Park University has developed the faculty online observation (FOO) system that allows for an annual observation of each of the 400+ online adjunct faculty members. The FOO was developed on the basis of research in the area of evaluation and observation, to include Best Practices ² , the Seven Principles of Effective Teaching ³ , Quality Matters, and Principles of Effective Teaching in the Online Classroom ⁴ . The FOO allows observers to observe the facilitation of courses and includes five major portions of classroom facilitation: building community in the classroom; discussion, facilitation, and instruction; assessment, grading, and feedback; course climate and online classroom environment; and online instructor response time.

It was important to determine the importance that faculty placed on the areas of the FOO concerning their view of facilitation topics that they are “judged” by. To determine this, the faculty members were surveyed in March – April 2010. There were 268 respondents that responded to 39 items in a Likert style questionnaire. Concerning building community in the classroom, e-mail and discussion threads were very important, as well as new learner concerns. Likewise, instructors placed a high importance on responding to e-mails in a timely manner, while not as much importance was placed on grade book comments. Instructors were not as apt to place a high importance on discussion facilitation and instruction. Only 6 of 10 felt it was very important to provide feedback on homework assignments and term papers. Fewer felt this way concerning threaded discussions, core assessments, and auto-graded assignments, and discussion board submissions’ grade book comments. These are considered critical items of observation and thus it is of some concern that faculty does not place these items as a higher priority. Seven of 10 instructors felt that instructors should grade all assignments in a timely manner, but only five of 10 felt that instructors should provide helpful, individualized, constructive feedback on all graded assignments.

Instructors placed a high importance on observation items related to course climate and the online classroom environment. Eight of 10 felt it was very important for instructors to maintain a positive atmosphere in the online classroom and communicate clearly throughout the course. nine of 10 instructors felt that it was very important that the instructor model proper online classroom behavior. The results from the survey will be very helpful in the determination of both future training needs and as points of discussion in the determination of specific areas facilitation and observation of online courses. There are certainly a number of points of concern that need to be addressed. Most importantly, specific areas considered as “critical areas” by the FOO observers and not considered as “very important” will be starting points for discussion and possible training or requirement adjustments.

1. Allen, E. I. and J. Seaman, Staying the course: Online Education in the United States, 2008, The Sloan Consortium, November, 2008. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
http://www.sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/staying_the_course-2.pdf.

2. Park University, (2004). SOL Principles and Standards. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from Park University School for Online Learning Web site: http://www.park.edu/online/faculty/Best_Practices/principles_and_standards.html

3. Chickering, Arthur and Stephen C. Ehrmann. (1996). “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. AHHE Bulletin, October, pp 3-6. http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.

4. Weiss, R.E., Knowlton, D.S., & Speck, B. W. (Eds.) (2004). Principles of Effective Teaching in the Online Classroom. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Michael T. Eskey, PhD is an associate professor of criminal justice at Park University.

In June 2010, the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunication (WCET) asked the membership how institutions were doing with this issue: centralization vs. de-centralization. Twenty-three administrators (provosts, VPs, associate VPs, directors, associate directors, COOs, deans, associate deans) and faculty members provided their valuable insights on the issue.

We are experiencing an era of reduced resources. Those favoring centralization espouse the benefits of both consistent instruction and course development, as well as the avoidance of more resource-consuming stove-piping prevalent if colleges/departments are allowed to develop their own online instructional programs. Those favoring decentralization are convinced that college/departmental control is the best solution for students, faculty, and institutions. The contention of these respondents was that college deans would take on the added responsibilities of their college’s portion of centralized operations of distance learning, faculty development, and learning technologies. A key is to find distance learning champions for each college within an institution. And, that is extremely costly when supporting multiple distance learning organizations versus one.

Both centralization and decentralization of distance learning have advantages and disadvantages; causing many to favor a hybrid approach. The recognition of local control and personal engagement of decentralization must be blended with centralized services that are often more efficient, cost effective, and liberating.

Ensuring the same level of service
Technology advancements have brought new opportunities and responsibilities for instructional quality and control. (Fletcher, J., Tobias, S. and Wesher, R) The true responsibility of this lies with the faculty.

When comparing distance learning to face-to-face instruction, a number of important factors emerge, including similarity of student learning experiences, student outcomes, and employer acceptance of credentials. It is important that the instruction provided in both venues be seamless. Centralization ensures that institutions offer services specifically to the online population, while ensuring that they receive the same level of service and instruction that the onsite students receive.

A number of institutions favor decentralization, but do not (or are not willing-to) hold their institutional campus to the same standard and rigor (metrics, support, quality, rubrics, etc.) as their online courses. The ability of college deans in the decentralized modes of administration to be able to discern the differences is the crux of the issue of whether services are better (and more economical) when provided “centrally” instead of by the college or departments.

Michael T. Eskey, PhD is an associate professor of criminal justice at Park University.

References
WCET (October, 2009) Online education programs marked by rising enrollments, unsure profits, organizational transitions, higher fees, & teach training for faculty, Managing Online Education, pp. 1 – 4.

Fletcher, J., Tobias, S. and Wesher, R (2007), Learning anytime, anywhere: Advanced distributed learning and the changing face of education, Educational Research, 36 (2), 96-102

Professors have discovered a number of creative ways to incorporate humor in classes. Items such as cartoons, top ten lists, comic verses, and phony or bogus experiments all help break the ice and open the door of friendly learning. Most studies have centered on face-to-face studies, but students in online courses enjoy humor, too.

In some preliminary research with 126 students in six online criminal justice courses, this author has received very supportive student responses concerning humor in the classroom: discipline-oriented jokes, cartoon, videos, etc. Utilizing a seven-point Likert scale (Very strongly agree – Very strongly disagree), 98 percent of respondents agreed (VSA, SA, A) that humor can facilitate interactions and allow students to view the instructor as more approachable.

Nearly all agreed that humor can add a sense of flavor to the class experience (98%), including the ability to relieve stress (97%), improve student attention (94%), enhance learning (94%) and influence student interest and participation (97%). In addition 83% agreed that humor can augment teaching and 87% said humor can help promote course objectives.

Appropriate and timely humor in the college classroom can foster mutual openness and respect and contribute to overall teaching effectiveness. Humor creates an inviting classroom environment. Humor “is often cited by students in traditional courses as being a major factor in their enjoyment of a course, and research supports the theory that it also enhances learning.”

The process for using humor in online college teaching has only just begun. The population of online students are more techno-savvy and expect (or demand) more entertainment, gadgetry, and humor. Many online instructors either do not have the advanced technical skills or do not go out of their way to find and use humorous material in their courses. They have found that it simply takes extra planning and effort to make humor happen in online classes.

Instructors who are pressed for time find that it takes more time to be humorous than it takes to just get the job done. For individual instructors that teach an occasional and/or single-section course online, this trend will most likely continue. However, for those institutions with course development teams and instructional course developers responsible for multiple-section courses, there can be an expectation for growth in humor.

Michael T. Eskey, PhD is an associate professor of criminal justice at Park University.

Resources
James, D. “A need for humor in online courses.” College Teaching. (2004 ). Vol 52, no. 3, 93-94.

Smith, W., (2008). Decoding Generational Differences: Fact, Fiction, or should we just get back to work? Retrieved on August 4, 2010 from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_Talent_DecodingGenerationalDifferences.pdf.

While the student is a customer, the customer is not “always” right. Instructors have a very difficult job and must always try to strive to be fair and use discretion; however, we must adhere to policies and regulations. Unfortunately, some students will not be able to maintain their “4.0” average or a graduate student may earn a “C”, or a “D”, or even an “F.” Sometimes, they have legitimate reasons and they have provided valid and validated excuses. Sometimes, they are simply not satisfied with their grade and will do anything to earn the grade they wanted or “perceive” they earned. They may make accusations; they may bypass the instructor in their complaints and, in some cases, may make the call or send the e-mail directly to the top decision-maker on campus. You will then be asked to “defend” yourself.

My advice is simple: At the beginning of the term, set aside a separate thumb drive for e-mails for a specific course, or create a separate subdirectory on your hard-drive for that course. When you receive e-mails, save them by last name and number (Smith – 1; Smith – 2, etc.) When you send e-mails, save them in the same manner. When you send e-mails to the class, save them by class number, for example CJ400-1, CJ400-2. When necessary, in responding to students, inform them that you are cc:ing your supervisor (and do so).

This may seem like extra work and, for some, much ado about nothing. However, if you are not able to provide documentation of your correspondence to students, it is difficult to defend what you have said. You also may find that the same student often complains in more than one class or seems to have “excuses” for not completing assignments in more than one class (your program coordinator or chair might validate this). I once had a student whose mother died three weeks before the final in two separate terms with two separate instructors. When we keep and share this information it will begin to prevent much of the problem in the future and provide you with very valuable documentation. It also will prevent unnecessary correspondence with your program coordinator, department chair, dean, and president.

Michael T. Eskey, PhD is an associate professor of criminal justice at Park University.