Higher education leaders can foster an online professional learning community to promote faculty engagement and teaching excellence in the following ways:

• Establish a faculty development team. An established group of experienced practitioners can serve as a point of contact for anything from classroom management strategies to dealing with difficult students. Having a core team of people to act as mentors and host professional development workshops can help make an online university seem less overwhelming and more like a community.
• Hold regular faculty meetings. Involving all faculty, whether full-time or adjunct, in regularly scheduled meetings is a great way to bring faculty up to speed on policies, procedures, and organizational changes, while simultaneously creating an environment where faculty can get to know one another, share experiences, discuss best practices, and address shared and individual challenges.
• Partner new faculty with experienced faculty. This mentoring partnership allows new faculty to become better acquainted with faculty expectations, gain insight into online classroom management strategies, and form a relationship with a more experienced colleague.
• Make peer review an annual event. The mentor-mentee relationship does not have to end after just one class. Annual peer review allows faculty to share ideas with one another, pass along best practices, ask questions about policy, and share concerns. It is also a great opportunity to remind faculty of any new expectations they should be adhering to as they work with their students. These connections between faculty and peer reviewers extend beyond the peer review period and many times result in long-lasting relationships.
• Be proactive. Reach out to colleagues and offer assistance before they need it. Frequent and ongoing communications to faculty regarding policies, initiatives, and frequently asked questions can help everyone feel connected to the institution while also ensuring information is disseminated in such a way that results in increased performance.
• Give faculty the opportunity to be students. Professional development workshops that are offered in the online environment allow faculty to remember what it is like to be a student. In addition to the learning that takes place, these opportunities create a community wherein faculty can make connections to others, establish a network of relationships, and engage with peers in an online environment. Many times these relationships extend beyond the online environment.

Establishing an online professional learning community allows all online faculty, whether adjunct or full-time, to connect and collaborate with one another. The creation of a faculty development team, at the heart of this professional learning community, allows online universities an effective way to orchestrate faculty development efforts. Leaders in higher education should strive to foster a sense of community among all faculty members. This professional learning community will build faculty retention, ensure standardized processes and policies are enforced across the institution, and promote excellence in teaching leading to student success.

References:
Doe, S., Barnes, N., Bowen, D., Gilkey, D., Smoak, G., Ryan, S., & … Palmquist, M. (2011). Discourse of the firetenders: Considering contingent faculty through the lens of activity theory. College English, 73(4), 428-449.

Dolan, V. (2011). The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact on their performance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 62-77.

DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.

Anne O’Bryan is an online adjunct instructor at Colorado State University-Global Campus. Todd Kane is the Faculty Training Manager and teaches business at Colorado State University Global Campus. Melanie Shaw serves as an adjunct faculty member at several universities, including Colorado State University Global Campus.

For Bernard Bull, assistance professor of educational design and technology and director of the Instructional Design Center at Concordia University in Wisconsin, it is time to move away from administrative desire to mold attitudes and move toward a discussion that takes into account faculty experience. “This is not a sales pitch,” he says. “Dialogue is beneficial even if it slows down the process. It is not always about achieving consensus.”

Bull offers six ideas about how to think differently about faculty perceptions of distance education by encouraging discussion, always remaining mindful that every person and every program brings a unique point of view to the table.

1. Move from propaganda to academic discourse – “Beware of the hard sell. There are benefits and limitations to anything,” Bull says. He encourages administrators and faculty to become familiar with literature and discussion that raise both positive and negative points about distance learning. “While one may fear that doing so simply provides ammunition for opponents of distance learning, this is the spirit of academic discourse. It is a dialogue that welcomes, even finds benefit in diverse perspective, the ability to test and critique ideas and efforts,” he says. Making this move is the first step in allowing all members of the discussion to feel heard, and this is critical to avoiding the hard sell.

2. Value individual as well as collective perception – “Individual perceptions are just as important as data collection,” Bull says. He points out that the desire to learn quantitative data about a population may mask the qualitative stories of individuals who could make a difference to the program or the university. “The data may be hiding a champion,” he says. For example, data that shows that 80 percent of a faculty population is, at best, weakly positive to neutral on distance learning may mask knowledge of the 20 percent that are true champions willing to advocate, lead, and mentor. This 20 percent may be more than enough to keep a program alive and thriving.

3. Value faculty preferences – “We can get so focused on best practices that we don’t leave room for faculty preferences,” Bull says. While the temptation to investigate and implement best practices is pervasive — and the habit can lead to some effective ideas — it may cause administrators to overlook ways that they can work within faculty preferences to achieve good results.

Bull tells of one study a university conducted on student satisfaction in online courses. The study found that student satisfaction correlated positively with the amount of feedback given. An effort to learn more about the way feedback was given found that some faculty strongly preferred to give their feedback verbally; these faculty members would talk with students for quite some time if they had the opportunity to meet face-to-face, but the online course management system did not have a mechanism to allow for any but written feedback.

The university then developed a tool for faculty members to record their verbal impressions of student work, which are then attached to the assignment and transmitted to the student. “All of this stemmed from taking the time to have open conversations with faculty and students, from taking seriously faculty communication preferences, and from involving interested faculty in an opportunity to pilot an innovation that has promise for both distance learning and traditional classroom environments,” Bull says.

4. Frame the dialogue as part of the institutional mission – Bull advocates for making the distance learning part of the larger mission of the institution, program, or department. “Simply posing the question about the relationship between distance learning and the University mission frames the discussion about distance learning in a way that shows a commitment to play by the rules established at the University….Framing dialogue about distance learning in terms of the University mission communicates an important message, that distance learning efforts are not an add-on or supplement to the primary mission,” he says. “It puts distance learning on an equal footing.”

Framing distance learning as part of the university mission also moves the dialogue from distance learning itself to a discussion of overarching goals. For example, a given faculty member may support or not support distance learning, but his or her opinion may be different when asked about a mission to support rural students with scheduling or logistics difficulties.

5. Unpack the applications of distance learning – Treating distance learning as a single thing makes no more sense than considering whether cars are good or bad. In the latter case, there is a big difference between a Hummer and a Smart Car, not to mention there are a number of different criteria on which the cars can be assessed, including crash protection, environmental friendliness, hauling capacity, and number of cup holders. Additionally, even those who would like to avoid using a car regularly might find occasional use for one.

Likewise, it is impossible to treat distance education as a single entity. Distance learning is employed across a variety of disciplines using a variety of different tools and delivery methods. And, even a faculty member who does not want to teach online might adopt a technique or tool for use in the face-to-face classroom.

6. Cultivate a culture of support – Even though Bull advocates for open dialogue about distance learning, “it is important to find ways to frequently and openly communicate the positive stories and benefits of distance learning,” he says. Sharing positive experiences with distance learning helps create a climate in which people are encouraged to embrace distance learning as part of the university’s mission.

Excerpted from A Better Way to Talk Distance Learning with Faculty Distance Education Report, 16.4 (Feb. 15, 2012): 4-5.

Problems like these confront academic faculty and administrators daily, and it is important to keep up with the latest court rulings to be sure your institution is in compliance. In her recent online seminar, The Copyright Case We’ve Been Waiting for: Key Lessons and Policy Changes, Linda Enghagen, an attorney and professor at the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, reviews some of the key considerations of copyright law, updated to include rulings that were made on August 13, the day of the seminar.

Many higher ed professionals believe that the use of copyrighted material in class is protected by “fair use,” but fair use is a limited exception to copyright law that does not cover every educational use of material. There are several ways that institutions can be in violation of fair use. These include:

• Posting copyrighted material to nonsecure sites
• Posting material without permission of and payment to the copyright holder
• Posting material from semester to semester
• Posting pursuant to overly generous policies
• Failing to enforce overly generous policies
• Creating free course packs instead of purchasing collections and anthologies
• Encouraging and facilitating infringement

The courts have attempted to sort out these infringements and reach solutions that are equitable for all parties. For example, the rule of thumb of fair use limits use of a copyrighted document to less than 10 percent of the whole and a total of one chapter or less. However, rulings address other factors that play into the issues. For example, the ruling is limited to nonfiction books, with limits likely smaller for creative works. Hits also matter, with documents that receive few hits seen to have minimal effect and not rising to the level of violation.

Watch a brief clip from the seminar:

Through May 2012, more than 130 faculty members have attended the sessions held at the campus in Orange Beach, Alabama. Participants offer suggestions for enhancing courses and programs, and learn how the latest technology will foster greater student learning. While engaging in activities to build camaraderie with fellow instructors and a long-lasting relationship with the university, faculty members are informed of strategic plans, goals, and initiatives from academic and administrative leaders, including the provost and president.

The theory behind the visitation program is to foster a positive relationship between the faculty and the institution; therefore, enhancing faculty-student engagement and interaction. In addition, it is believed that as faculty members connect with the university, students will benefit from an energized and motivated faculty body that possesses a stronger association to CSU’s institutional mission and vision of changing lives through education.

The Faculty Services leadership team hosts monthly on-campus visits, featuring a wide variety of activities, presentations, speakers, and networking opportunities to help ensure faculty are comfortable, confident, and committed. Attendees complete a survey at the end of the event, evaluating their experience and offering opinions and suggestions to enhance future planning and expansion of the program. Through the campus visits, faculty take away an understanding of specific departmental responsibility and how each department can contribute to the success of both the faculty member and the students.

Faculty members discuss best practices in grading assessments, unique teaching opportunities, and integration of personal and professional experiences to increase comprehension of course objectives and theories. The ability to network fosters a sense of community that allows individuals to benchmark their performance against fellow instructors, increasing teaching effectiveness, student learning, and alignment with the university’s goals. Based on survey results, faculty indicated they enjoyed meeting fellow instructors that teach within their college and might even teach the same course in a different section. Professor Smith wrote, “I have worked with several other institutions, but have never experienced what I experienced the past two days, it was awesome!” Dr. Lee commented, “No other university acclimate faculty into the ‘university family’ the way CSU does.” Feedback from faculty indicate the visits create a sense of duty and commitment to the teaching profession. Face-to-face interaction dissolves barriers that might exist between off-site faculty and on-site administration in a virtual learning environment. Meeting campus leadership and support staff deepens the relationship and commitment of both parties.

The on-campus visitation program positively affects communication between the faculty member and the campus, revealing the resources that faculty need to be effective in the online teaching environment. Faculty gain a better understanding of CSU’s teaching requirements and the methods utilized to measure performance. And, in turn, university leadership teams hear about the most important components of online teaching from a faculty member’s point of view, which allows support staff to create learning guides, training modules, professional development opportunities, and resources tailored to meet specific faculty needs.

Seven steps to implementing an on-campus visitation program
If your institution employs a geographically dispersed faculty and you wish to begin your own on-campus orientation program, we offer the following steps to consider:

1. Generate buy-in and commitment from all areas of the institution.
2. Define the goals and objectives of the visit.
3. Create a budget that will fund trip expenses (travel, meals, and accommodations).
4. Construct an agenda that is educational, fun, informative, and interactive.
5. Schedule activities and presentations from university leadership, providing networking opportunities.
6. Assemble an informational resource packet to utilize during and after the event.
7. Survey participants and evaluate data to improve the activities and presentations of future faculty visits.

Elwin Jones is the dean of academic services and Katherine Quinley is the faculty services manager at Columbia Southern University.

The Department of Education’s state authorization regulation (commonly referred to as 600.9) says, in part:

• Institutions must be authorized to conduct business in a state and may not be exempt from this requirement on the basis of accreditation or years in operation.
• Institutions that offer education through distance education to students in a state in which they are not physically located, must meet that state’s requirements.
• Therefore, all institutions must be licensed in any state where they do business, as defined by that state’s specific licensing regulations.

While certain elements of the regulations were overturned in July 2011, most notably the requirement enforcing the Title IV loss of federal funds for failure to comply, they were only overturned on procedural grounds as the Department did not take appropriate steps to allow commentary on the state authorization requirements, said Bruce Chaloux, PhD, executive director and CEO of the Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C).

The department appealed this ruling and the legal process is moving forward, with briefs shared and oral arguments expected later this month. While a date for a final decision is not known, one is expected in the second half of 2012. Chaloux, however, suggests that institutions shouldn’t wait for the outcome. He noted that while the court decision removed the possible Title IV penalty, it did not change any existing requirements for institutions to seek authorization from states in which they are enrolling students and offering instruction.

“I think a key point here is this: Whether the Department wins or doesn’t win the lawsuit, many tracking this situation believe we’re going to have these regulations,” Chaloux said. “So my advice to institutions, a stance shared by most who we have been working with on 600.9, has been and continues to be that you should assume that these requirements, likely in the same form or shape they have come out before, will become effective in the future.”

In part one of a two-part seminar series titled State Authorization: Strategies for Online Providers, Chaloux, an active participant in several regional and national efforts to help institutions respond to the renewed focus on state authorization, provided an overview of many of the emerging legal issues. He also outlined the onerous challenges facing institutions who must try to navigate the patchwork quilt of state authorization requirements in each state it operates – challenges that are compounded given that the definitions of “operating” or “physical presence” vary greatly from state to state and may include issues related to server location, marketing efforts, proctors, and adjuncts.

It’s because of this complexity, and the cost incurred by institutions who must make sense of it all, that Chaloux and others are working with the President’s Forum/Council of State Governments to develop a national interstate reciprocal agreement. Using the analogy of a driver’s license, which is issued by one’s home state but recognized by all states as proof that you’re authorized to operate a motor vehicle, Chaloux said getting states to participate in a reciprocal compact could create a more financially efficient model for states and institutions alike, while ensuring a higher level of consumer protection in terms of quality programming.

“Essentially, this would flip the existing process of an institution having to deal with 49 [other] states, Washington, D.C. plus territories to secure approval for institutions with a national footprint. It would place the impetus on your home state to take certain actions to certify you as being a legitimate provider,” he said. “But I do want to point out that there are some very significant challenges, one of those being to get 50 disparate states that all have their own idea about how this ought to be done onto the same page. So, while I’m extremely optimistic that this has some real potential, I don’t want to oversell it by saying that we think it’s going to be easy.”

Participants in the two-part seminar series will receive a draft of the proposed Compact when it is finalized and it will be discussed in greater detail during seminar two, to be scheduled later this year once a decision has been made on the Department of Education’s appeal. If you missed the first seminar, you can get a copy of the recording on CD. You’ll also get live access to part two once it’s available.

The eQuality program, used at the Open Campus of Florida State College at Jacksonville, provides a method for ensuring and demonstrating quality across online courses and degrees. It provides both an overall plan and a framework, and it also allows colleges and universities to address concerns or issues as they arise.

The eQuality model is based on continuous process improvement. Quality is always the guide, and it is important to remember that quality is an ongoing effort, and not a destination or goal. Also, quality does not belong solely to instructors or administrators. All stakeholders are responsible for maintaining quality. Therefore, it is important to give a voice and an opportunity for input to everyone involved. Institutional administration, campus administration, instructors, staff, students, and sometimes even the community need to be involved in program development and updating.

Equally important is relying on data-driven decision making. Collecting the data is only the first step. Schools must then analyze and share the data so that all decisions are based on collected information. The data will reveal the best direction or course to pursue. The eQuality model is based and operates on a significant amount of data from various sources, including virtual focus groups, surveys, student feedback, and other observations. And because instructors and students are scattered around the world, even the focus groups at the Open Campus are run virtually.

Developing the eQuality Model
Creating and formalizing a quality program for online courses is a continuous process. This means that new data continually demands small tweaks or even substantial changes to program operations. Yet with the proper framework in place, it is possible to identify what changes need to be made. The framework also allows the school to measure the effectiveness of those changes.

The model development process at the Open Campus was based first on surveys from faculty, students, and administrators. Those surveys sought to identify what the various stakeholders knew and felt about quality. The next step involved breaking the stakeholders into focus groups of faculty, students, and staff to get more in-depth information about their perspectives on quality.

It came as no surprise that all three groups had different descriptions and definitions of what a quality course or program looked like, felt like, and accomplished. That information was synthesized with best practices from around the world to become the four areas of quality measurement for online programs. Those four areas became the four pillars: quality courses, quality instruction, quality support, and quality administration.

Structure of the eQuality Model
The foundation of the eQuality model is college leadership. For any quality program to succeed, high-level leadership is required to put it in place, support it, and make sure that it works.

Next, a quality program needs policies, procedures, and guidelines. These can change and evolve over time. It is critical that these policies, procedures, and guidelines do not build barriers to success but instead remove them so that instructors can teach, students can learn, and staff can support the entire program.

Further, all faculty and staff should have the technological resources they need to conduct their job effectively and efficiently. Those tools are part of the foundation of the program.

Finally, any online program must be founded in academic rigor and integrity. Online programs must have at least the same academic rigor and integrity as face-to-face classroom courses. Policies, procedures, tools, and program support must work collectively to ensure this; otherwise it will be difficult if not impossible to support quality learning.

Ultimately, all four pillars are critical to the success of an online program. Without quality courses or instructors, students suffer. Instructors and students both suffer without quality support or administration. A quality learning experience is contingent on maintenance of
all four pillars.

Above all, the goal is online student success. That means more than students passing courses. Students must pass courses at the level of learning that is expected by the school. In other words, online students must learn what the college or university wants them to learn. That should be what is included in the official curriculum outline, and it generally is the same material that is presented in face-to-face or hybrid courses.

Excerpted from Ensuring Online Program Quality with the eQuality Model, a Magna Publications white paper.
Learn More »

Some of the myths include:

• Faculty who only teach online courses are typically hired “differently” than faculty who teaching face-to-face.
• Academic departments are reluctant to use geographically-dispersed faculty to teach online courses.
• Little to no effort is made to integrate faculty who teach only online courses into a department’s faculty community.
• Faculty who teach only online courses are not subject to the same kind of teaching evaluation as those who teach face-to-face courses.

It was these myths and concerns that Penn State World Campus sought to investigate in 2009 with a survey of 76 lead faculty and department chairs who work with online courses and programs at Penn State. The survey was followed up by field interviews with a select subset of the larger group. The quantitative and qualitative data gathered revealed a number of interesting findings, which were shared during the online seminar Hiring, Integrating, and Evaluating Online Faculty.

Led by Ann Taylor, interim director of the Dutton e-Education Institute at Penn State, the seminar highlighted these best practices:

• Use traditional face-to-face faculty as your lead instructors, but hire part-time individuals to handle grading and daily course interactions.
• Don’t burn out your faculty. Make sure new faculty have a thorough understanding of the time commitment required for teaching online, and then provide them with the resources for managing their course effectively. Penn State provides its faculty with a document that’s essentially a detailed weekly to-do list from before the class begins to the last day of class.
• Hire a course manager to oversee your online courses. This person can be on campus or remote and is there to train new instructors, conduct quality checks and perform other program-level duties.
• Give new faculty the experience of being an online student. An online orientation program, which requires new faculty to participate in online discussion, submit assignments using the CMS, and navigate through the program as a student, can go a long way in helping new faculty gain valuable perspective.
• Have new instructors “shadow” existing instructors before teaching alone.
• Provide new instructors with a “master copy” of the course that can be customized and personalized.

View a brief clip from the seminar:

Fred Lokken is chairman of the Instructional Technology Council and associate dean for teaching technologies at Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nev. As part of an ITC Conference panel, he and his colleagues considered some of the challenges that distance education administrators face. Some of the issues identified include the following:

1. Learning curve and lack of historic place
“Distance education administrators face a different set of challenges than [do] any of the other administrators,” Lokken says. He explains that most universities’ senior administrators are uncertain about how to handle distance education, and part of this is due to the lack of historic precedent about how distance education fits into the larger academic scheme.

Many administrators take a distance education position after spending their career as a faculty member in a traditional academic department, Lokken says. This means the new distance education administrator faces a steep learning curve as he or she learns the special concerns of distance education.

“Other areas have career tracks,” says Lokken. Deans of traditional academic departments typically rise through the faculty ranks, taking on increasing areas of service and responsibility and observing the way the department is handled for many years before becoming dean.

On the other hand, a dean of distance education may assume that position with very little experience in the field, and there is not an established career track at most institutions for those who wish to become a distance education administrator. “Our responsibility or role is defined day by day and interpersonal relationship by interpersonal relationship,” says Lokken.

2. Campus politics and lack of power
Distance education administrators are also affected by a lack of power, as the successful discharge of their responsibilities often rests on the decisions of others. “We’re always outside our traditional silo,” says Lokken. For example, he explains, traditional departments often decide their future course offerings well in advance. However, some distance education departments don’t know which courses the departments wish to have offered online until they pick up the printed schedule for the upcoming semester.

This is a problem, because distance courses require “a longer planning cycle than almost any other kind of course on campus.” The lack of lead time leads to “train wreck after train wreck,” he says. These disasters happen when the departments want the distance courses taught by faculty members who are untrained or inexperienced in distance delivery, or who are unprepared for its particular challenges.

Added to this concern is the challenge of campus politics. Departments typically want control over what courses they offer and which faculty teach them, and they often resist attempts by the distance education office to give input on the hiring and assignment process, such as insight about the characteristics that are needed to teach successfully online. “Teaching online is dramatically different,” says Lokken. The distance education department, like any other, must meet its charge of maintaining quality of courses and meeting accreditation standards. “When we offer a degree online, it needs to meet the expectations of the traditional classroom,” he says.

3. Loss of autonomy
“There is a need for distance education administrators to be very proactive, to know what’s coming,” Lokken says. Sometimes, the failure to predict the worst can damage a reputation built during a time of success.

At the ITC Conference session, one participant told of a program that received a substantial federal grant for development of its distance education courses. The money was enough to allow for careful development, training, and execution. “They were really able to do it right,” says Lokken. “Doing it right” yielded good results. The distance education offerings “went from being a miniscule part of the enrollment to a significant part,” Lokken says. This was threatening to some of the traditional departments, and they responded by pulling back some of the autonomy of the distance education department and dividing this authority between the traditional departments and the deans. The distance education department’s success in this case led to its being rendered less powerful by the traditional departments.

4. Staffing concerns
Distance education can also present staffing challenges, as it is particularly vulnerable to damage from changes in personnel. Lokken notes that a single change in administrators can mean the loss of a champion of distance education, something that has a far greater impact on these programs with shorter histories than it would have on a traditional department with a long history of operation and success.

Faculty who teach online for the first time also “find it offers brand-new professional development challenges,” says Lokken. “It challenged me to think about teaching in ways I never had.” Some traditional faculty members will find they thrive in the online environment, while some will find their traditional classroom skills do not translate well.

This creates further problems for department chairs who “feel they’re robbing Peter to pay Paul,” Lokken says. Some chairs find they are “losing their best to teaching online,” and suddenly they find themselves “struggling to cover classes they never had [problems with before],” Lokken says. This creates an administrative headache that may make traditional departments question the need for distance education.

5. Student concerns
Campuses also need to be aware of student concerns and demands, particularly in a climate in which higher education options are plentiful and sometimes seem to have few differentiators. “Students don’t have to be loyal to your campus. If you’re not offering [the desired classes] online, then they will find another option,” Lokken says.

Distant education programs are also charged with maintaining quality and assuring that students have a good chance at success. Some attempts have fallen flat, however, like a program that mandated an on-campus orientation for its distance learning students. The students responded very poorly, and administrators had to rethink the program’s approach.

Excerpted from “Distance Ed Administration: 6 Hard Lessons.” Distance Education Report, 14.9 (2010): 5.

Results of the survey were released earlier this month in a report titled Trends in eLearning: Tracking the Impact of eLearning at Community Colleges. The survey was completed by 139 colleges, typically by the institution’s distance education administrator.

Since the survey began in 2004, respondents were asked to rate the greatest challenges for their distance education program. For all six years, the number one challenge has been the need for support staff for training and technical assistance. The second biggest challenge this year, moving up from number three, is adequate assessment of distance education classes.

Some of the key findings of the report:

• 21 percent offer blended courses; up from 15 percent last year.
• 71 percent continue to increase the number of blended courses each term; up from 53 percent last year.
• 81 percent cap enrollment for online classes.
• 72 percent develop their own course content; 21 percent use publisher content.
• 40 percent charge students an additional per-credit fee for take online courses.
• The most difficult classes to teach online remain unchanged from previous years and include: lab-based sciences, speech, clinical requirements, fine arts, nursing, math, industrial technology, foreign languages, and computer hardware.
• 63 percent have mandatory faculty training with most saying that “more than eight hours” are required.
• 40 percent allow full-time faculty to reside in another city or state from the institution.

Access a PDF of the report Trends in eLearning: Tracking the Impact of eLearning at Community Colleges, here »

For more information on the ITC, go to http://www.itcnetwork.org/

The faculty member’s point was well taken, and over the years Ragan and others on various committees at Penn State have worked to define:

Core competencies for online teaching success – Currently there are 28 competencies across the three main topic areas of technology, course administration, and pedagogy.

Online instructors’ performance expectations – Currently there are eight key performance expectations and a description of the associated behaviors.

Performance metrics – Although not all of the behaviors lend themselves to metrics, items such as feedback, availability and communication can be quantified.

“The online performance expectations are shared with online instructors as both a way to set the context for their online teaching experience and as a tool to help balance their own teaching expectations,” Ragan said. “They have been developed from almost 15 years of experience, best practices research, observations of what good instructors do, and student feedback.”

During the recent online video seminar Setting Expectations for Online Instructor Performance, Ragan explained the importance of defining expectations for the online classroom, as well as how to keep new instructors from getting overwhelmed.

Ragan also provided an overview of the eight performance expectations developed by the Penn State World Campus Performance Expectations Committee, and encouraged participants to adapt the categories and associated behaviors to the culture of their specific college or unit.

The online instructor performance expectations he discussed are:

1. Technology Access
The instructor is responsible for meeting the same technology requirements as required for students.

The instructor is expected to:

• Secure access to a high-speed bandwidth connection for class activities.
• Test all course-related technology prior to the start of the course.

2. Course Management and Instruction
The instructor is responsible for managing and teaching the class from start to finish.

The instructor is expected to:

• Follow the established and published course schedule.
• Conduct (that is, “teach”) the course within the scheduled time frame.
• Make and communicate schedule adjustments as necessary.
• Provide each student equal opportunity to succeed.

3. Preparation
The instructor is responsible for assuring that they possess the required skills and competencies for teaching online.

The instructor is expected to:

• Be operationally proficient in the course technology.
• Be prepared with the skills to teach online.
• Be able to complete the required administrative tasks necessary to complete the course.

4. Course Familiarity
The instructor is responsible for being adequately familiar with the online course.

The instructor is expected to:

• Be familiar with the syllabus including course milestones, due dates and critical course activities.
• Make changes to the syllabus as necessary and communicate the changes to the students.
• Review and be familiar with the course content.
• Identify and report inaccurate course content, confusing information and/or instructions, broken links, and other course design issues.
• Review the course teaching guide to gain an understanding of the intent/context of the course such as the author’s teaching philosophy, content, learning activities, and assessments.

5. Availability
The instructor is required to be available to the online learner for the duration of the course.

The instructor is expected to:

• Regularly access the online course.
• Notify students and appropriate administrative units if unable to log in to the course.

6. Communication
The online instructor is responsible for managing course–related communications.

The instructor is expected to:

• Clearly communicate student expectations.
• Communicate instructor class schedule and access.
• Actively participate in course-related discussions and activities where appropriate.

7. Feedback
The online instructor is responsible communicating with and providing feedback to students.

The instructor is expected to:

• Provide prompt feedback.
• Inform the learner of when they can expect a response if the instructor cannot provide a detailed response within 12 hours.
• Provide clear and concise feedback to explain the degree to which the student is achieving the course/lesson outcomes.
• Communicate to students when they can expect to receive graded feedback on assignments and exams.

8. Documentation & Record Keeping
The online instructor is responsible for maintaining records of course transactions and communications.

The instructor is expected to:

• Keep a record of communications with students including when other modes of communications are used.
• Record and communicate student progress information such as assignment and quiz grades.
• Post the final course grade promptly.

At Penn State World Campus, new instructors have a three-part training program that includes online pedagogy, a tour of the Learning Management System (LMS), and an orientation on the nuts and bolts of teaching in an online classroom. The goal is to streamline the teaching and learning process, and minimize the learning curves for new instructors.

In the online seminar How to Orient New Instructors to an Online Course FAST!, Jennifer Berghage, an instructional designer at Penn State World Campus, discussed her approach to orienting new instructors. It all begins with a comprehensive instructor tip sheet, which lives within the course site hidden from students but is always just a click away from instructors.

“What the tip sheet does is really highlight the administrative and participatory actions needed for modular lessons,” said Berghage. “Very often instructors new to teaching online are not used to what it is they have to do to interact with the students. It’s not like you’re standing in front of a classroom, so this tip sheet helps them understand that. I would probably say that a well-designed tip sheet is magic.”

The tip sheets contain both standard information and customized information, based on specific course and instructor preferences. The standard information explains how to use the announcement tool, set up office hours, set up chat spaces, and send an email greeting, as well as contact information for the instructional designer, help desk and student services. Customized information may relate to how to assign teams, whether to use peer evaluation, which assignments are ungraded but require feedback, and when to bring in outside articles or other resources.

As part of the orientation, Berghage also conducts individual website walk-through with each new instructor. The walk-through takes about 90 minutes and helps instructors get comfortable navigating within the course shell.

“Very often I will take the instructor through the pathway of the student,” she said. “It’s really kind of amazing how many instructors will be teaching an online course and never actually go to the website, never actually go through the steps that the student would go through. So I’ll take them, and I’ll say ‘You drive’ and they hate it and they laugh, but then you can hear the anxiety sort of diminish and you watch them build confidence, and it’s very satisfying for the instructors as well as for us.”

Bruce N. Chaloux, Ph.D., past president of the Sloan Consortium and a highly-respected authority in adult degree completion, discussed some of the unique needs of adult learners with Distance Education Report. What follows is an excerpt of that interview.

What are some important ways that these learners differ from traditional undergraduate students?

Chaloux: Adult learners vary significantly from traditional undergraduate students in several ways. Beyond the obvious age differential (traditional students typically ranging in age from 18-22 while adult learners span a much wider range from 25-60, or more), I would note four major differences for those adults who are the current focus–those returning to college when an earlier attempt was disrupted. Returning adults typically:

• take fewer hours, three or maybe six (at most) per term as they seek to balance work, family and other obligations;
• are more serious and dedicated to completing their educational objective;
• bring experiences to the classroom that most faculty find both enhances the learning experience for all students; and
• do not need or utilize most traditional services institutions provide to students (but still need other kinds of support services to be successful).

What are some of the most important forms of support we can offer these learners?

Chaloux: How and when the services are provided for adults is often critical. With many adults returning to the classroom after years away, some bring the need to “polish” off some academic “rust.” They may need assistance in writing, math and in developing strong study skills. While many institutions provide these kinds of services, most are provided for traditional students during “regular” 8-5 hours in on-campus settings. Returning adults can’t access these services at those times when they are miles away from the campus and need the services delivered evenings, weekends and even online. Many institutions have found that moving these services online not only benefits the adult learner but also the traditional learner who would like the same freedom of access. This would include advising, as well as a variety of administrative services such as paying a bill, purchasing books or completing a drop and add transaction.

What are some of the most effective media for reaching these learners?

Chaloux: Beyond structuring programs and services designed to meet the needs of returning adults, the single biggest challenge for institutions is how to reach these prospective students. We don’t have the luxury of direct and continual access we have through our high schools and community colleges for traditional-aged students. So many institutions continue to experiment with the most effective approaches to reaching adults. Not too surprisingly, the Internet has become the most popular, and one of the most effective and efficient ways to reach adults. Television has been effective, radio less so, and newspaper advertising has generally not been effective–as fewer individuals read traditional print forms (as online readership of newspapers continues to grow). Employers can be a critical component, including using internal websites (intranet), email campaigns and electronic newsletters.

For more information on this topic, check out the seminar Dr. Chaloux presented on “Effective Strategies for the Adult Degree Completion Market.” Learn More »

So what does this mean for distance education administrators? It means you need to make your program stand out, and you can do that by providing the training and support online faculty need to be effective in their positions, to feel connected to the institution, and to grow professionally. In the end, a stable roster of skilled and happy educators will not only save you money, but will result in a better learning experience for your students.

During the seminar, 10 Ways to Support Adjunct Faculty in Small Online Programs, Jeanne Widen, PhD,chair of the English Department at Ellis University, outlined how Ellis is able to establish a strong connection with the approximately 265 online adjuncts it employs.

The first step is a comprehensive training program which is conducted online over a two-week period with the expectation that new faculty spend about 10 hours per week taking part in the training. The orientation is led by an experienced facilitator and covers Learning Management System functionality, policies (including institution-wide policies on things like academic integrity and policies where instructors can use their discretion, such as whether to accept late work), expectations and evaluation criteria, online pedagogy and best practices, and institutional values.

Once new faculty complete the initial training, they are assigned to a mentor who will interact with them via phone and email throughout their first few courses. In some cases the mentor is the department chair. The mentor also observes their classes and provides detailed feedback, and conducts the performance evaluation.

“I think performance evaluation can be optimized to support online faculty and to establish that strong connection you want,” said Dr. Widen. “You should use it as an opportunity to get to know the individual instructor and make it as personal as possible instead of treating it as some impersonal process. You can focus on the strengths and contributions and recognize them formally. To make the evaluation a constructive process, you should try to make it formative rather punitive, meaning you should give concrete goals and suggestions for how an instructor can improve performance instead of simply pointing out where the instructor fell short.”

Many of the other practices Ellis University uses to train and retain its online adjuncts involve providing low-cost incentives and rewards, such as giving exemplary instructors their choice of specific courses, $100 gift cards, and recognition in departmental emails and on the Center for Teaching and Learning website. The university also works to integrate online adjuncts into the teaching community by including members on the faculty senate and its various committees, creating an online discussion space for sharing best practices as well as institutional information, supporting their professional development through conferences and webinars, and involving adjuncts in curriculum review and revision.

Ensuring quality in online programs more important now than ever. What are the factors that make it so crucial?

Schilke: Quality in online programs has become much more important over the past few years. Questions about their instructional value have been raised based on the publicity around a number of recent cheating scandals related to online courses. The federal government has implemented stricter guidelines in the most recent Higher Education Opportunity Act legislation to ensure student identity in online classes. There is also pressure on the regional accrediting bodies to look more closely at online programs during accreditation and reaccreditation visits.

These cases of lax academic integrity compounded by the rapid growth in online programs have put online learning in the spotlight. When done properly, online programs are not easier or less costly than face-to-face programs, they are just different. Online programs have unique challenges that impact their overall quality and the reputation of the institutions.

Do we need to enlist the active backing of top institutional administration to energize the development of our quality process?

Schilke: All quality programs have a better chance of success if top leadership is supportive and involved. There are parts of quality programs that can run at the department or division level, but to really experience success, top leadership must actively support it.

The eQuality program looks at quality from different perspectives. One unique perspective is the idea of quality administration. This looks at the administration’s policies, decisions, and actions, ensuring the institution does not build barriers to student, staff, or instructor success in the online classroom. eQuality also looks at existing policies in an effort to change those that impede student, staff, and instructor success. Without top leadership support, this will be extremely difficult.

We’d like to get a quality program in place as quickly as possible. What are some ways we can speed up the development process for our model?

Schilke: Start by looking at successful institutions and review the literature on best practices, then look closely at what your accrediting agency requires. Once you know what is expected, begin to develop your program centered on quality. Ensure you have plans for quality courses, quality instruction, quality support, and quality administration. However, keep your stakeholders involved in the process from the beginning and keep them involved.

Simply implementing programs, policies, and procedures from other institutions is not enough, though. Every institution is unique. Modify these to meet your institution’s requirements, make them yours. The eQuality model forms a foundation of quality that helps you build your program to match your unique characteristics.

How does faculty development fit into the quality program? Have you developed standards or guidelines for that?

Schilke: The most successful quality programs ensure they provide their stakeholders with the right tools to succeed. In online learning this means to give your faculty, staff, and students the technology, knowledge, and skills to do their respective jobs as effectively and efficiently as possible. This includes a proactive and living faculty development program. The faculty needs to know and experience what a satisfactory and exemplary course looks and feels like. They need to know how to improve their instruction to get the most out of their students.

We use and recommend a multifaceted approach to faculty development. We have our institutional-wide training courses and program in Blackboard, online teaching skills, media development, and an online instructor certificate program. These provide the foundation for teaching online. We use webinars to actively engage our instructors when we make major changes, like our recent Blackboard update. We also publish audio and enhanced podcasts on a wide range of topics to help instructors polish their techniques and understand administrative requirements.

For more on this topic, check out the seminar Schilke presented titled Ensuring Online Program Quality with the eQuality Model.

Muriel Oaks is dean of the Center for Distance and Professional Education at Washington State University. During the recent seminar titled New Ideas for Selling Blended Learning to Your Faculty, she offered an in-depth discussion of ways to convince administrators, faculty, and students of the value of blended learning, including:

When talking to administrators, point out that blended learning…

• impacts the entire institution.
• offers a learner-centered pedagogy.
• may integrate with the strategic plan.
• improves classroom utilization.
• can help match delivery to academic need.
• can help fill under-enrolled courses and programs.

When talking to faculty, point out that blended learning….

• gives them access to new resources.
• introduces them to online learning.
• is an opportunity for faculty development and lets them experiment with new pedagogies and techniques.
• helps meet student expectations and build student skills.
• allows for more flexible scheduling.
• retains the face-to-face aspect faculty may cherish.

When talking to students, point out blended learning…

• meets their expectations for utilizing technology.
• develops independent learning skills.
• offers increased flexibility and convenience.
• provides better access to those with job, family, or distance barriers.
• helps reduce educational costs.

Offering blended learning requires more than just setting up an LMS and telling the faculty to integrate it into their curriculum. Institutions must understand the variety of delivery modes available, investigate their potential audience, learn about the competition, and provide adequate support for both students and faculty.

Consider the following scenario:
An economics professor on your campus records a program from MSNBC on her DVD recorder at home and then shows the film to her online economics class over your college broadcast network. Is this acceptable? To further help the students, she copies several articles off the Internet from The Economist and BusinessWeek magazines and places them on her college Web page.

Is this copyright infringement or does it fall under the heading of “fair use”?

This is an extremely common problem at many colleges across the United States, because faculty have grown to believe that everything they do in a classroom is considered to be fair use as long as it is for educational purposes. This view seems to have extended to the online arena as well, which is more exposed to the public. This merely increases the likelihood that violators will be caught.

To avoid copyright problems in both online and face-to-face classes, the first key is to stick within what are called “fair use” guidelines. A common test that courts often apply to determine if infringement has occurred is to consider whether you are reproducing material (photocopying articles, scanning images, or recording a show and posting it on your website) merely to avoid purchasing the work. This is the most important component of the “Fair Use Four-Part Test.” This is the most significant factor that courts will consider in determining infringement.

Many faculty members lament the fact that books are so expensive and wonder if they can just copy parts of them and post them online for students. Of course, if you are doing that to avoid having your students purchase the work, then you are taking away market and income from that author. If that is the case, you are violating fair use.

In addition, many colleges and universities throughout the United States no longer indemnify a professor or administrator who is sued for a copyright violation. What that means is the college is not going to be standing behind you, with its legal team supporting you, if you are named in a legal action. If you violate copyright laws, you are going to be trudging into court on your own to defend yourself against a lawsuit. You will be hiring your own attorney to do so. This is not just career breaking, but it can destroy your personal finances as well.

Excerpted from What Distance Ed Administrators Must Know About the Law, a Magna white paper. Learn more about this valuable resource »

With the advent of e-learning and blended courses, the role of the librarian in education has certainly changed. Today, the library and the librarian can and should be integral parts of a course, with a role in curriculum design. This is the position espoused by Jim Julius, associate director of instructional technology services at San Diego State University. He explains what the library can bring to online learning.

Today, the librarian can be a partner, a collaborator in curriculum design. In addition to roles as curator and mediator, he or she can be embedded into classes, helping faculty and instructional designers construct curriculum and helping provide information literacy and other 21st century skills training.

Collaboration between the library and faculty and instructional designers can strengthen student learning and build effective teaching practices. Collaboration allows the institution to make use of the resources and expertise found in the library for curriculum design and selection of instructional materials. Collaboration allows the institution to move toward common goals for faculty development and student learning, and it helps the institution deal with challenges like shrinking budgets, expanding class sizes, and hybridization of courses. Finally, collaboration is a working example of a desirable approach for faculty to take with their peers and students.

Three levels of collaboration
At San Diego State University, “the librarians have been a big part of our Course Design Institute,” says Julius. The CDI is a fellowship program that helps faculty redesign their courses to include blended and online instruction, and librarians work with faculty to develop partnerships, construct curriculum, embed library services into classes, and provide information literacy training in courses.

Librarians become involved with course development in three different ways, each providing a different level of involvement. At the “most intense” level, Julius says, is the professional learning communities, a version of a faculty learning community that involves subject matter faculty, library faculty, and professional staff that gather to explore course design. Usually, one or two librarians participate in each group, and they are “hearing what faculty are thinking,” says Julius. This enables them to better pursue the goals of integrating library resources and expertise into classes. Julius calls this “the full service version” of library involvement.

At “the other end of the spectrum,” Julius says, is the Center for Teaching and Learning Lunch Series. In this series, librarians and other representatives plan 12 to 15 lunches each semester that fit into six different tracks: Provost’s Lunches on Learning, Learning 2.0, Student Diversity and Success, Architecture of the Curriculum, Learning Stores: Adventures in Course Design, and New Faculty Lunches. These lunches help develop partnerships and provide outreach services, allowing ultimately for greater librarian involvement.

The third, middle route of involvement is the librarian as research and subject guide. Librarians can collaborate to help determine methods for including library resources on Blackboard, including investigating third-party software packages that may come into play. Julius also notes that the librarians can create a subject guide for any course, with an RSS feed pasted into Blackboard delivering the latest information. These activities are part of “helping faculty become more aware of their subject area librarians,” he says.

From there, integrating a librarian into courses can take many paths. In classes with a research component, Julius explains that faculty can involve an information literacy librarian to help engage the students. The librarian “becomes a partner or co-teacher,” says Julius.

Excerpted from Are You Maximizing Support From the Library?, Distance Education Report, volume 13, number 15.

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

Persistence is a key issue for community colleges because they tend to be driven by FTEs. These institutions are typically open admission, and maintaining a certain level of FTE determines the school’s funding for the next year.

To better understand online course persistence, Knipe contacted colleagues at area community colleges. “All [were] seeing about a 70 percent on-time completion rate, down from 80 percent,” he says. However, most research done at that point on online student persistence focused on programs at the baccalaureate level. So, Knipe constructed a “Top Ten” list based on his research that helps community colleges understand when students are most at risk for not completing an online course.

Knipe’s Top Ten Persistence Factors
#10: Learning Style: For a student to be most successful in an online course, he or she must have a learning style that is compatible with the demands of the course. This requires a certain ability to study independently; it also requires a match between the visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learning qualities of the course and the style of the student. There are several online assessments available which students can use to understand their own learning styles.

#9: Previous Success with College Work: As any academic advisor will attest, there is a degree of uncertainty with a new student (or a student new to the institution). Students who have demonstrated that they can handle college-level work are more likely to be successful studying online.

#8: First Time Distance Learning Student: Likewise, a student who has never studied online has no track record demonstrating their ability to handle these classes. The first time distance learning student is something of an unknown.

#7: Technical Factors: Technical factors can also be risk factors for some students, including those who have substandard skills, those who have problems with access, and those whose hardware and/or software are incompatible with the university.

#6: Gender: Being male can be a risk factor for failure to persist, but only up to a certain age. “Young males don’t do as well; older guys do,” Knipe says. Male grade performance trails that of females up until the age of about 25-30, after which men outperform women.

#5: Developmental Needs: These needs include reading, writing, math, and study skills. In a presentation on the subject, Knipe identified the following data point: “For a 50/50 chance of earning a C or better in any online course, basic academic skills should be at college English level.”

#4: Engagement: “Student engagement correlates highly with on-time completion,” Knipe comments. Lack of engagement can come in several forms, including lack of engagement with the course, instructor, other students, or material; lack of feedback; lack of community; or poor instructional design, to name a few areas of potential pitfall.

#3: Age: Academic performance correlates with age. As mentioned in #6 above, gender is a predictive factor in persistence; likewise, both men’s and women’s mean grades rise as they age, although the men make more dramatic strides while the women remain relatively consistent until the age of 25-30, after which they begin to academically improve as they age.

#2: Poor or Nonexistent Advising: Students who receive no advising or who self-advise are subject to a number of potential risks, such as approaching a class with an unrealistic expectation of the time or workload commitment, an assumption that online learning will be passive, or beginning the class with poor time management skills.

#1: Time of Registration: The most dramatic indicator of risk of non-persistence is time of registration. Those who registered 70 or more days from the beginning of the class posted the highest mean grade average, while those who registered after the class had started were very likely to fail.

Strategies for Addressing Online Persistence
So what does an institution do with this sort of information? Knipe explains that there are three ways to improve persistence: better instructional design, gatekeeping, and systemic improvement.

Better instructional design: By improving instructional design, the institution can impact many of the factors within its own control. The institution can do this by training faculty adequately, insuring that course design includes ample opportunities for interaction and feedback, and that faculty can learn from one another through best practices and mentoring.

Gatekeeping: This is the process of allowing the students best-suited for online study to register for the course, while consulting with those at risk before allowing them to proceed. For example, institutions can suggest or require that students take learning style assessments and technical assessment to insure both they and their technology (computers, internet access) are suited for the demands of the course. Knipe also suggest a block be automatically put on a student registration for an online course if the student exhibits one or multiple risk factors; for example, a student attempting to register for a course after the start date may be asked to see both an advisor and the course instructor for counseling about suitability for the course.

Systemic Improvements: Even the best-designed online courses will be problematic if the student support and business processes do not work to the students’ advantage. Knipe reminds campuses that all business process, including admissions, registration, financial aid, and bookstore, must be virtual and distance-learning-friendly, as should student support services like the library, bookstore, tutoring, and the like.

Ultimately, many of the findings of Knipe’s research are somewhat intuitive, while others may raise an eyebrow or two. However, understanding the factors that may put a student at risk for failure to persist in an online class can lead to better advising, better course design, better systems, and a better institution.

Reprinted from How Ten Critical Factors Determine Persistence in Community College Online Programs, November 15, 2009, Distance Education Report.

Florida State College at Jacksonville (formerly Florida Community College at Jacksonville) Open Campus has borrowed a page from the corporate sector to create a continuous process improvement plan based on elements of the ISO9000 and TQM quality assurance programs.

In the recent online seminar, Ensuring Online Program Quality with the eQuality Model, Richard Schilke, EdD., associate dean for online Liberal Arts and Sciences at the Open Campus, outlined the school’s system for measuring and delivering quality in its distance learning programs.

The eQuality program looks at quality from four different perspectives, which the Open Campus calls the four pillars of program quality, and has qualitative and quantitative assessments for each.

1. Quality Courses – The quality checks in this area ensure the courses provide a sound learning environment, implement best practices in online learning, meet college requirements for academic rigor, and reflect all official curriculum requirements.
2. Quality Instruction – The quality checks in this area ensure sound instructional approaches and techniques for reducing the transactional distance in online courses.
3. Quality Support – The quality checks in this area focus on those elements outside the courses that make the teaching and learning experience easier and more fulfilling, including, technical support, student advisement, faculty training, and staff training and development.
4. Quality Administration – The quality checks in this area examine the policies, procedures, guidelines, and other interactions between the institution and the staff, faculty, and students. The goal is to minimize the organizational barriers to student success, student satisfaction, and faculty satisfaction. This pillar is by far the most complicated to manage and improve, Schilke says.

“The most successful quality programs ensure they provide their stakeholders with the right tools to succeed,” says Schilke. “In online learning this means giving your faculty, staff, and students the technology, knowledge, and skills to do their respective jobs as effectively and efficiently as possible.”