the same online
We then specifically asked how online
courses were developed and the specific role
that faculty played in developing these online
courses. The majority of the participants, 10
out of 16 (62.5%), reported that online courses
were developed by faculty but with the assis-
tance of instructional designers. The following
are a few examples in the participants’ own
Campus faculty develop the courses, with
the assistance of instructional designers and
developers provided by the central Online
Learning organization.
Faculty-driven with support from the Cen-
ter for Distributed Learning. Faculty are
responsible for designing online courses.
They have support from the Center for Dis-
tributed Learning including instructional
designers, graphics, video, and program-
Our faculty work with instructional design-
ers to design and develop their online
The majority of the remaining participants
reported that faculty serve in some role as a
subject matter expert (SME), but that the
majority of the development for an online
course was done centrally by course develop-
ers or by external providers, as captured in the
following quotes:
The Center for Learning and Technology
develops all online courses, and the Center
works with the Schools to determine which
SME’s will be utilized during the course
development project. Mentors (our equiva-
lent of faculty) are brought into the course
project to provide SME-level guidance.
Universitywide academic practices are
enforced centrally within the Center for
Learning and Technology, and the center
provides a team of resources to work with
the SME on the project.
Faculty develop required competencies
(outcomes) and work directly with provid-
ers to develop curriculum from scratch.
Online courses are developed within the
program development department. Faculty
act as SMEs and as consultants for student
Internal faculty program directors deter-
mine the scope of the course and how it will
fit into the degree program. Content may be
developed by an internal or external subject
matter expert, but a faculty program direc-
tor supervises and provides final sign off
for all phases of the project (review and
approval of outcomes, assessment activi-
ties, content).
Only two of the participants suggested that
their faculty were completely in charge of
6 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 20, No. 2, 2019
© 2020
designing and developing the online courses at
their institutions.
Ultimately though we were interested in
learning how faculty learn to design and
develop online courses at these institutions,
regardless of the course development process
used. The most frequent way that these institu-
tions trained faculty to design online courses is
through consultations with instructional
designers, 6 out of 16 (37.5%). For instance,
some participants reported:
• through professional development and
work with instructional designers;
they work with instructional designers or
faculty mentors who have been teaching
online for a period of years; and
working one on one with our instructional
However, a few participants reported that
their faculty learn to design and develop online
courses through a combination of consulta-
tions with instructional designers and partici-
pating in various trainings and workshops, 3
out of 16 (18.8%), as captured in the following
Through courses provided by instructional
technology services and one-on-one guid-
ance from instructional designers within
instructional technology services.
Workshops and instructional designers’
For faculty working directly with our
online team (have signed a contract and get
compensation), there is a 12-week design/
development period of working directly
with an instructional designer and educa-
tional technologist. We have an iterative
approach with the expectation of a revision
after it is taught. We also conduct boot-
camps for larger groups that may be work-
ing together, and provide in-house
instructional designers to assist with indi-
vidual course development. We have
developed a “design, build, teach” frame-
work with instructions on our website and
also provide workshops and presentations
that may also be requested and offered to
cohorts of instructors.
However, a couple of participants reported that
faculty are trained solely through training and
workshops, and two others reported that their
faculty get no training on how to design and
develop online courses.
What Types of Incentives Do Faculty
Receive to Take Part in Training at
Colleges and Universities With Large
Online Programs?
Colleges and universities differ in certain
ways from other places of employment (e.g.,
corporate or industry). Among other things,
the faculty who work at colleges and universi-
ties are traditionally accustomed to having a
greater degree of freedom for how they do
their job. In particular, faculty, generally
speaking, are not required to complete training
and development. Instead, those who do attend
training and development (i.e., faculty devel-
opment) are usually those who decide to do
this on their own volition. Given this, we were
interested in how, if at all, these institutions
incentivize faculty to take part in training and
development to teach online courses. We
found that 8 out of 16 (50%) institutions pro-
vide faculty with some type of stipend; 3 out of
16 (18.8%) give faculty a course release; and 3
out of 16 (18.8%) give faculty some type of
certificate or badge for participating in training
and development. Participants also added
some details such as,
faculty receive swag;
faculty are not able to teach online if do not
complete the training;
faculty used to receive stipends or course
release; the current administration sees this
as a part of their job, so there are no sti-
pends or course releases; and
part of their instructional load.
Learning to Teach Online 7
© 2020
Phase 2: Follow-Up Interviews
We purposely identified three institutions to
conduct follow-up interviews with: one large
public university, one large private nonprofit
university, and one large community college.
Large Public University
The large public university has over 70,000
total enrollments with 10,000 of them being
conducted completely online and over 26,000
students taking some online courses. They
have over 60 online programs. Online courses
at this institution are developed, administered,
and supported by the Center for Distributed
Learning. Faculty are required to complete a
10-week blended professional development
course on designing and teaching online
courses; they receive a stipend for completing
this training. Faculty, though, with previous
online teaching experience can provide arti-
facts of past experience to have the required
professional development course waived.
Chair/dean approval is needed to develop /
teach a course without Center for Distributed
Learning support. Instructional designers are
usually paired up with instructors and consult
faculty during the course development pro-
cess; however, they report that this entire pro-
cess is faculty driven but centrally supported.
Large Private Nonprofit University
The large private university has over 35,000
total enrollments, with about 12,000 of these
enrollments being done completely online, but
over 25,000 students taking some online
courses as a part of their program of study.
They have two different units involved with
online learning: one is in charge of developing
courses and the other is in charge of delivering
online courses. The group in charge of devel-
oping the online courses is called the curricu-
lum development group. The group in charge
of delivering the online courses is called the
online learning group. There is a committee
that is run by the curriculum development
group that decides what courses are offered
online. Faculty, though, have more flexibility
on deciding what courses are offered in a
hybrid format for local students. Instructional
designers work with faculty to develop the
online courses. Larger courses are designed by
multiple faculty. They use a master course
model where online courses are designed for
anyone to teach. To teach online, faculty must
complete a 2-week course as an evaluation
during the interview process. After that, fac-
ulty complete a 2-week training course that
focuses on learning about the learning man-
agement system and teaching online; they
receive a small stipend for completing this
training course. Faculty then join a faculty
learning community that involves monthly
meetings, with a group of peers and a leader
called a coach, that focuses on different online
teaching concepts each month. Coaches pro-
vide additional support as needed.
Large Community College
The community college has almost 70,000
total students, with over 20,000 students taking
courses online, making it one of the largest
community colleges in terms of online enroll-
ments. There is a centralized unit to support
faculty who teach in any format at the institu-
tion. Faculty though are in charge of develop-
ing their online courses all on their own. There
is, however, a select number of instructional
designers who can support faculty designing or
teaching online courses. There is also a teach-
ing and learning excellence program which
consists of a series of faculty development
courses and follow up consultations with
instructional designers to train and support fac-
ulty teaching in any format (e.g., face to face,
hybrid, online). The college does not provide
any faculty development courses focused
solely on developing online courses. In fact,
faculty are not systemically given a course to
teach if they are teaching online; however, fac-
ulty might ask to use a copy of another faculty
members course. Faculty can seek additional
support through faculty mentors as needed.
8 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 20, No. 2, 2019
© 2020
There is no consistent quality control frame-
work used; however, the college is a member
of Quality Matters and some faculty or groups
use it. Faculty, though, must be certified to
teach online; they get certified by completing
five courses that focus on things like the learn-
ing management system, instructional design,
and copyright.
Too often institutions get caught up in doing
things the same way that they have in the past.
We contend that online learning requires new
approaches to not only teaching and learning
but also to faculty development. The changes
brought about with the introduction of fully
online courses and programs provides institu-
tions an opportunity to experiment with new
ways of supporting faculty. Effective online
courses and programs begin and end with qual-
ity faculty (Dunlap, 2005; Wilson, Ludwig-
Hardman, Thornam, & Dunlap, 2004).
The problem, though, faculty confront is
that most faculty were never taught how to
teach; faculty are seen as content experts
(Boyer, 1990; Stevens, 1998). As such, faculty
often teach the way that they were taught. The
issue though when it comes to teaching online
is that most faculty have never had the oppor-
tunity to take a course online as a student and
thus cannot draw from much, if any, prior
experiences of online teaching. Therefore, it is
imperative for institutions to find ways to train
and develop faculty on how to design and
develop online courses, as well as how to teach
online. There is not one right way to accom-
plish this. In fact, as this research suggests,
even very large online programs have different
ways of training and developing faculty to
teach online. Some institutions require faculty
to complete training, while others do not.
Some institutions put faculty in charge of the
online course design and development process,
whereas others team faculty up with instruc-
tional design consultants. More research is
needed to better understand how instructional
designers serve in a consultant role when sup-
porting faculty. This research in turn would
have direct implications for the graduate pro-
grams in charge of teaching instructional
designers how to do their jobs.
The results of our inquiry should not be
generalized. However, our research should
help institutions better understand the various
ways that faculty can be supported to design
and teach online courses and in turn meet the
growing demand for new online courses and
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital compass
learning: Distance education enrollment report
2017. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey
Research Group.
Baran, E., Correia, A., & Thompson, A. (2011).
Transforming online teaching practice: Critical
analysis of the literature on the roles and compe-
tencies of online teachers. Distance Education,
32, 421–439. doi:10.1080/01587919
Bichsel, J. (2013). The state of elearning in higher
education: An eye toward growth and increased
access. Retrieved from
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Pri-
orities of the professoriate. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Chen, K.-Z., Lowenthal, P. R., Bauer, C., Heaps, A.,
& Nielsen, C. (2017). Moving beyond smile
sheets: A case study on the evaluation and itera-
tive improvement of an online faculty develop-
ment program. Online Learning, 21(1), 85–111.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Rasmussen, K. L.,
Lowenthal, P. R. (2018). Web-based learning:
Design, implementation, and evaluation (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Dunlap, J. (2005). Workload reduction in online
courses: Getting some shuteye. Performance
Improvement, 44(5), 18–25.
Gasell, C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2015, October).
Moving from “sit and get” to fully online: Our
experience making faculty development awe-
some! Presentation at the 21st annual Online
Learning to Teach Online 9
© 2020
Learning Consortium International Conference,
Orlando, FL.
Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty development pro-
grams: The frequency and variety of profes-
sional development programs available to online
instructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 16, 87–106.
Hill, P., & Menard, J. (n.d.). Update: LMS usage in
large online programs (Top 50 in US). Retrieved
Lowenthal, P. R., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V.
(2019). Strategies used to evaluate online educa-
tion. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.),
Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp.
415–427). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lowenthal, P. R., & Thomas, D. (2010). Death to
the digital dropbox: Rethinking student privacy
and public performance. EDUCAUSE Quar-
terly, 33(3).
Lowenthal, P. R., & White, J. W. (2009). Enterprise
model. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C.
Howard, L. Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Ency-
clopedia of distance and online learning (2nd
ed., pp. 932–936). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Magda, A. J. (2019). Online learning at public uni-
versities: Recruiting, orienting, and supporting
online faculty. Louisville, KY: The Learning
Meyer, K. A. (2013). An analysis of the research of
faculty development for online teaching and
identification of new directions. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Network, 17, 93–112.
Meyer, K. A., & Murrell, V. S. (2014). A national
study of training content and activities for fac-
ulty development for online teaching. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Network, 18. Retrieved
Palloff, R. N., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning
communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA:
Salmon, G. (2012). E-moderating: The key to online
teaching and learning. New York, NY: Rout-
Stevens, E. (1988). Tinkering with teaching. Review
of Higher Education, 12(1), 63–78.
Wilson, B. G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C.
L., & Dunlap, J. (2004). Bounded community:
Designing and facilitating learning communities
in formal courses. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3).
Retrieved from
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 20(3), 2019, pp. 51–52 ISSN 1528-3518
Copyright © 2019 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
© 2020
Emily Faulconer is an assistant professor and
faculty research associate for the College of
Arts and Sciences—Worldwide Campus,
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. She
earned a PhD in environmental engineering
sciences from the University of Florida in
2012. Dr. Faulconer interests are within the
scholarship of teaching and learning, primarily
in undergraduate research and online educa-
tion. Safety is also an area of interest, and she
serves as the chair of the Academic Safety
Committee for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University. She is also actively involved in
national level service through the National Sci-
ence Teaching Association as an online advi-
sor and as an advisory board member for their
Journal of College Science Teaching.
Megan Gooding is a doctoral candidate in the
Department of Educational Technology at
Boise State University. Her research explores
the way people use digital technologies to
teach and learn. Most recently, she has focused
on whether the fake news phenomenon of
2016 influenced faculty to incorporate social
networking tools or media literacy into their
pedagogical practices.
Amy Gruss is an assistant professor of envi-
ronmental engineering within the Department
of Civil and Construction Engineering at Ken-
nesaw State University. Formerly, she worked
as an environmental engineer for CDM Smith.
She earned a PhD in environmental engineer-
ing Sciences from the University of Florida in
Jennifer A. Kepka is a faculty member at
Lane Community College in developmental
education and an instructional designer. She is
a doctoral student at Boise State University,
where her research explores the process for
and impact of large-scale adoptions of com-
mercial software in education.
Patrick R. Lowenthal is an associate profes-
sor in the Department of Educational Technol-
ogy at Boise State University. He specializes
in designing and developing online learning
environments. His research focuses on how
people communicate using emerging technolo-
gies—with a specific focus on issues of pres-
ence, identity, and community—in online
learning environments.
Dana Shreaves in an instructional designer at
Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Wash-
ington. She provides instructional support for
faculty and leads the university's training pro-
grams for online, blended, and technology-
enhanced teaching.
Michael Simonson is a professor at Nova
Southeastern University in the Instructional
Technology and Distance Education program.
He has an affiliated appointment with NSU’s
Patel College of Health Care Sciences. He
earned his PhD from the University of Iowa in
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
... Professional development is essential for practitioners to function effectively in an online environment as well as promoting the effectiveness of the institutions they work for (Isabirye & Makoe, 2018). Scholars have noted that most faculty do not have the opportunity to take an online course as a student first (Lowenthal et al, 2019;Schmidt et al., 2016). Online instructors need online learning experiences so that they can draw on these experiences to develop their online teaching repertoire and flexibility. ...
Full-text available
In this paper, we set out a collaborative autoethnographic account of our reflective journey to deeper understandings of open, distance and e-learning (ODeL) through enrolling, participating and completing the first module in a course on technology-enhanced learning (TEL). As authors, we both enrolled for the course for different reasons. The course was offered by an outside institution, as part of capacity building at our university. The course, conducted fully online, was highly interactive and participatory. Through our participation, collaboration, reflection and experiences in the first module of the course, we were encouraged to develop written definitions of ‘distance education’ (DE) and ‘technology-enhanced learning’ (TEL). Our approach to studying our definitions was analytic, even though we were both participants and researchers. The analysis was based on the Community of Inquiry framework. Our findings reveal that our definitions evolved to include deeper, more complex, more comprehensive notions of DE and TEL. The analysis also revealed an unfolding of the definitions within our own contexts. We recommend that professional development of ODeL practitioners and stakeholders take place through being a student in an active, collaborative ODeL environment to enhance take-up practices.
... There is a clear need for faculty development on teaching at a distance since students' accounts described poor faculty communication and little to no online interaction (Martin & Bolliger, 2018), though we recognize that adding more "work" for faculty during a pandemic is likely a difficult proposition for many. Adverse ERT effect prevention/mitigation might be achieved in the future by adding a course in basic distance education to pre-and in-service teacher education programs, as well finding other ways to support faculty professional development with teaching and learning from a distance (see Lowenthal et al., 2019). Similarly, adding virtual social events for students through other official channels such as Student Affairs would help address loneliness and isolation. ...
COVID-19 caused universities around the world to transition overnight to some type of remote learning or online format. The way this occurred, though necessary, was a departure from the standards and norms of traditional distance education and was a drastic change for the majority of faculty and students who had no prior experience with remote, blended, or online learning. This case study was conducted in the Republic of Korea with 15 international exchange students who found themselves forced to take distance education courses on an empty campus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Themes of isolation and loneliness, diverse learning experiences, little-to-no social interaction, teaching, cognitive, or social presence emerged from the interviews. In this paper, we discuss our findings and the implications for future research and practice.
... The teachers' experience in designing and teaching classroom courses tends to be a different reality in online education. They frequently lack experience with technologies, educational strategies, communication processes, and the organizational structure required for teaching online (Baran et al., 2011;Lowenthal et al., 2019). Faculty must receive adequate training and development in online teaching as this is to be critical foundation for quality online education (Meyer, K.A.& Murrell, V.S., 2014). ...
... Por su parte, las universidades presenciales han acelerado su digitalización, incorporando la enseñanza/aprendizaje online como un recurso permanente (Vlachopoulos, 2020), que se presume que sobrevivirá cuando se retorne a la 'normalidad'. De hecho, se ha revelado como un factor fundamental en la suavidad de la transición que las universidades tuvieran implementados programas de formación del PDI en la docencia telemática (Lowenthal, Shreaves, Gooding, y Kepka, 2019). Cuando el profesorado ha carecido de conocimientos previos en el manejo de este formato, han surgido dificultades prácticas para continuar la docencia con suficiente calidad. ...
Full-text available
INTRODUCCIÓN La pandemia de la covid-19 ha supuesto un extraordinario choque para los sistemas educativos en todo el mundo, pero también ha confirmado que la enseñanza/aprendizaje online ha venido para quedarse. Impulsadas por la urgencia, las instituciones educativas han tenido que adaptarse en tiempo récord al formato telemático. Siguiendo la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible, en su Objetivo 4: educación de calidad (Naciones Unidas, 2015), a través de la Coalición Mundial para la Educación COVID-19, la UNESCO (2020a) ha ofrecido información sobre recursos para contribuir a hacer accesible la enseñanza a distancia a todos los rincones del planeta; esta iniciativa se completa con múltiples ofrecimientos, por parte de instituciones, empresas, asociaciones y organismos (Antón, 2020; O'Keefe, Rafferty, Gunder, y Vignare, 2020). A pesar de ello, los efectos del cierre de los colegios han tenido un impacto severo en estudiantes de familias y áreas empobrecidas, especialmente cuando no contaban con infraestructura de tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (UNESCO, 2020b). En comparación con los países menos desarrollados, las instituciones educativas en países con un alto nivel de desarrollo han salido bastante bien paradas de la crisis de la covid-19 (UNDP, 2020). Como era de esperar, las universidades a distancia, en su mayoría privadas (Torrecillas, 2020), no sufrieron modificaciones con el confinamiento (Fox, Bryant, Lin, y Srinivasan, 2020). Por su parte, las universidades presenciales han acelerado su digitalización, incorporando la enseñanza/aprendizaje online como un recurso permanente (Vlachopoulos, 2020), que se presume que sobrevivirá cuando se retorne a la 'normalidad'. De hecho, se ha revelado como un factor fundamental en la suavidad de la transición que las universidades tuvieran implementados programas de formación del PDI en la docencia telemática (Lowenthal, Shreaves, Gooding, y Kepka, 2019). Cuando el profesorado ha carecido de conocimientos previos en el manejo de este formato, han surgido dificultades prácticas para continuar la docencia con suficiente calidad. Con relación a la ausencia de presencialidad, los estudios de alto nivel de experimentalidad, entre los que se encuentran los artísticos, Iribas Rudín, Ana (2020). Contigo en la distancia: impacto del confinamiento por la crisis covid-19 en un caso del Grado en Bellas Artes, UCM. En Gázquez Linares, José Jesús; Molero Jurado, María del Mar; Martos Martínez, África; Barragán Martín, Ana Belén; Simón Márquez, María del Mar; Sisto, Maria; Pino Salvador, Rosa María del y Tortosa Martínez, Begoña María (Comps.). Innovación docente e investigación en Arte y Humanidades. Avanzando en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje, pp. 549-560. Madrid: Dykinson.
... Similarly, hybridizing a course is not something to be taken lightly. As with all new teaching methods, trial and error are inevitable, and training is essential (see Lowenthal, Gooding, Shreaves, & Kepka, 2019). Faculty need to be trained how to develop and teach hybrid courses (see Linder, 2017). ...
An undergraduate Research Methods in Criminal Justice class was taught in two different modalities, traditional and hybrid, over 8 semesters. The hybrid course sought to increase student engagement through student-driven active learning modules delivered online while maintaining mastery of course content. Using a mixed-methods research design, engagement with course material was evaluated by assessing a mid-semester student survey in the hybrid offerings and comparing the two modalities using qualitative and quantitative data from end of semester student ratings of teaching effectiveness. Mastery of course content was assessed by comparing exam scores between the two modalities. Qualitative data suggest greater course engagement among students enrolled in the hybrid sections. A quantitative analysis revealed significantly higher average mean test scores among students in the hybrid group across all three exams. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research and extensions of the hybrid modality to other criminal justice courses.
... Professional development is essential for practitioners to function effectively in an online environment as well as promoting the effectiveness of the institutions they work for (Isabirye & Makoe, 2018). Scholars have noted that most faculty do not have the opportunity to take an online course as a student first (Lowenthal et al, 2019;Schmidt et al., 2016). Online instructors need online learning experiences so that they can draw on these experiences to develop their online teaching repertoire and flexibility. ...
Innovations in distance education are evident in social science programs and in helping meet the diverse needs of students. However, distance education does not come without challenges. This chapter will discuss the phenomenon of distance education specific to for-profit institutions in higher education. Moreover, this text will highlight the application of distance education pedagogy in programs that are dedicated to the fields of professional counseling, social work, and psychology. Specific recommendations will be offered to empower students and instructors who participate in distance education courses.
Using an online survey, this mixed-method study was designed to understand how college students responded to the transition at mid-semester to online learning from face-to-face courses due to a global pandemic. The student responses indicated that the transition was not successful. Students mentioned issues with the limitations of the online format, personal struggles with time management or motivation, and diminishing quality of instruction. A summary of the study findings and recommendations for future studies are discussed.
This review paper is aimed at discussing Digital Education, which rose due to a pandemic scenario. Its virtues are put forth. The limitations of classroom teaching have been discussed in the paper. The advanced approach of education by adopting liberal education is recommended by the researcher. The paper claims that digital education will not affect the workload of teachers. Rather more teachers will be demanded, if implementation of CBCS is ensured. Introduction:
Full-text available
Institutions of higher education are struggling to meet the growing demand for online courses and programs, partly because many faculty lack experience teaching online. The eCampus Quality Instruction Program (eQIP) is an online faculty development program developed to train faculty in designing and teaching fully online courses. The purpose of this article is to describe the eQIP (one institution’s multipronged approach of online faculty development), with a specific focus on how the overall success of the program is evaluated using surveys, analytics, and social network analysis. Reflections and implications for improving practice are discussed.
Technical Report
Full-text available
ECAR’s report on e-learning incorporates results from a survey, focus groups, and interviews to provide a description of the current state of e-learning in higher education. In this report are insights into the challenges of e-learning, the concerns about e-learning that remain, the most important factors to consider in selecting e-learning technologies, how accreditors view and approach e-learning, and the specific steps institutions can take to make progress in their e-learning initiatives.
Full-text available
This article presents the results of a national study of 39 higher education institutions that collected information about their practices for faculty development for online teaching and particularly the content and training activities used during 2011-2012. This study found that the most frequently offered training content (97% of the institutions) was assessment of student learning; followed by creating online community (91.1%); and training on the institution’s CMS, student learning styles, and instructional design models (all at 84%). Most frequent training activities (over 90% of institutions) were workshops, one-on-one training opportunities, short sessions, hands-on training, one-time training, and creating an online course. Interesting differences by Carnegie institution type were found. These differences are perhaps explained by developers placing more value on teaching pedagogies than tools.
This article presents the results of an extensive review of the published literature on faculty development for online teaching. This review included 68 articles and five books, which were reviewed to identify elements of the training and the findings (e.g., theoretical bases, training aims and organization, content of training, nature of sample (number and type of participants), outcome measures used. The emphasis was not on the recommendations of the authors, but the methods of arriving at the findings. The review produced seven insights, from the importance of basing faculty development on theory, the frequency of publications that present models of faculty development for online teaching, the need to disentangle treatments, the need for rigorous evaluations, and the importance of considering individual faculty differences, designing and evaluating faculty development with specific outcome measures, and considering cost (either cost-efficiency or cost-effectiveness) when evaluating faculty development programs.
Online education is no longer a peripheral phenomenon in higher education: over one-third of faculty members have taught or developed an online course. As institutions of higher education expand their online education offerings, administrators need to recognize that supporting faculty members through the use of incentives and through effective faculty development programs for online instruction is important to the improvement of the quality of educational programs. This quantitative study used an online survey to investigate the types and frequency of faculty development programs for online instruction at institutions with an established teaching and learning development unit (TLDU). The average TLDU offered about fifteen different types of faculty development programs, the most common being websites, technical services, printed materials, and consultation with instructional design experts. Findings indicate that some faculty development programs for online instruction are being offered more frequently; this increase has resource and staffing implications for the support of these programs.
A study of 12 university teachers' approaches to improving instruction found two types of change occurring, innovation and tinkering. The most powerful influences in stimulating and sustaining change appeared to be personal sources of satisfaction with teaching, sense of responsibility for student learning, and academic culture. (MSE)