SITE PresentationJANE STRICKLAND (IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY)

A. W. STRICKLAND (IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY)

Introduction3 research facets addressed:

How has online instruction affected the curriculum development process? How has the abundance of online courses affected the role of higher

education faculty? What research variables have been examined relative to learning outcomes

in LMS-managed delivery v. traditional (f2f) course delivery?

Change in curriculum development Denning, Goldin, & Kats (2012)As of 2009, for-profit higher education entities growth – from 18,000+ to 1.85

million◦ 93%+ through asynchronous instruction only

Student criticisms = inflexible learning protocols

Merrill called for use of carefully constructed ID principles to ensure materials support expected learning outcomes while providing flexibility for today’s learners

Current investigation: 4 key elements to content integrity1. The goal statement2. The objectives3. Thorough analysis of the targeted audience4. The expected learning outcome(s)

Key instructional elements in the online curriculum of for-profit higher education institutions

Goal Objectives Targeted Audience Learning Outcome(s)

Institution 1:

Education (MS) 1 0 0 0

Education (PhD/EdD)

1 1 1 0

Nursing (BS) 1 1 0 0

Psychology 1 0 0 0

Institution 2:

Education (MS) 1 0 0 0

Education (PhD/EdD)

1 0 0 0

Psychology (MS) 1 0 0 0

Key instructional elements in online curriculum brick-&-mortar higher educational institutions: 1st institution …

Goal Objectives Targeted Audience Learning Outcome(s)

Institution 1:

Biology (BS) 1 1 1 1

Education (MS) 1 1 0 0

Education (PhD/EdD)

1 1 0 0

Anthropology (BS)

1 1 0 0

Mathematics (BS) 1 0 0 0

Psychology (BS) 1 1 0 1

Psychology (MS) 1 0 0 0

Nursing (BS) 1 1 1 0

Dental Hygiene (BS)

1 1 1 1

Key instructional elements in online curriculum brick-&-mortar higher educational institutions: 2nd institution …

Goal Objectives Targeted Audience Learning Outcome(s)

Institution 2:

Business (BA) 1 1 1 1

Education (BA) 1 1 1 1

Psychology (BS) 1 1 1 1

Accounting (BS) 1 1 1 1

Changing role of faculty in for-profit and brick-&-mortar higher education institutions (N=2)

For Profit Brick-&-Mortar

Yes No Yes No

Do you create the online course curriculum? 7 0 13 0

Do you create the assessment instruments? 2 5 13 0

Do you deliver the instruction? 7 0 13 0

Do you create the delivery method for the instruction? 0 7 13 0

Do you monitor individual student online course progress? 7 0 13 0

Do you grade student discussion responses? 6 2 7 0

Do you grade student assessment responses? 6 1 13 0

Do you grade student attendance? 7 0 5 8

Do you use the # of student discussion responses per forum as an evaluation tool? 7 0 0 13

Brick-&-Mortar Traditional Faculty Role Develop course content Deliver instruction Determine the instructional delivery method Determine frequency of instructor-student

interaction Create assessments Determine the assessment type Determine the frequency of assessment Determine the relative value of each assessment Grade assessment Monitor student progress Report final grades

Current Brick-&-Mortar Online Faculty Role Develop course content Deliver instruction Determine the instructional delivery method Determine frequency of instructor-student

interaction Create assessments Determine the assessment type Determine the frequency of assessment Determine the relative value of each assessment Grade assessment Monitor student progress Report final grades

Differences between faculty roles in traditional & online brick-&-mortar institutions

Faculty role in for-profit online institutions

For-Profit Online Institution Faculty Role Deliver instruction Grade assessment Monitor student progress Report final gradesInstitution determines … Frequency of instructor-student interaction Assessments Type of assessments Frequency of assessments Relative value of each assessment

Conclusions from current study … Curriculum development is being affected by the rush to

move to online formats.This could undermine possibilities for full instructor-to-peer engagement

Content experts, instructional experts, and IDEs must be seen as partners (team members) to effectively meet the needs of diverse learners (the consumers of content).

Role of higher education faculty is changing … from content experts to instructors who deliver what someone else designs.

Ongoing research …Three data benchmark years were examined: 2002, 2007,

and 2014. 15 institutions were contacted and asked to participate in

a follow-up survey. Five of the institutions expressed no interest in participating. 10 institutions agreed to respond to questions regarding instructor

responsibility for creation and evaluation of online course assessments. However, only seven of the 10 provided data for the three benchmark years.

Supplementary survey investigation Degree of faculty participation in creating assessment

instruments for student performance in asynchronous online courses.

Year Univ 1 Univ 2 Univ 3 Univ 4 Univ 5 Univ 6 Univ 7

2002 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30

2007 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.15 0.20

2014 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.15

Table 1: 2002 analysisIn 2002 (Table 1) all of the seven institutions had online

delivered courses utilizing an instructional design model that included instructor-created course assessment instruments.

The percentage of instructor participation in this process ranged from a high of 30% to a low of 20%.

Table 1: 2007 analysisIn 2007 (Table 1) all of the seven institutions had online

delivered courses utilizing an instructional design model that included instructor-created course assessment instruments.

The percentage of instructor participation in this process ranged from a high of 20% to a low of 10%.

Table 1: 2014 analysisIn 2014 (Table 1) all of the seven institutions had online

delivered courses utilizing an instructional design model that included instructor-created course assessment instruments.

The percentage of instructor participation in this process ranged from a high of 15% to a low of 0%.

Assessment trend results

Conclusion It is obvious from the research submitted and the ongoing

investigation that there is a diminishment of faculty participation in course creation and assessment.

To improve student performance in asynchronous, synchronous, and blended formats more emphasis is needed in faculty involvement in curriculum development.