Leading the eLearning Transformation of Higher Education: Leadership Strategies for the Next Generation 9781642671490, 9781642671483, 9781003445623, 1642671495

Citation preview

Praise for Leading the eLearning Transformation of Higher Education, Second Edition “In these times of increasing reliance on eLearning, this text is an essential guidebook for leaders who intend to launch into the sometimes choppy waters of innovating through online learning. The information in this book will help leaders at all levels chart a course of action that will lead institutions to effective implementation and consequent transformation.”—Ali Charr-Chellman; Dean; College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences; University of Idaho “If you are a university leader whose institution just became 100% online thanks to COVID-19, this is an essential book. Miller and Ives have curated timely wellhoned chapters on key topics that will serve as a guiding light for your overnight transformation. The chapter contributors are the standouts of online education from its inception to current experts. A strong combination of research-informed practice and many ‘how-tos’—a book you need today when the future just landed at your feet. And make no mistake, there is no going back to pre-COVID-19 normal. From now on you will need to be conversant with some level of quality online education. Start with this book.”—Marie Cini, Executive Consultant and Strategic Advisor, ED2WORK “An amazingly well-researched and solid piece of work that provides the necessary historical platform upon which we can build a future of learning that moves beyond eLearning as a category to learning in general in the information age. This contribution made by the actual pioneers, architects, and innovators in eLearning provides an authentic document reflecting the last 3 decades of hard work against entrenched odds.”—Gordon Freedman, President, National Laboratory for Education Transformation (NLET) “This book is a must-read for aspiring and present online leaders who want to learn more about the intersection of technology, innovation, and leadership. The collective wisdom of these experts in the eLearning field brings thoughtful and insightful perspectives on the eLearning landscape at an unprecedented time in our history when online learning is relied on more than ever to transform higher education.”— Chris A. Bustamante, former President of Rio Salado College, CAEL Senior Fellow, and Education Consultant “This is one of those books that every educator, administrator and policymaker needs to read now. The experts, who represent online learning’s visionaries, innovators and practitioners, offer up clear and authoritative guidance at a time when it could not be more relevant or essential. They have rendered higher education a path forward in its hour of need.”—Anthony G. Picciano, Professor, Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center School of Education

L E A D I N G T H E e L E A R N I N G T R A N S F O R M AT I O N O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

LEADING THE eLEARNING TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Leadership Strategies for the Next Generation

Edited by Gary E. Miller and Kathleen S. Ives Foreword by Michael Grahame Moore Second Edition

Published in association with

First published 2020 by Stylus Publishing, LLC. First Edition, 2020 Published 2023 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2020 Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Miller, Gary E., editor. | Ives, Kathleen S., 1955- editor. Title: Leading the e-learning transformation of higher education : leadership strategies for the next generation / edited by Gary E. Miller, Kathleen S. Ives ; foreword by Michael Moore. Description: Second edition. | Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2020026250 | ISBN 9781642671490 (paperback) | ISBN 9781642671483 (hardcover) ISBN 13: 978-1-64267-148-3 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-64267-149-0 (pbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-00-344562-3 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003445623

This edition is dedicated to Ralph Gomory and Frank Mayadas in appreciation for their longtime leadership in the eLearning movement and their role in fostering a national eLearning professional community.

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

ix

Michael Grahame Moore PREFACE

xiii

Gary E. Miller and Kathleen S. Ives ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xix

PART ONE: THE LEADERSHIP CONTEXT 1

eLEARNING AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

3

Gary E. Miller 2

LEADERSHIP FOR ONLINE LEARNING IN U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION

24

Eric E. Fredericksen 3

LEADING CHANGE IN THE MAINSTREAM A Strategic Approach

43

Gary E. Miller 4

LEADERSHIP AND DIVERSITY

55

Cristi Ford and Kathleen S. Ives PART TWO: ENSURING OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 5

WHAT eLEARNING LEADERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS

75

Peter Shea and Karen Swan 6

WHAT eLEARNING LEADERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ONLINE TEACHING

Karen Swan and Peter Shea

vii

96

viii 7

contents

SUPPORTING FACULTY SUCCESS IN ONLINE LEARNING Requirements for Individual and Institutional Leadership

116

Lawrence C. Ragan, Thomas B. Cavanagh, Raymond Schroeder, and Kelvin Thompson 8

ONLINE STUDENT SERVICES OPTIMIZE SUCCESS AND ENGAGEMENT FOR ALL STUDENTS

138

Meg Benke, Victoria Brown, and Joshton Strigle 9

MOVING INTO THE TECHNOLOGY MAINSTREAM

157

David W. Andrews, Colin Marlaire, and Andrew Shean 10 ACCESSIBILITY

180

Cyndi Rowland and Kelly Hermann 11 OPERATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN A STRATEGIC CONTEXT

201

Raymond Schroeder PART THREE: SUSTAINING THE INNOVATION 12 LEADING A QUALITY ONLINE ORGANIZATION

221

Jennifer Mathes and Kaye Shelton 13 LEADING BEYOND THE ORGANIZATION

241

Meg Benke and Mary Niemiec 14 PREPARING TO LEAD THE eLEARNING TRANSFORMATION

256

Kathleen S. Ives, Devon A. Cancilla, and Lawrence C. Ragan 15 EMERGING LEADERSHIP ISSUES

277

Elizabeth Ciabocchi CONTRIBUTORS

299

INDEX

313

FOREWORD

L

eading the eLearning Transformation of Higher Education—at a time of global crisis! It is always gratifying to be invited to provide a foreword to a new book—even more so when, as in this case, it is a second edition of one that I commissioned myself when serving as the founding editor of a Stylus Publishing, LLC series. So, to begin, I extend my thanks for this opportunity to welcome readers and offer my congratulations to the publisher and editors, as well as all those who have contributed to this new edition. It is the reputations of these contributors that I assume first drew readers’ attention to the book. Or perhaps that first look was prompted by the book’s title, because it surely promises a lot. It suggests a venture into a world of higher education undergoing change so profound as to be called transformative. This is a transformation driven by those same electronic technologies that have become a defining feature of all American society in the first decades of this century. And then, above all else, this book is an examination of leadership. What are the options for academics and administrators faced with the need to adjust long-held practices of teaching? How can they manage financial and human resources so students, workers, and society itself can benefit from (and not fall afoul of ) the changes that electronic communications have made possible? What can be learned from their successes so far, and what from their failures? Worthy questions to put to our leaders at any period in history—but how extraordinarily pertinent at this particular time! What a timely book this is! As I write, in April 2020, the whole world is in turmoil, as humankind confronts the coronavirus pandemic. As we try to come to terms with its consequences, we are experiencing unprecedented changes in every walk of life, including not only health care, travel, and remote work but also the whole educational system from preschool to the doctorate. Every major university, as well as most other educational institutions (even my piano teacher!) in the United States has quickly, almost overnight, turned to electronic communication as the means of keeping their students “in school.” Distance education, the pedagogical method that we, a minority of enthusiasts, have claimed for decades as capable of providing a quality learning experience to anyone not able or willing to be in a face-toface environment, has become the default methodology of higher education ix

x

foreword

throughout the United States and much of the rest of the world. As editor of The American Journal of Distance Education, I just read an unpublished manuscript submitted from China that said half a billion students are now learning online in that country. How well will our institutions respond to the challenges of the spring of 2020? It depends on the competence and knowledge of those in positions of leadership. And surely it must be those who have at least some knowledge and experience with distance education who will have to take the lead in bringing about the changes (in pedagogy and in resource distribution) that the present situation—and the future—call for. There is much reason for hope but no reason for complacency. I am afraid that in moving to what some institutional leaders have termed remote learning, instructors might have in mind a simple replication of their traditional classroom teaching model. That is, they aim to reproduce what they experience in the classroom and lecture hall in an online space. That is a recipe for mediocrity at best, if not an outright disaster. Every contributor to this book knows, whatever the level of their responsibility in their institution, that there is more to providing good quality distance education than a mere extension of the classroom. They know that good distance education isn’t rocket science, but there are aspects of course design and development as well as instructor performance that are essential for a school to take good advantage of the opportunities that mediated communications offer. We know that likelihood of success in distance learning increases when every period of instruction is tightly structured. Ideally, courses proceed with specific, measurable outcomes that lead to a systematic cascade of learning. Carefully linked, scientifically selected applications of a variety of media resources are critical components. In most online lessons space should be allocated for interactions between learners with learners and teacher with learner. And we know that this has to be more carefully designed and managed than in many classrooms where teachers may rely on intuition and impulse and their ability to respond spontaneously in the face-to-face setting. In short, we know a great deal about how to facilitate efficient course structure and constructive dialogue on both the part of the instructor and the student. So now we are faced with an unprecedented opportunity and a vital need for this knowledge to be passed to and shared with all colleagues whose background is in more traditional teaching. It is especially important to inform those who make policy at state and federal levels. It is critical to understand that distance education pedagogy, delivered through electronic technologies, will provide excellent and efficient educational programs but will require innovation in financial and human resource policies.

foreword

xi

Thus, here is a book written by educators who know how to do distance education and how to do it well. Coming at this time of unprecedented national challenge, it could and should be an invaluable source of ideas, experiences, and inspiration for all leaders of education at the institutional, state, and national levels as they face a sudden and unexpected opportunity: to lead transformation from old ways of teaching and learning to a better way. They can achieve this by adapting what we already know from decades of study and practice in distance education, offering the possibility of making higher education as good as we know it could be. I hope this book will help this message get through to those who need to hear it! Michael Grahame Moore Editor, The American Journal of Distance Education Distinguished Professor of Education, The Pennsylvania State University

PREFACE Gary E. Miller and Kathleen S. Ives

T

he first edition of Leading the eLearning Transformation of Higher Education in 2014 was an opportunity for a group of first-generation eLearning leaders in the field to share their experiences and insights into the evolving role of eLearning in our institutions and how eLearning can help leaders realize their vision for higher education in a rapidly changing technological and social environment. The years since have seen continued innovation in eLearning formats and applications and growth in the number of institutions offering eLearning courses, the number and variety of degree and certificate programs offered through eLearning, and the number of students taking part or all of their higher education courses via eLearning. At the same time, of course, there has been even more rapid innovation in the technology itself. In the midst of this change, eLearning leaders have realized that eLearning is no longer an experiment or innovation on the fringes of our higher education system. It is moving inexorably into the mainstream as colleges and universities strive to adapt to the maturation of our information society and strive to keep pace with technological change and the impact of that change on how we live, how we work, and how our communities thrive in a mature global information society. Today’s eLearning leaders brought experiences from many different parts of the field and higher education in general into their current roles. Some grew into their leadership roles through their work in the technologies used in eLearning. Others came to leadership through careers serving adult students in outreach and continuing education units of their home universities. Still others have roots in academic disciplines and discovered eLearning through their own pioneering use of eLearning as faculty members and instructors. This second edition of Leading the eLearning Transformation of Higher Education has been updated and expanded to reflect the increasing complexity of the field with seven new chapters and the revision of eight chapters that appeared in the first edition. It contains updated perspectives from many of the original contributors but also new thinking from a new generation of leaders who share their perspectives on the challenges of leading eLearning xiii

xiv

preface

into a rapidly changing higher education mainstream at a time of increasing technological and social change.

Part One: The Leadership Context Part One explores eLearning as part of a broader transformation of education to meet the needs of the information society. The chapters explore the dimensions of that transformation and the challenge facing eLearning leaders in terms of the broader organizational structure, integrating the eLearning operation into the institution-wide strategy, leading policy innovation, and developing a personal leadership style. In chapter 1, “eLearning and the Transformation of Higher Education,” Gary E. Miller puts eLearning into the historical context of a distance education tradition that began with correspondence study in the Industrial Revolution and that has evolved with the ever-expanding technological changes that have marked the Information Revolution. The chapter describes how eLearning is emerging as a centerpiece of institutional strategy as higher education responds to the new challenges presented by technological and social changes stimulated by the globalized information society. In chapter 2, “Leadership for Online Learning in U.S. Higher Education,” Eric E. Fredericksen reports on a series of studies conducted in 2016–2017 with more than 820 online learning leaders at universities and 752 online leaders at community colleges. The studies developed a systematic and comprehensive list of leaders for online learning in U.S. higher education, gathering information about the leadership position, professional experience of eLearning leaders, and demographic information. The studies also explored how differences and similarities among the institutions affect the leader’s role. In chapter 3, “Leading Change in the Mainstream: A Strategic Approach,” Gary E. Miller examines the challenge of leading within the context of the broader institutional culture, as seen through the work of several leadership experts—Jim Collins, Anatole Lieven, and John Hulsman—and interviews with eLearning leaders conducted by Elizabeth Burge. In chapter 4, “Leadership and Diversity,” Cristi Ford and Kathleen S. Ives examine the importance of diversity in a learning environment that, by eliminating geography and time as natural limits, has greatly expanded access to students from diverse backgrounds.

preface

xv

Part Two: Ensuring Operational Effectiveness Part Two focuses on the operational aspects of leading an eLearning organization, with special emphasis on supporting faculty and integrating eLearning into the faculty reward system, enhancing learning effectiveness and pedagogy, and ensuring quality in the student’s experience. This part includes perspectives of senior leaders and researchers on learning effectiveness, teaching effectiveness, how leaders can best empower and support faculty, how to support students and optimize student engagement, issues involved in merging institutional and technological innovation, and the challenges of ensuring accessibility. In chapter 5, “What eLearning Leaders Should Know About Learning Effectiveness,” Peter Shea and Karen Swan begin by noting the importance of ensuring learning effectiveness in this new learning environment, where there is still little research to guide leaders. They summarize recent research into the effectiveness of eLearning and examine the innovative community of inquiry framework and note several approaches to measuring learning processes in the online environment. In chapter 6, “What eLearning Leaders Should Know About Online Teaching,” Karen Swan and Peter Shea examine the need for eLearning leaders to understand how online learning is different from earlier distance education methodologies. They also examine the need for leaders to familiarize themselves with the collaborative and connectivist pedagogies and instructional strategies inherent in online learning in order to effectively manage the learning environment and be effective in representing the environment to the institution at large. In chapter 7, “Supporting Faculty Success in Online Learning: Requirements for Individual and Institutional Leadership,” Lawrence C. Ragan, Thomas B. Cavanagh, Raymond Schroeder, and Kelvin Thompson explore the importance of faculty development programs to prepare faculty at traditional institutions to be effective in the online environment. They focus on the need for professional development programs for individual faculty and for institutional policies and services that help ensure faculty success in the online environment. In chapter 8, “Online Student Services Optimize Success and Engagement for All Students,” Meg Benke, Victoria Brown, and Joshton Strigle describe the critical importance of creating student support services that speak to both the needs of online students and the culture of the institution. They look at several organizational initiatives and the ongoing leadership challenges of ensuring not only student satisfaction but also student

xvi

preface

success in the online environment. The chapter includes discussion of several institutional models. In chapter 9, “Moving Into the Technology Mainstream,” David W. Andrews, Colin Marlaire, and Andrew Shean explore how online technology is changing both the idea of a “classroom” and the traditional image of a student. They look at a variety of emerging technology tools and environments and how these are creating new opportunities for institutional innovation; collaboration; and, ultimately, a new learning ecosystem. As eLearning expands in terms of the number of institutions involved, the number of degree programs and courses offered, and the number of students served, access to technology is becoming a critical issue in higher education. In chapter 10, “Accessibility,” Cyndi Rowland and Kelly Hermann give us a primer on digital accessibility in higher education and then look at five challenges that leaders need to champion in order to prepare their institutions for success. In chapter 11, “Operational Leadership in a Strategic Context,” Raymond Schroeder notes that leaders of many online learning programs have come from a wide range of backgrounds. In this chapter, he describes five qualities of an effective operational leader and explores seven key hallmarks of leadership in the field that, while they vary in intensity from institution to institution, are relevant to leadership success at all institutions.

Part Three: Sustaining the Innovation Part Three explores leadership challenges that are emerging as the transformation process proceeds. Individual chapters focus on the leadership implications of a new institutional infrastructure, the critical importance of leaders engaging beyond their institutions to gain perspective and to help shape the societal and professional context, and the need to lead within the context of a long-term vision. This second edition concludes with a roundtable of current eLearning leaders discussing emerging leadership issues. In chapter 12, “Leading a Quality Online Organization,” Jennifer Mathes and Kaye Shelton explore what leaders can do to create and sustain a culture of quality across all aspects of an eLearning program. They examine the need for evaluation of quality at multiple levels and how to use the Quality Scorecard developed by the Online Learning Consortium. In chapter 13, “Leading Beyond the Organization,” Meg Benke and Mary Niemiec examine how eLearning leaders can bring new insights to their institutional roles by participating in a variety of external leadership opportunities such as professional associations, accreditation agencies, and

preface

xvii

other multi-institutional alliances and collaborations that allow them to learn from the experiences of peers at other institutions while helping influence the field as a whole. In chapter 14, “Preparing to Lead the eLearning Transformation,” Kathleen S. Ives, Devon A. Cancilla, and Lawrence C. Ragan look back at a decade of experience in a major professional development program for eLearning leaders—the Institute for Emerging Leadership in Online Learning (IELOL)—and discuss what it has taught them about leadership strategies and competencies that will continue to serve new leaders in the future. In chapter 15, “Emerging Leadership Issues,” Elizabeth Ciabocchi leads a roundtable discussion with eight leaders, including several contributors to this second edition, to explore their insights into a wide range of eLearning leadership issues and some emerging leadership challenges for the field.

Conclusion Over the past two decades, eLearning has emerged as a highly visible example of how higher education is adapting to new needs as our institutions respond to the evolution of the information society; the globalization of the industrial supply chain; and, most recently, a worldwide pandemic, which drove institutions to virtual environments to work and learn. The result is a world in which rapid and profound change is becoming a part of everyday life. In this environment, eLearning is taking on new and important roles in K–12 education, daily work, and professional development in addition to higher education. As eLearning enters the mainstream of institutional life, the challenge to the eLearning leader has evolved. Increasingly, the job is not merely to innovate with technology but also to shape a new dimension of higher education’s work as lifelong learning becomes a practical necessity for professionals in our society. In this environment, eLearning leaders must not only attend to operational issues but also ensure that the work of their eLearning unit generates a return on investment. Within the institution, this involves making sure that the eLearning organization returns on the institution’s investment by not only recovering costs but also a ensuring long-term financial and operational sustainability and helping eLearning find its place in the organizational culture. At the same time, the eLearning leader can ensure that programs and services return on the institution’s investment in other ways by stimulating new relationships with client organizations that can lead to innovations in research and collaboration. This second edition of Leading the eLearning Transformation of Higher Education offers insights that can help leaders achieve this goal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I

t has been a quarter century since the earliest innovations in eLearning caught the imagination of institutions that were trying to adapt to the demands of the information society. As we begin this second edition of Leading the eLearning Transformation of Higher Education: Leadership Strategies for the Next Generation, the contributors want to acknowledge colleagues who helped shape the first generation of eLearning at their institutions and who together shaped the eLearning professional community.

xix

PA RT O N E THE LEADERSHIP CONTEXT

1 eLEARNING AND THE T R A N S F O R M AT I O N O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N Gary E. Miller

e

Learning began two decades ago as a disruptive change in higher education, centered around the use of online technology to transform the century-old practice of extending higher education to off-campus adult students through distance education. Today, it is emerging as a means by which higher education institutions can more effectively respond to diverse societal changes wrought by a maturing Information Revolution, helping students prepare for their roles as citizens and professionals in a rapidly changing environment. We begin this book on leadership with an overview of the field, starting with a brief history of distance education in the United States, followed by a survey of the many aspects of higher education that are being transformed with the full flowering of the information society. This chapter concludes with a summary of emerging leadership challenges facing the field.

A Historical Perspective Many higher education professionals perceive distance education as a recent phenomenon, launched by the eLearning innovations of the 1990s. However, there is more to the story. The evolution of distance education is the story of how for more than a century and a half our college and university leaders have sought to use a variety of the strategies and technologies of the day to help their institutions adapt to dramatically changing social needs. A long view of the evolution of distance education can be helpful as we try to 3

4

the leadership context

understand the leadership challenges facing the field today. Online distance education is emerging as one key to how higher education generally is adapting to the changes created by the Information Revolution. As we begin our look at the leadership challenges associated with the current transformation of higher education, a quick look backward will help us understand the challenge of leadership in today’s eLearning environment.

The Roots of Distance Education Distance education has its roots in the Industrial Revolution, which began in the 1850s as a revolution in transportation—from steamships that created new markets for U.S. goods to railroads that opened the continent for rapid development. Industrialization stimulated urbanization as people moved from rural areas to rapidly growing cities to work in the new mills and factories. It also stimulated immigration, as new citizens were attracted by the promise of a fresh start in the new industrial democracy. Policymakers recognized that the industrial economy would require new kinds of professional skills in the workforce: engineers, managers, scientists, city planners, and so on. They also recognized that the combined impact of immigration and urbanization education would require a more strategic approach to the primary and secondary education of immigrant children and newly urbanized rural families. New kinds of public higher education institutions were needed and indeed emerged in response to this challenge. Traditionally, higher education had been focused on the liberal arts and the preparation of students for the clergy and other traditional professions and was accessible only by the wealthy and socially elite. The Industrial Revolution demanded new institutions that could serve the growing middle class. The Morrill Act, or Land-Grant College Act of 1862, now considered a cornerstone of higher education in the United States, arranged for federal lands in each state to be sold and the proceeds used to establish a land grant college in each state to focus on “the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life” (Morrill Act, 1862, section 4). In addition, normal schools—teacher education colleges—were created to produce the elementary and secondary school teachers needed in the growing public schools. In the end, the Morrill Act of 1862 and the Second Morrill Act of 1890 (United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, n.d.), which created many of the historically Black colleges and universities, established the foundation for U.S. higher education for the next century, including the emergence of the distance education movement. There remained a concern that the nation would not be able to sustain the combination of industrialization, immigration, and urbanization that fed the

elearning and transformation of higher education

5

Industrial Revolution unless it was accompanied by a revolution in agriculture. The land grant colleges took the lead on improving agricultural production, but policymakers were worried about how to “keep them down on the farm.” Rural life was isolated and hard, especially when compared to the growing consumer luxuries of urban life. One solution was to make rural life more attractive by extending home delivery of mail to rural areas: Rural Free Delivery (RFD). RFD was still experimental in the 1890s when institutions, including the University of Chicago, Pennsylvania State College, and the University of Wisconsin, launched the first college-level correspondence study programs, giving birth to distance education as part of higher education’s outreach mission. For much of the first half of the 20th century, correspondence study led the development of distance education in the United States. Most public programs were housed at land grant institutions. Some were focused on agriculture and related topics. Others offered a wide variety of undergraduate courses. Although institutions competed with each other for students, they also collaborated, producing integrated catalogs, for instance, and licensing print-based course materials to each other.

The Coming of the Information Age If the Industrial Revolution began as a transportation revolution, the Information Revolution began as a communications revolution. By the late 1950s and into the 1960s, institutions around the nation, especially community colleges, began using local public television stations (some of which were owned by community colleges, school districts, or public universities) to extend access to college course lectures. A new form of media-based education emerged—the telecourse—that combined recorded video lectures with traditional textbooks, printed study guides that contained discussion and assignments and, in some cases, periodic class meetings. Through the 1960s and into the 1970s, telecourse delivery tended to be limited to the broadcast area of the local public television station. This began to change in the 1970s as states built public television networks and as colleges gained control of local cable TV access channels. Still, access remained close to the campus of the sponsoring institution. Several projects emerged that demonstrated the potential of video to serve more distant students. One example was the Appalachian Education Satellite Program (AESP) (Bramble & Ausness, 1974). Funded by the Appalachian Regional Commission, it used a then-experimental communications satellite, supported by local educational institutions, to deliver telecourses and other educational programs in areas such as nursing, teacher professional development, and firefighter training to a multistate area along

6

the leadership context

the Appalachian Mountain range. It demonstrated the potential for satellite technology to bring both higher education and K–12 support units together across state boundaries to serve widely dispersed groups of adult learners. A variation on the telecourse idea also underpinned a major international innovation in open and distance education: the formation of the British Open University in 1970. The British Open University (now the Open University of the United Kingdom) combined video programs produced by the BBC with highly developed printed materials and original readings, complemented by classroom sessions at regional study centers, to create interdisciplinary courses offered to adult learners throughout the United Kingdom. The British Open University became a model for the development of open universities throughout the world. In the United States the University of Maryland University College created the International University Consortium for Telecommunications (IUC) to adapt British Open University materials to the North American curriculum and then to license the resulting materials to its member institutions. Other consortia also began to emerge. Community colleges that produced telecourses created Telecourse People to jointly market their course materials to other institutions. In Detroit, Michigan, the To Educate the People Consortium brought together local colleges and universities with the automobile industry and unions to extend education to working people in that industry. In 1978, satellite delivery took center stage as the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) began to distribute its programs to local stations via satellite and to make its excess capacity available to local stations affiliated with educational institutions to deliver other kinds of educational programs. PBS established the Adult Learning Service (ALS) as a national aggregator of telecourse distribution. PBS-ALS acquired distribution rights to telecourses from many different institutions and then, through its network of local stations, licensed local institutions to offer them for credit when they were broadcast locally. In the early 1980s, the Annenberg Foundation granted $150 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to support the development of highquality telecourses using this delivery system in an effort to ensure that all adults would have access to key elements of the undergraduate curriculum. PBS satellite service allowed local stations to not only receive programming but also originate programs to other stations nationally. This stimulated other partnerships. One such partnership, the National University Teleconference Network, was developed to coordinate national delivery of noncredit professional training programs. Another partnership, AG*SAT (later renamed the American Distance Education Consortium), was created to use satellite to deliver agriculture-related training among Cooperative Extension Service offices nationally and internationally.

elearning and transformation of higher education

7

eLearning Emerges By the early 1990s, live, interactive, telecommunications-based delivery was becoming a major trend in distance education. As technology shifted from satellite to interactive telephone lines, lowering both the cost of infrastructure and the cost per minute of delivery, many thought that telephones would be the future of distance education. This changed in 1993 when the University of Illinois launched the first internet web browser. Within three years, the internet became an international phenomenon, and the modern eLearning environment was born. There were experiments with online degree programs before the web browser. In the early 1990s, for instance, The Pennsylvania State University experimented with incorporating computer and telephone into a synchronous delivery system to support delivery of a graduate degree in adult education to students in Mexico and Europe. Around the same time, the University of Maryland University College launched a baccalaureate degree in nuclear science as a contract program with several major energy companies using a version of the Plato computer language. In 1997, the Western Interstate Cooperative for Higher Education—a regional collaborative of governors of 14 western states—launched the Western Governors University, which focused on the use of online technology to reach the widely scattered populations of these states. It helped stimulate a broader interest in developing the potential of eLearning (Western Governors University, n.d.). At about the same time, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation launched its Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALN) Program (Mayadas, 1997). Over time, the foundation’s ALN Program provided more than $40 million to help institutions launch mission-centered, sustainable eLearning programs.

Standards for a New Field As the field has developed, several organizations have articulated standards for the field that build on early experiences and set the stage for quality control as eLearning moves into its second generation. This section will highlight major contributions by the Online Learning Consortium and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU).

Pillars of Quality Throughout the 1990s, eLearning proved to be a truly disruptive innovation. It attracted many institutions that had no prior tradition in distance

8

the leadership context

education and, as a result, no familiarity with the historical research in the field. Often, the institutional starting point for an initiative came from individual academic departments and faculty. As a result, a new leadership community was needed to help define the quality parameters for this new environment. The Sloan Foundation facilitated this by funding national meetings of Sloan Foundation grantees from institutions around the United States. These eventually matured into a formal professional association (now called the Online Learning Consortium), a refereed journal, and a series of annual conferences that brought the community together to discuss issues and share research findings. The foundation also supported a decade of annual surveys that provided comprehensive information about enrollments, institutional trends, and challenges among U.S. institutions. The Sloan Foundation also worked with institutions to establish a framework for institutions to address quality. Mayadas, the foundation’s lead online learning officer, described the resulting framework as the Five Pillars of Quality: access, cost-effectiveness and institutional commitment, learning effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, and student satisfaction (Moore, 2002). Together, the Five Pillars of Quality map the necessary scope of leadership responsibility in this new arena. Access reflects the vision that eLearning will enable all qualified and motivated students to complete courses, degrees, or other goals in their discipline of choice. Ensuring access begins by ensuring technical quality. However, it also means ensuring that prospective students are aware of online learning opportunities through institutional marketing, branding, and program information provided through the web and other media. Ensuring access also requires that institutions make curricula available in their entirety and that programs provide students with adequate options and clear program information. Access should be seamless, from readiness assessment to navigation within courses and access to other learning resources. Access also involves ensuring quality in student support (tutoring, advising, and library resources), administrative support (financial aid and disability services), and technical support (a help desk that is available when students need it). The access pillar, then, requires leadership involvement in delivery technology; marketing and public information; curriculum and program design; learning resources; and academic, administrative, and technical support. All are fundamental to a successful online learning service. Cost-effectiveness and institutional commitment include the leadership responsibility to balance quality and cost to ensure long-term sustainability of the eLearning program. The goal is to control both fixed and variable costs for not only course delivery but also course development and updating

elearning and transformation of higher education

9

over the life of the program. This requires that leaders take responsibility for continuous improvement; compare costs and benefits of different delivery modes; and track such things as retention rates, faculty workload and compensation, technology and infrastructure cost, and long-term loyalty of students. Ensuring long-term success may also require ongoing review of institution-wide policies to ensure that they do not inhibit growth or cost-efficiency. Learning effectiveness speaks to the leader’s responsibility to guard the instructional quality of online courses and programs: Is the student’s learning in these courses equivalent to that of students in traditional classroom courses? This requires a process in which instructors and course developers work together to ensure that courses make effective use of the unique capabilities afforded by the online environment and that the organization is involved in core functions such as instructional design, faculty development, assessment, retention, student support, and other factors that contribute to learning outcomes. Faculty satisfaction reflects faculty’s broad acceptance of online technology and instructional strategies that enhance the teaching–learning environment. Leaders must ensure that faculty find value in their online teaching experience—that the technology is used in ways that help them meet learning objectives. Several factors can be used to measure faculty satisfaction: the quality of faculty–student and student–student interaction, the pace of student learning, and the degree to which the environment provides more flexibility for both faculty and students. Leaders should also work to ensure that faculty are recognized and rewarded for improving course development and delivery and that the system reflects workload considerations, online support, and student learning outcomes. Student satisfaction reflects not only student acceptance of learning outcomes but also the extent to which they enjoy the eLearning environment itself, how they interact with faculty and other students, and the degree to which their expectations are met. This pillar becomes especially important as more students—especially those who live close to campus—enroll in online courses for convenience or to balance work, family, and study responsibilities. The five pillars help show how technology is transforming the higher education landscape. They also illustrate the intricate challenges to institutional eLearning leaders who must either build services in each of the five pillar areas or work with existing support services to ensure quality as eLearning moves into the mainstream of their institution. Chapter 12 will go into greater detail about how the five pillars apply to the OLC Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs.

10

the leadership context

Institutional Leadership Lessons From APLU In 2009, APLU published its report on a two-part benchmarking study of the leadership factors that contribute to a successful eLearning initiative at public research universities (McCarthy & Samors, 2009). The report noted that the study “was designed to illuminate how public institutions develop and implement the key organizational strategies, processes, and procedures that contribute to successful and robust online learning initiatives” (p. 5). The first part of the study included 231 interviews with key people at 45 institutions that represented at least 100,000 online enrollments. Interviewees included “presidents and chancellors, chief academic officers, online learning administrators, faculty leaders and professors, and online students” (p. 10). The second part was a faculty survey sent to more than 40,000 faculty members across the teaching spectrum: full-time and part-time, tenure track and nontenure-track, those who had taught online and those who had not. APLU received nearly 11,000 completed surveys from faculty at 69 institutions. The report (McCarthy & Samors, 2009) included seven general observations about effective eLearning programs: 1. “Online learning programs may work most effectively as a core component of institutional strategic planning and implementation.” 2. “Online learning initiatives benefit from ongoing institutional assessment and review because of their evolving and dynamic nature.” 3. “Online learning programs are strengthened by the centralization of some organizational structures and administrative functions that support and sustain the programs.” 4. “Online learning programs overseen by academic affairs units may be more readily accepted and may be more easily integrated into the fabric of the institution.” 5. “Online learning programs need reliable financing mechanisms for sustainability and growth.” 6. “Online learning programs succeed with consistent and adequate academic, administrative, and technological resources for faculty and students.” 7. “Online learning programs have the capacity to change campus culture and become fully integrated if presidents, chancellors, chief academic officers, and other senior campus leaders are fully engaged in the delivery of messages that tie online education to fundamental institutional missions and priorities.”

elearning and transformation of higher education

11

The report emphasized the critical importance of communication, with all campus administrators, leaders, and faculty working together to ensure and improve quality, and the need for administrators to better understand what motivates faculty to teach. The report also recommended that administrative and academic governing bodies regularly reexamine institutional policies and incentives and develop strategies to acknowledge and recognize faculty investment of time and effort in online courses compared to face-toface teaching (McCarthy & Samors, 2009). The leadership interviews and faculty survey suggested four broad leadership strategies for a successful eLearning program: (a) developing the initiative within the context of institution-wide strategic planning, (b) building an organizational structure that recognizes shared authority for different aspects of the program, (c) designing a financial model that ensures sustainability for both administrative and academic investments, and (d) communicating within the institution in a way that dispels myths and builds a sense of community. Strategic Planning The report noted that institution-wide task forces or advisory councils have played critical roles in successful eLearning initiatives. Several campus leaders noted the benefit of maintaining standing committees or task forces after online programs have been established and have begun to grow and mature. These oversight groups address new or unforeseen issues that arise or examine and advise campus leaders on proposed changes in financial and administrative structuring, or policies and procedures. (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 16)

This helps campus leadership remain sensitized to the issues that may resurface or emerge in unanticipated ways once a program is underway. Groups should monitor needs at the unit level and enterprise level, such as academic oversight, program scope, financing of all aspects of a program (including faculty and student resources), nonfinancial faculty and student support, and quality control and assessment (McCarthy & Samors, 2009). Typically, such groups should be charged by the president, the provost, or the faculty senate. Organizational Structure The report cited the tradition of shared authority in higher education—with decentralized academic authority and centralized administrative and support

12

the leadership context

services. It identifies three essential elements that should be considered in developing an institution’s eLearning organizational structure: 1. Administrative oversight and faculty support should be housed within academic affairs, which could be organized as a new central administrative unit or made as a new charge to an existing unit. 2. Curricular control should be seen as a fundamental responsibility of academic departments, always, the report noted, residing in academic affairs. 3. Technological elements should be the responsibility of an information technology unit.

The report noted that while there is no obvious single organizational home for the instructional design function, which supports faculty in developing courses and works closely with the technology itself, “the majority of institutions sampled provide instructional design through academic affairs or a separate distance education unit” (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 23). Funding The survey results suggested that “campus leaders must consider multiple approaches to institutional resource allocation, including strategies that take into account the difference between resources needed to start a program and resources needed to sustain and/or grow a program” (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 24). APLU defined institutional resources as “the combination of financial, administrative, and technical allocations made to support online learning initiatives” (p. 24) and emphasized the following: Upfront funding for online programs is essential for the development of robust strategic online initiatives. Further, institutions must provide the necessary resources to sustain and to grow established online initiatives. This ongoing need for funding holds true for institutions that are in “start-up mode” or “re-start mode” with their online learning efforts, as well as for those running more mature programs. (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 25)

The commission observed that institutions have developed diverse ways to recover costs. Some have created new fees attached to registration costs for online learning. Others have developed various kinds of revenue-sharing models to distribute tuition revenue to cover costs. Still others have established separate tuition levels for online courses (McCarthy & Samors, 2009).

elearning and transformation of higher education

13

Three areas of nonfinancial support for faculty were seen as equally important to the success of an online program: (a) professional support for course design and delivery, including faculty professional development programs and the availability of instructional designers and media specialists to work with faculty in course development and delivery; (b) faculty incentives for development and delivery of online content, including stipends and promotion and tenure policies that reward younger faculty members for participating in online course development at the expense of other, more traditional activities; and (c) institutional policies concerning intellectual property. Student support is another important online institutional resource. Some institutions, for example, assign the online student a special academic adviser who continues to work with the student through their entire academic program. Some campuses use routine student survey instruments to identify the need for these support services. Effective Leadership Communication The APLU study found that launching an online program can be a significant cultural and operational change for an institution. “A critical and ongoing task for campus leaders,” the report noted, “is to provide effective leadership and communication of institutional plans and decisions” (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 41). Among the critical leadership skills are the “keen ability to recognize and articulate the value of online learning, relate it to campus mission, and seize organizational changes and planning as opportunities to solidify institutional commitment to online learning” (p. 42). Part of the communication challenge is to effectively respond to the culture change that often accompanies the start of a new eLearning initiative. In this area, APLU found a sometimes marked difference of perception between campus administrative leaders and faculty. The report noted the need for campus leaders to directly communicate to dispel myths and build a stronger communications environment. It listed four specific recommendations: 1. “Campus leaders need to better understand the characteristics of the online teaching community on their campus and use communication strategies that target and engage all faculty members” (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 47). 2. “Campus leaders should maintain consistent communication with all faculty and administrators regarding the role and purpose of online learning programs as they relate to academic mission and academic quality. Campus leaders, administrators, and faculty must all work together

14

the leadership context

to improve the quality—or perceived quality—of online learning outcomes” (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 48). 3. “Campus leaders have the potential to expand faculty engagement by better understanding what motivates faculty to teach online” (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 49). 4. “Campus leaders and faculty governing bodies need to regularly re-examine institutional policies regarding faculty incentives, especially in this era of declining financial resources. Perhaps most importantly, campus leaders need to identify strategies to acknowledge and recognize the additional time and effort that faculty invest in online, versus face-to-face, teaching and learning” (McCarthy & Samors, 2009, p. 49).

Disruption and Adaptation: Elements of the Emerging Transformation of Higher Education Technological innovation can take place quickly, but it can take much longer for institutions to fully integrate that innovation into the institution’s social environment. The societal implications of the Information Revolution are proving to be as profound as the changes brought about during the Industrial Revolution, but they are even more rapid in their impact on education. For many institutions, online learning has proven to be a major agent of transformation as colleges and universities adapt to the realities of a new information society. Several factors stand out as indicators of changes that are now unfolding.

Globalization Perhaps the most visible dimension of the current revolution is that global communications have eliminated geography as a natural barrier. Immigration, which helped to fuel industrialization and democratization in the industrial period, has been replaced by globalization in the information era. We now have a global communications system; a globally distributed workforce; and, as a result, a global supply chain for a wide range of products and services. This includes higher education, which can be viewed as a commodity and has been developed as such by several countries that export online learning programs and services.

Redefining Community Globalization is also forcing individuals and organizations to redefine community at many levels. Traditionally, we tend to think of communities as local. A community is a village or a neighborhood of people who live interdependent

elearning and transformation of higher education

15

lives. You may own the town bank, but my son teaches your daughter in the local school. The kids we went to school with grow the food we eat, work, run the shops where we buy what we need, attend the same churches, and so on. In a globalized economy, that kind of highly localized interdependence is harder to find. The process of reperceiving our understanding of community and how communities are interdependent in today’s world is a critical issue.

Acceleration and Innovation The rapid pace of technological and social change is forcing employers to put greater emphasis on top-down and bottom-up innovation to stay competitive. Knowledge is no longer an end in itself but is increasingly a lifelong, just-in-time experience. Workers are expected to find information, evaluate it in the context of their work, and apply it to solve problems. Innovation has become a core skill in the information society as organizations attempt to keep pace with accelerating technical change. In Thank You for Being Late, Thomas Friedman (2016) noted the importance of innovation in a time of technological acceleration. Friedman argued that to keep pace with technology-related change, we need to innovate “in everything other than technology” (p. 199). He wrote, It is reimagining and redesigning your society’s workplace, politics, geopolitics, ethics, and communities—in ways that will enable more citizens on more days in more ways to keep pace with how these accelerations are reshaping their lives and generate more stability as we shoot through these rapids. (p. 199)

Collaboration A globally distributed workforce and supply chain, combined with the need for continuous innovation, have made collaboration and teamwork critical workplace skills at all levels of an organization. Current technology allows levels of collaboration never seen before that support professionals from different countries to compare results, undertake testing and assessments, and seek solutions in a very different work environment.

Emergence of the Skills Society Some have begun to call the information society a knowledge society, which is less concerned with how quickly information reaches people and more concerned with how information brings people and ideas together in new ways. We are beginning to realize that in reality, the knowledge society is a skills society, a shift that will have a significant impact on education at all levels.

16

the leadership context

The Expansion of eLearning eLearning began in the 1990s as an innovation designed primarily to reach students—especially working adults—living away from campus. Today, a more diverse picture has emerged as institutions use eLearning to respond to the economic and social changes that have emerged in response to the internet. The colleges and universities that offer online programs have become more diverse. While a few public institutions (e.g., Arizona State University and Southern New Hampshire University) have become online mega universities, an increasingly diverse array of public institutions have entered the field. These include a small number of for-profit companies, as well as a growing number of public research universities that offer both undergraduate and graduate programs, community colleges, and a number of private colleges and universities that offer a mix of fully online and blended degree programs. In 2018, the Babson Research Group published Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United States, the last in a series of annual surveys of online learning funded by the Sloan Foundation (Seaman et al., 2018). The report described the increasingly diverse experience of institutions and students involved in online distance education: • From fall 2015 to fall 2016, the number of distance education students grew by 5.6%, with 14.9% (3,003,080) of all higher education students taking all their courses at a distance and 16.7% (3,356,041) taking a combination of distance and nondistance courses. • Almost half of the students in distance education courses were enrolled in just 5% of institutions, with the top 1% of institutions (47) accounting for 22.4% of enrollments. • In the for-profit sector, 85.6% of distance education students were enrolled in the top 5% of institutions. • The total number of on-campus students not taking any distance course or taking a combination of distance and nondistance courses dropped by over a million (1,173,805, or 6.4%) between 2012 and 2016. The largest declines came at for-profit institutions, which saw a 44.1% drop, while both private not-for-profit institutions (–4.5%) and public institutions (–4.2%) saw far smaller decreases. • While technology eliminates geography as an absolute barrier, students are still attracted to nearby institutions; 52.8% of students who took at least one distance course also took an on-campus course, and 56% of students who took only distance courses lived in the same state as the institution in which they were enrolled (Seaman et al., 2018).

elearning and transformation of higher education

17

As these data suggest, the impact of eLearning is being felt not only in distance education but also across traditional campuses as faculty begin to blend online elements into otherwise traditional courses. The resulting hybrid courses, in which online activities replace between 20% and 80% of classroom activity, provide greater flexibility for students and faculty, and also introduce new pedagogical elements. Similarly, blended programs, which mix a significant percentage of fully online and hybrid courses with some traditional classroom experiences or residencies, increase practical access for students who live near a campus but who must mix study with job and family commitments. The result is an increasingly complex context for eLearning at institutions, of which many do not have a long history of distance education and, as a result, do not have a preexisting infrastructure to support this new relationship with students. While an institution’s initial focus might be on the technology of delivery, once a program is up and running, other questions become critical to sustainability and scalability. Increasingly, it will be important that online learning leaders fully understand the role of online learning within their institution’s mission, the impact on campus-based programs, and the unmet demand for education within the institution’s traditional service area and beyond. These issues affect all aspects of the eLearning environment, including student support, faculty support, learning effectiveness, and policy. The implications for leadership are explored in more detail in subsequent chapters.

Emerging Issues As higher education attempts to respond to these and other changes brought about by the ongoing Information Revolution, several recent developments in eLearning suggest that eLearning leaders will need to attend to an increasingly complex set of leadership issues. Some examples follow.

A K–14 Educational System One response to this change has been an increasing call for the United States to shift its commitment to universal public education from a K–12 system to a K–14 system, ensuring that all citizens have the 2 years of postsecondary training needed to develop workplace skills for the new environment. In 2017, CNN reporter Katie Lobosco reported that the State of New York approved a plan to offer full scholarships for the first 2 years at SUNY and CUNY to students whose parents earn less than $100,000 per year (Lobosco, 2017). The upper limit will increase each year. That same year, Abigail Hess (2017) of CNBC wrote that San Francisco now has a Free City program

18

the leadership context

that provides city residents tuition-free access to San Francisco City College. These are important steps toward the idea of universal K–14 education, which could have a major impact on the undergraduate curriculum and on dual enrollment and other cross-sector partnerships.

Open Educational Resources Open educational resources (OERs) have developed as a potential game changer for eLearning since 2007, when a group of institutions met in South Africa to discuss what they saw as an emerging opportunity to extend learning resources globally by sharing online content and, thus, improve quality and reduce cost. The “Cape Town Open Education Declaration” (n.d.) defined OERs as the following: Educators worldwide are developing a vast pool of educational resources on the Internet, open and free for all to use. . . . These resources include openly licensed course materials, lesson plans, textbooks, games, software, and other materials that support teaching and learning. They contribute to making education more accessible, especially where money for learning materials is scarce. They also nourish the kind of participatory culture of learning, creating, sharing and cooperation that rapidly changing knowledge societies need.

More than 2,900 institutions around the world have endorsed the “Cape Town Open Education Declaration” over the past 12 years. In North America, the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources (CCCOER) was formed in 2007 to promote “the awareness and adoption of open educational policies, practices, and resources. We believe that these practices will expand student access to education while supporting academic freedom and faculty choice of openly licensed curriculum materials” (CCCOER, n.d., para. 1). It includes colleges in 27 U.S. states and 2 Canadian provinces. OERs have the potential to greatly enhance the education and training experiences in our schools—where they can be used by teachers to enrich the classroom environment, in colleges and universities, and in workplaces and even the home. In some cases, they might be used as stand-alone learning modules. In others, they can serve as tools for instructors to use with students. This kind of sharing has implications across many facets of college and university policy and practice; increasingly, eLearning leaders will need to work across the organization to facilitate policy and procedure in this arena.

elearning and transformation of higher education

19

Collaboration OERs provide new opportunities for institutions to share resources across institutional boundaries. At the same time, we are also seeing institutions using online technology to bring faculty together across institutional lines to offer collaborative degree programs. One example is the Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance (GP IDEA). GP IDEA began with a group of human sciences deans at seven midwestern universities who were interested in a collaborative master’s degree. By the time the alliance was formalized in 2001, it had 10 charter member institutions. Today, it includes 19 universities across the midwest, west, and south. The vision is that institutions will create and maintain strategic academic alliances that allow institutions working together to field graduate programs that are greater in reach and significance than any single institution could field alone, that manage institutional and shared resources in highly efficient ways, and that enrich the teaching experience for faculty and the learning experience for students. (GP IDEA, n.d.)

The model assumes that a student will matriculate at their home university but take courses online from multiple institutions. The final degree is offered by the student’s home institution. Institutions agree on a common tuition. Currently, GP IDEA offers 19 graduate degree programs. A similar collaboration was created by the Big Ten Academic Alliance. Called CourseShare, it allows Big Ten institutions to make selected online courses available to resident students at other Big Ten institutions. The focus is on courses in lesser taught languages and other specialized courses where students have limited access to faculty and where campuses may have trouble filling seats locally. Students enroll at their home institution and join courses online. “To date,” according to the Big Ten Alliance website, “over 130 different less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) and area studies courses have been shared using CourseShare including Swahili, Thai, Vietnamese, and Islamic and Korean Studies courses” (Big Ten Academic Alliance, n.d., para. 4). We can also point to partnerships among higher education institutions and employers that extend professional and vocational education to the workplace. One example in this area is the Energy Providers Coalition for Education, which brings together private, public, and governmentowned utilities; energy contractors and suppliers; professional associations; local unions; and workforce investment boards and four universities

20

the leadership context

to provide online training and education opportunities for workers in the energy field.

New Certificates Another factor is the rise of so-called badges and other nontraditional certifications for both credit and noncredit programs. These certificates could provide a new pathway for universities to engage students throughout their careers and career changes. Although many institutions now offer badges and certificates, we still need standards that will ensure quality and acceptance of these new forms by employers and by other institutions. In 2019, the International Council for Open and Distance Education (n.d.) announced that it is forming a working group on badges and other alternative digital credentials—an important first step toward creating standards in this arena.

“Big” Data Another development is the rise of so-called big data services that allow institutions to collect data on how students participate in online elements of courses. These data can then be used to help guide students to more productive study habits and help faculty and course designers improve pedagogy and course delivery. Big data—and how institutions use data about individual students—may offer powerful new tools for course design and student advising and support; at the same time, it raises important questions about privacy and student autonomy. Despite concerns, the potential is clear.

Faculty Participation The early success of initiatives like eLearning depends greatly on how faculty are motivated to take the risk of innovation. A common concern in the formative years of eLearning has been the role of adjunct faculty in online courses. Many institutions targeted their eLearning initiatives at the nontraditional student—working adults living far from campus who are trying to fit learning into a busy life; it is an environment in which, traditionally, colleges and universities have tended to use adjunct faculty. As programs mature, this has become a policy issue for some institutions. There are many questions: Should full-time faculty teach these courses as they do on-campus courses? What control should adjunct faculty, who often use online content developed by their full-time counterparts, have over the content of courses that they teach? Should full-time faculty who develop courses play a role in selecting faculty to teach the courses? How can institutions motivate

elearning and transformation of higher education

21

full-time faculty to teach online? Institutions are beginning to grapple with this issue as online learning moves into the mainstream. It is an issue that many eLearning leaders will need to address at their institutions in the years ahead.

Conclusion: An Evolving Leadership Responsibility The evolution of the online learning environment highlights the unique role of the eLearning leader. At most institutions, eLearning initiatives are directed to off-campus populations—often working adults who are seeking degrees and other certifications to help them in their careers. In this sense, the success of eLearning programs is closely tied to the needs of external markets. The eLearning leader stands at the doorway of the higher education institution. On one hand, the leader must understand the external market in order to bring opportunities for program development and sustainable delivery to academic units and the institutional leadership. On the other hand, the leader represents the institution’s culture and is responsible for ensuring that programs not only meet market needs but also properly reflect the institution’s mission and academic culture. This chapter has attempted to put eLearning into historical context and to show how it has continued to develop as part of higher education’s response to the Information Revolution. As the examples presented suggest, technological innovation is continuing to compel our higher education institutions to innovate on multiple fronts. In the process, eLearning is moving into the mainstream of education at all levels. As more institutions adopt eLearning, they are discovering the opportunities for innovation in faculty support, student support, program design, and credentialing, while also opening new avenues for interinstitutional collaboration and cross-sector sharing of online educational resources. eLearning leaders find themselves in the position of championing innovation in a time of rapid social, technological, and financial changes that challenge our institutions. In this environment, eLearning leaders must be seen within their institutions as much more than technology managers. Part of the emerging eLearning leadership role is to help the institution understand the opportunities that eLearning presents for faculty, for students, and for client organizations in the community. eLearning leaders must prepare to participate in policy development around these opportunities. They must understand the multiple dimensions of practice in the field—operations, administration, and working within the complex culture of a higher education institution—and also function as scholars of the field

22

the leadership context

who can bring the best ideas from other institutions to help shape policy around eLearning. Later chapters will explore the breadth of this leadership challenge.

Author’s Note The first edition of this chapter was coauthored with the late Bruce Chaloux, who passed away before the first edition was published and to whom that edition was dedicated. Many of Bruce’s contributions, especially the discussion of the Pillars of Quality, remain in this updated second edition of the chapter.

References Big Ten Academic Alliance. (n.d.). CourseShare. https://www.btaa.org/resources-for/ faculty/courseshare/introduction Bramble, W. J., & Ausness, C. (Eds.). (1974). An experiment in educational technology: An overview of the Appalachian Education Satellite Project; Technical report number 2 (ED103007). National Institute of Education. https://eric .ed.gov/?id=ED103007 The Cape Town Open Education Declaration: Unlocking the promise of open educational resources. (n.d.). https://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-thedeclaration Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources. (n.d.). About us. https://www.cccoer.org/about/about-cccoer/ Friedman, T. (2016). Thank you for being late. Ferrar, Straus, and Giroux. Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance. (n.d.). Our mission. https:// www.gpidea.org/our-mission/ Hess, A. (2017, February 8). San Francisco to be the first city in the U.S. to offer free college. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/san-francisco-to-be-thefirst-us-city-to-offer-free-college.html International Council for Open and Distance Education. (n.d.). ICDE working group on the present and future of alternative digital credentials. https://www .icde.org/knowledge-hub/icde-working-group-on-the-present-and-future-ofalternative-digital-credentials Lobosco, K. (2017, April 10). New York just OK’d tuition-free college for the middle class. CNN Money. https://money.cnn.com/2017/04/08/pf/college/new-yorkfree-tuition/index.html Mayadas, F. A. (1997). Asynchronous learning networks: A Sloan Foundation perspective. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1), 1–16. McCarthy, S., & Samors, R. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. https://files .eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517308.pdf

elearning and transformation of higher education

23

Miller, G., Benke, M., Chaloux, B., Ragan, L. C., Schroeder, R., Smutz, W., & Swan, K. (2014). Leading the eLearning transformation of higher education: Meeting the challenges of technology and distance education. Stylus. Moore, J. C. (2002). Elements of quality: The Sloan-C framework. Sloan Consortium. Morrill Act, Pub. L. No. 37-108, 12 Stat. 503 (1862). https://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=535 Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. (n.d.). 1890 land-grant institution programs. https://nifa.usda.gov/program/1890land-grant-institutions-programs Western Governors University. (n.d.). Education without boundaries. https://www .wgu.edu/about/our-story.html

2 LEADERSHIP FOR ONLINE LEARNING IN U.S. H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N Eric E. Fredericksen

O

nline learning in U.S. higher education is important. While that might not be groundbreaking news to you today, going back 25 years, it was not so obvious. In the early 1990s, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation established the Learning Outside the Classroom Program (later renamed the Anytime, Anyplace Learning Program) as an opportunity for individuals who wanted to pursue higher education but could not attend face-to-face classes on a physical campus. This program was the catalyst for many early pioneering institutions in U.S. higher education to begin the development of what was known then as asynchronous learning networks (ALNs). This historical term has evolved into online learning today (Ebersole & Patrick, 2017; Picciano, 2013, 2017). The colleges and universities that received grants through the program typically started with a course or two. At that point in time, an online course was not particularly common. These initial efforts centered on faculty and instructional support staff designing and developing an ALN and, most important, learning about what worked and what did not work. While these institutions had offered thousands of traditional classroom-based courses in the past, these new online courses often resulted in questions about academic operations and policies. In many cases, those early schools established a leader for these efforts. An academic offering in a new modality touched many parts of the institution. Individuals with responsibilities for these new endeavors benefited from a broad set of skills and experiences in higher education to help them navigate these new waters. 24

leadership for online learning

25

Online Learning Becoming Strategic and Mainstream Fast-forward a couple decades, and online learning has moved from pilot experiments into the mainstream. Annual reporting of enrollment data estimates that more than one third of students in U.S. higher education are taking at least one online course (Seaman et al., 2018). Competitive and financial pressures, along with student demand, have stimulated institutions to increase their offerings. These more flexible options, which alleviate the need for students to travel to a physical campus, have become vital to the institutions. The strategic importance of these endeavors has increased the necessity of leaders to guide them. Presidents and provosts, often encouraged by their boards, have identified and charged an individual to be on point for online learning. While this has transpired over the past 25 years, research about this role has been scarce. The contributor of this chapter has conducted research over the past few years to study and develop a better understanding of this position.

Online Learning Leadership in U.S. Universities and U.S. Community Colleges In 2016, a research study of online learning leaders was initiated for U.S. universities and was followed by a study of online learning leaders in U.S. community colleges in 2017. While the author had great enthusiasm for this endeavor, there was a monumental barrier. There was no existing list of individuals in this role. How do you survey individuals if you don’t know who they are? This fundamental issue might help explain the scarcity of research about this position. The enthusiasm fortified an effort to explore the institutional websites of thousands of institutions to meticulously identify the appropriate individuals and collect contact information to build a data set. A systematic approach was taken with the search process. A variety of methods were employed, including the search terms online learning, online education, eLearning, and distance education, combined with the investigation of organizational charts, office and employee directories, and press releases. Invitations to these surveys also included a request for corrections as a safety net. This nontrivial effort yielded 820 contacts out of 1,088 of the R1, R2, R3, M1, M2, and M3 institutions and 752 contacts out of 1,024 community colleges (Fredericksen, 2017, 2018). The goals of the studies were as follows: • Develop a systematic and comprehensive list of leaders for online learning in U.S. higher education

26

the leadership context

• Collect institutional data for context • Gather information about the position and professional experience of the leader • Capture demographic and other information about these individual leaders • Investigate the potential relationships among these factors and dimensions The following research questions were directly associated with the goals of the studies: • What is the current state of online education at responding institutions? • What is the nature of the professional experience of current leaders of online education? • What are the background demographics of current leaders of online learning?

The Context of Organizational Theory in Higher Education The journal article from Online Learning (Fredericksen, 2017) associated with the first study discussed concepts related to organizational theories and the culture of higher education as context for better understanding the position and responsibilities at the institution. Colleges and universities are different from private sector entities. For us to understand leadership positions within higher education, it is essential to understand their nature and culture and how those in these positions work (Baldridge et al., 1977; Birnbaum, 1988). This was summarized in the second journal article from Online Learning (Fredericksen, 2018): “Organized anarchy” is the term Cohen and March (1986) use to describe the uncertainty of governance in higher education and views ambiguity through the lenses of purpose, power, experience and success. Similarly, the “concept of loosely coupled systems” (Weick, 1976), basically represents the decentralized structures within our institutions and the distributed academic authority inherent in this organizational model. “Professional bureaucracy” (Mintzberg, 1979) can help explain the foundational role that faculty play in academic activities such as online learning and the emphasis on their authority and decision-making in this area. Lastly, the guiding approach of online learning leaders, supported by the idea of transformational leadership (Burns, 2003; Bass & Riggio, 2006), suggests the need for

leadership for online learning

27

a collaborative style that inspires innovation and change as a catalyst for the organizational evolution that our institutions are pursuing. (pp. 384–385)

Ultimately, these lenses help explain the decisions by institutional presidents and provosts to create the online learning position, how the position is situated in the organization, and the type of leadership needed from these individuals. The results of the studies are organized into three areas: key findings related to the institution, the nature of the position, and the background and experience of individuals serving in these vital roles.

Key Findings Related to the Institution The first and fundamental question centered on how online learning is viewed and defined. When asked about how the institution described the scope of online learning, most universities and community colleges responded with all courses (see Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2). This important finding was counter to traditional and historical alignment with distance education. It should be noted that there was no statistically significant difference related to the institutional variables in the studies. The second question about the institution asked whether the institution had used its online learning initiatives as a catalyst for organizational changes. The answer was yes for more than 70% of universities and community colleges (see Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4). Figure 2.1. Defining the scope of online learning for universities. Universities (2016–2017) 4% 18%

18% 60%

Complete Online

Complete & Hybrid

All courses

Other

28

the leadership context

Figure 2.2. Defining the scope of online learning for community colleges. Community colleges (2017–2018) 6% 9% 17%

68%

Complete Online

Complete & Hybrid

All courses

Other

Figure 2.3. Online learning as a catalyst for organizational change at universities. Universities (2016–2017) 28%

72%

No

Yes

leadership for online learning

29

Figure 2.4. Online learning as a catalyst for organizational change at community colleges. Community colleges (2017–2018)

29%

71%

No

Yes

If there were organizational changes, the third question, a follow-up, tried to capture the groups or units that were unified with the online learning leader. Using a threshold of 50% of respondents affirming, the studies show the same following units being combined for both universities and community colleges: • • • • • •

Academic or educational technology Instructional design Learning management systems Online learning policy development Faculty development and training Course design and multimedia development

The groups or units that did not meet this 50% threshold included the following: • • • • • • •

Faculty information technology (IT) support Library support for faculty Center for Teaching and Learning Marketing Advising Student services Educational research

30

the leadership context

The studies were also interested in the top strategic goals for online learning at the institution. This was an area where the responses varied based on institution type. The university leaders identified the following top five ranked strategic goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Grow total institutional enrollments above existing levels Promote instructional innovation Promote student engagement Enhance student retention Reach out-of-state students

The community college leaders provided a different ranked order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Enhance student retention Promote instructional innovation Grow total institutional enrollments above existing levels Promote student engagement Help maintain total institutional enrollments at existing levels

The studies also captured the institution’s most pressing issues. Leaders rank ordered a list of 14 items, and there was agreement with the first one (“faculty development and training” Fredericksen, 2017, p. 396; Fredericksen, 2018, p. 65). The university leaders identified “strategic planning for online learning at your institution” (Fredericksen, 2018, p. 396) as number two and “staffing for instructional design and faculty support” (p. 396) as number three. The community college leaders cited “providing student support” (Fredericksen, 2017, p. 65) as their number-two issue and “strategic planning for online learning at your institution” (p. 65) as their number-three issue.

The Nature of the Position In addition to the institutional perspective on this area, the studies sought a better understanding of the online learning leadership position. One important aspect to this related to when the institution created the eLearning position. There were differences between the universities and the community colleges on this item. The majority of the university leaders noted that the position had been created in the past 5 to 6 years. This was an interesting contrast to the majority of community college leaders who indicated the position had been in place for at least 7 to 8 years and that almost 40% had been created more than 10 years ago (see Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6). Of course, each individual institution had its own response, but it seemed that these roles have been established longer in U.S. community colleges.

leadership for online learning

31

Figure 2.5. Creation of university leadership positions for online learning. How many years ago was the position created? 35%

29%

30% 25%

19%

20%

16%

15% 10%

11%

9%

6%

0%

Less than 1

6%

5%

5%

1-2

3-4

5-6

7-8

9-10

more than 10 I choose not to answer

Figure 2.6. Creation of community college leadership positions for online learning. How many years ago was the position created? 45%

39%

40% 35% 30% 25% 20%

14%

15% 10% 5% 0%

14% 9%

8%

7-8

9-10

6%

8%

2% Less than 1

1-2

3-4

5-6

more than 10

I choose not to answer

A critical question about these leadership positions centered on the reporting relationship. The majority (52%) of online learning leaders in universities report to the provost (chief academic officer) and another 23% report to another senior academic leader. Online learning leaders in community colleges also report to academic affairs, with 37% reporting directly to the provost (chief academic officer) and 24% reporting to another senior academic leader (see Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8). This alignment underscores the view that online learning is an academic activity. It also counters

32

the leadership context

Figure 2.7. Reporting relationship of university leaders. Whom do you report to? 60%

52% 50% 40% 30%

23%

20% 10%

7%

5%

5%

3%

5%

0% President

Provost / CAO

Other Sr. Academic Leader

VP/SVP outside of Academics

CIO

Dean

Other

Note. CAO = chief academic officer, VP = vice president, SVP = senior vice president, CIO = chief information officer.

Figure 2.8. Reporting relationship of community college leaders. Whom do you report to? 40%

37%

35% 30%

24%

25% 20%

14%

15% 10% 5%

11% 7%

5%

3%

0% President

Provost / CAO

Other Sr. Academic Leader

VP/SVP outside of Academics

CIO

Dean

Other

Note. CAO = chief academic officer, VP = vice president, SVP = senior vice president, CIO = chief information officer.

a perspective that associates the field with IT. While a robust and stable technology platform is essential for offering online courses and programs, very few (3%–5%) online learning leaders in higher education report to the chief information officer. Another research item related to the nature of the position was whether it also provided or included a faculty appointment. Given the value of peer

leadership for online learning

33

relationships among faculty in higher education, one might appreciate the importance of this leadership position also containing the role of professor. Faculty play a central role in academic activities, which includes online learning, so a leader for these initiatives being viewed as a colleague would seem very beneficial. It should be understandable that an online learning leader who is also a faculty member can more readily relate to the issues and concerns raised by fellow professors. That said, it is interesting to note that this was an Figure 2.9. Faculty appointment status of university online learning leaders.

24%

50%

26% Tenure or tenure-track professor

Nontenure-track professor

No faculty appointment

Figure 2.10. Faculty appointment status of community college online learning leaders.

12%

19%

69%

Tenure or tenure-track professor

Nontenure-track professor

No faculty appointment

34

the leadership context

area of difference between university leaders and community college leaders. Half of the university leaders also held a faculty appointment; however, this was true for just 31% of community college leaders (see Figure 2.9 and Figure 2.10). This might cause one to reflect on more general organizational differences between universities and community colleges. There was no statistically significant difference related to the Carnegie classification among the university leaders and no statistically significant difference related to student enrollment size among the community college leaders (Fredericksen, 2017, 2018). Clearly, when the position was created, how it is defined, and how it is placed in the organization are all important to our understanding of leadership for this vital institutional activity. One can surmise that how the school situates the position in the organization might also be a factor in the effectiveness of the role.

Background of Leaders and Their Experiences The third area examined in these studies was the background and experiences of the individual leaders. One difference between the two groups related to gender. The male–female breakdown of university leaders was evenly split at 50–50; however, a majority (61%) of community college leaders were female and a minority (39%) were male. The author explored numerous questions in the survey and conducted various statistical techniques but found no statistically significant differences within the two studies related to gender. The age of the leader was captured in both studies. Seventy-seven percent of university leaders were 45 years old or older, and 69% of the community college leaders were 45 years old or older. If age is a proxy for maturity, one might interpret that as valuable to the institution for this position. Perhaps connected to this is the years of higher education experience. Eighty-six percent of the university leaders of online learning had more than 11 years of higher education experience, and 45% had more than 20 years. For the community college leaders of online learning, 85% had more than 11 years of higher education experience, and 35% had more than 20 years. Certainly, this does mean that this role is not considered an entry-level position, and it likely means that institutions are placing senior leaders in these crucial roles. The two studies investigated the professional background and skills of the online learning leaders. Six specific domains were queried and help paint a picture of the preparation of the leader for this role. The first area was face-to-face classroom teaching experience. Of the university leaders, 70% had more than 6 years of traditional classroom experience, and 25% had more than 20 years. Of the community college leaders, more than 63% had more than 6 years of traditional classroom teaching experience, and

leadership for online learning

35

17% had more than 20 years. In both studies, only 10% of leaders had no face-to-face teaching experience. To complement the first area, the second area assessed whether online learning leaders had any online teaching experience. More than 75% of university leaders had at least a year of online teaching experience, and about half had more than 6 years of online teaching experience. Approximately 88% community college leaders had at least a year of online teaching experience, and 64% had more than 6 years of online teaching experience. The value of this direct knowledge and understanding of what faculty need to do seems apparent. Certainly, it can be very beneficial for these leaders to be well-informed about this mode of instruction as they talk with faculty at their institutions. The third area of experience for these online learning leaders was management and leadership. Approximately 66% of university leaders had more than 11 years of management and leadership experience. More than half of the community college leaders had more than 11 years of management and leadership experience. Given that online learning initiatives touch so many different parts of a college or university, solid knowledge about how higher education institutions work seems essential to this role. A fourth area that the studies investigated related to instructional design and curriculum development. Sixty-two percent of university leaders had at least 6 years of this experience, while 66% of community college leaders had this background. This might make sense in two ways. First, if online learning leaders had online teaching experience, they might have gone through the process of developing an online course, which would benefit from their understanding of instructional design. Second, and perhaps even more important, it would also be extremely helpful for these leaders to have this background, as it is common for them to oversee instructional design staff as part of their organization. A fifth area of experience the studies analyzed was educational research. Half of the university leaders had more than 6 years of educational research experience. Only about 33% of the community college leaders had more than 6 years of educational research experience, and almost 25% did not have any. This may suggest that educational research in this area is valued more in universities than in community college. The sixth and final area of experience is IT. Approximately 67% of the university leaders had at least 1 year of IT experience, and 33% had 11 years or more. However, 27% of university leaders did not have any IT experience at all. For the community college leaders, 60% had at least 1 year of IT experience, 29% had 11 years or more, and 36% did not have any. This should

36

the leadership context

not suggest that IT is not important to online learning efforts. Rather, this might underscore that online learning is not an IT activity. It might highlight that the online learning leader is collaborating with, and counting on, the IT organization to provide a solid and robust technology platform. This is perhaps similar to how other parts of the organization at the institution count on the good work and support that IT provides for other systems such as administration, finance, and student information systems (Fredericksen, 2017, 2018). The studies also explored the academic preparation and credentials of the online learning leaders. Sixty-six percent of university leaders held a doctoral degree, compared to 36% of their community college counterparts. The master’s degree (including MA, MS, MEd, and MBA) was the highest level credential for the majority of community college online learning leaders. In regard to disciplines or fields of study, the majority of leaders in both studies held degrees in education. Beyond the professional background and skills captured in these studies, one other type of experience was queried. As an online learning leader, the author, who earned one of his graduate degrees completely online, believed that the experience of being an online student was extremely valuable. Almost 67% of university leaders had taken at least one online course, with 40% in multiple courses, and 13% in an online degree program. The online student experience was even more prevalent with the community college leaders. Eighty-six percent of community college leaders had taken at least one online course, with 46% in multiple courses, and more than 33% participated in an online degree program (see Figure 2.11 and Figure 2.12). Understanding the online student perspective is essential for online learning leaders as they provide student support services, as well as share with faculty about this firsthand experience (Fredericksen, 2017, 2018). The study also assessed the national organizations that these leaders were associated with and leaned on for information, support, and professional development. The top five associations reported by university online learning leaders were as follows (Fredericksen, 2017, 2018): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Online Learning Consortium (OLC) (77%) EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) (67%) Quality Matters (QM) (61%) WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET) (52%) University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA) (49%)

leadership for online learning

37

Figure 2.11. Online student experience of university online learning leaders. Online student experience 12%

35%

40% 13% One course

Multiple courses

Degree program

None

Figure 2.12. Online student experience of community college online learning leaders. Online student experience 14%

46%

34%

One course

6%

Multiple courses

Degree program

None

The top five associations reported by community college online learning leaders were as follows (Fredericksen, 2017, 2018): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

QM (59%) OLC (52%) League for Innovation (42%) ELI (38%) WCET (32%)

38

the leadership context

Also related to the professional development of these leaders, the studies queried the foundations and methods the online learning leaders used to stay informed about the state of online learning. The top five sources reported by university online learning leaders were as follows (Fredericksen, 2017, 2018): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Research (57%) Peers (56%) Conferences and associations (54%) Online groups, lists, blogs (37%) Media, news (31%)

The top five sources reported by community college online learning leaders were as follows (Fredericksen, 2017, 2018): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Peers (56%) Research (42%) State organizations (31%) Publications (28%) Conferences and associations (23%)

The Voice of the Online Learning Leader The surveys concluded with open-ended questions to collect additional insight and the voice of the online learning leader. One response from the first study captured the importance of a blend of experiences: A [leader] should ideally have a background in teaching, instructional design, and academic technology, as this is a multifaceted role. Leadership training, knowledge of marketing, and a doctoral degree are also very helpful to establish credibility in an academic community. (Participant survey, 2016)

A second response spoke to the style and appropriate approach online learning leaders need to take at their institution: Collaboration seems to be the skill most in need for leaders in this field, as we do not control much of anything. Redefining work as sharing information and presenting goals and standards; working with department chairs to name faculty, ensure faculty training, schedule courses to lead to student persistence and degree completion are major challenges every day. (Participant survey, 2016)

leadership for online learning

39

Another very interesting and provocative response represented a broad and futuristic perspective on the field: The sooner that online education is widely understood as an expansive concept that is integral to most everything we do in higher education, the better. I look forward to the day when online education (understood broadly) is the default and there are specialized people working in the Office of Time- and Place-Bound Education supporting those who work within the limitations of a traditional classroom. (participant survey, 2016)

Summarizing the Similarities and Differences A valuable advantage of conducting these two studies was the ability to better understand the similarities and differences between university online learning leaders and community college online learning leaders (see Table 2.1). The second study included this summary of areas where universities and their online learning leaders converged and diverged with community colleges and their leadership counterparts (Fredericksen, 2018). What can we glean from all of this research? The chapter contributor would suggest that both studies help uncover that presidents and provosts are appointing very seasoned leaders to guide this very important domain for their institutions. The online learning leaders are senior-level administrators who are often faculty or can relate to faculty based on their face-toface and online teaching experiences. These individuals bring a blend of fundamental skills to their positions. Understanding that higher education institutions do not have hierarchical, top-down organizational structures, these veteran leaders use their broad backgrounds to work effectively across their schools. Presidents and provosts have deployed seasoned experts to provide leadership for an area that is considered strategic for the future of their institutions.

Building on This Foundation to Move Forward With CHLOE These initial research studies have helped create a foundation for our understanding of online learning in higher education and the leadership positions attending to those endeavors. With this we have established a baseline for online learning leadership in U.S. higher education to build on. It is in this spirit that the contributor joined forces with the national Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) research team led by esteemed colleagues and thought leaders, Ron Legon (senior adviser for knowledge initiatives and executive director emeritus, Quality Matters) and Richard Garrett (Eduventures chief research officer, ACT | NRCCUA).

40

the leadership context

TABLE 2.1

Similarities and Differences Between University Online Learning Leaders and Community College Online Learning Leaders What do they have in common?

Where do they differ?

Scope includes all courses for the majority of institutions.

University leaders are more likely to have a faculty appointment.

Online learning is a catalyst for organizational change.

University leaders are more likely to hold a doctoral degree.

The same six units or activities are unified in the organization.

Community college leaders are more likely to have online student experience.

The reporting line is through the provost or chief academic officer.

Community college leader positions have been in place longer.

Faculty development and training is the top priority.

The top goal of community college leaders is student retention, and the top goal for university leaders is growing enrollments.

Leaders associate with Online Learning Community colleges are more likely to Consortium, Quality Matters, and use service providers. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. The number of years leaders have held this position and the number of years of their higher education experience are similar.

Community college leaders are connected to state organizations.

Leaders’ professional experience (some) University leaders are more likely to is similar. stay informed through conferences and associations. Leaders stay informed through peers and research.

Sixty-one percent of leaders in community colleges are female versus 50% in universities.

Note. Adapted from E. Fredericksen. (2018), Table 29. Printed with permission of Peter Shea, editor in chief, Online Learning Journal.

Initially, it seemed that there might be overlap or redundancy with these distinct research activities, but thoughtful conversations revealed that the efforts were complementary. The focus of CHLOE was more on the institutional perspective, plans, and associated approaches to quality. The chapter contributor encourages a review of the 2019 CHLOE report (Garrett et al., 2019) to review these broader issues and topics. The first part covers curriculum and enrollment data related to complete and

leadership for online learning

41

hybrid online programs, institutional priorities for these programs, noncredit offerings, and future plans and goals. The second section discusses teaching and learning technologies and techniques in place at the institution. The third section centers on the impact of instructional design, which includes models of course design and development, instructional design capacity, student engagement in online courses, and tools and resources used in courses. The fourth section discusses online learning governance, including how the institution is organized to support and manage its online learning initiatives and activities. The fifth topic focuses on the quality assurance processes used by the institution that contribute to the quality of its online programs. The sixth part covers how institutions are documenting and measuring online student learning outcomes. Seventh and finally, as a consequence and result of this analysis, a number of institutional models have emerged for managing and leading online learning. The common practices and approaches by these institutional models are considered and presented in the CHLOE report.

Final Comment We hope this research is beneficial to our national online learning community and to higher education in general. Presidents, provosts, and their trustees have positioned very senior and seasoned leaders to guide and direct an area that is considered significant and strategic for their institutions. Moving forward, we will continue to study this notable role and the substantial impact on our colleges and universities.

Author’s Note Versions of the figures in this chapter have been previously published in my conference presentations. They are adapted here with permission.

References Baldridge, V., Curtis, D., Ecker, G., & Riley, G. (1977). Alternate models of governance in higher education. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 128–142). Pearson Custom Publishing. Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass. Burns, J. (2003). Transforming leadership: The new pursuit of happiness. Grove Press.

42

the leadership context

Cohen, M., & March, J. (1986). Leadership in an organized anarchy. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 16–35). Pearson Custom Publishing. Ebersole, J., & Patrick, W. (2017). Learning at the speed of light: How online education got to now. Hudson Whitman/Excelsior College Press. Fredericksen, E. E. (2017). A national study of online learning leaders in U.S. higher education. Online Learning, 21(2). https://www.doi.org/10.24059/olj .v21i2.1164 Fredericksen, E. E. (2018). A national study of online learning leaders in U.S. community colleges. Online Learning, 22(4), 383–405. https://www.doi.org/10 .24059/olj.v22i4.1458 Garrett, R., Legon, R., & Fredericksen, E. (2019). CHLOE 3 behind the numbers: The changing landscape of online education 2019. Quality Matters. www .qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE3-report-2019 Mintzberg, H. (1979). The professional bureaucracy. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 50–70). Pearson Custom Publishing. Picciano, A. (2013). Pioneering higher education’s digital future: An evaluation of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s Anytime, Anyplace Learning Program (1992–2012). Graduate Center, City University of New York. Picciano, A. (2017). Online education policy and practice: The past, present, and future of the digital university. Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Seaman, J., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Research Group. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 36–49). Pearson Custom Publishing.

3 LEADING CHANGE IN THE MAINSTREAM A Strategic Approach Gary E. Miller

T

he new generation of eLearning professionals must learn to be a part of the broader institution. As noted in earlier chapters, higher education itself is in a period of dramatic change, with different types of institutions responding differently based on their own traditions, missions, and cultures. This chapter will suggest ways in which distance education leaders can gain insight into their institutions to better serve as change leaders.

Introduction Many leaders in the first generation of eLearning have spent much of their careers on the periphery of their institutions. Many of the first generation of eLearning distance education leadership, for instance, came from continuing education units or information technology units or from faculty roles in academic departments. Given the multicultural nature of higher education, leadership experience in a specialized area outside the institutional mainstream did not necessarily prepare them for the complexity of leading from within the mainstream. Increasingly, however, eLearning leaders are at the institutional leadership table with their counterparts in research, graduate education, international programs, and undergraduate education. Their work has a growing impact on promotion and tenure and other faculty policies and on policies affecting admissions, financial aid, intellectual property, and the university’s technical infrastructure. Never before has the need been greater for distance education professionals to understand the broader academic 43

44

the leadership context

environment in which they work and for other academics to become familiar with what online distance education can offer as academic units struggle to meet the challenge of change. The challenge of leading within the mainstream requires a new way of thinking about leadership. Unfortunately, most of the management and leadership literature that has been used in the field is derived from the commercial sector, perhaps because distance education often is seen by mainstream academics as a self-standing “business” arm of the university or as a separate initiative altogether. Ultimately, higher education is more of a social organization than a traditional business organization. If online distance education is to take its proper place within the academic mainstream, eLearning leaders will need to see themselves in a new light: as academic innovators rather than as cash cow generators. This chapter will look at a somewhat different set of literature to provide a new context within which eLearning professionals can understand their relationship to the broader institution in which they work and practice leadership as the unique institution of higher education goes through a period of radical change. We begin with a look at management theorist Jim Collins’s (2005) view of leading in what he called the social sectors and then look at leadership in a very different environment—the ethical realism philosophy described by Lieven and Hulsman (2007) that dominated a generation of leadership in U.S. international affairs. Underpinning the discussion is the notion that higher education, by its nature, is best seen not as a business but as a unique social organization in our culture.

Focus on Mission Jim Collins (2005) is one business thinker who realized the differences between the needs of commercial organizations and those of social organizations. He began Good to Great and the Social Sectors with the following observation: “We must reject the idea—well-intentioned but dead wrong—that the primary path to greatness in the social sectors is to become ‘more like a business’” (Collins, 2005, p. 1). A key difference is that in business, money is the end goal, whereas in the social sectors, money is a means to an end. As Collins put it, money is an input rather than an output. Clearly, most eLearning units are expected to sustain themselves and generate revenue that can be reinvested in new academic programs, but the activities that generate this revenue can be sustainable only inasmuch as they contribute to a larger mission of the institution. Many institutional experiments in eLearning foundered on that basic issue: The online experiment was not sufficiently tied to the institutional

leading change in the mainstream

45

mission to carry it beyond the financial start-up risks. “The whole purpose of the social sectors,” Collins noted, “is to meet social objectives, human needs, and national priorities that cannot be priced at a profit” (p. 19). Having a meaningful mission that is clear and well understood across the institution—and that is congruent with the overall institutional mission—is critical. Collins defined greatness, in this context, with the following criteria: • Superior performance: This can be measured in many ways. In a distance education operation within a traditional institution, the measures might relate to student satisfaction and achievement, faculty satisfaction (perhaps measured by the number of faculty who work in multiple delivery environments), or client response. It might also be measured by the revenue that the online program returns to academic units that sponsor programs. Regardless, it is safe to say that distance education units can no longer expect to provide superior performance in isolation from other parts of the university that increasingly depend on their performance for revenue, students, external partnerships, and opportunities for academic innovation. • Distinctive impact: Are the online distance education programs seen as models for other academic units, for innovation in on-campus instruction, or for peer institutions to emulate? Are your policies and procedures widely accepted and cited? Do graduate students study the programs? Do employers seek out opportunities to work with the unit? In effect, what is the “brand reputation” (Collins, 2005, p. 25) of online distance education at the institution, and how does that brand reflect on the overall institutional reputation? • Lasting endurance: This might be measured by the long-term impact of innovation through sustainable programs, full-time faculty who have continuing commitments to online courses as part of their regular workload, and so on. Collins (2005) developed, as a “pivot point” for planning around these goals, what he dubbed the “hedgehog concept” (p. 17)—a means by which a unit can define itself in order to focus on long-term results. He described the hedgehog concept for social organizations as a Venn diagram (p. 19) in which the three elements are as follows: 1. “What you are deeply passionate about” (p. 19). This speaks to the core purpose of online distance education within the institution. As such, it should be inclusive (defining what is within your purview) and

46

the leadership context

exclusive (enabling the unit to say “no” when necessary). It is how you want the online distance education mission to be regarded within the university and the community. It defines the area in which the online unit will be the champion across the institution. The response will vary by institution. In some cases, it might be the connector role itself; in others, it might be the adult learner (which would then exclude a distance education role in youth education). It is important that the unit’s passionate focus be carefully articulated and, where the unit is embedded in a broader organization, tied to the general institutional mission. 2. “What you can be best in the world at” (p. 19). This represents the areas in which the unit should be expected to excel, with the understanding that activities that are not within this circle might be done outside the unit by an academic unit or by another administrative unit. In this sense, defining what you are also entails defining what you are not. On the one hand, it is important to take care not to be overly restrictive. On the other hand, do not be so inclusive that you lose definition. This also helps identify other units within the institution whose involvement and support are essential for success in distance education. At the same time, this part of the hedgehog concept suggests that the distance education program must also reflect what the institution itself is best in the world at. For instance, the institution should lead with the programs that are most likely to succeed with distant students and that have the best opportunity to be recognized for high quality by employers, professional associations, and other stakeholders. 3. “What drives your resource engine” (p. 19). This defines how the unit plans to recover its costs, return revenue to the university or individual academic units, and provide investment funds for future projects.

In a changing institutional environment, a hedgehog statement as described previously can help communicate—to staff and to others within the institution—the unique role and scope of authority for the eLearning unit and be the basis for establishing enduring, trusting relationships with other units. The hedgehog should be fully discussed within the unit so that there is strong loyalty to these three core, defining dimensions of distance education within the institution. At the same time, it is essential that the hedgehog not be focused entirely on internal issues but reflect the connector function and include the role of distance education in bringing together university resources to meet external needs.

leading change in the mainstream

47

Leading in the Mainstream: Ethical Realism and the University Defining the hedgehog helps set the stage for the eLearning function, but real work begins as units implement their vision and mission. Here, operating in the mainstream during times of great change presents very complex challenges. Given all of the changes occurring in the communities that we serve, in our institutions and in the means by which we develop and deliver programs, eLearning leaders may find themselves facing a world that is often chaotic, where the old rules no longer fit, and where comfortable assumptions are no longer valid. The challenges facing higher education leaders in times of great change are very similar to the challenges facing international leaders. In this sense, higher education is best seen not as a traditional business but as a social organization in which there are multiple points of formal authority and informal influences that often lead to competing views about how to accomplish the institution’s mission. In their book Ethical Realism, Anatole Lieven and John Hulsman (2007) looked at these issues in terms of international affairs, attempting to return international thinking “to the everyday world where Americans and others do their best to lead ethical lives while facing all the hard choices and ambiguous problems that are the common stuff of our daily existence” (p. 53). Their findings—which are rooted in the realism movement developed in the mid-20th century by Reinhold Niebuhr, Hans Morganthau, and George Kennan—are instructive to eLearning leaders who find themselves thrust into a complex and shifting leadership community. Ethical realism argues that leadership should be based on a set of principles or values that guide action: “prudence, patriotism”—better stated for our purposes as “institutional loyalty”—“humility, study, responsibility, and a decent respect of the views and interests of others” (Lieven & Hulsman, 2007, p. 53). These are the values that allow a leader in a complex social organization to set a vision-based strategy for the future.

Prudence Lieven and Hulsman (2007) noted that prudence is especially important when launching radical and dangerous new ventures. Prudence, as they use the term, is about the underlying moral duty of leadership—the virtue of shaping goals and making decisions that don’t require perfection but instead result in sustainable decency. It involves ensuring that leaders consider the consequences of their actions on the community and that they have a Plan B

48

the leadership context

“in case things don’t turn out according to Plan A” (Lieven & Hulsman, 2007, p. 67). In other words, prudence requires that we be wedded not to one particular mechanism but to the goal and to a workable and institutionally reasonable path toward the goal. This is especially important in today’s eLearning arena. With the old organizational boundaries fading, eLearning leaders increasingly are asked to innovate in areas that have potentially dramatic impact on other parts of the academic community. Prudent leadership demands that these leaders not act in isolation but instead bring together representatives of units that might be affected by an innovation, with the goal of building a change community that looks at the total impact of a program. That community should develop a hedgehog description of the innovation and, focusing on the mission and goals as the constant, explore multiple scenarios and alternative courses of action and then decide on a path forward.

Loyalty Lieven and Hulsman (2007), who were writing within the context of international affairs, called this value “patriotism.” What applies to a nation also applies to an institution. Loyalty, they noted, “is attached to the interests, the values, and the honor” of the organization (p. 80). Loyalty to the organization means appreciating the institution, its culture, history, process, and community of members “as they actually exist, warts and all” (p. 81). It “fuses with the other virtues of ethical realism to produce the flexibility, calm, and perspective necessary” (p. 82) for long-term success.

Humility Reinhold Niehbur, one of the founders of ethical realism, authored the Serenity Prayer, which was later adopted by Alcoholics Anonymous. It goes like this: “Grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference” (Lieven & Hulsman, 2007, p. 70). This epitomizes how ethical realists think about the need for humility in our leaders. This principle presents an interesting dilemma for eLearning leaders. On one hand, they are expected to innovative, to take risks, and to change how the institution interacts with the community. On the other hand, many aspects of the institution lie outside the eLearning leader’s formal authority and, in many cases, beyond even informal influence. The principle of humility encourages the leader to recognize the need to work with others and to invite into decision-making processes individuals who have the power to change those things that are beyond the reach of the unit but that may

leading change in the mainstream

49

be essential to success. Humility also allows us to see our organizations as others see them, with their flaws and limitations, as well as their strengths, so that we can improve those things that must be changed. To operate in an uncertain world, people need to be able to reperceive—“to question their assumptions about the way the world works, so that they can see the changing world more clearly” (Schwartz, 1996, p. 9). This cannot be achieved from one corner of the institution—it requires collaboration; communication; and, ultimately, a shared vision of what must be conserved and what must be changed.

Study One side effect of prudence is that it forces us to recognize that we may not fully understand the environment in which we are trying to lead. Lieven and Hulsman (2007), paraphrasing Hans Morgenthau, noted that “reason is like a lamp that cannot move anywhere by its own power, but is carried around on the back of our prejudices” (p. 74). This mandates that we not only collect information but also learn from it and not take information at face value. eLearning professionals are in a rare situation in our institutions. We work directly with external constituents and across all academic units on programs and services that are at the heart of the institution’s threefold mission of teaching, research, and service. To be effective change leaders, we must become scholars both of the communities we serve and of the higher education environment in which we work. The key to this principle goes back to humility—it is essential that leaders respect and listen to opposing views; build plans on the real facts, not the common wisdom; and be open to the idea that innovation takes place in the “white space” where we have little experience.

Responsibility Lieven and Hulsman (2007) described the ethic of responsibility as opposed to an ethic of convictions. It is, they asserted, the difference between “a morality of results and a morality of intentions” (p. 77). It is not enough to be “right” or to act on good intentions. Instead, actions must be geared to what is truly necessary to reach the goal. One critical responsibility of change leaders in this environment is to anticipate and minimize, to the extent possible, the negative impact of unintended consequences—the reminders of our limited understanding that show up in any innovation of consequence. While we are prone to action, we must also be willing to reflect, so that we act on clear knowledge rather than on prejudice, habit, or hubris.

50

the leadership context

Respect for Others Taken together, the principles of ethical realism add up to a willingness to acknowledge and respect the views and interests of others within the institution. Increasingly, eLearning innovations will have implications for other parts of the institution; for those innovations to succeed, they will need to be seen as successful within the context of the other institutional cultures and interests that are affected by the innovation. Success does not necessarily mean the same thing to everyone. While the administrative delivery unit may define success as financial sustainability, an academic unit may be more concerned about faculty access to research opportunities or the reputation of the department. A financial success that does not address these other perspectives will be short-lived.

Lessons From the Profession Many of these values were reinforced by 30 international open and distance education pioneers who shared their experiences with Canadian researcher Elizabeth Burge (2007) in Flexible Higher Education: Reflections From Expert Experience. Among the “hard-won lessons” that they reported are the need to respect learners, one’s colleagues, and one’s self as a professional and, equally important, to respond to those things that deserve respect (Burge, 2007, p. 61). These leaders noted the following, among other virtues: • Maintaining self-awareness and self-respect: As one respondent said, “It’s about being professional in a profession . . . it’s something about self-accountability as well as enforced accountability” (Burge, 2007, p. 84). • Having humility and grace: Burge (2007) defined humility as “an attitude of mind and knowledge about how innovations are best adopted, as well as respectful listening and thinking strategies that acknowledge the limits of one’s skills” (p. 84). Interviewee Raj Danarajan cautioned leaders not to be tempted “with that arrogance of being far ahead of your time . . . you owe it to yourself, especially, to slow down and address the concerns of the people of whom you find yourself being ahead” (Burge, 2007, p. 85). • Being knowledgeable: The interviewees suggested three strategies: (a) “Avoid thinking that nothing older than five years is worth reading,” (b) “read the literature before jumping into action,” and (c) “avoid dismissing the work of earlier generations as irrelevant” (Burge, 2007, p. 85). They also agreed that within one’s institution, it is important

leading change in the mainstream

51

to understand the complex dynamics—political, financial, and educational—and understand, as interviewee Dan Granger noted, that “being right doesn’t win the day” (Burge, 2007, p. 86). • Being a creative and critical thinker: The pioneers interviewed advised leaders to be compulsive about the details that underpin operational success, to be skeptical at all times, and to not look for panaceas. While being critical and skeptical, interviewee Chere Gibson from Wisconsin noted, “We just need to keep learners and learning to the fore; they really are central to the enterprise” (Burge, 2007, p. 87).

Ethical Realism in Practice How do these principles come to life in the real life of an eLearning unit? Each institution has its own history and culture, so there are no simple answers to this question. However, the principles do provide starting points that apply to most situations.

Define Mission and Vision This is a leadership responsibility. It may be developed initially by the eLearning leadership team or by a small institution-wide leadership group. However, once it is developed, the mission and vision statement should be tested with eLearning staff, to be sure they all understand and can buy into them. A final version should be shared and discussed with the broader institutional leadership.

Create a Diverse, Institution-Wide Change Community to Plan a Strategy Around the Hedgehog Use these leadership colleagues not as an advisory committee but as a planning and implementation committee. An early task would be to develop the hedgehog for eLearning, using Collins’s (2005) work as a guide. This would begin with the vision statement (the passion that will drive the initiative). The team would then focus on the other two dimensions: in what areas the eLearning should excel and how it will sustain itself.

Study the Environment in Which the Hedgehog Concept Will Be Applied What are the societal factors that should drive decisions on programs and services; that is, what problem are we trying to solve? What are the

52

the leadership context

institutional needs that may drive tactical responses to external needs (i.e., budget, faculty workload, accreditation issues, the fit with the broader institutional mission and strategic plan)? What academic programs are prepared to collaborate in the early stage? Meet with each dean and with key academic leaders to identify areas where there is strong interest, then test those interests against external need, funding opportunities, and market interest.

Develop Plan A, Plan B, and Other Alternatives If Needed Here, a scenario planning process may be helpful. In The Art of the Long View, Peter Schwartz (1996) noted that scenarios use individual needs as a way to filter and to identify driving forces and optional responses in complex, even chaotic times. “By imagining where we are going,” he wrote, “we reduce this complexity, this unpredictability which . . . encroaches upon our lives” (p. 15). The key is to develop scenarios that are informed by realworld dynamics and not simply by our internal action biases or institutional cultures. Engaging the change community (as well as key staff ) in scenario development will help ensure that new ideas and perspectives are part of the process. At the end, it is important to communicate the results widely and listen to reactions. Schwartz (1996) noted that scenario building is an art, not a science: We started by isolating the decision we wanted to make. . . . As thinking and exploration continued, the questions were constantly refined. . . . We thought about the key factors that would affect decisions . . . trying to decide which factors were critical. The true work took place in the last step, rehearsing the implications. (pp. 26–27)

Be Alert for Unintended Consequences—and Unanticipated Opportunities—for the Larger Institution Early in the innovation, ask all affected parties to articulate how they will define the success of the innovation and what they would see as failure. Try to imagine consequences in the planning scenarios that will contribute to success or to failure. Once the project is underway, be alert for unplanned negatives and act on them.

leading change in the mainstream

53

Evaluate What Is Really Happening and Respond Accordingly Take time to set metrics that will give the university a realistic assessment of impact. Be the champion of actual accomplishment, not of an ideal or aspiration. Maintain a persistent long-term vision but be willing to move to Plan B if that will get the institution to the vision more effectively.

Conclusion Higher education is one of the oldest continuing institutions in Western culture. Over the centuries, it has evolved as a highly decentralized social organization whose central administrative structure provides an organizational umbrella under which multiple—and often strikingly different—academic cultures thrive at their tripartite missions of teaching, research, and service. eLearning has emerged in a relatively short time as a force that is both disruptive of the traditional higher education culture and necessary as higher education adapts to meet the needs of a society being radically changed by the globalized Information Revolution. Regardless of one’s starting point, the eLearning program leader must be prepared to lead the eLearning function and play a role as a change leader during a period of dramatic transition. This requires that the leader, first, understand and appreciate the multiple cultures at work in a traditional college or university and, second, understand and be able to communicate within the institution the external forces that are driving eLearning. With these two perspectives in mind, the eLearning leader can serve an important role as an ambassador of change, on one hand, helping the institution understand the external societal forces at work and how other institutions and stakeholders are responding and, on the other hand, helping external stakeholders understand the institution’s needs as it works to better serve the community.

References Burge, E. (Ed.). (2007). Flexible higher education: Reflections from expert experience. Open University Press. Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: Why business thinking is not the answer. Harper. Lieven, A., & Hulsman, J. (2007). Ethical realism: A vision for America’s role in the world. Random House.

54

the leadership context

Miller, G., Benke, M., Chaloux, B., Ragan, L. C., Schroeder, R., Smutz, W., & Swan, K. (2014). Leading the eLearning transformation of higher education: Meeting the challenges of technology and distance education. Stylus. Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. Doubleday.

4 LEADERSHIP AND DIVERSITY Cristi Ford and Kathleen S. Ives

T

his chapter addresses the problems that many leaders with multiple, intersecting identities face: the complex layers of leadership challenges faced by women and underrepresented ethnic groups, as well as the skills and domains that need to be considered as part of professional development. Implementing an inclusive agenda with diverse leaders’ perspectives within decentralized, loosely coupled, and often change-resistant colleges and universities proves challenging, particularly within the nascent online and digital learning ecosystem. According to the Center for American Progress, by 2050 there will be no clear racial or ethnic majority in our nation. With this marked shift in the U.S. demographics, women will also comprise 48% of the workforce. Identifying and developing college and university leaders who are representative of the general population in the United States are institutional imperatives. Access and parity for a diverse group of leaders are mission critical for many institutional strategies in online and digital learning to survive and thrive. This chapter calls to light the barriers to leadership pathways for individuals with marginalized and intersectional identities. The complex ways that current perceptions about how professionals should lead preclude advancement of such groups, warranting a new and transformative leadership philosophy in online higher education’s future.

Diversity Matters The United States does not have equitable representation among underrepresented and marginalized populations in online higher education, either as 55

56

the leadership context

institutional leaders or as faculty. As previously noted, by 2050 there will be no clear racial or ethnic majority in our nation; the United States is only going to become more diverse in the coming decades. This proves significant as representative leadership and student success are directly linked to the health of the institution. In analyzing the representation, diversity, and inclusion of marginalized populations in higher education, Surna (2018) encouraged consideration of the following three factors. First, equity and equality are not the same concept. Equity signifies that the pathway to advancement is not the same for everyone. Equality provides everyone the same access to opportunity. Second, representation, diversity, and inclusion prove complex and multilayered. These concepts create a more diverse online leadership team, while at the same time creating an inclusive organizational climate where all people are equally valued. Third, representation, diversity, and inclusion should not be considered a zero-sum game. When everyone’s experiences and ideas spur innovation, a win-win for the organization is created. For example, when students feel understood—win. When institutions sufficiently reflect the citizenry—win. When everyone has a chance at the American dream—win.

Trends in Underrepresented and Marginalized Groups Substantive research has been conducted on the opportunity gaps affecting underrepresented groups in higher education; less has been done for online education. Institutional strategic plans and initiatives are essential in the development of actionable goals for increasing diversity in leadership for online programs and institutions. Changing the distribution of power and participatory management, for example, is one important area to tackle. Another is how postsecondary education needs to adjust the cultural context in which learning and development occur to reflect the social nuances and other realities of modern society. General education requirements reflect outdated notions about how to foster critical thinking and content analysis and do little to stir creative analysis and innovative thinking. Should this not be the call of a modernized higher education foundation? Historically, the leadership structure of most U.S. colleges and universities has been composed of Caucasian males. As the population becomes increasingly more diverse, a growing demand exists for representation from underrepresented groups. Despite efforts by some colleges and universities to hire and develop a diverse team of leaders, programs are doing a woefully insufficient job of unpacking embedded biases. Research reveals there is much work to be done for women and individuals from racialized groups to receive appointments and needed support in senior-level positions.

leadership and diversity

57

The Quest for Diversity Discussions pertaining to diversity in higher education often result in a debate about affirmative action programs. Typically, the method of increasing representation for leaders in marginalized groups has been through placing affirmative action representatives on the institution’s hiring committee. Yes, this method does create a more representative body, but it does not at all prove adequate when tackling socially ingrained and multifaceted issues pertaining to institutional racism, institutional culture, and socialization. For purposes of this chapter, the term diversity refers to differences resulting from social changes in society (different social identity groups). As a societal force, diversity is changing the composition of the population in the United States, thereby necessitating changes in postsecondary institutions to reflect the changing composition. Despite an increasing number of colleges and universities including some mention of diversity in their mission statements (Phillips, 2019), resistance still prevails when institutions are faced with altering their leadership structure. The impact is felt most keenly by women and underrepresented or marginalized groups through various forms of microaggressions.

Women The glass ceiling is a long-standing metaphor for the intangible systemic barriers that prevent women from obtaining senior-level positions (Johnson, 2016). The phrase “the higher the fewer” is used to recognize the fact that even though women have higher education attainment levels than men, this is not reflected in the number of women holding leadership positions (Johnson, 2016). Some strides have been made; however, women continue to significantly trail men with regard to career advancement opportunities. Ironically, although study after study demonstrates women have the potential to serve as innovative, productive, and successful leaders, barriers still exist to advancement. As a result, the number of women in leadership positions lags greatly behind that of their male counterparts (Teague, 2015). The overall percentage of women leading colleges and universities remains disproportionately low at 26% despite the fact that 59% of students served by those colleges and universities are women (Teague, 2015). It is no wonder female leaders find it challenging to appreciate their individual leadership development, work effort, and success independent of being linked to such marginalization, tokenism, affirmative action, and stereotypes (Yeh, 2018). When those rare leadership development opportunities are presented, women find it difficult to acknowledge and highlight their successes or to have their institutions appreciate their contributions.

58

the leadership context

This institutional discounting causes stress levels to rise and contributes to lowered self-confidence and increased self-doubt (Yeh, 2018). Thus, the imposter syndrome perpetuates, as women have the inability to believe their success is deserved or has been legitimately achieved. Women of color, women with disabilities, and lesbians—all marginalized intersectional identities—experience deeper leadership challenges in higher education. Despite tremendous progress toward gender equality and equity in postsecondary institutions, deep patterns of discrimination persist (DeWelde & Stepnick, 2015). From the “chilly climate” to the “old boys club,” these populations must navigate structures and cultures continuing to marginalize, penalize, and undermine their success (DeWelde & Stepnick, 2015).

Underrepresented Ethnic Groups Although Arday (2018) studied UK institutions, Arday’s findings prove relevant to the underrepresented ethnic experience in the United States. Institutions continue to be unaccountable for not actively diversifying senior leadership teams within universities (Arday, 2018). The lack of diversification in leadership teams, as mentioned previously, is not reflective of today’s society and can adversely affect the institution’s operations. These findings are equally supported in the United States. In developing a sustainable business model for higher education, Koester and Martinez (2016) argued one key component of that model lies in enhancing the diversity and effectiveness of higher education leaders. Successful leadership practices revolve around effective interpersonal relations between Whites and underrepresented ethnic groups (Wolfe & Dilworth, 2015). Barriers encountered by this population, according to a study conducted by the American Council on Education, include social, organizational, institutional, and internal barriers (Wolfe & Dilworth, 2015). Institutions can take practical steps to increase the retention of underrepresented ethnic leaders by adopting the same strategies as their White male counterparts, such as committing to principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion; using recruitment as a retention strategy to successfully hiring diverse leaders; and providing equity in wages and salary. Providing an orientation program, developing a mentoring program for junior and senior management, fostering open lines of communication between the administration hierarchy and staff, empowering leaders to perform his or her job, and promoting the pursuit of professional advancement and development (Jackson, 2001, pp. 103–106). (Wolfe & Dilworth, 2015, p. 20)

leadership and diversity

59

are essential steps. Otherwise, barriers to this population’s access to leadership positions will continue to persist. The invisibility of underrepresented populations in academic leadership is tantamount to the exclusion and denial of their voices for which the institution should be held accountable (Mainah & Perkins, 2015).

Trauma and Microaggressions The word trauma is used as a conceptual framework to examine the negative workplace experiences of these underrepresented populations (Davis et al., 2015). Trauma is broadly defined as a kind of injury that harms the victim. Exposure to multiple types of trauma affects one’s ability to recover (Davis et al., 2015). When traumatic injuries remain unhealed, discriminatory practices persist in institutions. Wheeler (2016) further unpacked key tenets of this framework by exploring the implications of microaggressions. Marginalized populations in our society commonly experience microaggressions. Most of the literature on microaggressions in the workplace focuses on race and gender identities. Several types of microaggressions are identified in the literature. Key behaviors include microassaults (attacks meant to harm the victim), microinsults (behaviors that are detrimental to a person’s identity), and microinvalidations (minimizing a person’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences) (Wheeler, 2016). No matter the type, cumulative microaggressions can be used as evidence of illegal discrimination, as they severely minimize an individual’s spirit, reputation, and personal integrity (Sue, 2010). Sue also argued microaggressions have a profound negative effect on the daily lives of persons of color, women, and the LGBT community. Until systematic change occurs, marginalized populations will be unable to be fully valued in the academic environment. Microaggressions can also play a crucial role in employees’ productivity, so those postsecondary institutions genuinely interested in diversity must invest in building environments of appreciation and respect.

Implications for Leadership Institutions of higher education serve as forerunners of societal changes and, as such, must develop and promote responses to diversity for women and underrepresented ethnic groups in recognition of the increasing demographic shifts taking place. Unfortunately, the postsecondary organizational culture tends to resist change, considering any disruption to the institutional structure as a threat versus an opportunity. The very real need exists for the implementation of an effective diversity leadership agenda restructuring and realigning the university’s overall direction and focus, including mission and

60

the leadership context

vision. Future hiring trends supporting this agenda must include input and support from both the departmental and administrative levels. Search processes, hiring standards, and decision-making policies also need to be specifically targeted for any analysis of structural barriers to success for members of disenfranchised groups and seriously evaluated for effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes.

Considerations for Overcoming Barriers An interesting paradox exists in higher education: Although leaders appear to understand the value of diversity at lower levels of the institution, they do not appear to apply the benefits of diversity to institutional leadership, which is where some of the most important decisions are made (Bourke et al., 2017). Focusing on structural diversity at the top can institute a trickle-down effect, resulting in the appreciation of differences through the entire institution. Because we know the benefits of an inclusive work environment, the key lies in forging pathways away from a mind-set of exclusivity and eliminating difficult roadblocks. Underrepresented group inequality in postsecondary institutions is a complex phenomenon that is demonstrated in organizational structures, processes, and practices. For these populations, some of the most harmful inequalities are enacted within human resource practices (Stamarski & Hing, 2015). This is because human resource practices (i.e., policies, decisionmaking, and their enactment) affect hiring, training, compensation, and promotion.

Why Is This Occurring? It is no longer acceptable for administrators in higher education institutions to attempt to justify a low or nonexistent presence of women and people of color when research reveals many members of marginalized groups hold a PhD and other requirements for mid- to top-level positions in the academy. Despite this reality, these potential candidates are not highly sought after. Wolfe and Freeman (2013) identified the following reasons why a lack of leadership representation by underrepresented groups still prevails in higher education: • The value of diversity is convoluted because of limited and mixed empirical findings. • There is not a one-size-fits-all solution. • A holistic and integrated approach is needed.

leadership and diversity

61

• Conceptualizing diversity leadership through group dynamics is increasingly complex because of multiple intersections between people and organizations. • Diversity is a litmus test of organizational adaptability.

Overcoming Barriers: Representative Leadership in Online Higher Education Every day, online leaders make decisions that affect the postsecondary experience of administration, faculty, and staff. Reflecting on the continued diversification of the U.S. population, homogenous leadership teams offer self-limiting perspectives in contrast to diverse leadership teams that produce more nuanced perspectives. Fully deliberated choices made from multiple viewpoints and experiences result in richer and deeper deliberations of an ever-changing student body, institution, and the world at large.

Overcoming Barriers: Bold Approaches Surna (2018) offered up several case studies illustrating creative and audacious approaches toward the development of diverse leadership pathways. Regis University in Colorado has put a concerted emphasis on the leadership development, mentoring, and guidance for women interested in moving into senior positions. With 2019 marking the third year, Regis holds a Women in Leadership Conference designed to provide insights for both organizations and individuals on how to create inclusion for marginalized women. In Rhode Island, Salve Regina University created a Female Empowerment organization, which partners female college professionals with female students. The organization serves an important role at the university by collaborating with other organizations to form a community of support. At the University of California–Berkeley, a cohort-based program has been implemented to increase the number of mid-level administrators from underrepresented backgrounds who choose to enter senior administrative positions. The program is sponsored by a senior administrator and provides a variety of professional development opportunities.

Overcoming Barriers: High Touch Another example of creative leadership representation, diversity, and inclusion best practices is occurring in the admission office. Diversity is especially critical in college and university admission offices. Admission counselors not only serve as the face of their respective institutions to prospective students

62

the leadership context

but also are responsible for shaping the future of the university through admitting each incoming class (Arday, 2018; Surna, 2018). Whether via various forms of outreach or even a review committee, admission representatives coming from diverse experiences play a meaningful role in whether a student from an underrepresented background will even consider applying to their institution. Admission offices create a more equitable student opportunity by providing diverse admission teams and review committees, leading to a sense of inclusion and belonging.

Implications for Leadership By creating a culture of representation, diversity, and inclusion on campus and in the institution’s community, underrepresented groups will benefit, and different viewpoints should create better problem-solving and decisionmaking capacities (Mrig & Sanaghan, 2017). Connecting with individuals from differing backgrounds fosters deeper perspectives. Higher education institutions represent microcosms of the societal structures in which they operate. While it is in an individual’s interest and responsibility to pursue a career in academia and eLearning, the institution is accountable for undertaking the changes that promote and ensure equity and inclusion at all levels of the organization.

Implementing Inclusive Strategies Rethinking the organization’s vision for what constitutes inclusive leadership can be a topic for campus-wide engagement with all stakeholder groups. Gaining an understanding pertaining to everyone’s perceptions about what characteristics make good leaders not only honors the voices of employees and students but also creates a sense of empowerment that change is actually possible. Executing the strategy usually proves to be more difficult than defining it, especially when the strategy centers not on increasing diversity but on increasing inclusivity, which leads to different outcomes. The contributors hope readers use the outcomes of these conversations to develop strategies in the following areas.

A New Philosophy for Leadership The swift pace of change and the complexity of the challenges facing colleges and universities remain immense and test the abilities of institutional leaders (Mrig & Sanaghan, 2017). Institutions face massive and complex challenges with no clear solutions. These are adaptive challenges as defined

leadership and diversity

63

by Harvard’s Heifetz and Linsky (2009), challenges that require innovation, risk-taking, and continuous learning (Mrig & Sanaghan, 2017). Given these challenges, traditional strategies of the past do not prove sufficient; no clear answers exist to enable effective responses by leaders and organizations to the current diversity crisis. Given the prevalence of these adaptive challenges, higher education requires a different kind of leadership. Higher education needs leaders who can build bridges from the past to the future, taking the best from the field of higher education and making it more relevant, competitive, and sustainable (Mrig & Sanaghan, 2017). This includes developing a new statement detailing those leadership qualities sought by the institution. This information can be incorporated into recruitment materials, provided in faculty and staff development sessions, and maintained in a prominent space on the college’s or university’s website.

Establishing Pipelines for Underrepresented Groups to Advance to Leadership Approaches to leadership development require much broader conceptualizations than are expressed by simple hierarchies (Beckman, 2017). An analysis of distributed leadership suggests multiple opportunities exist for distributed leadership within systematic professional recognition for all by the university (Beckman, 2017). Distributed leadership is defined as an emergent property of a group or network of interacting individuals in contrast to traits arising from the nature of an individual and, as a result, requires an openness and transparency of the boundaries of leadership and an intentional widening of the typical net of leaders (Beckman, 2017). In the traditional leadership contexts of universities, anything new and different requires focused and directed leadership to ensure survival. Effectively executing the distributed leadership model requires engaged and involved individuals, supportive processes, and professional development, among other resources (Beckman, 2017). An exemplary leadership strategy within such a scheme effectively nurtures collaborative and leadership capabilities across the spectrum of university staff involved in teaching and learning (Beckman, 2017). This approach to leadership allows the talents of those from nonmajority groups to be inculcated more easily. Examples included in the previous section of this chapter can be designed to serve as activities that move internal or external prospective leadership candidates through a progressive set of preparatory learning programs to attain entry into middle and then senior levels of faculty or administration.

64

the leadership context

Addressing the Organizational Climate to Support Success of Pipelines As institutions take a critical look at ways to increase success in increasing inclusivity, a campus climate study serves as a necessary foundational effort. Developing an understanding in concert with the chief diversity officer or ombudsman regarding ways to frequently assess the climate and culture around support for inclusion is key. Themes from these studies should be examined annually with a special focus on creating targeted initiatives addressing disparities for underrepresented faculty, staff, and leadership. Providing safe spaces for leaders in an institution to be authentic and honest about their experiences on campus while not making this their responsibility or problem becomes paramount. The time is now to move beyond rhetoric and language to demonstrating a concentrated interest in creating diversity across all campuses.

Focused Mentoring for Support and Success by Current Leaders An administrator often experiences additional challenges as the only minority (or one of a few) holding a similar position in an institution. Creating well-structured mentoring programs at the campus level for leaders from underrepresented ethnic groups serves as an impactful and wonderful time investment. Mentorship can be especially beneficial to those administrators underrepresented by, for example, gender or race, and many institutions offer mentorship programs as part of broader leadership diversity programs (Vance, 2016). Mentoring remains critical to the elimination of social isolation for many nonmajority marginalized groups in the academy. Research demonstrates a positive link between the right type of mentoring relationship and positive job satisfaction and career progression. For example, the Executive Leadership Summit offered by Hampton University is one of the oldest of its kind, credited for 15 alumni having served in the role of university president (Vance, 2016). The Leadership and Mentoring Institute, offered by the American Association of Blacks in Higher Education (AABHE), is specifically designed to assist African Americans who aspire to senior leadership positions in higher education (Vance, 2016). A key objective of the institute lies in linking program participants with mentors who will work with participants individually and assist them in enhancing their leadership abilities and professional development (Vance, 2016). These opportunities provide great examples but represent only a few efforts the authors could find at the publication of this book. Still, these opportunities signify the very real potential for any campus culture to create affirming and inclusive environments.

leadership and diversity

65

Other examples of mentoring occur in formalized leadership development programs. Providing a pathway for leadership development proves essential toward a pipeline creation of talented leaders in the online realm from underrepresented groups. Programs such as the Institute for Emerging Leadership in Online Learning (IELOL), detailed in chapter 14, are one way to make sure that inclusion with junior leaders is addressed and focused on relevant topics and issues.

Success That Leads to Positive Change Catalyzes the Industry Several examples highlight where positive change has led to a growing transformation in higher education. For instance, the American Council on Education (ACE) has worked diligently for over a decade to broaden the conversation of leadership. Hallmark programs such as the development of the ACE’s Women’s Network and the ACE Spectrum Executive Leadership Program have both created new avenues to support the larger diversity and inclusion of leaders. The same approach must be taken in redefining the social and cultural norms around work in higher education and specifically in online learning. Social construction theory is based on the idea that reality is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Redefining the social reality serves to reduce harm and improve the individual’s psychological, emotional, physical, and social status. Organizations must recognize the systematic and organizational dynamics that harm women and underrepresented groups in the academy.

Career Considerations for Greater Success in eLearning This chapter has demonstrated insights into barriers and professional development opportunities for underrepresented groups in the field of higher education. The chapter contributors would be remiss if there was not a discussion around the types of leadership paths that lead to greater success and access to leadership positions in eLearning. While no specific equation exists leading to a successful leadership trajectory, components do exist in considering how individuals from marginalized populations rise through the ranks. The following is a high-level list of attributes and tactical considerations: • Create a path in uncharted waters: Institutions should remain open to new roles that never existed in the past as a critical element toward progression. Possessing an institutional growth mind-set allows the creation of policies and procedures detailing such a new and innovative approach. Individuals willing to pilot something new for the university becomes paramount in making that first leadership step.

66

the leadership context

• Generate solution-oriented approaches while mitigating risk: eLearning tackles many unforeseen challenges; having a great sense of being solution oriented while being ready to mitigate risk is critical. Change management has become an important factor in many of the new avenues in eLearning. Being able to build capacity requires individuals who see the challenges but can provide a range of solutions to move the institution forward. Finding new ways to polish and exhibit these skills is key. Exhibiting these skills often leads to new leadership opportunities and avenues. Any opportunity to demonstrate these skills on large cross-institutional eLearning goals will provide acknowledgment in new ways. • Consider ways to be multifaceted: eLearning will continue to transform higher education institutions; being willing to engage on multiple high-impact innovative practices on campus proves key. Leaders must be willing to engage and collaborate in many types of projects. These include those initiatives that do not always fit squarely in a department, role, or division. Leaders progressing up the ranks must remain willing to engage in both academic affairs and student affairs initiatives. For instance, providing key leadership in cross-institutional work around issues such as academic integrity or retention in eLearning will serve to demonstrate a leader’s ability to be multifaceted in the kinds of contributions being offered. • Embody a multidisciplined approach: Given the speed and caliber of changes occurring in online education, it is critical to highlight the need for agility and dynamism in capacity building. Many campuses have created innovation centers or incubators providing the opportunity for advancement paths that take advantage of these opportunities. Such initiatives require the oversight and project management of the operational components to achieve success. • Examine institutional structures around innovation: It is important to understand the institutional structures that exist around innovation. Selingo (2018) discussed three high-level models : internal consultancy, integrated strategy, and skunkworks or autonomous-entity strategy. The internal consultancy model is an integrated university service unit and thought partner, while the integrated model is typically created as an innovative structure that is embedded in academic affairs and typically reports to the provost office. The skunkworks or autonomous-entity model is typically housed off campus in a separate unit. Each of these approaches requires different types of leadership. Becoming familiar with the current campus culture around how and where innovation happens will be key in determining the types of leadership skills an individual must acquire.

leadership and diversity

67

Leadership Commitment to Diversity Provides Value to eLearning Online education has a chance to equalize the academic playing field and help students who do not have access to traditional education gain skills and get ahead. Traditional university education poses significant barriers for marginalized populations such as lack of flexibility, higher costs, and a traditional admission process not necessarily highlighting this population’s strongest abilities, leading to unequal access to elite credentials (Osam et al., 2017). The promise of online education lies in the removal of these barriers. While some progress has been made to that effect, only a fraction of what is possible has been achieved.

Leadership and the Reflection of a Diverse Student Body Although diversifying the makeup of student bodies has been a major effort on college campuses in recent years, when it comes to institutional administration as discussed in this chapter, slight change has occurred. A university’s governing board, administration, and faculty need to reflect the increasingly diverse online student body at colleges and universities for a variety of reasons: (a) offering a more accurate representation of the world; (b) serving as direct examples of success for a diverse student body; (c) ensuring diverse viewpoints are taught, represented, defended, and considered within university decisions; and (d) helping sustain universities as they move forward with an evolving population, curriculum, and world (Nair, 2019).

Leadership and a Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning Climate A vast number of aspects must be considered when implementing online learning approaches, yet developing successful online learning approaches is only the first step in online course development and delivery, ensuring the engagement of diverse student populations (Schweighofer & Ebner, 2015). The mandate of online leadership should include fostering a climate where teaching in a culturally responsive way acknowledges students’ diverse perspectives, experiences, and individual approaches to learning. How can institutions create culturally responsive online classrooms? Designed specifically for adult learning environments, the motivational framework for culturally responsive teaching describes norms and practices designed to encourage participation, inquiry, discourse, and respect for all learners and can be adapted for the online learning environment (Rhodes & Schmidt, 2018). The framework includes four elements: (a) establishing inclusion, (b)

68

the leadership context

developing attitude, (c) enhancing meaning, and (d) engendering competence (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2009). Creating a culturally responsive online classroom requires planning and engagement not only at the beginning but also throughout the entire course. The four elements of the motivational framework for culturally responsive teaching, when completed in a cyclical manner rather than in a linear fashion, serve as an effective guide (Rhodes & Schmidt, 2018). As online faculty become more adept at creating culturally responsive learning environments, all students will have access to equitable and inclusive learning environments. By changing the manner in which online learning meets these students’ needs, an online higher education system can be created that works better for everyone—students; educators; and, ultimately, employers—creating a population poised for future success.

Conclusion: A Call to Action in Online Education Over the years, online education has become a critical institutional component of higher education. While the roots of online education stem from continuing education’s original mission to serve nontraditional learners, the field has grown and flourished to create dynamic technology-enhanced pedagogical approaches for a larger audience of learners. In analyzing the demographics during the past 10 years, women and people from underrepresented groups have been a critical element of the fabric of learners who have gravitated to this modality. However, in examining the diversity of senior leaders, there is a dearth of individuals who have lived through these experiences and provide industry thought leadership. This type of expertise will better inform institutional best practices not only about the complexities of these very real lived experiences but also in posing solutions for 21st-century learning. Creating a space and genuine dialogue beyond being politically correct or satisfying a quota proves paramount. Acknowledging and creating clearly structured support to break down educational infrastructure held by gatekeepers and finding that worthy of inclusion means breaking cycles of homogenous thinking. Just as dynamic, varied, and well-suited pedagogical approaches were created to enhance the digital learning space, similar initiatives must also be undertaken for the creation of a diverse leadership talent pool in the eLearning arena. These leadership initiatives demand new thinking around the kinds of narratives being promulgated and the noninclusive lived experiences of those marginalized individuals. Notions around how helping students from varied backgrounds overcome obstacles to reach educational attainment have been identified and challenged, and the assignment of personal responsibility for structural

leadership and diversity

69

injustices to underrepresented groups must be explicitly addressed. This chapter’s intent is to draw attention to knowledge gained to inform senior leaders from majority groups about the complexities of diversity issues in online education. Ill-defined assumptions about why, in the field of online education, so few senior leaders represent nonmajority populations must be confronted. While most likely unintended, the field has tended to perpetuate the larger stereotype threats at the institutional level when, ironically, the online field has worked so hard to debunk other myths, such as the quality of online students. Online higher education champions must be intentional and strategic in efforts to ensure that diversity and inclusion become top priorities. Finding actionable ways to value the work and contributions of underrepresented groups is one critical component. In addition, creating spaces for community discussion is important. One example is the Online Learning Consortium’s (OLC’s) work in partnership with historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). The OLC holds an annual HBCU summit in conjunction with the OLC annual conference. This strategic planning for the past 5 years illustrates intentional activities generating high-level visibility and inclusion. To build on and sustain this momentum, leaders in the field must leverage initiatives such as those provided in this chapter to effectively craft a leadership pathway for individuals from marginalized groups have historically been excluded from the leadership career ladder. As innovative pedagogical opportunities have created new pathways for learning, the same mechanisms (e.g., design thinking, growth mind-set) can be applied to develop new replicable and scalable solutions throughout the field of postsecondary education.

References Arday, J. (2018). Understanding race and educational leadership in higher education: Exploring the Black and ethnic minority experience (BME). Management in Education, 32(4), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618791002 Beckman, E. (2017). Leadership through fellowship: Distributed leadership in a professional recognition scheme for university educators. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(2), 155–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360 080X.2017.1276663 Bourke, J., van Berkel, A., Garr, S., & Wong, J. (2017). Diversity and inclusion: The reality gap. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capitaltrends/2017/diversity-and-inclusion-at-the-workplace.html Davis, M. E., Ofahengaue Vakalahi, H. F., & Scales, R. (2015). Women of color in the academy: From trauma to transformation. In K. DeWelde & A. Stepnick

70

the leadership context

(Eds.), Disrupting the culture of silence: Confronting gender inequality and making change in higher education (pp. 265–277). Stylus DeWelde, K., & Stepnick, A. (Eds.). (2015). Disrupting the culture of silence: Confronting gender inequality and making change in higher education. Stylus. Ginsberg, M., & Wlodkowski, R. (2009). Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive teaching in college. Jossey-Bass. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press. Johnson, H. L. (2016). Pipelines, pathways, and institutional leadership: An update on the status of women in higher education. American Council on Education. Koester, J., & Martinez, A. (2016). Closing the gap: Leadership development and succession planning in public higher education. TIAA Institute and the Association of State Colleges and Universities. https://www.aascu.org/paper/ClosingtheGap/ Mainah, F., & Perkins, V. (2015). Challenges facing female leaders in higher education. International Journal of African Development, 2(2), 1–13. https://pdfs .semanticscholar.org/5cd2/0a19314a7c5f61b53f144f749e97bd878ef0.pdf Mrig, A., & Sanaghan, P. (2017). The skills future higher-ed leaders need to succeed. https://www.academicimpressions.com/PDF/future-skillset.pdf Nair, A. (2019, September 10). Higher education must close its leadership diversity gap. Philadelphia Inquirer. https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/ college-universities-diversity-faculty-professors-staff-20190910.html Osam, E. K., Bergman, M., & Cumberland, D. M. (2017). An integrative literature review on the barriers impacting adult learners’ return to college. Adult Learning, 28(2), 54–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1045159516658013 Phillips, A. (2019). The quest for diversity in higher education. Pepperdine Policy Review, 11, 163–191. Rhodes, C. M., & Schmidt, S. W. (2018, November). Culturally responsive teaching in the online classroom. eLearn Magazine. https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive .cfm?aid=3274756 Schweighofer, P., & Ebner, M. (2015, February). Aspects to be considered when implementing technology-enhanced learning approaches: A literature review. Future Internet, 7(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi7010026 Selingo, J. (2018). The rise of the chief innovation officer in higher education: The importance of managing change on campuses [White paper]. https://www .entangled.solutions/portfolio/the-rise-of-the-chief-innovation-officer-in-highereducation/ Stamarski, C. S., & Hing, L. S. (2015, September 16). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers’ sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih .gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584998/pdf/fpsyg-06-01400.pdf Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley & Sons. Surna, A. (2018, Summer). Equitable representation among people of color and women in higher ed. Journal of College Admissions, (240), 48–53.

leadership and diversity

71

Teague, L. W. (2015). Higher education plays a critical role in society: More women leaders can make a difference. Forum on Public Policy, Journal for the Oxford Round Table, 2, 1–21. https://www.baylor.edu/law/facultystaff/doc.php/292036.pdf Vance, M. C. (2016, October 27). The importance of mentoring for higher ed leadership. HigherEdJobs. https://www.higheredjobs.com/articles/articleDisplay .cfm?ID=1077 Wheeler, R. (2016). About microaggressions. Law Library Journal, 108(2), 321–329. Wolfe, B. L., & Dilworth, P. P. (2015). Transitioning normalcy: Organizational culture, African American administrators, and diversity leadership in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 667–697. http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.3102/0034654314565667 Wolfe, B., & Freeman, S., Jr. (2013, Fall). A case for administrators of color: Insights and policy implications for higher education’s predominantly White institutions. JEP: eJournal of Education Policy, 1–11. Yeh, T. (2018). A heuristic study on the leadership practices of female faculty in higher education. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 11(2), 245–259.

PA RT T W O E N S U R I N G O P E R AT I O N A L EFFECTIVENESS

5 W H AT e L E A R N I N G L E A D E R S S H O U L D K N OW A B O U T LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS Peter Shea and Karen Swan

A

lthough there is considerable evidence that effective leadership makes a significant difference in student achievement in the K–12 environment (Zuckerman et al., 2017), similar research linking leadership in eLearning to student success does not exist. Indeed, similar research has not been undertaken at postsecondary levels at all, most likely because student learning at institutions of higher education has not been subject to the same scrutiny as it has in K–12 schools. This state of affairs is changing rapidly, however, driven to no small extent by the rise of online education, and student achievement at postsecondary institutions is increasingly being questioned. eLearning effectiveness, therefore, is an issue that eLearning leaders must take very seriously. This chapter explores what eLearning leaders should know about learning effectiveness. Because many still doubt the efficacy of eLearning, this chapter opens with a review of current evidence. While doubts about online learning quality continue, students learn at least as much if not more in online classes as they do in traditional, face-to-face classes. The chapter then briefly examines the community of inquiry (CoI) framework, a widely researched pedagogical model for the design of high-quality online learning environments. This chapter advocates for eLearning leaders to make themselves particularly knowledgeable about the efficacy of their own unique eLearning contexts through the collection and analysis of empirical data. This chapter thus describes the role of learning analytics and data-based decision-making and advocates for exploring the inputs and processes of learning, as well as learning outcomes. Two different approaches to ensuring 75

76

ensuring operational effectiveness

quality in the design of online courses are described, along with several approaches to measuring learning processes, including the CoI survey. Finally, this chapter identifies a variety of outcome measures that are useful in this environment.

eLearning Versus Traditional Classroom Instruction At its most basic, the goal, the product, the raison d’être of education is learning. Ensuring and enhancing learning effectiveness must thus be of prime importance to all higher education leaders, especially in light of growing national concern about the value of a college education. In particular, although eLearning leaders have decades of evidence that students learn as much as or more from online classes than they do from traditional teaching and learning (Arbaugh, 2000; Bernard, et al., 2004; Cavanaugh, 2013; Fallah & Ubell, 2000), a majority of higher education faculty continue to believe that eLearning is inferior to face-to-face learning. For example, in 2018 a national survey found that a majority of faculty members believe inperson instruction is more effective than online teaching at meeting a variety of course objectives (Jaschik & Lederman, 2018). The foundational learning effectiveness task for an eLearning leader, then, often involves justifying the efficacy of learning online. If nothing else, eLearning leaders should familiarize themselves with a summary of the meta-analytic evidence indicating that online and blended learning are at least equivalent to classroom instruction. Understanding the caveats of claims made about the effectiveness of online learning is also useful in justifying its implementation. Some of the most recent systematic investigations of online learning have been conducted by Bernard and colleagues (e.g., Bernard et al., 2014). These authors referenced 16 meta-analyses and noted that literally thousands of comparative primary studies have investigated online and classroom instruction. Four major conclusions can be drawn from this line of research: 1. There is consensus on the effectiveness of online learning compared with classroom instruction, with small effect sizes indicating that online learning may be somewhat more effective. 2. There is wide variability among studies, from those favoring online learning to those favoring classroom instruction, thus raising questions about the contexts in which online learning is most effective.

what elearning leaders should know

77

3. Researchers often describe the online learning condition in great detail while characterizing the classroom instruction in much less detail, thereby reducing the opportunity to compare salient study variables. 4. Most comparative primary research suffers from a variety of methodological problems and confounding factors that make many studies difficult to interpret. It is therefore unclear what the “active ingredient” is in the beneficial effects of online instruction.

It is therefore imperative that online learning leaders engage in efforts to understand promising, research-based practices and the outcomes of efforts to improve online education in their own contexts.

Contextual Differences The ongoing concern with comparing traditional and online delivery draws our attention away from more useful explorations (e.g., what are the conditions under which online learning is most effective?) and focuses us on issues that have really already been settled. From more recent investigations we are learning important contextual lessons with implications for leaders involved in eLearning. Among these newer studies are national and statewide investigations of the experiences of community college learners in online settings. The emerging consensus appears to be that online community college students have slightly lower grades and may have slightly higher course dropout rates than their classroom counterparts but graduate at higher levels than do classroom-only students (e.g., Jaggars & Xu, 2010; H. Johnson, 2015; Shea & Bidjerano, 2019). In some of these studies, negative outcomes around course grades were amplified among racial minorities, younger students, those with low GPAs, and male students. Again, these contextual differences highlight the need for eLearning leaders to better understand student performance at their own institutions.

CoI Framework The CoI framework (Garrison et al., 2000), one of the most widely used models of online learning, is grounded in a collaborative constructivist view of higher education. The CoI framework is a process model that assumes that effective online learning requires the development of a community (Hilliarda & Stewart, 2019; Rovai, 2002; Shea, 2006) that supports meaningful inquiry and deep learning. The CoI framework has been quite widely used to inform

78

ensuring operational effectiveness

both research and practice in the online learning community, and an increasing body of research supports its efficacy for both describing and informing online learning (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Dempsey & Jang, 2019; Lawa et al., 2019; Swan et al., 2009). The CoI framework states that online learning is located at the intersection of social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence (see Figure 5.1). Social presence refers to the degree to which participants in online communities feel socially and emotionally connected with each other. Many research studies have found that the perception of interpersonal connections with virtual others is an important factor in the success of online learning (Jaggars & Xu, 2016; Picciano, 2002; Richardson et al., 2017; Richardson & Swan, 2003). Research also suggests that these elements are strongly affected by teaching presence—both instructor behaviors (d’Alessio et al., 2019; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009) and course design (Richardson et al., 2017; Swan & Shih, 2005). Teaching presence is defined as the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the realization of personally meaningful Figure 5.1. The CoI framework.

COGNITIVE PRESENCE

SOCIAL PRESENCE LEARNING

TEACHING PRESENCE

Note. Adapted with permission from “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education,” by D. R. Garrison, T. Anderson, & W. Archer, 2000, The Internet and Higher Education, 2.

what elearning leaders should know

79

and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes (Anderson et al., 2001). Researchers have documented strong correlations between learners’ perceived and actual interactions with instructors and their perceived learning (Jiang & Ting, 2000; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan et al., 2000) and between teaching presence and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and development of a sense of community in online courses (Shea et al., 2005). In fact, the body of evidence attesting to the critical importance of teaching presence for successful online learning continues to grow (Garrison & ClevelandInnes, 2005; Kozan & Richardson, 2014; Swan & Shih, 2005; Vaughan & Garrison, 2006; Wu & Hiltz, 2004), with the most recent research suggesting it is the key to developing online CoIs (Kucuk & Richardson, 2019; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). Cognitive presence describes the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through course activities, sustained reflection, and discourse (Garrison et al., 2000). Although some researchers have found that cognitive presence rarely moves beyond exploration (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998; Luebeck & Bice, 2005), students did progress further in studies in which they were challenged to do so and in which explicit facilitation, direction, or scripted roles were provided (Gašević et al., 2015; Meyer, 2003; Olesova et al., 2016; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; Y.-M. Wang & Chang, 2008).

Learning Analytics and Data-Based Decision-Making It is plainly important for eLearning leaders to stay conversant with the literature on online learning research and with best practices in the field. This isn’t easy; staying conversant is an ongoing activity, made especially so by a constantly changing technology culture. It is also clear, however, that learning is an extremely complex activity and that all learning contexts are unique. eLearning leaders, therefore, should become particularly knowledgeable about eLearning in their own unique context. An understanding of the eLearning field in general provides ideas for innovation; an understanding of one’s own context is the foundation for intelligent decision-making. An understanding of one’s own context, moreover, can no longer be grounded solely in networking and intuition; it must also be grounded in data. We have passed from an industrial age to an information age. One consequence of this move is the information overload envisioned by Bush (1945) over a half century ago. The growth of data often seems to threaten organizations’ abilities to make sense of the data. However, advances in knowledge modeling and representation, data mining, and analytics are creating a

80

ensuring operational effectiveness

foundation for new models of knowledge development and analysis (Markoff, 2011). Perhaps nowhere are these new models more needed than in higher education. Higher education institutions generate enormous amounts of data on a daily basis but currently approach this enterprise from mostly a reporting and archival perspective. This is about to change radically. Until recently in higher education, analytics were most often used, if used at all, to guide administrative tasks (e.g., student recruitment and capital campaigns). As calls for academic accountability in areas such as degree completion and student success become increasingly strident, however, analytics are quickly being applied to teaching and learning. When applied in these areas, they are most often called learning analytics. Some institutional leaders are seeing the possibilities that the volumes of data produced in their IT systems hold for confronting strategic challenges facing their colleges today. The combination of administrative and academic technologies, big data, powerful analytical tools, and sophisticated data-mining techniques has begun to enable vast changes in how teaching and learning are conducted and how the efficacy of education is measured (Alhadad et al., 2015). Learning analytics are thus an area with which eLearning leaders must acquaint themselves. Learning analytics are a particularly appropriate tool in eLearning leadership simply because online environments produce vast amounts of data that could be used to enhance learning when explored at the leadership level. To date, eLearning analytics have focused primarily on using learner characteristics to identify students generally at risk for failure who can then be provided with extra support (L. Johnson et al., 2011). However, one need only consider the data produced by learning management systems (LMSs) to realize that there are all sorts of data being commonly generated that could yield a variety of actionable intelligence. Cerezo et al. (2016), for example, found significant differences in timeon-task-related participation in an LMS between students who were high achievers and low achievers. This sort of analysis goes well beyond the gross identification of at-risk students from learner characteristics, leading many eLearning educators to call for reporting tools that can flag students as soon as they become at risk (Macfadyen & Dawson, 2010). Indeed, commercial applications that purport to do so are already emerging. This sort of analysis is also clearly context dependent. eLearning leaders who would enhance learning effectiveness must become comfortable, then, collecting, analyzing, and using data to make informed improvements in teaching and learning. Using learning analytics requires one to think carefully about what questions most need answering and what data are likely to produce meaningful answers to them. One way to guide such thinking

what elearning leaders should know

81

involves conceiving of the eLearning process in terms of its inputs, processes, and outcomes (see Figure 5.2) and being sure to ask questions that identify and collect data associated with each of these areas. For example, the question “Does the use of videoconferencing enhance learning in online courses?” is not specific enough to produce useful answers, whereas “Does the use of videoconferencing to support interactions between instructors and students in entry-level, freshman courses enhance students’ learning of important course concepts?” is more likely to do so. Inputs to eLearning are those factors that precede teaching and learning online but contribute to its success and its outcomes. eLearning processes are the interactions through which teaching and learning proceed online. These clearly affect learning outcomes, which are the desired knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students should take away from a course. (Other important outcomes include course- and program-level retention rates and graduation rates.) Because all of the three parts of the eLearning process are clearly important, and specifically because outcomes alone, especially gross outcomes, don’t provide the information needed to improve teaching and learning, an effort should be made to specify aspects of each element and collect corresponding data. In the sections that follow, each of the elements in the eLearning process and particular data sources related to them are discussed.

Inputs to eLearning There are multiple inputs to online learning that can have significant impacts on learning effectiveness. Three of these—faculty and faculty development, students and student services, and technology environments and supports— are addressed in other chapters and so will not be dwelled on here. It should Figure 5.2. Three elements in the eLearning process.

inputs

processes

outcomes Note. Reprinted with permission from K. Swan (2013).

82

ensuring operational effectiveness

be noted, however, that these are clearly areas to which eLearning leaders should pay attention and that data on all these sorts of inputs need to be collected on an ongoing basis. In addition, leaders should develop ways of making such data useful so that analyses of the relationships among inputs, eLearning processes, and learning outcomes can be carried out. For example, learner characteristics such as technology skills and experience (Bernard et al., 2004; Pillay et al., 2006), good attitudes toward computers and online learning (Pillay et al., 2006), technology self-efficacy (Bernard et al., 2004; Osborn, 2001), grade point average (Bernard et al., 2004; Cheung & Kan, 2002; Willging & Johnson, 2004; Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005), self-motivation (Waschull, 2005) and/or self-directedness (Bernard et al., 2004; Shea & Bidjerano, 2012), and internal locus of control (Parker, 2003; A. Wang & Newlin, 2000) have been shown to affect learning online. As these characteristics can be indicators of risk and as many of them can be remediated, they can be important flags for early intervention, of which eLearning leaders should be aware. In any case, such data should be collected and reviewed. Within courses, research demonstrates that the perceived interactivity (Fasse et al., 2009; Lenrow, 2009) and utility (Meyer et al., 2006) of courses and faculty responsiveness (Lenrow, 2009; Shelton, 2009) are good predictors of course completion. The strongest predictor of student success, however, seems to be the perceived presence of the instructor and peers (Boston et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 2006), which is discussed in the section on the CoI framework that follows. Student supports, such as access to online orientation programs (Lenrow, 2009; Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005), peer mentoring (Bogle, 2008; Boles et al., 2010) and freshman interest groups (Rovai, 2003), computers and good internet connections (Osborn, 2001; Waschull, 2005), and personal support (Boles et al., 2010; Chyung, 2001; Frid, 2001), can have a significant impact on student success with eLearning. eLearning leaders should make sure that as many of these variables as possible are collected, even when they aren’t sure how they might use them, because they might become important for future analyses. As Dziuban (2011) reminded us, “Uncollected data cannot be analyzed” (p. 48).

Assessing Learning Processes in eLearning Environments There are many ways to assess learning processes in online courses. At least three sorts of learning processes—pedagogical approaches, interactions, and forms of assessment—can be categorized or measured using LMS reports

what elearning leaders should know

83

and archived courses. eLearning leaders should think carefully about which of these, and which aspects of these, are most important in their institutional context. Pedagogical approaches can be categorized as objectivist versus constructivist, formal versus informal, low touch versus high touch, and so on, and their effects studied. Ben Arbaugh, for example, found pedagogical differences between what he identified as hard and soft disciplines in business education (Arbaugh et al., 2010). Olesova et al. (2016) compared structured and unstructured online discussions and found higher levels of critical thinking in the structured discussion. Shea et al. (2003) found strong correlations between teaching behaviors and perceived learning across a variety of courses and New York State institutions involved in online learning. Other pedagogical approaches that might be identified include using instructional strategies such as collaborative (Xu et al., 2015) or problem-based learning or incorporating technologies into instruction (Ice et al., 2007). Moore (1989) identified three types of interactions that take place online: learner–instructor interactions, learner–content interactions, and learner–learner interactions. There are many ways to measure interactions among participants in online courses, many of which can be accessed through LMS reporting functions. Research has shown that interactions with instructors (Jiang & Ting, 2000; Picciano, 1998; Richardson & Ting, 1999) and interactions among classmates (Jiang & Ting, 2000; Picciano, 1998, 2002) enhance perceived and actual learning in online courses. Assessment itself is another sort of learning process. In addition to determining what sorts of outcomes are measured (the importance of which cannot be exaggerated), what is assessed and how it is assessed affect both learning processes themselves and general course outcomes (Swan et al., 2006). Hawisher and Pemberton (1997) related the success of the online courses they reviewed to the value instructors placed on discussion. Likewise, Jiang and Ting (2000) reported correlations between perceived learning in online courses and the percentage of course grades based on discussion. Perhaps more important, researchers have shown that how online activities are assessed significantly affects student behaviors (Swan et al., 2007).

CoI Survey In 2008, researchers working with the CoI framework developed a survey designed to measure student perceptions of the extent to which each of the presences—teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence—is expressed in online courses (Arbaugh et al., 2008). The survey consists of 34 items (13 teaching presence, 9 social presence, and 12 cognitive presence

84

ensuring operational effectiveness

items) that ask students to rate their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with statements related to each of the presences. It should be noted that assessing the extent to which CoIs have developed in online courses through the eyes of students participating in them online is very appropriate from a constructivist perspective. The CoI survey also provides a way to collect data on online learning processes from the very people with an intimate knowledge of them. The CoI survey was validated through a confirmatory factor analysis of survey responses from 287 students at four institutions of higher education in the United States and Canada (Arbaugh et al., 2008). The results validate both the survey and the CoI model itself. The validated survey provides a quantitative measure of learning processes that can be used to assess the effectiveness of technological and pedagogical innovations in online courses across time and institutions. It has been used to further explore the CoI framework and the interactive effects of all three presences (Garrison et al., 2010; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009), with some meaningful results. For example, researchers have begun linking perceptions of the presences to course outcomes (Arbaugh et al., 2010; Boston et al., 2010; Swan et al., 2014). Boston et al. (2010) linked 21% of the variance in program retention to two social presence survey items. The survey has also been used to explore the effects of particular technologies and pedagogical strategies on learning processes. For example, researchers have shown that using audio for instructor feedback (Ice et al., 2010) and mini presentations (Dringus et al., 2010) enhances the development of all three presences, that using video can enhance teaching presence, that the use of digital storytelling can enhance social presence (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2010), and that the forms of online discussion used in online classes influence the development of cognitive presence (Richardson & Ice, 2010). Researchers have even found that the choice of LMS can influence the development of CoIs (Rubin et al., 2010). Indeed, several eLearning programs have adopted it as their end-of-course survey precisely because it can provide actionable data. One such institution to do so is American Public University System (Boston et al., 2010), where eLearning leaders are using it to pinpoint areas that might be changed to enhance student retention.

eLearning Outcomes Learning outcomes are, of course, what learning analytics measure against. A large part of the point of keeping careful data on eLearning inputs and processes is to explore how these affect learning outcomes. With the

what elearning leaders should know

85

escalating calls for greater accountability in higher education, and the recent scrutiny placed on eLearning in particular, learning outcomes are in the spotlight, and eLearning leaders need to take charge of the kinds of outcome data their institutions collect. Learning outcomes alone, however, will not produce actionable intelligence. There are six sorts of outcome measures commonly used to assess learning effectiveness: satisfaction, retention, course grades/success, achievement, proficiencies, and performance. Some of these, such as learner satisfaction and retention, are discussed in other chapters of this book. In regard to both these measures, suffice it to say that while these are the easiest metrics to obtain, they are also the easiest to misinterpret or misrepresent. It is very important to define in detail what exactly it is that you are measuring. A common measure of retention, for example, is course completion, or the percentage of students enrolled as of a certain date who are still enrolled at the end of the semester, regardless of their grades (Bloemer, 2009; Shelton, 2009; Willging & Johnson, 2004). However, some institutions exclude those with failing (F) grades from that count (Fasse et al., 2009; Lenrow, 2009; Nash, 2005), and some institutions count students earning a C or better (Bloemer, 2009). Moreover, institutions vary as to the date at which students are considered “enrolled,” and semesters vary from 5 to 16 weeks in length, making “enrollment after the 10th working day,” for example, a somewhat slippery concept. Another measure of retention is semester-to-semester enrollment (Boston et al., 2010; Chyung, 2001; Meyer et al., 2006), but, again, there is no common agreement on a definition of enrollment. And so it goes. It is therefore incumbent on eLearning leaders to carefully consider what precise measures they will use and explicitly define them. Such deliberations should probably take into consideration the audience and use to which they will put the data they collect. Another commonly used source of outcome data is overall course grades (Arbaugh, 2000; Cavanaugh, 2001; Means et al., 2009). Overall course grades, however, are not particularly useful for anything other than withincourse comparisons, because, especially in higher education, they can vary widely among courses, programs, disciplines, and institutions. A similar, but much more useful, measure is the percentage of student success, which refers to the number of students who were enrolled in the beginning of a course and who both remained enrolled and obtained a grade of C or better at the undergraduate level or B or better at the graduate level (Bloemer, 2009; Clark et al., 2009; Dziuban et al., 2000; Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005). A course with a grade of C or better can usually be transferred to other institutions, indicating common acceptability while avoiding the trap of grade variations among programs, disciplines, and institutions.

86

ensuring operational effectiveness

One of the more useful outcome measures for individual courses and/ or programs is achievement, defined as whether students achieve the major goals set for them. One good way to identify such goals is to focus on what Wiggins and McTighe (2005) called “enduring understandings” (p. 17) Enduring understandings are the big ideas that learners should remember 5 years after they finish a course or program, if not for the rest of their lives. The authors distinguished enduring understandings from things that are important to know and be able to do, and from things worth being familiar with, which are the interesting facts, skills, and narratives that are fun to know but far from essential (see Figure 5.3). eLearning leaders can and should work with their faculty to identify enduring understandings and to develop ways of assessing their acquisition. This is particularly important at the program level, where faculty must map the development of big ideas across program courses. It is important to note that the authors also maintained that enduring understandings are often complex and so require complex assessment (McTighe & Willis, 2019). Sometimes this can be achieved with comprehensive testing, such as for the goal that students develop a basic knowledge of a discipline. However, more often than not, assessing the development of enduring understandings requires problem-based or project-based assessments that explore students’ abilities to apply what they have learned. Figure 5.3. Enduring understandings.

Worth being familiar with

Important to know and do

Enduring understandings

Note. Adapted from Understanding by Design (expanded 2nd ed.), by G. Wiggins and J. McTighe, 2005, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

what elearning leaders should know

87

Proficiencies are the knowledge, skills, and attitudes deemed essential for particular disciplines. Most professions use certification exams to test proficiencies, and these are a good means for assessing the learning effectiveness of one’s own programs relative to a national standard (Nesler & Lettus, 1995). While proficiency tests are not common in the sciences or humanities, the growing calls for increased accountability and increased standardization of outcomes in higher education suggest that that proficiency or certification measures in these areas may be on the horizon. eLearning leaders should at least keep abreast of certification developments and possibly take a proactive stance concerning them by empowering their faculty to develop certification standards. Performance is in some sense the gold standard of learning outcomes. It refers to the student’s success after graduation in obtaining or performing in a position or in some cases being admitted to graduate programs. Performance is clearly a difficult outcome to measure because it requires keeping track of students after they graduate, but it can be done. In a study of community health nursing students, for example, Blackley and Curran-Smith (1998) found that distance students were able meet their course objectives as well as resident students and could perform equivalently in the field. Similarly, Nesler and Lettus (1995) reported higher ratings on clinical competence among nurses graduating from an online program than nurses who were traditionally prepared. Moreover, there are increasingly strident calls for just these sorts of measures to justify the high cost of higher education, especially with regard to eLearning. Performance measures are for this very reason worth considering, especially in professional colleges where certifications are common.

Conclusions This chapter explored what eLearning leaders need to know about learning effectiveness. This final section reviews the major points made and their implications for eLearning leadership and offers a few recommendations concerning how eLearning leaders might use that knowledge to ensure online learning effectiveness. The first things such leaders need to recognize is that research indicates that online instruction can be as effective in promoting learning as traditional instruction and that outcomes are shaped by instructional design more than by the modality of instruction. That said, leaders should keep in mind that online learning is different from traditional learning and that the online environment has affordances and constraints that differ from the face-to-face classrooms. Constructivist approaches, including inquiryand project-based learning, seem particularly well-suited for eLearning, but

88

ensuring operational effectiveness

it is important that eLearning leaders stay conversant with contemporary learning theory, online learning research, and best practices in the field, as these are in constant flux. Second, eLearning leaders need to make themselves particularly knowledgeable about their own unique eLearning contexts through not only immersing themselves in the culture of their institution but also continually collecting and analyzing empirical data on the inputs, processes, and outcomes of eLearning at their institution. In regard to inputs, eLearning leaders should provide faculty with access to instructional design support and work to develop common design standards. In regard to processes, eLearning leaders should encourage faculty, especially early adopters, to share with each other their techniques and strategies for enhancing learning. Moreover, they should involve faculty in developing output measures to assess the effectiveness of any changes made. Again, leadership skills identified as particularly important in enhancing student success in K–12 schools (Waters et al., 2003) included situational awareness, the ongoing monitoring of the impact of school practices on student learning, and the involvement of faculty in important decisions. Although this chapter did not cover faculty development, faculty or student support, or optimal uses of technology, it is important that eLearning leaders not lose sight of the critical importance of all of these in eLearning effectiveness. Faculty must be prepared to teach online and be supported in their work; students must be oriented to the challenges and rewards of online learning and their efforts supported on an ongoing basis; and technologies used must support pedagogical goals, function properly, and be accessible and transparent to student users. eLearning leaders must attend to each of these issues if they aim to enhance learning effectiveness.

References Alhadad, S., Arnold, K., Baron, J., Bayer, I., Brooks, C., Little, R., Rocchio, R., Shehata, S., & Whitmer, J. (2015, October 6). The predictive learning analytics revolution: Leveraging learning data for student success. ECAR working paper. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2015/10/the-predictive-learninganalytics-revolution-leveraging-learning-data-for-student-success Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24(2), 213–233.

what elearning leaders should know

89

Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 37–44. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multiinstitutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. Bernard, R., Brauer, A., Abrami, P., & Surkes, M. (2004). The development of a questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement. Distance Education, 25(1), 44–47. Blackley, J. A., & Curran-Smith, J. (1998). Teaching community health nursing by distance methods: Development, process, and evaluation. Journal of Continuing Education for Nurses, 29(4), 148–153. Bloemer, B. (2009). The UIS model for online success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 57–61. Bogle, L. R. (2008). Analysis of the effectiveness of the peer mentoring program in reducing the level of students not completing a course in Illinois community colleges. University of Illinois Springfield. Boles, E., Cass, B., Levin, C., Schroeder, R., & Smith, S. (2010). Sustaining students: Retention strategies in an online program. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(4). Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2010). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the Community of Inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67–83. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176, 101–108. Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K–12 learning: A meta-analysis. IJet, 7(1), 73–88. Cavanaugh, C. S. (2013). Student achievement in elementary and high school. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), The handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 170–184). Routledge. Cerezo, R., Sánchez-Santillán, M., Paule-Ruiz, M., & Núñez, C. (2016). Students’ LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education. Computers and Education, 96, 42–54. Cheung, L., & Kan, A. (2002). Evaluation of factors related to student performance in a distance learning business communication course. Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 257–263. Chyung, S. Y. (2001). Systematic and systemic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 36–49.

90

ensuring operational effectiveness

Clark, M., Holstrom, L., & Millacci, A. M. (2009). University of Cincinnati: Case study of online student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 49–55. d’Alessio, M. A., Lundquist, L. L., Schwartz, J. J., Pedone, V., Pavia, J., & Fleck, J. (2019). Social presence enhances student performance in an online geology course but depends on instructor facilitation. Journal of Geoscience Education. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1580179 Dempsey, P. R., & Jang, J. (2019). Re-examining the construct validity and causal relationships of teaching, cognitive, and social presence in Community of Inquiry framework. Online Learning, 23(1), 62–79. Dringus, L., Snyder, M. M., & Terrell, S. R. (2010). Facilitating discourse and enhancing teaching presence: Using mini-audio presentations in online forums [Special issue]. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2). Dziuban, C. (2011). Impact in a transformational environment. Educause Review, 46(5), 48. Dziuban, C. D., Moskal, P. D., & Dziuban, E. K. (2000). Reactive behavior patterns go online. Journal of Staff, Program, and Organization Development, 17(3), 171–182. Fallah, M. H., & Ubell, R. (2000). Blind scores in a graduate test: Conventional compared with web-based outcomes. ALN Magazine, 4(2). Fasse, R., Humbert, J., & Rappold, R. (2009). Rochester Institute of Technology: Analyzing student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 37–48. Frid, S. (2001). Supporting primary students’ on-line learning in a virtual enrichment program. Research in Education, 66, 9–27. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the Community of Inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the Community of Inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. Gašević, D., Adesope, O., Joksimović, S., & Kovanović, V. (2015). Externallyfacilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 53–65.

what elearning leaders should know

91

Hawisher, G. E., & Pemberton, M. A. (1997). Writing across the curriculum encounters asynchronous learning networks or WAC meets up with ALN. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(1). Hilliarda, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019). Time well spent: Creating a community of inquiry in blended first-year writing courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 11–24. Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25. Ice, P., Swan, K., Diaz, S., Kupczynski, L., & Swan-Dagen, A. (2010). An analysis of students’ perceptions of the value and efficacy of instructors’ auditory and text-based feedback modalities across multiple conceptual levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 113–134. Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2010). Online learning in the Virginia Community College system. Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers and Education, 95, 270–284. Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2018). 2018 survey of faculty attitudes on technology. Inside Higher Ed. Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 317–338. Johnson, H., Cuellar Mejia, M., & Cook, K. (2015). Successful online courses in California’s community colleges. Public Policy Institute of California. Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon report. The New Media Consortium. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–75. Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). Interrelationships between and among social, teaching, and cognitive presence. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 68–73. Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J. C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners’ engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning, 23(2), 196–216. Lawa, K. M. Y., Gengb, S., & Lic, T. (2019). Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Computers and Education, 136, 1–12. Lenrow, J. (2009). Peirce College and student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 23–27. Liu, S. Y., Gomez, J., & Yen, C.-J. (2009). Community college online course retention and final grade: Predictability of social presence. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 165–182.

92

ensuring operational effectiveness

Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling [Special issue]. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2). Luebeck, J. L., & Bice, L. R. (2005). Online discussion as a mechanism of conceptual change among mathematics and science teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 21−39. Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers and Education, 54(2), 588–599. Markoff, J. (2011, October 10). Government aims to build an “eye in the sky.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/science/11predict.html McTighe, J., & Willis, J. (2019). Upgrade your teaching: Understanding by design meets neuroscience. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65. Meyer, K. A., Bruwelheide, J., & Poulin, R. (2006). Why they stayed: Near-perfect retention in an online certification program in library media. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 100–115. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. Nash, R. D. (2005). Course completion rates among distance learners: Identifying possible methods to improve retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(4). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/nash84. htm Nesler, M. S., & Lettus, M. K. (1995, August). A follow-up study of external degree graduates from Florida. Paper presented at the 103rd annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY, United States. Olesova, L., Slavin, M., & Lim, J. (2016). Exploring the effect of scripted roles on cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. Online Learning, 20(4), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i4.1058 Osborn, V. (2001). Identifying at-risk students in videoconferencing and web-based distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 41–54. Parker, A. (2003). Identifying predictors of academic persistence in distance education. USDLA Journal, 17(1). http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN03_Issue/ index.html Picciano, A. (1998). Developing an asynchronous course model at a large, urban university. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1). Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.

what elearning leaders should know

93

Pillay, H., Irving, K., & McCrindle, A. (2006). Developing a diagnostic tool for assessing tertiary students’ readiness for online learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(1), 92–104. Quality Matters. (2005). Research literature and standards sets support for Quality Matters review standards. http://www.qualitymatters.org/Documents/Matrix%20 of%20Research%20Standards%20FY0506.pdf Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions [Special issue]. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2). Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A metaanalysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Richardson, J., & Ting, E. (1999). Making the most of interaction: What instructors do that most affect students’ perceptions of their learning. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Asynchronous Learning, College Park, MD, United States. Rovai, A. P. (2002). A preliminary look at structural differences in sense of classroom community between higher education traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1). Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 1–16. Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., Averginon, M. D., & Moore, J. (2010). The effect of learning management systems on student and faculty outcomes [Special issue]. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2). Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35–44. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of Inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers and Education, 52(3), 543–553. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the Community of Inquiry model. Computers and Education, 59(2), 316–326. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2019). Effects of online course load on degree completion, transfer, and dropout among community college students of the State University of New York. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada. Shea, P., Li, C., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4).

94

ensuring operational effectiveness

Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 61–80. Shelton, K. (2009). Does strong faculty support equal consistent course completion? It has for Dallas Baptist University. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 63–66. Swan, K. (2013). Enhancing e-Learning effectiveness. In G. Miller, M. Benke, B. Chaloux, L. C. Ragan, R. Schroeder, W. Smutz, and K. Swan, Leading the e-Learning Transformation of Higher Education: Meeting the Challenges of Technology and Distance Education (pp. 77–107). Stylus. Swan, K., Day, S. L., Bogle, L. R., & Matthews, D. B. (2014, April). A collaborative, design-based approach to improving an online program. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 74–81. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI Global. Swan, K., Schenker, J., Arnold, S., & Kuo, C.-L. (2007). Shaping online discussion: Assessment matters. e-Mentor, 1(18), 78–82. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 389–413. Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45–62. Swan, K., & Shih, L.-F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 159–132. Wang, A., & Newlin, M. (2000). Characteristics of students who enroll and succeed in web-based classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 137–143. Wang, Y.-M., & Chang, V. D.-T. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence: A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 157–177. Waschull, S. (2005). Predicting success in online psychology courses: Self-discipline and motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 190–192. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. MidContinent Regional Educational Lab. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded 2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

what elearning leaders should know

95

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 23–31. Wojciechowski, A., & Palmer, L. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be predictors of success in online classes? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(2). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/ wojciechowski82.htm Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139–152. Xu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2015). Students’ groupwork management in online collaborative learning environments. Education Psychology and Society, 18(2), 195–205. Zuckerman, S. J., Wilcox, K. C., Durand, F. T., Lawson, H. A., & Schiller, K. S. (2017). Drivers for change: A study of distributed leadership and performance adaptation during policy innovation implementation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1384500

6 W H AT e L E A R N I N G L E A D E R S S H O U L D K N OW A B O U T ONLINE TEACHING Karen Swan and Peter Shea

H

enry Jenkins (2006) wrote that media are characterized by not only the technologies they employ but also the cultural practices that surround the use of such technologies. Similarly, what distinguishes eLearning from the distance education of a previous era is not just the digital technologies from which it takes its name but also, and more important, the pedagogical approaches such technologies uniquely scaffold. Where distance education was materials and teacher centered, online learning is student centered; where distance education focused on independent study, online learning is collaborative; where distance education was grounded in behaviorist and cognitive psychology, online learning is grounded in constructivist and connectivist theories of learning (Swan, 2009). eLearning leaders should familiarize themselves with its pedagogies and instructional strategies for two important reasons. First, if they are to manage eLearning effectively across courses and programs, eLearning leaders need to be familiar with its foundational pedagogical theories and with national and international models for designing instruction and assessing its effectiveness. Second, leaders must be able to represent these issues to the institution at large, especially when reporting to senior leaders and academic governance groups and when working on institutional policies that relate to online learning in such areas as faculty development and support, technology requirements, student support, instructional design, and evaluation. Leaders cannot be experts in everything, and eLearning is still emerging and constantly changing. Nevertheless, eLearning leaders must be familiar with the unique attributes of the online learning environment and general approaches 96

what elearning leaders should know

97

to teaching within that environment in order to help eLearning reach its full potential in a broader institutional culture. This chapter explores what eLearning leaders should know about teaching in online and blended learning environments. It begins with brief reviews of the more relevant pedagogical approaches and then examines online teaching and instructional design for eLearning environments. It closes with a quick look at emerging technologies and a short reflection on the chapter’s main points.

eLearning Pedagogies All media are selective. Each medium of communication emphasizes and amplifies particular kinds of experience; each medium privileges particular ways of knowing. All media also inhibit, diminish, and marginalize other kinds of experience, other ways of knowing. All media thus both afford and constrain learning in their own particular ways (Gibson, 1966; Reeves et al., 2004; Swan & Shea, 2005) and accordingly afford and constrain the efficacy of differing pedagogical approaches. For example, online technologies enable students separated in space and time to have discussions related to course topics in which everyone has an equal voice. Moreover, because such discussions are typically asynchronous, participants and the ensuing discussion tend to be more reflective. At the same time, however, because such discussions are typically asynchronous, it is more difficult for participants to manage the negotiation of specific meanings that proceeds naturally in the back and forth of synchronous conversation. Unlike the presentation, push-type technologies that enabled education in the 20th century, 21st-century digital techonologies that support eLearning are interactive, interconnected, generative, and uniquely participatory (Jenkins, 2006; Tapscott & Williams, 2006). They are thus particularly supportive of social constructivist and connectivist pedagogies (Siemens, 2005). At the same time, more adults are seeking postsecondary education, and lifelong learning is becoming necessary, making instructional approaches such as andragogy and heutagogy increasingly important. These pedagogies and approaches are described in the following sections.

Constructivist Pedagogy Constructivism is the name given to theories of learning that hold that meaning is imposed on the world rather than extant in it. Both objectivism and constructivism agree that there is a real world we experience. Constructivists

98

ensuring operational effectiveness

believe that meaning is constructed in our minds as we interact with the physical, social, and mental worlds we inhabit and that we make sense of our experiences by building and adjusting the internal knowledge structures in which we collect and organize our perceptions of and reflections on reality (Piaget, 1957). Social constructivists further contend that knowledge construction is facilitated through social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978), with some social constructivists, by extension, viewing cognition as distributed among the thinking individual, interacting others, and cognitive tools (Brown et al., 1989). Common across constructivist thought are the ideas that learning is active, unique to the individual, and intimately tied to individual experience and the contexts of that experience. Such ideas have obvious pedagogical implications. Most important, they shift the pedagogical focus from traditional concerns with the design and delivery of instruction to design approaches that focus on the creation of environments that foster and support active learning in collaborative communities. Bransford et al. (2000) in their seminal work on the topic, How People Learn, argued that constructivist learning environments should be learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered and provide extensive research supporting such approaches. Clearly, online environments are well-suited to the development of constructivist learning environments. eLearning leaders would do well to consider advocating for such constructivist approaches and ensuring courses meet these criteria.

Connectivist Pedagogy Connectivism is a theory of learning specifically designed for understanding learning in the digital age (Siemens, 2005). The central idea of connectivism is the notion that knowledge is not distributed only across a network of connections but also literally the network of connections itself. Connectivists believe that learning consists of constructing and traversing such networks (Downes, 2007). Where constructivist pedagogies are especially well-suited to eLearning and eLearning environments, connectivist pedagogies are explicitly modeled on the digital networks that support eLearning. Successful connectivist networks are characterized as diverse, autonomous, open, and connected (Downes, 2007). Connectivist pedagogies have been neither widely implemented nor well researched. Their most prominent application of connectivism has been in what are known as connectivist massive open online courses (cMOOCs), which are MOOCs conceived not as content to be presented but rather as guided networks of participants who find and exchange resources with each other. While content-driven MOOCs (sometimes called

what elearning leaders should know

99

xMOOCs), which will be discussed later in this chapter, are far more prevalent than cMOOCs today, MOOC pedagogies are still evolving. No matter what happens with MOOCs, it is probably important for eLearning leaders to at least be familiar with connectivist ideas because they are so tied to new and emerging technologies.

Andragogy Andragogy is a term made popular by Malcolm Knowles (1980) to distinguish the methods and practices used in adult education from those used in the education of children. Knowles believed that adult learners’ motivation to learn was different from that of children. Specifically, he argued that successful adult learning was based on the following set of assumptions: Adults need a reason for learning, adult learning is problem based and grounded in experience, adults are most interested in learning that is relevant to their lives and in which they have some choice, and adults respond better to internal as opposed to external motivators. It is important for eLearning leaders to consider these assumptions. At least half the students taking online classes are older than 24 years old (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). In addition, the assumptions surely apply to most faculty development, a staple of eLearning initiatives (Arghode et al., 2017).

Heutagogy Heutagogy is a term coined by Chris Kenyon and Stewart Hase (2013) to describe an approach to self-determined learning that seems well-suited to lifelong learning in the age of the internet. The authors described an educational process in which the learners choose the questions they wish to investigate, and the teachers function as more expert guides and facilitators who support the learners’ investigations. There are agreed-on timelines, interim reviews, and assessments, but like Knowles (1980), Kenyon and Hase believe that learners will be more motivated to learn what they are interested in. They also believe motivated students are learning a process of discovery— they are learning to learn—and that will help them throughout their lifetime. eLearning leaders, then, might do well to consider the ideas of heutagogy (Blaschke, 2012), because it is a pedagogy well-suited for an era in which we will all have to continue learning across our lifetime.

Instruction and Instructional Design in eLearning Environments Many scholars believe that the defining characteristic of computers and the digital media they empower is interactivity (Swan, 2001; Turkle, 1997).

100

ensuring operational effectiveness

Similarly, many educators believe that interaction, and not dissemination, is the essence of teaching (Jung et al., 2002; Wyatt & Chapman-DeSousa, 2017). Thinking about instruction as grounded in interactions seems a particularly useful way of understanding teaching in eLearning environments. Interestingly, however, as eLearning technologies have evolved, two quite different instructional paradigms have been pursued, and these appear to mirror the apparent split between collaborative constructivist pedagogies on one hand and machine-enabled andragogical and heutagogical approaches favoring individualized and personalized learning on the other. For almost as long as computers have been used in education, there has been a strand of research and development centered around collaborative inquiry and constructivist ideas (Papert, 1980) and another centered around individualized learning and computer-based instruction (Suppes & Macken, 1978). In this section, we explore collaborative constructivist approaches to teaching online. In the section titled Emerging Technologies that follows, we discuss different machine-based approaches to instruction that are becoming increasingly popular.

The Community of Inquiry Framework One of the more widely adopted models of online and blended learning is the community of inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison et al., 2000). The CoI framework is a social constructivist model of learning processes in eLearning environments. Social constructivist theorists, as previously noted, assert that meaning is primarily constructed through social interactions. Social constructivists thus view learning as an essentially social activity and maintain that our understanding of the world is constructed through communication, collaborative activity, and interactions with others (Vygotsky, 1978). In eLearning environments, the social construction of knowledge is made nontrivial by the separation of course participants in time and space. Nonetheless, the CoI model assumes that, especially in higher education, worthwhile educational experiences are embedded in critical CoIs that support meaningful thinking and deep learning. The CoI framework asserts that learning occurs within such communities through the interaction of three core elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. The CoI framework is a dynamic model of the interactions among these core elements that are believed necessary for both the development of community and the pursuit of inquiry in online courses (Swan et al., 2009). The CoI framework has been quite widely used to inform both research and practice in the online learning community, and an increasing body of research supports its efficacy for both describing and informing online

what elearning leaders should know

101

learning (Hilliarda & Stewart, 2019; Kozan & Richardson, 2014; Swan, 2019). In part, this has been made possible by the development of a survey instrument that measures student perceptions of each of the presences (Arbaugh et al., 2008). Although the CoI presences have been likened to Moore’s (1989) interactions, which are seen as taking place among instructors, students, and course content, the CoI presences are not seen as residing in any particular interactions but rather seen as distributed across interactions among the instructor, the students, and the course content. Teaching presence, for example, can be found in student–student and student–content interactions, as well as in interactions between the instructor and the students.

Teaching Presence Garrison et al. (2000) contended that while interactions between participants are necessary in virtual learning environments, interactions themselves are not sufficient to ensure effective online learning. Online interactions need to have clearly defined parameters and be focused in a specific direction, toward a particular goal; hence the need for teaching presence. Teaching presence is defined as the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the realization of personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes (Anderson et al., 2001). Garrison and Anderson (2003) identified three elements that contribute to the development of teaching presence in online courses—the design and organization of instruction, the facilitation of learning, and direct instruction—all of which deserve careful attention. The first category, design and organization, cannot be neglected in an eLearning environment, especially as regards the clarity and consistency of course organization and clear statements of goals and objectives. The selection of worthwhile collaborative and other learning activities is also an important part of course design in this model. Facilitating learning was first focused on facilitating online discussion, where it is important to be supportive and present, but it also has come to apply to facilitating collaborative activities and encouraging individual student learning. There will, of course, be times when it is necessary to intervene directly in online discussions and elsewhere to correct misconceptions, provide relevant information, summarize the discussion, or provide some metacognitive awareness. This involves the third category of teaching presence, direct instruction, which also includes any lecture-like material included in online courses, as well as instruction included in feedback to students.

102

ensuring operational effectiveness

Researchers have documented strong correlations between learners’ perceived and actual interactions with instructors and their perceived learning (Jiang & Ting, 2000; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan et al., 2000) and between teaching presence and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and the development of a sense of community in online courses (Shea et al., 2005). In fact, the body of evidence attesting to the critical importance of teaching presence for successful online learning continues to grow (Garrison et al., 2010; Murphy, 2004; Vaughan & Garrison, 2006; Wu & Hiltz, 2004), with the most recent research suggesting it is the key to developing online CoIs (Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; Zhu et al., 2019). Indeed, several investigations employing structural equation modeling have found that teaching presence has a direct impact on cognitive presence and social presence, as well as an indirect impact on cognitive presence with social presence as a mediator (Kozan, 2016; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). Why is all this important? It is important because it suggests that teaching (as understood by the CoI framework) really matters in constructivist eLearning environments and that ongoing faculty professional development is accordingly also essential (Palloff & Pratt, 2007; Van de Vord & Pogue, 2012). eLearning leaders need to know that engaged and competent instructors are a critical resource in successful online courses and programs. They need to be respected and supported, not merely for their teaching presence but also for the social roles they play in eLearning processes.

Instructor Presence and Instructor Social Presence Richardson et al. (2015) maintained that there is an important aspect to the role of instructors in eLearning environments that falls between teaching presence and social presence and has to do with the actions and behaviors of instructors through which they present themselves as “real people.” Also called instructor social presence in the literature (Richardson & Lowenthal, 2017; Wise et al., 2004), the concept is proposed as a way of emphasizing the direct and significant effect that students’ relationships with faculty have on their academic success. Researchers have found, for example, that instructor presence influences student participation in online discussions (Dennen, 2005) and that it is a significant predictor of student affective learning, perceived cognition, and motivation (Baker, 2010). As the demand for online courses and programs increases, institutions are increasingly using a “master course” approach to developing online courses, and as a result, a growing number of instructors are finding themselves teaching online courses that they did not design and might have little ability to modify. In situations like this, instructor

what elearning leaders should know

103

presence becomes more critical than ever (Lowenthal, 2016; Richardson & Lowenthal, 2017). Researchers maintain that the way instructors develop their presence in online classes is through communications: announcements; discussion board postings; journaling; and, importantly, their feedback on assignments (Richardson & Lowenthal, 2017). eLearning leaders should take note and make sure they encourage instructors, whatever their role, to communicate often and in many ways and to use their communications with students to establish their presence.

Instructional Design As noted previously, a growing number of colleges and universities are adopting a master course approach to developing and offering online courses in which course design is separated from direct instruction and the facilitation of learning. In such cases, it is important not only that instructors work especially hard to project their presence but also that course designs are optimum. Indeed, regardless of the eLearning environment, the ways in which courses are designed and structured matter. In the CoI framework, course design and organization are viewed as part of teaching presence. Educators in this arena have experimented with course designs grounded in the model and found that student outcomes support the efficacy of their methods (Goda & Yamada, 2013; Richardson et al., 2012). Other researchers have reported on the efficacy of other instructional design approaches to developing online courses (Bolton, 2017; Czerkawski & Lyman, 2016).

Quality Matters Standards and Rubrics The most commonly used framework for ensuring the quality of eLearning course designs, however, at least in the United States, is Quality Matters (QM) standards (Adair & Shattuck, 2015). The QM standards grew out of a Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grant to a consortium of Maryland colleges to develop a process for ensuring the quality of online courses to enable them to share seats in such courses across the Maryland system. The consortium developed rubrics based on instructional design principles and a peer review process through which online courses could be evaluated. Although the FIPSE grant ended in 2006, QM expanded to become an international, subscription-based service that currently has more than 60,000 members worldwide.

104

ensuring operational effectiveness

QM peer reviews are based on a rubric consisting of eight categories— course overview and introduction, learning objectives, assessment and measurement, instructional materials, learner activities and learner interaction, course technology, learner support, and accessibility and usability—with 42 specific standards within them. An important aspect of the QM review process is that the review is agnostic with respect to the importance of interactions among participants; that is, although there are 23 QM standards that must be met, none of these relate to social interaction. This allows reviews to be applied to a range of online courses, including courses based on selfdirected or machine-directed learning (we will explore those in the next section). In addition, QM reviews are external, conducted by faculty and instructional designers who themselves have been through the process, and are conceived as ongoing and collaborative, making them less onerous to faculty and course designers. It is important that eLearning leaders at least are familiar with the QM review process. Considerable research has been done that attests to the efficacy of this approach (Shattuck, 2014). For example, Swan et al. (2014) used a two-phase approach that incorporated the use of both the QM and the CoI frameworks to improve core courses in a graduate program of educational leadership. Their work began with ensuring these core courses met QM standards and progressed through several iterations of changes to course implementation based on student responses on the CoI survey using a designbased research approach. Outcome measures were grades on major assignments in the courses involved and final course grades. Although changes in outcomes resulting from either the QM or the CoI revisions alone were not significant, significant and positive changes in course outcomes resulting from the combined QM and CoI changes were found in three of the four courses studied. The takeaway from this and other instructional design studies is that course design matters.

Emerging Technologies Today’s eLearning leaders are confronted with resource constraints and the perceived need to contain instructional costs while boosting student success. At the same time, several new technologies have emerged and have garnered much attention by promising to address such issues. In general, these new educational technologies are made possible by rapid advances in capabilities for storing and processing data. While in the previous section we explored human teachers, in this section we will explore machine teachers. Teaching machines have been around for as long as computers have been used in

what elearning leaders should know

105

education (Suppes & Macken, 1978), but advances in digital technologies are supporting the development of new and very much improved versions of computer-based learning systems, as well as other new applications of data analytics and artificial intelligence to teaching. In this section, we briefly discuss learning analytics and their application in education and then review some of the new approaches to teaching they are enabling. It is important to note, in this regard, that for the most part the new technologies grounded in analytic engines are not based on constructivist principles of learning but rather objectivist in nature. Objectivists view learners as vessels to be filled with knowledge and learning as dissemination. Objectivist pedagogies are hierarchical and centered on content and the sequencing of the content to support its acquisition. Thus, although emerging technologies tend to be focused on individualized learning, they are not focused on the individual’s construction of knowledge.

Learning Analytics Learning analytics center on the measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners and learning contexts. They involve the educational application of the data-mining and predictive analytics processes that are revolutionizing business, medicine, science, sports, and social interactions—indeed all aspects of our lives. Analytics have long been a part of strategic planning and decision-making in higher education but will play an even bigger role in years to come. Most commonly, as they have evolved to profile and track learners and learning, they are becoming a key element in student success initiatives across institutions. They also are the engines that make possible all sorts of innovations in eLearning such as MOOCs, competency-based and adaptive learning systems, and even artificial intelligence applications. Not only because of the significance of analytics in new and emerging innovations but also because eLearning by its very nature generates enormous amounts of data and so can take advantage of analyticsbased strategies, eLearning leaders should be familiar with both their promise and challenges. The most highly publicized use of learning analytics in higher education is the role they are playing in student success initiatives. Learning analytics systems make it possible for institutions to track individual student engagement and progress in near-real time across multiple courses, identifying students at risk for dropping out, flagging other potential issues, and automatically alerting faculty, tutors, support staff, and the students themselves (Sclater & Mulla, 2017). Researchers have found that predictive analytics systems can identify at-risk students with high precision (Agnihotri & Ott,

106

ensuring operational effectiveness

2019) and that the disciplined use of such systems can result in significantly lower attrition (Arnold & Pistilli, 2012; Gardner & Brooks, 2018; Mahzoon et al., 2018). However, eLearning leaders should know that disciplined use of analytics-based student success systems requires innovative leadership, new technologies and systems, and a highly skilled workforce not only equipped to manage such systems but also capable of understanding and effectively sharing their outputs. This last issue is critical, as the meaning made of such outputs can (and should) have important implications institution-wide. Well-employed learning analytics are a time- and resource-intensive endeavor for any institution, but if well executed and successfully maintained, they can significantly affect student success. Moreover, MOOCs, competency-based education, and adaptive learning technologies all apply learning analytics to keep track of students’ knowledge and skills and adjust to their learning needs. eLearning leaders should thus have a basic understanding of what they are and how they work.

MOOCs In 2011, Sebastian Thrun, a computer science professor at Stanford University, offered a free online course in artificial intelligence, and 160,000 students signed up to take it. In 2012, Thrun founded Udacity, a company organized around the computer platform Thrun designed to support his course. At about the same time, Stanford professors Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller founded Coursera, a similar company that offered to work with other universities and professors to support free courses they designed, and MIT and Harvard created EdX to support free courses offered by Harvard and MIT professors. These courses, designed to accommodate large numbers of students, came to be known as massive open online courses, and they quickly became the darlings of the mainstream media (Friedman, 2013). As previously noted, two types of MOOCs were developed: cMOOCs, in which the participants create the MOOC, and xMOOCs (what we usually mean when we use the term MOOC, as they far outnumber cMOOCs), which are highly structured to support the learning of a particular content. We have already discussed cMOOCs. In this section, we will discuss MOOCs (xMOOCs), because these sorts of courses depend on machinemanaged teaching individualized for each learner through data management. Strangely, few MOOCs have been designed to take advantage of the affordances of sophisticated instructional designs or advances in learning technologies (Reeves & Hedberg, 2014; Romiszowski, 2013). Teaching strategies commonly used in MOOCs include lectures formatted into short videos

what elearning leaders should know

107

(Norvig, 2012), short quizzes (Shirky, 2012), automated and peer and selfassessments (Lu & Law, 2012), and sometimes voluntary discussions among participants. Moreover, although MOOCs were originally designed to provide free instruction to poor people without access to higher education, the majority of people who enroll are well educated with a college degree, employed, and residing in developed countries (Christensen et al., 2013; Guzdial & Adams, 2014). They are also unlikely to complete entire courses (DeBoer et al., 2014). Indeed, MOOC providers have been experimenting with differing forms as they try to find ways to engage learners in whole courses. One of the more successful of these efforts has been a partnership among Udacity, AT&T, and the Georgia Institute of Technology, which launched the first Massive Online Open Degree program, that provides a complete master’s degree in computer science for a little more than $7,000 (“Online Master of Science,” n.d.). Other universities and MOOC platforms are following suit and offering fully accredited master’s degrees (“iMBA: Online MBA,” 2017), as well as specific credentials in subjects like computer science and data analytics (“An Online Credential for the High-Performance Modern Marketer,” n.d.) through MOOC-based programs. Coursera has launched subscription programs offering enrollment in credit-bearing courses paid for in temporal increments. MOOCs are still evolving. What eLearning leaders should know about them is that many universities are offering single free courses as a kind of publicity for their on-campus and more traditional online offerings, that many universities are following The Georgia Institute of Technology’s lead and developing MOOC-based master’s programs that are bringing in enrollments and the money to support more traditional programs, and that the popular MOOC format consisting of short video lectures followed by quizzes to test learning is being adopted in more traditional online courses. eLearning leaders should familiarize themselves with that format, as well as the various permutations of it, and consider whether and how they might work at their institutions.

Competency-Based Education and Adaptive Learning Competency-based education and adaptive learning are personalized learning approaches that provide flexible learning in which students progress at their own pace by demonstrating mastery of specific academic content. In competency-based education, students are tutored on specific concepts, then tested on their knowledge and ability to apply the concepts they are learning. Depending on how concepts are configured, students

108

ensuring operational effectiveness

need to demonstrate their competency to a particular standard before they can move on to a new concept. Thus, in theory at least, competency-based education ensures that students acquire designated concepts and skills, making such systems especially attractive for medical (Holmboe, 2015) and legal (Hager & Gonczi, 2006) education. Adaptive learning is similar to competency-based learning except that adaptive systems respond to student input, helping students who are struggling with concepts by linking them to content that addresses their misconceptions and enabling students to move more quickly through concepts they already understand (Dziuban et al., 2018). Competency-based approaches are not necessarily embedded in digital learning systems, but digital learning systems make them much easier to implement (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.); adaptive systems are more complex and therefore always computer based. The optimum use of personalized learning systems, however, is in conjunction with human teachers who can help remediate misconceptions and coach students in acquiring knowledge and skills with which they are having difficulty. eLearning leaders should be conversant with personalized approaches, because these are yet another technological solution to retention and cost issues. These approaches can make best use of faculty time and skills while supporting student learning, especially in entry-level courses in convergent disciplines. However, research suggests that the efficacy of their use is dependent on many contextual and implementation factors and that it takes time for local cultures to make optimal use of them (Dziuban et al., 2018).

Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the ability of digital systems to perform tasks commonly associated with humans such as reasoning, generalizing, visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, translation between languages, and learning from past experience (“Artificial Intelligence (AI),” 2019). AI is transforming many human activities ranging from daily chores to highly sophisticated tasks such as driving a car, but unlike many other industries, higher education has yet to be really influenced by AI. That may soon change. Indeed, two applications of AI—machine learning and deep learning—seem particularly applicable to the state of educational technologies being employed today. Machine learning provides systems the ability to automatically learn and improve from experience without being explicitly programmed. Machine learning focuses on the development of computer programs that can access

what elearning leaders should know

109

data and use those data to learn for themselves. Deep learning is a subset of machine learning that is capable of learning unsupervised from unstructured and unlabeled data. Deep learning imitates the workings of the human brain in processing data and identifying patterns (“Artificial Intelligence (AI),” 2019). Clearly, machine learning and/or deep learning can, and probably will, be applied to the large data sets being collected by eLearning applications. Depending on how one conceptualizes AI, it is probably already being applied to such data. Roll and Wylie (2016) argued that how such application progresses will determine whether AI is part of an evolution or a revolution in education. eLearning leaders should also note that some wellknown technologists warn that AI presents an existential threat to humanity as we know it (Dowd, 2017).

Conclusion Teaching online is not the same as teaching face-to-face. In this chapter we briefly reviewed pedagogical approaches and teaching strategies that are particularly relevant to understanding teaching online. In particular, we examined constructivist and connectivist pedagogies and andragogical and heutagogical approaches that inform eLearning in higher education today. In this context, we considered the CoI framework as a way of conceptualizing learning processes in collaborative online environments and the research supporting the importance of developing teaching presence and instructor (social) presence in such spaces. We also acknowledged the importance of instructional design in online education and reviewed one framework, QM for supporting sound eLearning. We concluded with a look at new and emerging technologies that are affecting or will soon affect eLearning in higher education, specifically, learning analytics, MOOCs, competencybased and adaptive learning systems, and AI. It should be noted that the pedagogies and teaching approaches discussed in this chapter are based on differing understandings of how people learn. More importantly, there seem to be practical issues related to the tensions between two conflicting visions of teaching and learning, in particular between cohort-based instruction and individualized instruction. As eLearning leaders are confronted with resource constraints and the perceived need to contain instructional costs on one hand and demands for more inclusive and relevant education on the other, they will need to seriously consider these competing visons and explore the practical implications of adopting one or the other.

110

ensuring operational effectiveness

References Adair, D., & Shattuck, K. (2015). Quality Matters: An educational input in an ongoing design-based research project. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(3), 159–165. Agnihotri, L., & Ott, A. (2019, July). Building a student at-risk model: An end-toend perspective. In J. Stamper, Z. Pardos, M. Mavrikis, & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 209–212). Toronto, Canada. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133–136. Arghode, V., Brieger, E. W., & McLean, G. N. (2017). Adult learning theories: Implications for online instruction. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(7), 593–609. Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 267–270). Vancouver, Canada. Artificial intelligence (AI). (2019). Techopedia. https://www.techopedia.com/ definition/190/artificial-intelligence-ai Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1–30. Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl .v13i1.1076 Bolton, D. (2017). Student attitude and online learning: The impact of instructional design factors on attitudes toward the online learning experience. In M. T. Northcote & K. P. Gosseling (Eds.), Handbook of research on humanizing the distance learning experience (pp. 307–333). IGI Global. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2350964 Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W., III. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60(6), 532–539.

what elearning leaders should know

111

DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing “course”: Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74–84. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127–148. Dowd, M. (2017, March 26). Elon Musk’s billion-dollar crusade to stop the AI apocalypse. Vanity Fair. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/elon-muskbillion-dollar-crusade-to-stop-ai-space-x Downes, S. (2007, February 3). What connectivism is. https://halfanhour.blogspot .com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html Dziuban, C., Howlin, C., Moskal, P., Johnson, C., Eid, M., & Kmetz, B. (2018). Adaptive learning: Context and complexity. E-Mentor, 5(77). http://www.e-mentor .edu.pl/artykul/index/numer/77/id/1384 Friedman, T. L. (2013, January 26). Revolution hits the universities. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/friedmanrevolution-hits-the-universities.html?_r=0 Gardner, J., & Brooks, C. (2018). Evaluating predictive models of student success: Closing the methodological gap. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(2), 105–125. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge/Falmer. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among cognitive, social and teaching presence: Student perceptions of the Community of Inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin. Goda, Y., & Yamada, M. (2013). Application of CoI to design CSCL for EFL online asynchronous discussion. In Z. Akyol & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research, and practice (pp. 205–316). IGI Global. Guzdial, M., & Adams, J. C. (2014). MOOCs need more work; so do CS graduates. Communications of the ACM, 57(1), 18–19. Hager, P., & Gonczi, A. (2006). Competency-based standards: A boon for continuing professional education? Studies in Continuing Education, 13(1), 24–40. Hilliarda, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019). Time well spent: Creating a community of inquiry in blended first-year writing courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 11–24. Holmboe, E. S. (2015). Realizing the promise of competency-based medical education. Academic Medicine, 90(4), 411–412. iMBA: Online MBA at the University of Illinois—Business mastery plus leadership skills. (2017). University of Illinois. https://onlinemba.illinois.edu/

112

ensuring operational effectiveness

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press. Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 317–338. Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction, and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162. Kenyon, C., & Hase, S. (2013). Heutagogy fundamentals. In S. Hase & C. Kenyon (Eds.), Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action (pp. 7–18). Bloomsbury. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Association Press. Kozan, K. (2016). A comparative structural equation modeling investigation of the relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence. Online Learning, 20(3), 210–227. Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the Community of Inquiry Survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39–47. Lowenthal, P. R. (2016). A mixed methods examination of instructor social presence in accelerated online courses. In L. Kyei-Blankson, J. Blankson, E. Ntuli, & C. Agyeman (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategic management of interaction, presence, and participation in online courses (pp. 147–159). IGI Global. Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275. Mahzoon, M. J., Maher, M. L., Eltayeby, O., Dou, W., & Grace, K. (2018). A sequence data model for analyzing temporal patterns of student data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(1), 55–74. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. Murphy, E. (2004). Identifying and measuring ill-structured problem formulation and resolution in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(1), 5–20. National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Table 311.22: Number and percentage of undergraduate students enrolled in distance education or online classes and degree programs, by selected characteristics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d18/tables/xls/tabn311.22.xls Norvig, P. (2012). The 100,000-student classroom [Video]. TED Conferences. http:// www.ted.com/talks/peter_norvig_the_100_000_student_classroom An online credential for the high-performance modern marketer. (n.d.). Penn State. https://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/degrees-and-certificates/penn-state-onlinemarketing-analytics-certificate/overview Online master of science in computer science. (n.d.). Georgia Institute of Technology. https://www.cc.gatech.edu/future/masters/mscs/program

what elearning leaders should know

113

Quality Matters. (n.d.). Course design rubric standards. https://www.qualitymatters .org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. Jossey-Bass. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. Routledge. Reeves, T. C., Harrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 53–66. Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2014). MOOCs: Let’s get REAL. Educational Technology, 54(1), 3–8. Richardson, J. C., Arbaugh, B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Swan, K., & Garrison, D. R. (2012). Using the Community of Inquiry framework to inform effective instructional design. In L. Moller & J. B. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained learning (pp. 97–126). Springer. Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Mueller, C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 256–297. Richardson, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. (2017). Instructor social presence: Learners’ needs and a neglected component of the Community of Inquiry framework. In A. L. Whiteside, A. Garrett Dikkers, & K. Swan (Eds.), Social presence in online learning: Multiple perspectives on practice and research (pp. 86–98). Stylus. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 582–599. Romiszowki, A. J. (2013). What’s really new about MOOCs? Educational Technology, 53(4), 48–51. Sclater, N., & Mulla, J. (2017, January). Learning analytics and student success: Assessing the evidence. Jisc Briefing. http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6560/1/learninganalytics_and_student_success.pdf Shattuck, K. (2014). Quality assurance in online distance education: Improving practice at the program, teaching and resource levels. Stylus. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of Inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers and Education, 52(3), 543–553. Shea, P., Li, C.-S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 59–82. Shirky, C. (2012). Napster, Udacity and the Academy. http://www.shirky.com/ weblog/2012/11/napster-udacity-and-the-academy/

114

ensuring operational effectiveness

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). http://www .itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm Suppes, P., & Macken, E. (1978). The historical path from research and development to operational use of CAI. Educational Technology, 18(4), 9–12. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. Swan, K. (2009). Teaching and learning in post-industrial distance education. In M. Cleveland-Innes & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), Understanding distance education in the 21st century: Transition to a new era (pp. 108–134). Routledge. Swan, K. (2019). Social construction of knowledge and the Community of Inquiry framework. In I. Jung (Ed.), Open and distance education theory revisited: Implications for the digital era (pp. 57–65). Springer. Swan, K., Day, S. L., Bogle, L. R., & Matthews, D. B. (2014, April). A collaborative, design-based approach to improving an online program. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 74–81. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI Global. Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Asynchronous learning networks: The research frontier (pp. 239–260). Hampton Press. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 389–413. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. Portfolio. Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. Simon & Schuster. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Competency-based learning or personalized learning. https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personal ized-learning Van de Vord, R., & Pogue, K. (2012). Teaching time investment: Does online really take more time than face-to-face? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 132–146. Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development community of inquiry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(4), 139–152. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Valle, R. D. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247–271.

what elearning leaders should know

115

Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139–152. Wyatt, T., & Chapman-DeSousa, B. (2017). Teaching as interaction: Challenges in transitioning teachers’ instruction to small groups. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(1), 61–70. Zhu, M., Herring, S. C., & Bonk, C. (2019). Exploring presence in online learning through three forms of computer-mediated discourse analysis. Distance Education, 40(2), 205–225.

7 S U P P O R T I N G F A C U LT Y SUCCESS IN ONLINE LEARNING Requirements for Individual and Institutional Leadership Lawrence C. Ragan, Thomas B. Cavanagh, Raymond Schroeder, and Kelvin Thompson

A

s we enter the third decade of the 21st century and online learning becomes increasingly important within U.S. higher education, the role of the instructor in ensuring successful student learning experiences continues to garner attention. Even as learning technology innovations such as adaptive learning, learning analytics, and artificial intelligence (e.g., Alexander et al., 2019; Bowen et al., 2017) have begun to affect online learning implementations, successful online educators are working to “see past [the technologies] to connect in real, human, and what have come to feel like natural ways with learners” (Riggs, 2019, p. 210). Thus, attending to the evolving role of the human instructor in online teaching and learning continues to be warranted. After 20 years of delivery of online programs, faculty development is recognized as a critical element of a successful online experience and is viewed as affecting the return on investment of the online program (B. Dodd, personal communication, July 22, 2019). The value of and need for sustainable faculty support services are generally well appreciated and implemented. Faculty support has moved into the core professional development services offered by many institutions (L. Boggess, personal communication, July 17, 2019; S. Riggs, personal communication, July 22, 2019). 116

supporting faculty success in online learning

117

Specifically, two domains of supporting faculty success in online education require consideration: (a) the development and preparation of the individual online instructor and (b) the institutional-level services to ensure online faculty success, including the appropriate institutional recognition of and incentives for online teaching. Online instructors increasingly enter professional development programs from a more diverse set of personal online experiences (A. Pickett, personal communication, July 11, 2019). Many have participated in online learning as a student, while others are aware of the dynamics of the online classroom. Their repertoire of teaching skills and competencies has also been expanded from their face-to-face classroom experiences. Continuing to enable these individuals to make the transition to a learning system that assumes the separation of instructor and learner by time and distance requires careful design and implementation. As the number of online instructors increases, the need for additional support for continual improvement also requires an institutional response. This may involve technical support, pedagogical or logistical support, or new administrative policies and procedures. The required online teaching skills are also developmentally oriented, requiring basic survival skills for the novice and more sophisticated and complex skills for the experienced instructor, as faculty members seek to transcend mere survival online to embrace a thriving online teaching environment (Ko & Rossen, 2017; Riggs, 2019; R. D. Smith, 2009; Varvel, 2007). How these skills and competencies are addressed is closely tied to the culture, practices, and administrative structure of the online initiative in the institution. Devising faculty development programs for such a diverse group can present additional challenges. One approach has been the creation of a range of professional development offerings that enable faculty to select more specific skills, from beginner to advanced, they wish to pursue (L. Boggess, personal communication, July 17, 2019; A. Pickett, personal communication, July 11, 2019). This chapter explores these two domains as separate but related leadership issues. The preparation of the individual instructor with the skills and competencies necessary to succeed online will be defined through 10 essential competency dimensions that together encompass good practice in professional development in this area. In addition, the role of the institution in providing adequate support services and systems is explored. Both of these domains call for institutional vision and leadership to identify and provide both core professional development services and ongoing faculty support. This chapter focuses primarily on the preparation of the instructor with online teaching competencies. The preparation for instructors participating

118

ensuring operational effectiveness

in hybrid and blended models is similar, with appropriate accommodations for the various formats. To ground this chapter in current practices, we interviewed five experts in the field of eLearning. These experts were asked to reflect on a range of questions regarding the changing nature of faculty development and the role of institutional support. These experts represent a wealth of knowledge and experience and offer insights and observations based on the realities of needing to prepare a cadre of faculty and instructors for success in a technologybased teaching and learning system. Their reflections are integrated and noted throughout the chapter. The panelists include Laurence B. Boggess, director, World Campus Online Faculty Development, Penn State University; Bucky Dodd, chief learning innovation officer, University of Central Oklahoma; Sheryl Hathaway, director of instructional technology support services, University of California, Long Beach; Alexandra M. Pickett, director, Open SUNY Online Teaching, State University of New York; and Shannon Riggs, executive director of course development and learning innovation, Oregon State University’s Ecampus.

Overview Since eLearning began in earnest in the mid-1990s, concerns have been expressed regarding a wide range of issues related to its effectiveness and viability (Grineski, 2002; Russell, 2001; Twigg, 2001). The scrutiny was welcome, as it enabled online practitioners to focus on those areas seen as critical to teaching and learning effectiveness. An examination of the quality of online course design, academic integrity, student support, and overall systems performance prompted a variety of panel debates, research studies, and theoretical models. This examination has led to an improved learning environment for both the instructor and the student. It is likely and necessary that this research should continue and expand to inform the practice and refine online learning as the field evolves. During the first 10 years of online course design, development, and delivery, the role of the online instructor within this emerging educational ecosystem was only tangentially considered (Boettcher & Conrad, 2002; Dillon & Walsh, 2002; Ragan, 2007). Early approaches to online instructor preparation were part and parcel of the instructional design process. As instructors designed and crafted the online learning space, frequently with the support of instructional design staff, they became intimately familiar with the pace and flow of the course and required little or no additional

supporting faculty success in online learning

119

preparation for teaching the course. This approach did leave gaps in online instructor preparation, such as understanding the needs of adult learners and the administrative tasks necessary to launch and bring the course to successful completion. As the number of online learning course offerings expanded (e.g., Allen & Seaman, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011), however, more and more individuals who had little or no familiarity with online teaching were engaged to instruct additional sections of preconstructed online courses that the new instructor had no personal role in developing. During this period of rapid expansion, the need emerged for professional development for these new recruits that addressed a range of skills and competencies needed for them to adequately prepare for online teaching success. Many institutions entering the online learning arena in the mid-1990s through the middle of the first decade in the 21st century initially focused their resources and energy on course design and development and construction of the technical infrastructure, financial models, student services, and marketing of their online programs. These efforts placed a tremendous demand and strain on traditional systems and services originally constructed to serve a resident-based student population. The role and responsibilities of the instructor in this rapidly evolving learning system were not well understood, and online teaching expectations often were not communicated. The mantra of “good teaching is good teaching” prevailed (Ragan, 2000, p. 13). Instructors were encouraged to consider what they did well in the classroom and apply it to their online courses. Although this approach stressed the importance of pedagogy, it failed to identify the unique challenges of teaching online or to embrace the new instructional possibilities of the medium. One reason this approach worked initially was because many of the early online instructors demonstrated characteristics associated with early adopters, such as being self-managed and self-directed. Through sheer determination and will, they did what they needed to do to: successfully complete the instruction of the online course. As their own trial and error led to better online teaching, new methodologies, strategies, and techniques emerged that identified effective online teaching techniques in the new medium. Many systems, such as the State University of New York (Pickett, 2011), and institutions, such as the University of Central Florida, did develop early faculty development programs well suited to serving the professional development needs of the online instructor. The articulation of these new instructional techniques and skills began to aggregate into lists of best practices for effective online instruction (American Distance Education Consortium, 2003; Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996; T. Smith, 2005). Individuals shared their specific strategies and

120

ensuring operational effectiveness

techniques for instructional effectiveness, first in their disciplines and then in the broader scope of their institution’s overall online distance education initiative. Translating these strategies into specific skills and competencies for online teaching success is an ongoing process informed by research and practice (Bigatel et al., 2012; Pelz, 2004; Thach & Murphy, 1995; Varvel, 2007). Over time, standards have emerged for online course design such as the Quality Matters (n.d.a) Course Design Rubric Standards, The Open SUNY Course Quality Review (OSCQR, n.d.) and the OLC Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs from the Online Learning Consortium (2019). In addition, online teaching best practices were defined (Ko & Rossen, 2017) and continue to evolve and be refined (Riggs, 2019). The early work of the State University of New York blossomed into online resources and a virtual community (“Open SUNY Online Teaching,” 2018), as did the output from the University of Central Florida (n.d.a). Against this backdrop, a larger proportion of students in U.S. higher education are now taking online courses (Seaman et al., 2018), some institutions are relying more heavily on adjunct faculty to teach online courses (e.g., Dailey-Hebert et al., 2014), and many institutions are facing “limited funding and increased accountability” (Elliott et al., 2015, p. 168). At the same time, the “student success movement” (Koch, 2017, p. 11) has intersected with philanthropic initiatives aimed at increasing degree attainment among historically underserved populations using digital learning technologies (e.g., Keller, 2018). In short, online higher education and the faculty role within it have become more nuanced and more essential than ever before. Institutional leaders of online education initiatives need to proactively address the needs of the individual instructor and the larger institutional context in which instruction takes place to stay current and fully realize the potential of online faculty involvement. In many cases, institutional leadership has recognized that faculty development programs initially designed for online modalities can also serve faculty teaching in face-to-face, hybrid, and online instruction (L. Boggess, personal communication, July 17, 2019).

The Development and Preparation of the Online Instructor The growth in demand for online learning challenges institutions to create adequate instructor capacity, as well as maintain the number of instructors necessary to teach online. Institutions tend to use one of the following ways to deal with the problem of scale: increasing the student–instructor ratio, increasing the instructor’s course load, or using a team approach in which a small group of faculty members develop a course that is then taught by a

supporting faculty success in online learning

121

cadre of part-time or adjunct instructors. While these strategies can contribute to meeting the demand for more and more online offerings, they also present the additional issue of instructional quality. Whatever approach or mix of approaches may be used, the institution, over time, needs to identify and prepare more course instructors, some of whom may be making the transition from the face-to-face classroom, while others will be adjuncts who may have little or no classroom teaching experience. Although the professional background and working context of the traditional and the adjunct online instructor may be very different, the core skill sets and competencies for online teaching success remain largely the same. Mirroring the diversity in the online student population, there is an increased range of background, academic focus, and work experiences among the individuals engaged in instructing online courses. Because the online environment eliminates the traditional requirement for instructors to be physically located at or near the home institution, instructors in online courses can be drawn from the national workplace or other academic institutions. As the online learning format has become a stable delivery system, professional online instructors—individuals who have made a career of teaching in multiple online institutions—have emerged who teach simultaneously at multiple institutions. These individuals may be situated locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally. Regardless of where these instructors reside, the need for adequate preparation prior to teaching online and subsequent methods of faculty support is crucial. The diversity of online instructors creates new challenges for institutions in terms of recruitment, enculturation to the academy, and ongoing professional development. An online instructor in the institution may have professional requirements that include departmental or institutional committee assignments, research, publications, face-to-face teaching, grant writing, and outreach activities, including community service. An online instructor external to the institution may be faced with the additional challenge of balancing professional responsibilities with an online teaching load. Availability to participate in professional development programs during typical hours of the workday may be limited or nonexistent. In both cases, the personal life of today’s instructor is a complex arrangement of personal and academic responsibilities. Leaders of online learning programs need to carefully consider the processes, systems, and services that will be used to prepare this diverse population for online teaching success (e.g., Dailey-Hebert et al., 2014; Elliott et al., 2015). Whether the professional development services are provided by an instructional designer in the academic department, other departmental staff, or an institutionally sponsored faculty development unit, these

122

ensuring operational effectiveness

individuals need a clear, efficient, and effective means of obtaining, maintaining, and improving their online teaching skills. In addition, serving the ongoing development needs of all online instructors also demands a coordinated and well-resourced response. Part of the challenge of meeting these diverse professional development needs is understanding their institutional context. Clearly articulating the relationship between the academic department and the online delivery system is critical to efficient operation and the reduction of confusion regarding reporting lines and accountability. With the online instructor serving as the primary interface between the learners and their institution, adequate preparation and attention to their continual growth is not only necessary but also essential. The investment of resources to adequately prepare the online instructor can be directly or indirectly related to student satisfaction and retention. In this context, institutional leaders need to consider strategies and methods to support the transition of the online instructor from the face-to-face learning environment to the online learning environment. One approach is to consider the most difficult transitional points for instructors in this process. Developers of faculty preparation and support programs should consider addressing the primary differences among multiple teaching formats. Preparing the online instructor to recognize and manage these differences provides the foundation for a successful teaching and learning online experience. However, “considering the significant similarities between good faceto-face teaching and good online teaching can inspire confidence” (Riggs, 2019, p. 13) among those new to teaching online. The adjustments the instructor has to make to be successful in the online classroom require a reconceptualization of the basic assumptions and practices of the teaching and learning process. Layered over this shift in pedagogical thinking is a technological interface that supports the teaching and learning experience. From the basics of establishing a teaching personality and maintaining regular visibility in the online classroom to understanding the nuances of academic integrity issues, the online instructor must manage a new learning space with continually emerging standards of practice at the local level. How these dimensions vary in complexity, scope, and applicability is based on institutional context, including history, infrastructure, and mission. As online learning has evolved, faculty increasingly desire more discipline-specific skills addressing the unique characteristics of their content domain (A. Pickett, personal communication, July 11, 2019; S. Riggs, personal communication, July 22, 2019). In addition, faculty express a desire for more technically advanced skills of media integration and the

supporting faculty success in online learning

123

use of social media tools within the online classroom. New topics are continually being introduced, such as the use of adaptive learning strategies, calibrated peer review tools, and the application of open education materials in the online classroom (S. Hathaway, personal communication, July 17, 2019; S. Riggs, personal communication, July 22, 2019). A smaller but steady interest in the application of nascent technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual learning environments, and wearable technologies places additional pressure to maintain a constantly evolving series of offerings (B. Dodd, personal communication, July 22, 2019). Providing guidance and instruction on topics such as the ethics of the online classroom, ensuring accessibility, and copyright and academic integrity offers an evergrowing list of topics for professional development programs (B. Dodd, personal communication, July 22, 2019; S. Riggs, personal communication, July 22, 2019). Faculty capacity is a perennial challenge and can significantly affect online program maintenance and growth. Identifying, recruiting, and preparing course authors and instructors required for program success require a variety of strategies. The use of individuals external to the institution, commonly referred to as adjuncts, to fulfill these critical roles can add value and complexity to the management of online programs. The use of adjuncts also affects relationships with program resources; faculty; and, most critical, the online learner. Another impact of using adjuncts is the preparation of these individuals for online teaching success. As with most facets of online learning, there are two perspectives on the use of adjuncts: the institutional and the individual. From the institutional perspective, the decision of where and how to employ adjuncts is both a financial strategy and a tactical strategy. In many cases adjuncts can serve to connect the course curriculum with professionals serving in the domain of study. These individuals bring a voice of authenticity to the academic studies and help connect students to the field of practice. Properly vetting adjuncts ensures that the teaching standards are retained and the adjunct is prepared to teach online. In some cases, programs employ adjuncts to reduce the overall cost of course delivery. Challenges include finding and retaining highly qualified adjuncts who appropriately represent the culture and mission of the sponsoring institution. Individuals who seek adjunct teaching opportunities do so for a wide variety of reasons, including the independence to teach for multiple institutions, extra income, and a chance to further engage in higher education. The benefits of adjuncts vary from institution to institution based on the contractual agreement, pay, and degree of freedom to author and/or modify the course. For some adjuncts the independence is offset by the lack of ability

124

ensuring operational effectiveness

to develop a long-term and predictable workload, lower pay than program faculty, lack of access to the academic community, and a sense of being a second-tier teaching professional. Online adjuncts provide a service to the institution and, in many cases, devote much-needed attention to the success of the online learner.

Ten Essential Competencies of Online Faculty Success As educators at all levels consider the transition from the face-to-face classroom to the online classroom, they will need to consider their responses to these 10 critical transitional challenges. Those responses will be based on their views of the educational exchange between learner and instructor, their role as teacher in that exchange, and their ability to remain flexible, embrace change, and assume some level of risk throughout their online teaching experience. Establishing a strong network of peers and joining a community of practice to learn from and share stories of success and failures can greatly assist the online faculty through this period. Institutional leaders must also consider the ramifications of developing and supporting an online learning system. This delivery format requires new ways of approaching the complexities and challenges presented by a relationship between institution and learner separated by time or geography. A thoughtful and comprehensive approach to providing faculty the support and systems that enable their success must be at the core of this delivery format. How each institution responds to these challenges, similar to the individual response of the faculty, will be based on a willingness to be flexible and to reconsider operational practices and relationships while respecting the history and culture of the institution. The transition from a face-to-face classroom to online teaching may appear to be simply a move from the physical learning space to the virtual learning space. In practice, however, the adjustment has conceptual and emotional implications, as well as the need for a new and specific skill set development. A poorly prepared online educator can irreparably damage the learning path for the online learner, leading to frustration and student failure. It is also important that the instructor understand the needs of learners who are not bound to the traditional campus-based experience. A competent and confident online educator may positively affect the learning path and life of a learner they may never meet face-to-face and help foster a lifelong learning relationship between the learner and the institution. The core practices of understanding learner characteristics, clearly communicating learning outcomes, and establishing clear grading and assessment standards remain good principles of quality instruction. However, two forces

supporting faculty success in online learning

125

converge in the online classroom that have an impact on the role of the educator as never before: a reexamination of the teaching and learning process and the role of the instructor and an increasingly sophisticated technology infrastructure. Technology-enabled communications systems have redefined teacher and learner access to information; the type, style, and frequency of interactions among class participants; and the ability to deliver instruction in a distributed fashion to a global audience. Coupled with these technology enhancements is a reconceptualization of what constitutes the teaching and learning process (Moore & Kearsley, 2011; O’Neil, 2006). This convergence has created a dynamic that can no longer be ignored by either the faculty member or the institution. What it means to teach in today’s online classroom is dramatically different from what it meant in the face-to-face classrooms of 20 years ago (Bawane & Spector, 2009; Phillips, 2008; Seaman, 2009). Multiple dimensions have emerged from experience and research as areas to consider when assisting faculty success in an online delivery system. Although there are multiple ways to arrange these topics, these 10 essential competency dimensions encompass the primary areas for consideration. In addition, these competencies present challenges for individual faculty and institutional leadership and provide a framework for considering faculty preparation initiatives, faculty support services, and institutional policy. An effective faculty development program should address topics in each of these 10 areas. How these competencies are delivered and placed into practice will depend on the implementation of the online learning system. In some cases, the online instructor may not have the ability to modify or personalize the constructed course. In other cases, the online instructor has complete autonomy to adjust and modify the course design and delivery. Each of the following 10 competency areas should at least be discussed, if not completely resolved, to adequately prepare the online instructor. Establish and Maintain Teaching Presence One of the most difficult concepts to internalize when making the transition from the face-to-face classroom to the online classroom is how to establish and maintain teaching presence (Garrison et al., 1999). In the face-to-face classroom, presence is established in a physical dimension. In the online classroom, teaching presence takes on a new and virtual meaning. Teaching presence online is less about being in the same time zone or same geographic space and more about being active, visible, and engaged while providing the instructional leadership necessary to conduct the online class.

126

ensuring operational effectiveness

Manage the Changing Classroom Dynamics Although online learning can take various shapes and forms, a fundamental shift of classroom dynamics occurs when moving from the face-to-face experience to the online experience. The type and frequency of interactions change online, and new boundaries for classroom behavior may need to be established. The changing natures of these dynamics, both positive and negative, are best appreciated through direct experience. Many faculty development programs require for faculty an introductory activity with their peers in an online class so they can better appreciate the methods that can be used to create an active online learning community. Balance Time and Workload Research and practice bear out that teaching online can require more time than teaching face-to-face (Allen & Seaman, 2010). It is generally accepted that the online classroom will require an additional 10% to 15% of faculty members’ time to successfully complete the course. This simple reality has been a barrier and, in many cases, an excuse for faculty not to consider teaching online. The increased time demands can present a formidable barrier to a successful online teaching experience. Providing faculty with the core skills and time management strategies is a core function of an effective faculty preparation program. Accommodate for Changing Student Demographics The access to an education enabled by online learning ensures a new richness of learner diversity. Individuals across the globe can participate as equals in the online classroom. Barriers of language, race, gender, and other visible signs of differences can be neutralized in class discussions, team projects, and other class interactions. This potential diversity of learners can also challenge faculty members to reconsider what they know and believe of the students in their class. Develop Online Technology Skills It may appear obvious that technology skills are critical to both faculty and student success. Gaining the necessary technology skills to manage an online course requires an appreciation of the evolution of technical competence. The specific technological skill sets required to survive a first or even third online course offering can be very different from those developed after five or more offerings. Once the initial challenges of simply logging in and accessing the course content are conquered, the more rewarding and sophisticated methods of using technology to support strategies such as team building and group exercises may be addressed.

supporting faculty success in online learning

127

Strive for Online Teaching Quality A general area of concern for faculty new to the online classroom is the question of quality and the concern that teaching online may reflect poorly on their personal standards of quality instruction. In addition, a certain level of comfort and familiarity in the face-to-face classroom enables faculty to gauge their performance against their perceived standards of teaching quality, which are often based on their prior educational experiences. There exist several tools that can assist faculty in the design, development, and delivery of their online course. Notably, the standards rubric created and managed by Quality Matters (n.d.b.) is recognized as a national model. In addition, many online learning organizations, as well as individual academic units, have developed online teaching performance metrics that can serve guides for quality online instruction (e.g., California State University, Chico, n.d.; OSCQR, n.d.). Aspire to Universal Design for Learning When creating an online course, instructors should ensure the course learning environment is accessible for all learners. This includes the learning management system, course content, systems supporting class interactions, external web-based resources, library resources, hardware or software, and purchased items such as texts or other materials. While “there’s no such thing as 100% accessible” (Cavanagh & Thompson, 2017, 25:13), faculty who design online courses in accordance with the principles of universal design for learning (UDL) are more likely to enable successful learning for all students. UDL principles or even the related tenets of universal design for instruction (UDI) are outcome oriented rather than input focused. That is, the goal is to provide “an environment that is flexible, in order to support learner variability and to enhance learning and engagement” (Black et al., 2015, p. 5) rather than merely adhere to a standards checklist. Web content accessibility standards (e.g., Web Accessibility Initiative, n.d.) are helpful resources and increasingly are supported at the institutional level through tools such as Blackboard Ally (n.d.) or University of Central Florida’s (n.d.b.) Universal Design Online Content Inspection Tool, because of liability and compliance issues. In addition, faculty members who pursue UDL principles are more likely to be seen by students as “approachable [and who] help create an inclusive environment that is conducive to learning” (Black et al., 2015, p. 16). Understand the Legalities of Online Education What is developed within the confines of the face-to-face class generally operates within those boundaries. There are exceptions, of course, where class

128

ensuring operational effectiveness

projects may spawn new services, products, or even businesses, but these are rare. The visibility, speed, and global reach of the online teaching and learning environment creates new and difficult questions regarding the legalities of content acquisition and use, distribution, attribution, copyright, intellectual permissions, and academic integrity. In a space with unclear boundaries of ownership, content manipulation, and academic freedom, faculty are often left perplexed and overwhelmed with the task of interpreting the legal ramifications of their class activities. Add to this dilemma content that is created, stored, and shared in a public forum or on corporate websites, and the options and implications are staggering. Where possible, informing and updating the online instructor regarding copyright clearances, permissions of materials used in the online classroom, and ownership can greatly alleviate concerns on the part of the instructor. In some cases, legal guidance may be necessary to assist the online instructor in determining the appropriate steps to maintain compliance with accepted societal and institutional policies. Participate in Course Construction and Delivery Team Processes Faculty may not be familiar with the multiple roles and responsibilities of instructional designers, multimedia developers, project managers, and student support staff involved in creating and delivering an online course. Previously, the individual instructor was responsible for most aspects of creating and delivering a course except, perhaps, for scheduling and room assignments. In the online teaching and learning environment, the services of many others may be required to successfully construct, implement, and deliver the online classroom. Providing information on the various roles and responsibilities of the team members can help faculty understand who should be contacted for various tasks or troubleshooting. Navigate the Online Learning Systems Complexity A successful online learning program is the result of a complex set of operations and services from a range of organizations and individuals within and external to the institution. These skills and services include knowledge and proficiency in such areas as pedagogy and andragogy, technology, and administrative tasks and systems to adequately support program delivery. Marketing staff may need to be included to adequately promote the course or program offering. A student and faculty help desk may need to be staffed with extended hours if serving audiences in different time zones. Faculty need to be aware of how each of these roles supports and maintains their online classroom.

supporting faculty success in online learning

129

Providing Professional Development In an online education program, the institution must be prepared to provide support to two distinct groups of faculty: those who work on campus and live near campus and those who live at a distance, like many of the program’s students, and do not have ready access to campus-centric support services. Strategies for providing professional development support for faculty who may be on or near campus and part of a resident-based program need to address the challenges faculty face: competing workload requirements; their comfort level in the use of technology; and, in some cases, a shift in pedagogical style and approach. Faculty moving from the classroom to an online course may experience a type of culture shock because of their perceptions and beliefs of effective classroom pedagogy and class dynamics. Without firsthand experience of the pace, flow, and interactions of the online classroom, the first, second, or even third course offerings can be a difficult, frustrating, and discouraging experience. Faculty may also not be aware of the often rich set of support resources available to them once the course is operational. Approaches to providing support to adjunct or part-time instructors need to take into account the additional challenges faced by adjuncts who may not be locally available for participation in faculty preparation programs. Many of these instructors continue to maintain full-time employment and teach their online courses in the evenings or weekends. Participation in professional development events scheduled during the workday and potentially in a different time zone creates additional difficulties for these individuals. Creative techniques of designing asynchronous program offerings, access to recorded synchronous events, or blended programs can serve the needs of faculty far and near. One approach to serving instructors who are teaching online is to communicate that they are not expected to know how to teach in this new medium and that they are expected to develop these new skills with the institution’s support. Not having received degrees via an online program, most faculty are willing to embrace the available services offered to ensuring their success. One evident change in faculty perceptions of professional development is the added value of gaining pedagogical skills, such as active learning techniques, as well as increased comfort and competence with instructional technologies (L. Boggess, personal communication, July 17, 2019; S. Hathaway, personal communication, July 17, 2019 ). Faculty participating in professional development programming desire direct application of these strategies and techniques and are eager to enhance their portfolio of skills (S. Hathaway, personal communication, July 17, 2019).

130

ensuring operational effectiveness

Preparing Faculty to Teach Online Clearly, teaching online requires a new set of skills and attitudes. Leadership in faculty preparation may involve a variety of organizational strategies. A faculty development program may be housed within an academic unit, with the preparation focused specifically on the needs and academic culture of a specific discipline. In cases where the online education program develops and delivers programs with academic units across the institution, the faculty development resource may be housed centrally. In some cases, institutions may contract with external training and development organizations. Crafting an effective and cost-efficient faculty development program may include a creative mix of program offerings from some or all of these sources. The final structure can depend on a variety of institutional factors. The key for the distance education leader is to understand the environment and ensure that appropriate resources are available. Institutional leaders must be cognizant of several factors influencing today’s higher education landscape. The internet has reduced barriers of time and location for not only the learner but also the instructor. No longer bound by geography, online instructors may also be distributed throughout the world. This access to a new pool of instructional talent offers institutions additional methods to meet the increasing demand for instructors of online sections. It also presents a new challenge: the need to ensure these individuals are adequately prepared for online teaching success. Mandated professional development programs are one strategy institutions are using to ensure the quality of their online instructors. Finally, with the distribution of an online teaching pool, enculturating these individuals to the academy and maintaining a community of practice require creative strategies. An issue of frequent consideration for leaders of online learning programs is the requirement for faculty to complete a mandatory professional development plan prior to teaching online. Although the response to this issue is contextual to the culture and practice within every institution, the core issue of faculty possessing and demonstrating competency needs to be considered. Identifying and articulating the necessary skills and competencies and requiring, at a minimum, demonstration of aptitude with these competencies should be addressed at the leadership level. One approach to address the question of mandatory participation versus volunteer participation is to move to a competency-based system to assess faculty readiness. By requiring novice and experienced faculty alike to demonstrate their proficiency in teaching online, the requirement of completing a mandatory program is averted. Constructing and managing such a program can present some unique challenges for the professional development

supporting faculty success in online learning

131

staff. For example, assessing the entry-level skills of the online instructor and then tracking progress toward mastery of the required skills and competencies require data tracking and information management tools.

Strategies for an Effective Faculty Development Program When it comes to the actual practice of preparing faculty to be successful teaching online, it’s important to ensure that the developmental program is intentionally designed. Several characteristics of faculty development programs have proved to be particularly effective at preparing instructional staff to teach online. However, it is equally important to recognize that different institutions can have very different contexts and cultures. What may work very well at one institution may not work as well, or even be possible, because of resource requirements at another institution. The context and culture at a community college are very different from those at a large flagship public research university, which are very different from those at an elite private liberal arts college. Institutional administrators and other leaders should consider the following six success elements when designing faculty development programs within their own institutional contexts. Include Both Technology and Pedagogy Strategies Too often, faculty enter online preparation programs with the expectation that the experience will be limited to instructions on how to use the learning management system (LMS) and other purely technical topics. That may, in fact, be what has traditionally been offered by support units. Certainly, covering technical topics is an important aspect of any faculty development program. However, restricting preparation for teaching online to only the mechanical aspects of the experience is doing a great disservice to faculty and ultimately the student. Leveraging the full benefits and affordances of the internet and webbased interaction requires a deep examination of pedagogy and instructional strategy. Many faculty members have been educated through their terminal degrees with a primary focus on disciplinary expertise and little to no formal preparation on effective teaching practice. Ensuring that online faculty development programs include both technical and pedagogical topics will help prepare faculty—and their students—for successful online course experiences. Model Online Course Design and Facilitation Now that online learning is becoming more mainstream, a greater number of new faculty are entering the professoriate having experienced online courses

132

ensuring operational effectiveness

themselves in their own studies. However, online course practices can differ greatly from institution to institution. At one school, online learning may simply be a collection of documents and resources, along with a posted syllabus. At another, it may be synchronous lecture capture. At another, it may be a comprehensive multimedia design within an LMS. At still another, it may be a massive open online course (MOOC). Any individual instructor’s personal experience with online learning may be significantly different from the standards and expectations of a particular institution. In addition, there are still many faculty members who have never taken an online course and have either apprehension or unrealistic prejudices—or both—about the modality. An effective way to address such challenges is to ensure that the faculty development program includes online elements. It should not be limited to a half-day face-to-face workshop where faculty are merely told how to design and facilitate an online course. Rather, if possible, faculty should be placed in the position of being an online student, even if that is part of a blended preparation program where activities are divided between online activities and in-person activities. The development program facilitators should model the types of behaviors expected of the online faculty. Participants will feel what it is like to be an online student, which can be an enormously eyeopening experience. Follow Up With Assessment As with any course or faculty development program, facilitators should provide the opportunity for participants to provide feedback on the experience. What did they find most valuable? What did they find least valuable? In addition to surveying program completers at the time of completion, also consider surveying program graduates at regular intervals, such as 1, 3, and 5 years after program completion. It can be extremely helpful to hear from online teaching veterans about what elements of the program were most useful when they actually started teaching online, as well as what elements they wish had been included. Such feedback can be used to inform regular program updates and redesign to ensure that it remains relevant and effective. Involve Faculty in the Design and Delivery of the Program In addition to using faculty feedback to inform program revisions, consider including faculty in the actual design and delivery of the faculty development curriculum itself. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. For example, an ad hoc faculty committee can help guide the curriculum during the design portion of the planning process. Likewise, a standing faculty advisory committee can be a valuable sounding board for strategic decisions about the

supporting faculty success in online learning

133

most critical elements to include. Care is needed to guard from creating a content-dense series of faculty development programs. Another effective strategy is to enlist the assistance of experienced online faculty members to facilitate a faculty development program. These members of the faculty provide on-the-spot expertise from lived teaching experience and help establish the credibility of the experience with their peers. The faculty member can be compensated as an “online learning fellow” or other appropriate title with a commensurate stipend, course release, service credit, or other remuneration that fits within a particular institutional context. Provide Incentives and Awards For many institutions, asking faculty to teach online is tantamount to an increased workload. It may involve participation in an extensive faculty development program, time spent developing an online course, and time learning new systems and technology. Recognizing that these activities require a genuine time commitment is important to ensure the fair treatment of faculty being asked to innovate and expand their skill sets. If the institution has the resources, it should consider offering compensation to participants. The nature or amount of the compensation will vary based on the particular institutional context. Whether it is a stipend, a course release, travel funding, or some other arrangement, it should be equitable and scalable. Be careful to avoid compensation strategies that may seem simple at first but, over time, cannot be scaled or managed effectively. For example, royalty arrangements for course design or an incentive payment for the development of every online course or section not only have the potential to balloon to significant budget expenses but also create a culture where innovation is incentivized through direct monetary payments. If feasible, compensate faculty for the time spent in the preparation program, recognizing that they are investing their time in learning this new skill that will benefit both them and the institution. Once a faculty member completes the training program, course preparation and delivery become part of regular faculty duties, as with any other course. Naturally, it is critical to provide a comprehensive suite of support services to faculty in this scenario to reinforce their training and assist them in their course design and delivery. After courses have been delivered, it is also a good strategy to recognize excellence through an awards program. It can be an institutional peer award, such as the University of Central Florida’s Chuck D. Dziuban Award for Excellence in Online Teaching, or a student-selected award; it can be a single, annual award or a series of smaller recognitions; or it may even be part of a faculty member’s tenure and promotion portfolio. By holding up high-achieving faculty as exemplars and rewarding them for excellence,

134

ensuring operational effectiveness

the institution will help foster a culture that will reinforce and perpetuate excellence. Require Faculty Development A best practice in faculty development is the requirement that faculty complete a training preparation program prior to teaching online. This requirement is important to ensure quality of instruction so all faculty receive adequate preparation, whether part of a formal training program or through some equivalent strategy. Most regional accreditors require that institutions offer training for faculty who are going to teach online; however, they don’t require that faculty take it. This requirement also underscores the criticality of providing incentives and awards as discussed previously. If an institution is going to require training above and beyond the core job, then it should also compensate faculty for the extra work. While requiring faculty development to teach online may be politically difficult, it is worth the effort. It will help ensure a high-quality program where every faculty member is set up for success, and every student is positioned for a positive learning experience.

Conclusion As the academy adjusts to the reality that online learning is a strategic initiative and an integral format of delivering higher education, administrators have come to realize the criticality of investing in the preparation of the online faculty. Student success is highly dependent on a skilled and confident online instructor. The skills and competencies gained by participating in online faculty development pay additional dividends by improving face-to-face and hybrid instruction. Institutions offering any form of online learning have developed a range of faculty preparation resources from purchasing online skills training to developing robust internal faculty support systems. Faculty have appreciated the ability to expand their teaching repertoire to include skills for teaching in multiple modality programs. The continued evolution of technologies and new pedagogical models make it incumbent on both the institution and faculty to regularly improve and update the content of faculty development programs. Increasingly, methods of faculty preparation include new and emerging technologies, as well as refined techniques for teaching specialized disciplines and topics. Faculty development will continue to expand in importance and impact in conjunction with the growth of online learning. Although assistive

supporting faculty success in online learning

135

technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, will affect the online experience, the role and nature of the online faculty continue to serve as a crucial link between the learner and the institution.

References Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murph, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Weber, N. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 higher education edition. EDUCAUSE. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED530061.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/growing_by_ degrees_2005 Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/staying_course Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/ learningondemand.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_ distance_2011 American Distance Education Consortium. (2003). ADEC guiding principles for distance teaching and learning. http://www.adec.edu/admin/papers/distanceteaching_principles.html Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competency-based teacher education program. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236536 Bigatel, P., Ragan, L., Kennan, S., May, J., & Redmond, B. (2012). The identification of competencies for online teaching success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(1), 59–77. Black, R. D., Weinberg, L. A., & Brodwin, M. G. (2015). Universal design for learning and instruction: Perspectives of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptionality Education International, 25(2), 1–16. Blackboard Ally. (n.d.). https://www.blackboard.com/accessibility/blackboard-ally .html Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R.-M. (2002). Principles of technology and change to guide our journey to the web. In L. Foster, B. L. Bower, & L. W. Watson (Eds.), Distance education: Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 167–172). Pearson Custom Publishing.

136

ensuring operational effectiveness

Bowen, K., Riedel, C., & Essa, A. (2017). 7 things you should know about artificial intelligence in teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/ resources/2017/4/7-things-you-should-know-about-artificial-intelligence-inteaching-and-learning California State University, Chico. (n.d.). Exemplary online instruction (EOI). www .csuchico.edu/eoi Cavanagh, T., & Thompson, K. (Hosts). (2017, January 3). Accessibility: It’s a journey, not a destination [Audio podcast, Episode 21]. TOPcast: The Teaching Online Podcast. https://cdl.ucf.edu/topcast-s02e21 Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven Dailey-Hebert, A., Norris, V. R., Mandernach, B. J., & Donnelli-Sallee, E. (2014). Expectations, motivations, and barriers to professional development: Perspectives from adjunct instructors teaching online. Journal of Faculty Development, 28(1), 67. Dillon, C. L., & Walsh, S. M. (2002). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. In L. Foster, B. L. Bower, & L. W. Watson (Eds.), Distance education: Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 275–283). Pearson Custom Publishing. Elliott, M., Rhoades, N., Jackson, C. M., & Mandernach, B. J. (2015). Professional development: Designing initiatives to meet the needs of online faculty. Journal of Educators Online, 12(1), 168. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. Grineski, S. (2002). Questioning the role of technology in higher education: Why is this the road less travelled? In L. Foster, B. L. Bower, & L. W. Watson (Eds.), Distance education: Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 34–41). Pearson Custom Publishing. Keller, C. M. (2018). Reframing rigor: Implications for institutional practice and policy. New Directions for Higher Education, 2018(181), 89–96. Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2017). Teaching online: A practical guide. Routledge. Koch, A. K. (2017). It’s about the gateway courses: Defining and contextualizing the issue. New Directions for Higher Education, 2017(180), 11–17. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth. O’Neil, T. D. (2006). How distance education has changed teaching and the role of the instructor. http://www.g-casa.com/download/ONeil_Distance_Education.pdf Online Learning Consortium. (2019). OLC quality scorecard for the administration of online programs. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-qualityscorecard-administration-online-programs OSCQR. (n.d.). The Open SUNY Course Quality Review. http://OSCQR.org Pelz, B. (2004). Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 8(3), 33–46.

supporting faculty success in online learning

137

Phillips, W. (2008). A study of instructor persona in the online environment (AAT 3319267) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando]. ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Pickett, A. (2011). SLN faculty development program description. http://wiki.sln.suny .edu/display/SLNED/SLN+Faculty+Development+Program+Description Quality Matters. (n.d.-a). Course design rubric standards. https://www .qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric Quality Matters. (n.d.-b). Quality assurance begins with a set of standards. https:// www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards Ragan, L. C. (2000). Good teaching is good teaching: The relationship between guiding principles for distance and general education. Journal of General Education, 49(1), 10–22. Ragan, L. C. (2007). The role of faculty in distance education: The same but different. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 34(3), 232–237. Riggs, S. (2019). Thrive online: A new approach for college educators. Stylus. Russell, T. L. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon (5th ed.). International Distance Education Certification Center. Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty voices: Views and experiences with online learning. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. http://www.aplu.org/document.doc?id=1879 Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. https://www .onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered.html Smith, R. D. (2009). Virtual voices: Online teachers’ perceptions of online teaching standards. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 547–571. http:// search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=E J880566&site=eds-live Smith, T. (2005). Fifty-one competencies for online instruction. Journal of Educators Online, 2(2). http://www.thejeo.com/Ted%20Smith%20Final.pdf Thach, E. C., & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57–79. Twigg, C. A. (2001). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. http://www.thencat.org/Monographs/Innovations.html University of Central Florida. (n.d.-a). Teaching Online Preparation Toolkit (TOPkit). https://topkit.org/ University of Central Florida. (n.d.-b). Universal design online content inspection tool (UDOIT). https://cdl.ucf.edu/initiatives/udoit Varvel, V. E. (2007). Master online teacher competencies. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(1). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ spring101/varvel101.htm Web Accessibility Initiative. (n.d.). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) overview. www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag

8 O N L I N E S T U D E N T S E RV I C E S OPTIMIZE SUCCESS AND ENGAGEMENT FOR ALL STUDENTS Meg Benke, Victoria Brown, and Joshton Strigle

T

he eLearning leader positions student success at the center of planning and prioritizing student services. However, elements of this success also involve marshalling technology and limited resources and galvanizing the campus to best support eLearning students. Other elements include not only student satisfaction but also learning analytics to predict student success and integration between the academic program and student services. Models for eLearning student services have evolved at different institutions based on when the institution entered the market, whether it also served campus-based students as a hybrid or served only completely distance learning students, its use of either a centralized or decentralized approach, and its use of outsourcing and shared services models. This chapter explores student services leadership by focusing on organizational initiatives and ongoing challenges related to the provision and assessment of services to promote success and completion with eLearning students. This requires forward-thinking leadership, and the chapter concludes with several case study examples of successful eLearning student services initiatives and assessment approaches to demonstrate effective practices and analysis. As the field of distance education began to grow, the need for online student support services quickly became an important consideration. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET) published guidelines 138

online student services optimize success

139

for the development of online student support services in 2002. Within that document, the authors observed that eLearning students would not be able to succeed at the same rate until they were able to receive the same level of services as the on-campus students (Shea & Armitage, 2002). The Online Learning Consortium (formerly the Sloan Consortium) developed Five Pillars of Quality Online Education and included the dimension of student satisfaction. The pillar for student satisfaction has evolved into quality assessment and more proactive engagement with students. Many online services are now ubiquitous for serving students throughout the institutions.

Student Services Leadership and Organizational Perspectives It is important to understand the particular needs of learners at the institution. Several studies indicate the importance of providing high-quality student services for eLearning, because completion rates are often lower than with campus-based learners. Research suggests that isolation may contribute to higher dropout rates among online learners, and without the appropriate support, students are more likely to withdraw from a course. While it can be demanding to replicate the same level of human touch and support for online students that students attending on campus would experience, it’s imperative that online programs aspire to that goal to combat this online “fade-out” (Kruger & Jarrat, 2018, para. 5). For example, a series of studies exploring the success rates of community college eLearning students documented that these students were less likely to retain into the first semester of the following year, to complete their degrees, or to transfer to a 4-year institution upon degree completion (Protopsaltis & Baum, 2019; Scott et al., 2016; Shea & Bidjerano, 2018). The availability of those academic support services, which guide students into becoming self-directed learners, resulted in the increased likelihood to persist and earn better grades (Lehan et al., 2018). In another study, students indicated financial support as the most important service for retention in a degree program, followed by academic and technology support. Those same students also observed the lack of holistic support systems at academic institutions (Netanda et al., 2017). The holistic observation is important, as the support services typically offered to online students revolve around admissions, enrollment, and academic support through advising and tutoring. The resources available to the online learning leader have evolved. Through predictive analytics, administration has the capability to assess and

140

ensuring operational effectiveness

proactively target services when and where they are needed and with particular groups of students.

Access to Online Support Services and Delivery Models In a 2010 Delphi study, distance learning experts reported the need for a broader spectrum of student support services, including online enrollment, admission counseling, tutoring, and financial aid counseling, as a predictive factor for student success (Heyman, 2010). They also noted a positive correlation between increased student support and student connectedness with the institution. Several models are being used to deliver online support services, and there is much discussion around what services provide the best outcomes. Faculty often play a crucial role in connecting students to the appropriate online support services. Professional student support personnel can assist with specific issues and concerns, whether proactive (an early alert system; e.g., Starfish) or reactive (a student reaches out with an identified issue). One-stop student services is a holistic model where students can get all their registration information, financial aid information, immunization records, miscellaneous forms, transcripts, and graduation clearance information and transactions completed in one convenient physical and/or virtual space. In his article about one-stop student services, Simpson (2018) stressed the need for a single point of contact from a student services adviser for all communication to online students. Creating the depth and breadth of services for online students may be quite different for different types of institutions. eLearning students require different communication methods for connecting to the institution. On-campus students can drop in at a service center on campus. eLearning students require some form of virtual communication tools to contact assistance. The alternate communication methods such as online chat, web conferencing services, and call management systems increase the operational costs within the units; however, at times, these services were also effectively used by campus-based students. The potential for students at the institution to span time zones also requires extended support hours, in turn requiring additional personnel or outsourced or shared services. The focus on the core functions of the delivery of student services does not reflect the atypical needs for eLearning students. Within the eLearning student population nationwide, 50% report existing commitments such as work or family issues that prohibit attendance on campus (BestColleges .com, 2018). Efforts are currently underway to address this concern by

online student services optimize success

141

offering success or life coaches. These individuals provide strategies for nontraditional students to become successful, including time management, mindfulness strategies, and effective study strategies. Those institutions that intentionally built their eLearning degree offerings to be available online or established a separate online identity within the institution typically offered students services through a centralized model. The centralized models quickly addressed several concerns related to marketing to nontraditional students, the alternative communication process used to connect with eLearning students, and their unique needs related to family and work issues. Therefore, centralized models focus on recruitment efforts and student success services. Recruiters were able to assist the students in navigating the complex process of becoming a student at an institution. Upon admission, students were typically handed off to academic advisers. Depending on the institution, orientation and tutorial services were available. Within the centralized model, the concept of academic coaches or life coaches developed. These coaches begin working with students during the recruitment period and follow the students as they begin their academic career at the institution. Institutions using a centralized model typically have a one-stop website with a group of specialized individuals who support the students. If the institutions do not have the resources to develop their own centralized support services, online program management companies can provide the services for a percentage fee of the tuition charged to students. The centralized approach offers a standardized set of services for eLearning students; however, the services may not have the same depth and breadth available as the face-to-face campus services. In a centralized approach, the eLearning leader needs to have skills in advocacy and the capability to work effectively with technology to scale services. Observation across many institutions has shown that at some institutions, particularly in the public sector, eLearning growth was gradual; there were lower percentages of enrollment by fully online students within the larger groups of students taking eLearning courses (Protopsaltis & Baum, 2019). Departments or colleges began offering courses through an eLearning format, which then led to the availability of a degree online. The departments offering the degree built on the changing recruitment, admissions, and enrollment processes from paper-based systems to electronic systems. Academic advisers adapted to the new delivery models, advising students using email, telephone, conferencing tools, and online chat for communication. The result was a decentralized system for delivery of student support services. The lack of personnel created a reliance on embedded tools within the programs to guide students into how to complete complex processes such as online applications or enrollment in classes. Video tutorials guide students

142

ensuring operational effectiveness

through the same processes. Both options are available at the time of student need, regardless of time or location. The decentralized process lead to an eclectic mix of services available to eLearning students, dependent on a service office understanding the importance of the service to the students. To promote a sense of belonging and connection to a community, instructional designers and instructors created opportunities for social presence and engagement within course strategies. However, students continued to report that the communication tools available in eLearning programs limited the full expression of one’s self and presented barriers in building relationships (Symeonides & Childs, 2015). Engaging the student support offices with the eLearning students could be a powerful tool for promoting affiliation with the institution and breaking down the barriers in building relationships beyond the classroom as part of an online student experience. Only recently has technology become more ubiquitously available to promote greater community engagement. Students identified support from fellow students, family, friends, and work colleagues as important to their success and persistence in distance education (Bunn, 2004). Students who meet virtually in informal settings often feel supported by the peer-to-peer interactions. Peer support can help build and maintain a student’s confidence and is a positive contributor to a student’s self-efficacy (Prior et al., 2016). To address this feeling of isolation, emerging within the decentralized model is a role of an on-campus student support or advocacy person or office that promotes a connection between the institution and the students. These individuals or offices assist with creating an online campus experience by offering clubs, leadership opportunities, community engagement projects, career fairs, sports events, learning communities, and culture enrichment programs. The purpose of these activities is to build community among the students and to build an affiliation with the institution. A strong association exists between social interactions and motivation in online study (Muilenburg & Berge, 2005). Students in online courses need to feel the connectedness of social interactions that their counterparts often have in traditional classroom settings. Similarly, students considered lack of social interaction as their greatest barrier to overall success. These online social interactions proved to intrinsically motivate students and increase their level of enjoyment and satisfaction in the course (Muilenburg & Berge, 2005). Creating virtual spaces for student peer-to-peer relationship building is valued and helps negate some of the feelings of isolation. In a barrier to online learning study by Muilenburg and Berge (2005), a positive correlation between enjoying an online class (versus a traditional class) and strong social interactions was shown.

online student services optimize success

143

Student supports can and should engage online students with the institution’s community through social and institutional governance activities. In turn, these types of engagements will help students feel more connected to the college and to each other and will help empower students to advocate for themselves and their fellow online students (Bailey & Brown, 2016).

Tools to Evaluate the Quality of eLearning Student Support With the eclectic approach to providing support for eLearning students in the decentralized models and the narrow focus of the centralized model, tools to broaden the availability of support services were essential. These tools aim to advance the quality and availability of student support services for eLearning students. The tools typically promote introspection by an institution with the analysis of strengths and weaknesses in the services available to students. The guidelines built into the evaluation tools encourage institutions to change their view of eLearning from being an add-on to the programs offered to becoming an integral function of the institution by promoting services for all students regardless of delivery mode. The evaluative tools also provide a pathway for certification of quality in eLearning support services. Several of these tools are described in this chapter. With the increase in the understanding of the importance of supporting students for eLearning, leading distance learning organizations are incorporating student services into the criteria for judging the quality of degree programs, which leads to the awarding of a certification of quality. Both Quality Matters and the Online Learning Consortium have certifications that include student support in the program evaluation. Quality Matters offers a program certification that includes a process with four certifications for higher education programs (MarylandOnline, 2016–2018). One of the certifications is Online Learner Support, which has two criteria. The first criterion lists direct or indirect access to orientation, technical support, academic advising, proctoring, tutoring, library services, accessibility services, records and registration, financial aid, billing, and policies. The second criterion revolves around the processes used for gathering data from the students to improve learner support (MarylandOnline, 2016). Within the OLC Quality Scorecard Suite offered by the Online Learning Consortium (2019a) are two scorecards that include student services as a criterion in the evaluation of a program. The Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs has two sections with standards about student support. One is social and student engagement, which was considered so important that it sits outside the student support area. This criterion

144

ensuring operational effectiveness

promotes a holistic experience by evaluating the opportunities provided for students to interact in an online community beyond the course activities. The section on student support has 16 criteria. Of those, several criteria focus on the students’ experience before starting an online program. These criteria focus on ensuring a good match with the eLearning programs through measuring the students’ commitment to earning a degree, determining the students’ readiness skills, and accessing information to support decisions about starting the degree. Other criteria provide guidance in institutional support as students engage with the instructional activities. This includes evaluation of training offered by the institution on how to access information required in class, how to access nonacademic services, and how to access technical assistance. Finally, one criterion addresses policies and procedures specific for eLearning students (Shelton & Saltsman, 2015). The second scorecard, Blended Learning Programs, has 11 standards, many of which replicate those in the Administration of Online Programs scorecard (Mathes & Pedersen, 2019). The Online Learning Consortium also offers a scorecard that focuses exclusively on student support services within the quality suite of tools: the OLC Quality Scorecard for Online Student Support (Online Learning Consortium, 2019a). The scorecard consists of 51 quality indicators across 11 student services areas. The scorecard encompasses the entire life cycle of the student from the first contact at the institution through the inquiry phase until graduation. The criteria provide a deep analysis of the functions within the student support offices to analyze if the office is offering the same or an equivalent service based on the needs of the eLearning students. An in-depth analysis of the Quality Scorecard, including leadership best practices can be found in chapter 12. eLearning leaders can use the various assessment tools to conduct assessments, engage faculty and other administrators in the process, and best communicate needed improvements. Integration into a continuous assessment for regional accreditation or specialized accreditation with faculty is another option.

Leadership Challenges for eLearning Leaders Within Student Services The leadership structure within an institution leads to challenges in promoting the need for student services for eLearning programs. The organizational structure within institutions, with the separation of student affairs and academic affairs, presents challenges for eLearning leaders. Typically, the offices

online student services optimize success

145

with student services functions are housed in a student affairs office, which may or may not be within a provost’s or academic leader’s office. Over 70% of eLearning leaders report to the academic officer or to someone in the academic office. Typical responsibilities include training of faculty, course development, coordination with academic units, online policy development, and online quality assurance. Approximately 31% of the eLearning leaders reported responsibility for online support services (Legon & Garrett, 2019). Because of the delineation of the organizational structure, the eLearning leader needs to influence student affairs personnel to provide services. Promoting the expansion of eLearning support services requires the eLearning leader to take on an influencer role within the organization. As an influencer, this individual develops a vision of what eLearning support services should be within the organization. To promote the vision, the influencer needs to share across several levels of the organization. Executive leadership needs to buy into the vision to support the efforts at the directors’ level within the different offices across the campus. The employees within the support offices should understand the importance of the services they offer to eLearning students to ensure equal access. This may require training. Finally, to ensure the individuals across the organization are working together, a onestop office or website coordinates the efforts. Influencers require good project management skills, as the implementation of the improvements typically requires coordination across many entities within the institution. The evaluative tools for student support services are helpful in the processes that eLearning leaders can deploy as influencers. The tools provide benchmarks for the organization to determine availability of services. The potential of earning a certification for the quality of services functions as a motivator to achieve high-quality services. The certification can then be leveraged in a marketing campaign, promoting the quality of service the institution provides for individuals expressing an interest in becoming a student.

Institutional Delivery, Outsourcing, or Shared Services The eLearning leader today must have expertise in the efficient use of limited resources and skills to effectively make evaluative decisions about where to dedicate resources internally and where to share resources or outsource. Models exist for sharing services within larger systems. For example, in some states, public institutions are forming consortiums that share services or jointly contract for services to drive a better price based on scale. Private colleges have also grouped together to more effectively provide a service to students. Newer entrants into online programs have used online program

146

ensuring operational effectiveness

management companies for both recruitment and, at times, shared student services. Here are a few questions that might help the eLearning leader review the outsourcing or shared service decision: 1. Does my institution have the expertise available, or can it quickly gain the expertise? 2. How costly is it to build our own services? 3. Can an external partner provide services at times more convenient to students? 4. Can an external partner provide services at a reduced cost to the institution? 5. Does the shared or outsourced service provide a better service? 6. Will outsourcing or shared services violate any union relationships? 7. Are we committing the institution to a long contract with a revenue share when the institution could be developing more integration with existing services? 8. Will the external partner provide enough data on usage and patterns so that the usefulness of the product can be effectively evaluated or integrated with other services?

Case Studies Three case studies demonstrate ways in which eLearning leadership at institutions have used assessment and planning to evolve student services within the organization’s structure and through various time periods and technology affordances.

Large Public Institution Case Study for Using an Assessment Tool A large southeastern university decided to grow its online presence and put together a task force of faculty to guide the university. As an indicator of how important students were to these faculty, the students were mentioned 97 times within the report (Florida Atlantic University, 2010). The Quality Scorecard for Online Student Support became a vehicle to accomplish the goals for providing quality service for the online students outlined in the report. The leader of the distance learning unit at the university began a multiyear process to expand support services for the online students. The goal was to offer services to online students that were equivalent to services on-campus students received.

online student services optimize success

147

Increasing the services offered online required working through a multidimensional process that included engaging individuals at different levels of the organization. Buy-in for the need of the services had to be accepted by the individuals at these different levels to promote success. This was accomplished through the introduction of the scorecard to both the vice president of student affairs and the deans of undergraduate and graduate education within academic affairs. The vice president of student affairs then invited the distance learning leader to share the scorecard with the leadership team, indicating the value of the scorecard in accomplishing the university’s mission. This step allowed all the leadership to share with the directors of the various student services offices that this was an issue important to the team. The next step of the process was to begin working with the different offices. The advisory board was expanded to include directors from the various student support offices. Through a series of meetings, this subgroup of the advisory board was introduced to the scorecard. The advisory group model decided to have each of the offices become responsible for providing all student support, regardless of delivery method. These offices were to evaluate the services they offered to determine ways in which they could provide those services for online students. The subgroup of student support personnel shared with the distance learning office identified the need for the expansion of those services for eLearning students. The results of those discussions are outlined in the following: 1. The group members decided they were responsible for the health and well-being of all students regardless of the delivery mode of instruction. The leaders committed to providing services for the online students. 2. The group committed to developing an online student experience that included the students as much as possible in activities on campus. This included signature events and clubs. 3. A student advisory group was formed to provide a student perspective on the activities of the distance learning office. 4. A student support advisory group was created to give direction as to how to support the offices providing student services. 5. A professional learning community was developed for staff working within the student services offices. The community kickoff was a training session on communication strategies for student services offices. 6. The distance learning office made a commitment to provide instructional design and video support for the development of training or informational movies to provide just-in-time support. (Brown & Strigle, 2019, para. 5)

148

ensuring operational effectiveness

The group also asked for support from the distance learning office. The directors wanted access to instructional designers to assist in the development of training courses, onboarding courses, and just-in-time tutorials. They also needed assistance to ensure the multimedia assets met Americans With Disabilities Act (1990) compliance standards. Some of the offices required portable laptops for their staff to work in mobile or home environments. After a year, the work of the different offices was compiled into a onestop website with the services available for online students. The website had three sections: before class, during class, and beyond class. The services were placed into the different categories to assist students in easily locating the information in which they were interested (see Figure 8.1). The website serves as a one-stop place to provide eLearning students with guidance for access to the services linked from the site.

Figure 8.1. Example one-stop website.

Before class

During class

Beyond class

Online bookstore

Ombuds

Career advisement

Student handbook

Available software

Social media

Ombuds

Math learning centre

Athletics

Software

CS computer lab

Undergraduate research

Register for courses

Excellence in writing assistance

Career center

Personal academic advisor

Distance learning student advocate

Counseling and psychological services

Major knOWLedge

eSucess

Owls care online

Student accessibility services (SAS)

Canvas LMS support

Leadership online

Internet safety

Taking online exams

Receive a service cord at graduation

OWL card

Citing references

Online mentors

Minimum computer specs

Library resources

Join the leadership and service honor society

Submit a ticket (Help desk) State authorization compilance and accreditation Student financial aid

Online owls get involved!

online student services optimize success

149

Small Rural College Case Study A small community college in a rural area has gradually been expanding its distance learning presence within a three-county area. The decision to expand distance learning was the recognition of the value eLearning could provide their students. Unlike urban or residential institutions, this college was charged to provide education to large rural areas without a large main campus to provide a core of staff and financial resources to make this possible. Like other similar institutions, online education offers attractive benefits by allowing these small institutions to reach geographically distant students within their service areas, without having to invest in people, physical locations, or travel to those areas. It is important to note that the small community/technical college did not embark on the distance learning journey with the primary intent to reach students far beyond their service area. As with institutions of all sizes, it was important for the college to identify who its students were when planning student services. A good place to start was a review of program offerings and enrollments. Does the institution designate degrees as fully online, and does it allow students to register as such? How many students, regardless of program, take only online classes in any given term? How many live within a reasonable driving distance from campus, regardless of modality? A spreadsheet with student locations was imported into a mapping program to give a visual depiction of student locations. The map proved to be a useful tool to assist eLearning leaders in conveying their message to other decision makers. Once student locations were determined, other common demographic data, such as age and employment status, assisted with building the case for a robust student service program. All of this may sound elementary, but for small institutions these types of data may not be as easily accessible as one would imagine. The college found that few of their students had declared themselves as fully online degree-seeking students but instead were taking online courses à la carte to meet their needs for flexibility in any given semester. The online courses served a population that is a little bit older, with more being fully employed. Other reasons the students chose to take online courses did not show up in institutional data; however, students anecdotally expressed that lack of transportation, parental responsibilities, and physical or emotional disabilities (declared or not) prohibited them from participating in oncampus education. This demographic trend led this institution to conclude that services for online students are services for all students. At this point, the college determined the support model that was best suited for it, what services were needed, and who would provide them. The

150

ensuring operational effectiveness

external evaluative tool, the OLC Quality Scorecard for Online Student Support, helped the college make decisions. While larger institutions may have the resources and personnel to full online administrative units that provide all the services needed by their population or, potentially, to contract with an online program management provider, as a smaller institution it was necessary for this college to rely on existing staff who already provide services to traditional students. This decentralized model allows the institution to take advantage of professionals who are already knowledgeable in their service areas. The challenge comes in overcoming the ways in which processes have always been done. This is where the already mentioned data help eLearning administrators tell their story. Advising is an obvious area to begin the discussion; it’s a critical area and a lifeline to students. The decentralized model allows for training existing advisers in online advising methods so that they may serve all students (Nolan, 2013). At the same time, online advising services became available to on-campus students who desperately needed the flexibility not to come to campus for required advising contacts. In other areas, the college chose to take advantage of consortia service offerings or third-party providers to eliminate the administrative burden all together. For example, a statewide agreement that provides an Ask-aLibrarian service gives access to 24/7 library reference assistance to all public institution students. Through the agreement, each institution contributes only a few hours of reference time per week. Online tutoring is an example of a service area where an institution pays several times the cost per hour of service that it would pay a peer tutor, but students enjoy a far broader menu of offerings and hours of availability than the institution could ever provide for that sum. As the institution’s online program grows, the distance learning department may slowly centralize some of the online student services, but it is more likely that the department will designate staff who will specialize in serving the online population.

Large Adult-Serving, Multicampus Public Institution SUNY Empire State College has a 40-year history of innovation and providing flexible distance learning supports for students. With specialization in distance learning and a distributed footprint with over 30 locations in the state of New York, a different approach to providing the student supports and services that would be available on a traditional single campus was necessary. Key leadership decisions were made by eLearning student service leaders to make sure distance students had a rich complement of services, right from the start of eLearning. Grants were secured to innovate in now three

online student services optimize success

151

generations of services. Several self-assessment instruments were used at various times, including the Quality Scorecard for Administration, a tool within the Online Learning Consortium’s Quality Scorecard Suite, which contains multiple scorecards designed to provide institutions with relevant criteria and benchmarking guidance (Online Learning Consortium, 2019b). This case study also illustrates multiple decisions to combine outsourced resources with personalized campus-designed resources. This case study focuses on the provision of academic and counseling supports. In the first generation, all services were provided by college staff with supplemental evening services. Second-generation services included blending staff services and resources with outsourced supplements. The third generation includes more synchronous, just-in-time activities for academic support and library support, either online or through a blended model at college locations. Student services now include designed open educational resources and online tutoring; telecounseling services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; and optional face-to-face services at college locations. What is beneficial about these services is that they allow for synchronous communication with professionals at the college and/or contracted service providers. Students do not have to leave a voicemail or email to get a response to their academic research questions, math homework questions, or personal crisis interventions in a few business days. They have engagement when they need it through web-based platforms (chat, Skype, whiteboard) or over the phone. All of these services are accessible via the college’s website/portal and addressed on demand or through appointments. Contracted telecounseling services offer unlimited phone sessions for students, and their counselors will work with students to find in-person counselors in the students’ home location. All students are eligible for five free in-person sessions, and the service will work to find counselors who take the students’ insurance for additional sessions, allowing them to get the help and support they need in their home communities. Students have 24/7 access to self-paced tutorials and resources related to research skills, academic integrity, assignment planning, thesis development, graphing data, and writing with sources. The contract with the telecounseling service also provides students with access to a wide range of health and wellness resources, from online articles to online seminars, short eLearning courses, and a weekly online newsletter about health and wellness. These online centers also provide initial and reduced-cost legal, financial, and tax support. There are online searchable resources to help with relocation, childcare, health advocates, and fertility and senior care services. The academic support team and the librarians host a range of online workshops throughout the academic year for students during both day and

152

ensuring operational effectiveness

evening hours. These include career services resources, on-site and online career development appointments, deliberative discussion forums on current topics where locations and individuals join in via Skype, and monthly online seminars for students in a Student Leadership Institute. Fall and spring academic conferences for students are designed for distance students to have a site-based opportunity. The 30 locations of the college are available for distance students to attend face-to-face workshops, computer labs, and inperson appointments with career or student service advisers. Engaging online students in the college community is vital, so providing not only online resources and webinars but also the opportunity to engage in local events and conferences helps Empire State College retain the online student population at higher rates. Academic support has a peer-tutoring program including three levels of support within this model. Course assistants are embedded within online courses that have a high tutoring demand. Contact information for the specific tutor is listed within the course, and the course instructor and course assistant interact over the progress of students. Peer tutors provide contentspecific support in course areas such as business, science, and so on. Peer academic coaches provide more general support, such as time management, stress management, and so on. The latter two categories were connected to students via an inquiry system by staff. This program was awarded second place for the 2010–2011 Innovation Award in Online Student Services by the Center for Transforming Student Services (CENTSS). The college contracted with an outside tutoring service, Smarthinking, as a supplemental tutoring service to provide 24/7 on-demand tutoring support for high-need areas such as writing and math. In addition, Smarthinking offered subject-specific areas such as accounting, Spanish, and other disciplines that the more generalist model could not support. It also provided the access and flexibility needed by online students. In the third generation, common areas of academic support needs emerged. In an effort to meet these needs and provide proactive skills development opportunities, academic skills workshops were developed. These synchronous 60-minute workshops included core academic skill development, self-directed learning strategies, and digital literacy. Online workshops were frequently recorded to provide asynchronous options for those students unable to meet during the synchronous scheduled sessions. Over 70 online undergraduate- and graduate-level academic support workshops are offered in the fall, spring, and summer. For high-demand workshops, registration numbers have often approached 50 or more students. Once the full range of tutoring services workshops was developed, the challenge became to increase the usage of each service. While traditional

online student services optimize success

153

outreach methods such as email blasts, flyers, and other means were used with students, a key area of focus was to raise the profile of academic support with faculty. This was especially challenging in the online environment, where larger numbers of adjunct faculty were used to deliver courses. Intentional collaborative projects with faculty were needed to raise awareness and build credibility. This approach was thought to likely result in more student referrals to academic support by faculty, and indeed this supposition has been found to be accurate in most cases. Simultaneously, academic support research increasingly cited the need for just-in-time learning opportunities where support is provided at the time it is needed and is not considered separate from a learning activity. Within Empire State College, the concept of embedded academic support provided the opportunity to collaborate with faculty and the ability to provide just-intime learning support. Embedded support is a broad term used to describe any academic support activity that is intentionally connected and present within a credit-bearing course. It typically occurs as a result of a collaboration between a faculty member and a member of the academic support team. One example of embedded academic support is peer-assisted or learning coach–assisted tutoring sessions offered to improve student retention and success within courses with low completion rates. Frequently linked to specific assignments, these sessions are designed to cover those concepts that historically challenged students. In other examples, workshops are customized and delivered for specific courses to assist students’ understanding of a particular academic skill set or knowledge area, such as particular citation styles, or to support a specific process. In high-demand tutoring areas, synchronous sessions were often developed to support online learners who may be struggling and desire to “speak with someone” to clarify understanding. An online workshop series was launched that mirrored the topics offered in the online statistics course. This series is delivered twice each week of the major terms and is open both as a review session and to answer specific content questions. More recently, a team consisting of one academic support lead and two content leads received a SUNY Strong Start to Finish grant with the express purpose of increasing completion rates in three online gateway courses. Gateway refers to highly enrolled courses with low completion rates that are often completed during a student’s first year. For this particular grant, college writing, algebra, and statistics courses were targeted, and synchronous supplemental instruction sessions, a preterm math refresher series, and asynchronous resources were provided. An Assignment Calculator intended to help with writing assignment planning and time management is an interactive resource and is accessible 24/7.

154

ensuring operational effectiveness

Students enter an assignment type and due date. An assignment schedule is created with a due date for each step and linked library resources needed for each specific step. When last evaluated in early 2019, the tool had been used more than 11,500 times since its publication. Three open education resource videos series were developed: Writing With Sources, Building an Argument, and Working With Graphs. A Thesis Generator tool is used to model thesis statement structures and patterns. When last evaluated in early 2019, the tool had been accessed more than 6,500 times since its publication. A JumpStart program, offered locally and as an online version, is held 1 week after the term has started; it is a 4- to 5-hour program consisting of just-intime workshop topics such as reading strategies and balancing family, work, and school. This program eases the transition during the first few weeks and focuses on doing so via the online environment, featuring a student panel explaining ways to connect with other Empire State College students through college-sponsored activities and more informal approaches. JumpStart Grad is offered to students entering the college’s graduate programs. The level of the workshops will reflect graduate-level skill expectations while college navigation skills may in some cases be similar, but other aspects that are unique to the graduate programs are also covered. As academic support continues to develop at the college, innovation—a hallmark of many academic support projects—will be sustained. The unique environment of SUNY Empire State College continues to provide ample opportunity for pilot programs and services that may evolve to sustained initiatives.

Conclusion With the continual growth and the recognized need for additional support services for eLearning, student communities of practice are developing around this topic. These communities address this expanding community of leaders as they develop and improve student services for eLearners. For example, the University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA) maintains a group that discusses challenges in administering services for eLearners (UPCEA, 2019). Online Learning Consortium also has leadership groups for eLearning leaders that focus on strategic planning and assessing services (Online Learning Consortium, 2019c). Both EDUCAUSE (n.d.) and WCET (n.d.) have several related listservs in targeted areas related to student service engagement. The tools for evaluation of the services offered will evolve to promote improvements of the services offered to eLearning students. As online enrollment continues to expand the student base, leadership within

online student services optimize success

155

the student support services field will grow, and innovation will improve the services provided to eLearning students.

Authors’ Note We would like to thank Pat DeCoster, Lisa D’Adamo-Weinstein, and Seana Logsdon of Empire State College for their contributions to this chapter.

References Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990). Bailey, T. L., & Brown, A. (2016). Online student services: Current practices and recommendations for implementation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(4), 450–462. BestColleges.com. (2018). Online trends in education report. https://res.cloudinary .com/highereducation/image/upload/v1/BestColleges.com/Online-EducationTrends-Report-2018.pdf Brown, V., & Strigle, J. (2019). Engaging students through support services. In Distance Learning Administration Annual and Conference Proceedings 2019 (pp. 57–60). Jekyll Island, Georgia, United States. Bunn, J. (2004). Student persistence in a LIS distance education program. Australian Academic Research Libraries, 35(3), 253–270. EDUCAUSE. (n.d.). Student affairs IT community group. https://www.educause .edu/community/student-affairs-it-community-group Florida Atlantic University. (2010). eLearning task force. http://www.fau.edu/ provost/files/ELearning-Final_Aug_30_2010.pdf Heyman, E. (2010). Overcoming student retention issues in higher education online programs. Online Journal Distance Learning Administrators, 13(4). https://www .westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/heyman134.html Kruger, K., & Jarrat, D. (2018). Student affairs goes digital: Translating student support to the world of online learning. https://diverseeducation.com/article/134371/ Legon, R., & Garrett, R. (2019). CHLOE 3: Behind the numbers the changing landscape of online education, 2019. https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/ research-docs-pdfs/CHLOE-3-Report-2019-Behind-the-Numbers.pdf Lehan, T. J., Hussey, H. D., & Shriner, M. (2018). The influence of academic coaching on persistence in online graduate students. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(3), 289–304. MarylandOnline. (2016). Annotated program criteria. Quality Matters. https://www .qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/program-review-docs-pdfs/AnnotatedProgram-Criteria.pdf MarylandOnline. (2016–2018). QM program certification overview. https://res .cloudinary.com/highereducation/image/upload/v1/BestColleges.com/OnlineEducation-Trends-Report-2018.pdf

156

ensuring operational effectiveness

Mathes, J., & Pedersen, K. (2019). Quality scorecard handbook: Criteria for excellence in blended learning programs. Online Learning Consortium. Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. Netanda, R. S., Mamabolo, J., & Themane, M. (2017). Do or die: Student support interventions for the survival of distance education institutions in a competitive higher education system. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 1–18. Nolan, K. (2013). Online advising pilot at the community college of Vermont. Online Learning, 17(1). https://www.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v17i1.317 Online Learning Consortium. (2019a). OLC quality scorecard for online student support. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecardstudent-support/ Online Learning Consortium. (2019b). Online Learning Consortium for the administration of online learning programs. https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/ effective_practices/quality-scorecard-administration-online-education-programs Online Learning Consortium. (2019c). Professional development opportunities for leadership. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/learn/leadership-professionaldevelopment-and-resources/ Prior, D. D., Mazanov, J., Meacheam, D., Heaslip, G., & Hanson, J. (2016). Attitude, digital literacy and self-efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 91–97. Protopsaltis, S., & Baum, S. (2019). Does online education live up to its promise? A look at the evidence and implications for federal policy. https://mason.gmu .edu/~sprotops/OnlineEd.pdf Scott, J., Swan, K., & Daston, C. (2016). Retention, progression and the taking of online classes. Online Learning, 20(2), 75–96. https://olj.onlinelearning consortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/780 Shea, P., & Armitage, S. (2002). WCET LAPP project beyond the administrative core: Guidelines for creating student services online. https://wcet.wiche.edu/sites/default/ files/overview.pdf Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2018). Online course enrollment in community college and degree completion: The tipping point. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(2), 282–293. https://www.erudit.org/en/ journals/irrodl/2018-v19-n2-irrodl03962/1051253ar.pdf Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2015). Quality scorecard handbook: Criteria for excellence in the administration of online programs. Online Learning Consortium. Simpson, R. (2018). Changing how we think about advising online students: Onestop student service advising model. College and University, 93(1), 2–6. Symeonides, R., & Childs, C. (2015). The personal experience of online learning: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Computer in Human Behavior, 51, 539–545. University Professional and Continuing Education Association. (2019). Networks. https://upcea.edu/networks/?nocache=1 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Cooperative for Educational Technologies. (n.d.). Join WCET. https://wcet.wiche.edu/join-wcet

9 MOVING INTO THE TECHNOLOGY MAINSTREAM David W. Andrews, Colin Marlaire, and Andrew Shean

D

isruption is perhaps an overused term in recent discussions regarding education, particularly higher education. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that we are currently at a disruptive moment. This chapter will explore what this moment entails: how the evolution of learning spaces has led to the very idea of a classroom itself becoming increasingly archaic; how the influx of constantly changing technologies has informed the evolution of education; how students have changed fundamentally in who they are, what they learn, and how they learn it; and how the concept of faculty, professor, and teacher has changed and will continue to change in this brave new world. This chapter will also discuss many of the primary drivers for technology adoption and evolution in online learning, including affordability, scalability, relevance in the discipline, sustainability and support, and complexity and development requirements for both faculty and students. We will then discuss applicability across the curriculum and other top-level principles. We will examine the continuing movements toward cloud computing, massive open online courses (MOOCs), adaptive learning, artificial intelligence (AI), and simulations, and we will consider the concept of an ecosystem. Last, we will explore the economies of online learning, the potential for sharing, and the opportunities for collaboration and affordability made possible by the open educational resource movement. In addition, we incorporate an interview with Susan Morrow, the National University System’s vice chancellor for innovation, throughout the chapter.

157

158

ensuring operational effectiveness

The Evolution of the Classroom It may seem a bit counterintuitive to begin an exploration of the current state of online learning with a discussion of the traditional university. However, the time when the traditional university was, for the most part, the only modality in higher education is not that long ago, and the traditional model continues to occupy a prominent space in all discussions of educational evolution. The brick-and-mortar, physical, focused higher education experience still usually offers a quality experience to those who can afford it in terms of both money and time. In addition, the traditional modality will continue to offer a profoundly impactful education for many. However, it is a modality that is increasingly unable to serve the entirety of the potential student population. For many would-be students, various aspects of the traditional modality prohibit access because of cost, geographic barriers, and the fact that for an increasing number of students, stepping away from all other matters to focus on a campus learning experience for multiple semesters at a time is a luxury they do not have. Early efforts at expanding who could take advantage of educational opportunity focused on chipping away at these temporal and geographical barriers.

Early Efforts at Moving Beyond the Traditional Classroom Although it is often thought that off-campus education is a 20th-century invention, formal distance education was first offered as early as 1858 by the University of London. This university’s External Programme offered full degrees to students who didn’t have the means to attend classes in person. Not long after, distance education became quite popular in the United States, championed in the late 1800s by educators such as Anna Eliot Ticknor and the first president of the University of Chicago, William Rainey Harper. Many of the first attempts by higher education to move beyond the traditional classroom focused on adult education. For the most part, these attempts allowed brick-and-mortar students off-hours, nonterm-based modalities so they could earn graduate, completion, and other utilitarian degrees. Although not necessarily transformative, these efforts marked the beginning of the long and difficult process of challenging the notion of who a student must be: a person who lives on campus, focused solely on an educational life in which the university experience is all encompassing. In addition, these efforts began the process of reconsidering what constitutes an effective course, including questioning whether the well-established Carnegie credit hour is the most meaningful measure of student work.

moving into the technology mainstream

159

Another attempt at broadening access to education was the correspondence course. Early correspondence courses were often simply off-campus courses, offered via the mail. They were followed in the 20th century by courses offered by radio and television; in some cases, these courses included occasional class meetings and, later, online elements. Most of these courses were aligned to traditional semesters and the familiar faculty–student context, and they often approximated the “sage on the stage” model in terms of course structure and approach. Instead of sitting in a lecture hall, however, students now sat alone at home and without the experience of being among and learning along with their peers. As this model grew, we began to see clear and strident resistance from traditional academe and other stakeholders (including legislative) who perceived the virtual model it presented as being inferior—even though this perception was purely subjective in nature, as data regarding the impact of the modality on outcome were, in a word, limited.1 Nonetheless, correspondence courses continued to be offered in specific-use cases, offering students connection to state landgrant universities and serving students in remote geographic settings. And although still in use at the periphery of distance education, these courses have for the most part been replaced with online courses; Sumner (2000) described them accurately as a first-generation ancestor of more contemporary forms of online education.

Moving Into the Online Space The use of the online space in higher education has followed the progression of computer technology, with courses first being offered through closed intranets at universities and then later being widely available via the internet. While what is defined as online has morphed and evolved over time, the online space saw its rise to prominence as the internet and the technologies that supported it grew in speed, market penetration, and prevalence beginning in the late 1990s through the early 2000s. One of the more well-known forays into the online space was the introduction of MOOCs. By 2010, MOOCs began to receive extensive coverage in the media as they enrolled millions of students from around the world in free courses from elite universities. Many MOOCs, such as those offered by Johns Hopkins University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), are very successful and provide quality educational content to many more students than can afford to attend those schools. However, despite early excitement about the limitless possibility presented by MOOCs, they have not proved to be the most effective method of online learning. MOOCs offer a powerful opportunity for educational exposure and success,

160

ensuring operational effectiveness

but they are entirely for the self-driven student who does not need much external support. As such, course completion rates for MOOCs have been extraordinarily low, limiting impact. In addition, most MOOCs have continued to largely mimic the traditional classroom model: watch a lecture, do some work. Nevertheless, MOOCs have been an important aspect of the evolution of online education and warrant consideration. First, their sizable entrance into the social consciousness revealed a shared recognition that profound disruption in higher education was necessary. Second, their popularity as an alternative to the traditional model motivated an entire sector of nontraditional stakeholders to attempt to enter the higher education space, a trend that has exploded since. Third, they represent a modality that is only possible through technology and therefore point to a future where the advancement of technologies engenders fundamental changes to the educational experience they offer. Fourth, and most important, the acceptance of MOOCs marked a moment when online education became less stigmatized. For these reasons, MOOCs continue to be an important force in online education. Since MOOCs were introduced, higher education has gone through enormous changes in the past two decades, much of it led by innovators, including many from nontraditional universities, who were focused on designing programs to best suit the needs of nontraditional students, such as working parents, active military, and veterans. While eLearning platforms were in place at many traditional universities by 2005, they weren’t fully leveraged to their capacity, and the data analytics behind them were not as fully evolved as they are today. As the modality was used more and the technologies evolved to support that modality, the number of students exposed to online education and the variance in delivery of online education increased at a geometric rate. This was marked by the explosion of for-profits as early entrants into an online space that became a marketplace. That explosion engendered a more direct and constant gaze from traditional academia and from legislatures, accreditors, and others called to action from the sheer velocity of change education was experiencing. Guzman et al. (2019), in “Cost of Higher Education: For-Profit Universities and Online Learning,” provided a clear articulation of the rapid growth from 1999–2011, in the inception and explosion of for-profits focusing on online offerings (see Figure 9.1). It is at this moment in the evolution of online education that data became critical. In the traditional university, before computers, student data were maintained on paper, and so schools needed a great deal of room for storage or paid to have records stored off campus. The advent of affordable

moving into the technology mainstream

161

Figure 9.1. Student enrollment trends.

a: Students Enrollment in Different Types of Colleges 100 80 60 40 20 0 1999 Public

2003

2007

Private Not-for-Profit

2011

Private For-Profit

b: Students Enrolled Only in Online Classes, Percentage Breakdown 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1999***

2003

2007**

2011**

Year Public

Private Not-for-Profit

Private For-Profit

Note. Reprinted with permission of Elsevier from “Cost of Higher Education: For-Profit Universities and Online Learning,” by G. Guzman, M. A. Pirog, & H. Jung, 2019, The Social Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.03.010.

162

ensuring operational effectiveness

personal computers allowed institutions to store more data in a smaller space but still required storage space for servers. Accordingly, the cost of collecting and storing data remained high. More important, the data that were collected and maintained were relatively sparse, focusing primarily on the end result of a course: Student took course X and received grade Y. Other quantifiable and qualitative measures, all paper initially, emerged, focused on other questions built around an initially traditional context: Did the student attend (and did the faculty), how was the faculty at the end of the course, how was the student? In the end, what we knew of a student consisted of a transcript without almost any context or useful information about what that student learned. Yet with both the growth of online education in general and the forprofits’ proportion of that growth in particular, those overseeing higher education began asking for a greater level of data. Online educators were asked to prove that online education delivered quality, and thus began an ongoing task to explicitly establish that something was occurring in online education that had implicitly been assumed to be occurring in the traditional academe all along: that students were actually learning. The human and cultural machinations of the moment profoundly informed the evolution of the technology. New languages—or at least a greater focus on the languages of assessment and student performance—arose; new sets of tools to measure, collect, and synthesize data appeared; and new configurations within tools to allow activity to connect across, translate to, and speak with other systems became an increased area of focus. The visibility—and growth—of for-profits allowed (indeed necessitated) a substantive investment to collect and provide data that proved, as much as possible, student learning and institutional effectiveness. That movement has since become the norm: Almost all higher education institutions have data initiatives as a core part of their strategy moving forward. Higher education’s perception of data has also been informed by other factors: cost, opportunity, and so on. Because cost is no longer prohibitive, we captured not only the data we needed but also the data we didn’t know we wanted or wanted but didn’t know why. Data are not only cheaper but also accessible across the different services that compose the student experience. The data environment has exploded into one of a learning management system (LMS), a video provider, a library, an etext solution, a customer relationship management system (CRM), a student information system (SIS), and dozens or maybe even hundreds more, each offering a slice of datum that must somehow be included in that larger picture. Data have complicated our questions in healthy ways, because they have forced us to ask better questions. The binary of which is better, on-site or

moving into the technology mainstream

163

online, has been forced to expand: Which on-site? Which online? The question “What is the educational experience best for the student?” has been complicated by what student, what education, when, and why? Data are used to not only analyze students, faculty, and their work but also facilitate and assess innovation in the classroom. However, research in academia tends to be slow, to involve a large number of stakeholders, and to focus on incremental change. Susan Morrow, vice chancellor of innovation at National University System, suggested that academic research can take some cues from consumer research in order to implement new ideas for learning and teaching more quickly. Morrow has led product development for some of the big players in the education space, such as Reading Rainbow, Pearson, and Macromedia, and so understands the usefulness of consumer research. “In consumer research,” she said, “the point is to be able to get to a quantified result of improvement and to do so as quickly as possible and, potentially, on a scale that’s significant. When that’s your guiding principle, you tend to move quickly” (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019). But as of now, “the goals of institutional research review are not even remotely aligned to the goals of typical consumer research” (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019), which can have the effect of slowing innovation in online learning. Just as the modality and amount of data available for online education have gone under profound tremendous change, the very “thingness” of technology has itself evolved into entirely new forms. At one point not so far in the past, a university’s technology was as traditional as the students on campus. Servers were located in a room (or rooms), and these were connected to computer labs on campus and offered a relatively limited and monolithic experience. Users were maintained in one or more databases associated with, first, whatever SIS that the institution used and, eventually, the LMS that institution came to adopt. The institution focused on a software package, or a few limited software packages, as its core, and these were to be leveraged for everything that institution did; extended where they weren’t necessarily originally intended to go; and, in some places, even used and embraced for services and functions where they didn’t even work very well at all. There was a general prejudice that less was always better; our servers were our servers. The platforms themselves initially indulged institutions in this desire. Proprietary LMSs, for example, are littered with internal or adopted tools that could feel half-baked, not because of the inabilities of the platform’s engineers but because those tools were never the core strategic focus of the platform and were thus never designed with their own core strategy in mind. In all industries, not just education, we have seen a move away from monolithic comprehensive platforms that encompass all functionality and

164

ensuring operational effectiveness

toward an amalgamation of several solutions served within an experience. Perhaps one of the earliest and clearest examples of this is video. Initially, many organizations ingested and presented video using their own software, database, and so on. This proved quickly untenable, for two reasons. First, the costs of presenting that video to users was very different (and far greater) than the costs, bandwidth, and other considerations of other types of content. Second, the technological requirements related to surfacing that content warranted its own focused attention (cue the long history of flash, proprietary video codecs, etc.). As a result, instead of focusing on platforms that were also robust video providers, increasingly platforms have focused on incorporating a video tool that already serves that function and does it well. What began in video has now expanded into other areas: virtual meeting rooms, etext solutions, publisher-built adaptive solutions, library integrations, and so on. The benefits of this shift are considerable. Instead of investing energy in accommodating the necessary evils of tools being used for purposes not entirely of their core focus, institutions can adopt those technologies that function best. This, in fact, points to this movement’s most important contribution. It fundamentally changes the cost considerations when exploring innovation regarding deployed technology. When the adoption of a new technology involved buying servers, building a room to house servers, redoing the network to accommodate the new processes, and so on, decisionmaking was necessarily more bureaucratic, conservative, and slow moving. Now, servers can be created as use is increased. Pilots and other explorations can occur without the strategic risks they once incurred. The costs of exploring the potential, while not nil, are significantly less and can be pursued at the edges without offering risk to the core. In all technologies, not just education, there has been a two-part shift toward cloud computing, where databases, content, and other data are housed in virtualized networks accessible online as opposed to physical servers based on premises, and Software as a Service (SaaS). In SaaS, the databases as well as the software are accessible online via that same cloud. The impact of that shift on how higher education institutions perceive, view, and use software and systems is profound. Some of the considerations and limitations of a more physical deployment of a technology have been, for the most part, cast aside. Use of technology is more scalable, as it is based on costs mostly allocated through the cloud and service provided and charged back to the institution only as the software or service is actually used. As Khan and Gouveia (2018) concluded, “Cloud computing is transforming many HE institutions, by reducing the cost of infrastructure, providing scalability, agility and providing a viable alternative to the traditional in-house IT infrastructure” (p. 143).

moving into the technology mainstream

165

But while the economic results of a movement to SaaS have many benefits, engendering more focused specialization and, perhaps more important, innovation and experimentation, impacts must also be considered. Two of these are the most impactful. First, in an educational experience where a student and other end users are presented with an ecosystem that is itself an amalgamation of various services and tools, the institution’s ability to both present and support a consistent and integrated experience is that much more difficult. The second major impact of this trend is even more significant, and it is one that will continue to need great attention. As institutions expose their students to an increasing number of solutions and services as part of their educational experience, even as data strategies and approaches become ever more granular and nuanced, institutions must both serve the needs of the former while still solving the call of the latter. Thus, academic intelligence is playing and will continue to play a pivotal role in an institution’s evolution.

Students as Consumers, Faculty as Guides The external environment, and where technology has progressed in that arena, has informed and affected the context. Social tools have created an environment that is at one time immediate, all encompassing, deep and rich, authentic, self-actualizing and affirming, connective, and wholly intrusive, yet somehow not. All this informs students who are, before they enter the context, profoundly and inexorably informed and programmed by the consumer and social experience that they have not merely experienced but indeed lived and breathed for much of their life. Increasingly, they must feel connected, and more dangerously their learning opportunity must be customized (cynically, catered to) in the ways that their educational experience connects the students to their education and life path. Expectations for amplified return call for institutions to provide a rich and deep educational experience far greater than the energy students invest in accessing it. Students will look for a mostly asynchronous experience in which they learn where and when they might, which means the university must meet them at that moment. A growing trend that reflects the move toward students as consumers is employment-relevant learning. Many online students, especially returning students, want to pursue a degree so they can get a better job. Often, they have limited resources and want to get as big a bang as they can for their buck. As such, they want to know the links between jobs and different educational programs. They want to know how their work experience, prior schooling, or prior credits apply. As this student population grows, there is an increasing need to develop

166

ensuring operational effectiveness

a higher education system that is fully oriented toward honestly fulfilling the desire of students to monetize their education, There’s nothing dirty about that; that’s what the vast majority of students want. That’s why higher education is as big as it is. (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019)

When asked what would change if college were 100% focused on learning, Morrow answered, Well, people are coming [to higher education] and not just to learn but to learn and grow skills so that they can have a better level of economic security in the future. So, using that lens of “what if we were here to learn,” let’s ask, “What if we were here to get a [better] job?” . . . Because you know what? That’s actually true. So, if that were the case, why wouldn’t all of your courses have project-based learning that somehow relates to industry? Then you would likely have entire degree programs based on the perspective of successful people in the industry and around what the core requirements are for career advancement. (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019)

Morrow reasoned that academics should not be frightened by students coming to higher education to get a better job, because when employers are asked about the skills they want their future employees to have, most of them cite critical reasoning—and critical thinking is at the core of any liberal arts approach. “So why are we resisting that? What students are coming to higher education for—better economic opportunity—is not at all inconsistent with the goals of higher education” (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019). To create employment-relevant learning, curricula should facilitate project-based learning and tie academia to industry. Curricula should also align employment-related competencies with learning outcomes through the typical career advice and counseling as well as with lifelong learning in mind. That is, employment-relevant learning should focus on not only skills related to specific employment but also “soft skills,” such as those necessary for critical thinking and communication. Having developed these types of soft skills, students can continue to learn in their careers long after they have left school. And what is the faculty’s place in online learning? It is not feasible or desirable to place a billion people in a classroom on campus A to listen to learned professor B. Whether that model would even be achievable, much less sustainable, the truth is that in the very near future, students will come from an educational and consumer experience that does not expect them to sit in a chair, whether physical or virtual, and passively absorb knowledge projected to them.

moving into the technology mainstream

167

We are fast approaching the point at which students are doing their work, learning, and engaging in discourse with their peers at any time. In such a world, there is no way that the human touch can be available 24/7, at least not from a faculty perspective. The institution needs to expand that immediate moment with other services—perhaps outside faculty who are subject matter experts (SMEs), a writing center, a career coach, or the like. This is where the AI experience can come into play. Imagine that it is 1:00 a.m. Pacific time, and 100 students in an online program offered by a West Coast institution are studying. Many of the institution’s 100,000 students, its staff, and its faculty are asleep, but these 100 are not only awake but also awakened. They came home from work hours ago, and they’ve put the kids to bed. They have to go back to work in a few hours, but right now they are in the moment—they are finally in a space where they aren’t just reading but reading, where they are learning in the truest, deepest, and most sublime connotation of that word. And they have a thought, a question, and a wish to connect. How do we answer that call? The chances are slim that an institution would be able to have faculty available to students at that hour. But if an AI chatbot could meet with students initially, if only to guide them to helpful initial information, then providing a 24/7 experience is attainable. Some examples of questions chatbots could pose to help students are as follows: • Are you having an idea about your research, a question, an approach? If so, can we direct you to the one librarian who can meet you in the moment? • Are you wondering if your next course is set up, what your financial aid status is? • Is it course specific? Here are several resources to help you in the moment.

Why Online Education Continues to Progress We’ve all seen the headlines about mounting student debt—more than $1 trillion (Thune & Wagner, 2019)—unemployed graduates moving back in with mom and dad, ever-increasing tuition, layoffs at colleges, and dramatically reduced government support for public institutions. Even elite universities lose money some years. This economic shortfall isn’t happening on the fringes, and it should serve as a wake-up call to institutions and leaders to innovate, especially those in online education.

168

ensuring operational effectiveness

Cost is up, and access, while far from the limited context it once was, is also woefully short from where it needs to be. Is education working well for some? Perhaps, yet even for them it is more expensive, locking them into longer periods of debt, preventing them from pursuing professions less economically fruitful. For others, it just isn’t an option—isn’t available, isn’t possible, isn’t even part of their imagined possibilities. We must somehow offer more and offer it better, richer, more impactful, more appetizing, and more connected to the individual, yet somehow do it cheaper at a time when everything is only more expensive, at scale, and with automation yet with a personal and human touch that is individually resonant. Fast-forward to 2020, and we find that online higher education is faced with unprecedented levels of technological complexity and new forms of competition. Where the institutions in the private sector used to be the leaders in innovation, some are scrambling just to survive. Adaptation is the principle by which any organism in nature—or organization for that matter—survives significant changes to its environment. Organizations can choose to adapt (and choose how to adapt) in order to survive. And if they adapt successfully, they may not only survive but also thrive. But how? By moving technology into the mainstream and leveraging what we know about learning to disrupt the status quo.

Next-Generation Learning Models Despite incremental improvements, the basic structure of online courses— how content is organized and how students are taught—remained largely consistent over 10 years. This is our biggest issue. Students cover material organized and presented in conventionally accepted formats that are still predominantly text based and/or via short audio and video lectures. Students complete assignments that more often than not look like traditional student papers and reports, take quizzes or tests, and participate in required discussion threads. The extent to which this model has been so universally adopted was a boon to the significant expansion of online courses necessary to meet growing market demand in the past 10 years. At the same time, it has also made it very difficult to make significant changes to that basic model when scale and speed are factored. Changes have tended to be incremental rather than fundamental. This is in large part because the infrastructure needed to produce scalable online programs requires creating structured templates and an almost manufacturing-like approach to production. Meeting quotas for creation of new courses while also being constantly required to revise existing courses (to ensure currency and accuracy) places significant

moving into the technology mainstream

169

demands on those charged with producing quality content in the face of increasingly scarce resources. As we embark on innovation in design and delivery, we have to creatively manage these operating structures and processes so as to not harm ongoing operations during a time when we are transitioning to a new model. Simply put, historically, higher education’s approaches to online teaching and to the online learning model have provided a strong and viable pedagogical foundation that has represented good practice. During this time, many universities have introduced innovations that have maintained the model’s currency and relevance. Since adoption of online technology, however, continuing advances in the cognitive sciences have given us new insights regarding how to create an even more effective digital learning environment. These advances, combined with the incessant pace of innovation in digital technologies that facilitate better scaffolding experiences, have created a unique opportunity to reimagine online learning.

Emerging Models Even almost three decades after the introduction of the internet, online courses were not being designed to take advantage of the online environment. Instead of replicating the sage on the stage model of education that we see far too often in higher education, despite major advances in neuroscience and educational technology, we seek to further educational environments that do the following: • Support a more personalized, customized approach to learning • Foster increased levels of student engagement and student–faculty interaction • Tie learning outcomes to workplace competence and build valid and reliable assessments of student learning • Use data analytics generated from multiple sources that support early identification of students who may benefit from additional academic or student services outreach • Improve access to rich digital content curated and presented in ways that most effectively align with learning outcomes and student competencies, with particular focus on adaptive learning and AI knowledge base technologies • Provide seamless access to a menu of academic support services • Result in stronger learning outcomes with improved economic efficiency

170

ensuring operational effectiveness

Learning Engineering Learning engineering is a blend of software development, data analytics, and good research on learning development, cognitive development, and even developmental psychology and behavioral psychology. This overlap of disciplines operates within a rigorous data-based approach to learning that can be accomplished only with a software environment that collects a substantial amount of data. According to Morrow, “Even just in the last 10 to 15 years, the advances in the neuroscience of learning have become extremely exciting and potentially actionable, and . . . that’s thrilling” (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019). In addition, we are able to collect large amounts of data that not only provide predictive analytics but also can contribute analytics with the software of the learning environment. “Then you can actually create a dynamically changing learning environment, and I don’t mean adaptive software.” There are a handful of universities that are pioneering learning engineering and, noted Morrow, “It’s exactly where we need to go” (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019). According to Morrow, virtual or augmented reality provides not only a learning experience supplemented by technology but also a richer experience. With virtual reality, she said, we are going to see that we can change the way people learn. She described this notion with the classic example of lab safety: You’re in a virtual reality experience, and you’re learning about procedures in a lab, which is critically important, and everybody needs to know it. And while you’re on a guided introduction to the lab, you see microscopes with prepared slides. When you look through the microscope, you learn about what’s on the slide—your curiosity begins to guide your learning. This idea of a hyperlinked, annotated learning experience is incredibly exciting, and the cost of hardware and software is decreasing at a speed that few can predict. (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019)

Adaptive Learning The promise of adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring systems has been anticipated since the early days of computer-aided instruction and is beginning to manifest in a variety of ways throughout the higher education landscape. Steenbergen-Hu and Cooper (2014) provided a comprehensive definition of intelligent tutoring systems as “highly adaptive, interactive, and learner-paced learning environments created using computational models developed in the learning sciences, cognitive sciences, mathematics, computational linguistics,

moving into the technology mainstream

171

artificial intelligence, and other relevant fields” (p. 331). In simpler terms, intelligent tutoring systems dynamically adjust instruction, practice, and feedback to the measured and calculated needs of each individual learner. Courses may have different needs for the type and level of sophistication of the adaptive learning solution to be deployed as well. To lump together all intelligent tutoring systems and adaptive systems would be to miss a multitude of distinctions, some subtle and others not so subtle. VanLehn (2011) described types of intelligent tutoring systems in broad terms as step based or answer based. Step-based systems provide interaction points with the student throughout the problem-solving process, allowing a finer grain of intervention than in the answer-based model, in which students input answers and receive feedback based only on the final submission. He further described sub-step-based tutoring, which is able to “give scaffolding and feedback at a level of detail that is even finer than the steps students would normally enter when solving a problem” (VanLehn, 2011, p. 203). Ultimately his analysis showed “human tutoring > sub-step-based tutoring > step-based tutoring > answer-based tutoring” in order of efficacy (VanLehn, 2011, p. 204). Though the ultimate goal of providing the highest efficacy help for students in the form of sub-step-based tutoring is being pursued, there are several ways in which adaptive learning has been implemented, as described in two levels: • Level 1: Pretests and posttests that are tagged to course learning objectives and are focused on confirming that students understand the core content needed for a basic understanding of the subject matter. This can be a simple expansion of functionality currently available in most digital textbooks. • Level 2: Algorithm-based adaptive learning, such as RealizeIt, ALEKS, Amplifire, MyLabs, and so on through a variety of models, including Beysian Knowledge Tracing and intentional interventions. The last half of the century has seen higher education move dramatically toward an online, distributed model of education. Even the most traditional universities offer some form of online education, with over 80% of students taking at least one course online. Nonetheless, according to the report Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United States (Seaman et al., 2018), “total distance enrollments are composed of 14.9% of students (3,003,080) taking exclusively distance courses, and 16.7% [of students] (3,356,041) . . . are taking a combination of distance and nondistance courses” (p. 3).

172

ensuring operational effectiveness

What are the barriers to mainstream adoption of next-generation online education? Is there a role for emerging technologies in removing these barriers? Next-generation online delivery models will have an opportunity to become mainstream when they are proved to be more affordable, efficient, and effective in meeting the needs of both traditional and nontraditional learners. New technologies will improve the probability of achieving this opportunity. Yet, the opportunity will not be fully realized until regulatory and cultural barriers to full adoption are addressed. It is important to note that mainstream does not mean totally replacing face-to-face interaction during learning. Such learning from instructors and peers can be very powerful and obviously can occur, and perhaps should, when feasible. The past 50 years have proved, however, that being in the same room at the same time for fixed periods of time with a professor is not a required condition of learning.

Practical Considerations While it is important to focus on innovation and expanding and leveraging emergent technologies that can lead to the educational environment of the future, it is also fundamentally necessary to call out and account for some of the more core considerations affecting higher education today.

Affordability Online delivery systems were once thought to be the answer to the rising cost of higher education. Certainly there are cases for which the adoption of technology allows for cost savings. For example, the consolidation of online learning resources using various software platforms for alternative distribution can substantially reduce costs. Faculty time, the most expensive aspect of a traditional model, could be preserved by creating digital content and automated feedback to students. Moreover, this digital content and feedback could be distributed anywhere in the world with nominal cost. The rapid adoption of MOOCs by some of the most traditional universities in the world proved the ability and willingness of higher education to offer content and automated feedback essentially for free. However, substantive interaction with faculty, or any other form of student support, would not be available without additional costs. Personalized feedback would be limited to that offered by peers whose qualifications were unreliable.

moving into the technology mainstream

173

Efficiency To date, online education has proved its ability to reach students anywhere, anytime. Asynchronous delivery of clearly designed content aligned with automated feedback on basic assessments has become the norm. Such digital content and feedback can be delivered anywhere and anytime. However, personalization remains limited, as does pace. With the exception of emerging adaptive approaches, primarily in math, the typical mainstream online course teaches “down the middle,” requiring every student to move through linear exposure to the same content and assessments. Little effort is made to differentiate the order of presentation or the modality (e.g., text, video, project-based) or adapt in any informed way to the needs of the learner. Online delivery models, in their current and predominant form, learn very little about learners and use virtually none of the data in their systems to personalize the experience for future learners. This level of adaptivity is necessary to provide the most efficient experience to learners. Other consumer-based approaches are much more sophisticated in efficiently personalizing and optimizing opportunities. Amazon directs its customers to purchase opportunities based on sophisticated algorithms in ways not experienced by students looking to consume knowledge. Education must commit to using data and predictive analytics toward this end, if nextgeneration online learning is to become efficient. Yet, the greatest inefficiency in current online delivery systems in higher education is the legacy of organizing students into groups (classes) to experience learning “together” over a fixed period of time. This inefficiency can be enhanced by technology, but limited technology has little to do with barriers to implementation of new, more personalized models. The traditional model is sustained by a cultural fixation on course completion as an indicator of learning, regulatory requirements for seat time as defined by Carnegie units, and business models that are tied to units earned. Ironically, even MOOCs were initially hamstrung with legacy perceptions of courses as the primary unit of consumption and fixed-pace delivery models. Even with open access to content and automated feedback, courses were scheduled in groups with definitive starting and ending points, calendar-based delivery of assignments, and the expectation that all students would consume what was offered, as it was offered, at essentially the same pace. While competency-based models with subscription pricing are beginning to emerge as potentially viable alternatives to traditional seat time

174

ensuring operational effectiveness

models, the efficacy of these approaches is still in question. While many have advocated for pace as a variable and learning as a constant, open-paced approaches without deadlines can provide motivational challenges for students and wreak havoc on traditional tuition-based business models, not to mention the regulatory challenges in higher education with accreditation and financial aid tied to Carnegie units and seat time.

Effectiveness The most affordable and efficient delivery models will not lead to mainstream adoption until they are proven to be as effective as more traditional models. Degree completion rates remain the coin of the realm in higher education, and the most affordable and efficient online delivery models will need to yield comparable completion rates to traditional models (with both traditional and nontraditional students) before they will become mainstream in higher education. While competency-based education has been pondered and piloted since the 1970s, persuasive empirical evidence of the benefits is scarce. Researchers have suggested that the paradigm is so different in terms of progression and completion that comparison with traditional programs is fraught with measurement challenges (Parsons et al., 2016). The limited evidence of effectiveness in the early research was often attributed to, or blamed on, the lack of substantive interaction with instructors or the absence of student motivation derived from the dreaded course deadlines. Next-generation online models will need to address these issues to become mainstream. Substantive interaction and pace can both be assisted by emerging technologies. On-demand and precise deployment of targeted student support is becoming possible with machine learning and predictive analytics, combined with instructor dashboards and automated notifications. Behavioral nudging with research-based motivational messaging is emerging as a student support component of self-paced models. Continued research on the efficacy of these models will be required before they are accepted as mainstream advances.

Barriers to Bringing Technology Into the Mainstream As higher education continues to build more affordable, efficient, and effective delivery models with nascent and emerging technologies, it is important to recognize and address inherent barriers to adoption. These barriers are both regulatory and cultural.

moving into the technology mainstream

175

Regulatory Barriers Financial aid eligibility and accreditation are the primary regulatory barriers to more advanced adoption of new, technology-enhanced online learning models. The most prominent barriers are tied to seat time and faculty load. We continue to judge success as the amount of time and effort spent trying to teach and learn, rather than as the amount of learning that has occurred. Financial aid based on Carnegie units tied to seat time supports the continuation of learning over fixed time intervals and limits the liberation of pace in learning. Faculty-to-student ratios embedded with accreditation requirements perpetuate the “one-to-many” tradition and limit the more precise deployment of personalized support powered by predictive analytics. This level of support is also limited by regulations defining substantive interaction with faculty. Under the strictest definition, faculty interaction is spread equally across students rather than being on demand and precisely deployed to those who need it most, when they need it. An additional regulatory barrier is the concept of faculty-shared governance and academic freedom embedded with accreditation decisions. New and innovative approaches are to be vetted and approved by faculty governing bodies, with the overriding expectation that faculty have the academic freedom and autonomy to accept or reject both content and pedagogical approaches. Accrediting bodies are structured to attend to this level of review. Such vetting and reviews allow innovations to bridge the cultural gap between a short-term experiment and a regulated mainstream.

Cultural Barriers The largest barriers to implementing a next-generation, more precise, and personalized model of education are cultural. For well over a century, the notion of learning occurring in groups called classes with an all-knowing professor has prevailed. These classes are created with finite beginning and ending dates and an approach to teaching and learning that is fully controlled by the professor. In this model, professors are the masters of their domain, and that domain is structured in terms of courses. This perceptual and cultural mindset is a significant barrier to implementing more personalized, technologyenhanced support for students. The mind-set permeates the entire university, from conversations of class size and faculty to load, to the organization of the registrar’s office, to the design of online LMSs, to the tuition-based business model, to the requirements for degree completion. These cultural barriers are real and must be addressed before studentcentric, technology-enhanced models can become mainstream. Changing

176

ensuring operational effectiveness

this culture will require extraordinary evidence of the affordability, efficiency, and effectiveness of new models. Even then, sophisticated change management strategies will be necessary, including incentives for faculty to consider new models.

Developing an Ecosystem of Next-Generation Learning Integrating new technologies into the mainstream of higher education will require an ecosystems-based approach. Technology is a necessary component, but it is not sufficient to develop this integrated ecosystem of personalized support for learners. The implementation of precise and personalized support requires attention from administrators, faculty, advisers, back office support staff, and external technology advisers.

Moving Toward an Ecosystem: Balance According to Morrow, the most important aspect of an ecosystem for higher education is balance. Affordability, efficiency, and effectiveness are the balanced requirements of the ecosystem. “Ecosystems require balance between different systems,” she said, “and if something moves out of balance, the ecosystem either rights itself or it doesn’t survive” (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019). Overemphasizing one element is likely to be at the peril of another. Understanding and addressing the barriers to creating this balanced ecosystem will ultimately determine whether integrated technologies are incorporated into the mainstream of higher education. To illustrate what she means by balance, Morrow described what she noticed when attending a higher education conference. She saw “countless” presentations and heard discussions regarding innovation but nothing about reducing the cost of education. Although affordability is a frequent topic of discussion in higher education currently, it usually refers to something like an income-sharing agreement or better packaging of financial aid. But it rarely refers to reducing costs, because cutting costs can be an extremely threatening situation for many institutions that have been working with too-tight budgets for decades. However, education is currently one of very few industries that face such rapid change because of technological innovation, consumer expectations, and the cost of doing business. “Recall the last few decades of the retail sector,” said Morrow. “Most every retailer either radically changed their entire cost structure and delivery model to adapt to the influence of online commerce, or they went out of business. We are in the same situation with

moving into the technology mainstream

177

higher education” (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019). The “market” for postsecondary degrees cannot sustain a 2% to 3% annual increase in tuition year after year—this increase in costs is far higher than in any other sector of spending. Add to this the “monstrously towering spectacle of student debt,” said Morrow, and education is facing a “potentially catastrophic” situation. To be effective, an ecosystem must be sustainable. Morrow maintained that we do not have a sustainable system in higher education at this moment. We need to start with the first principle, which is to recognize that the ecosystem we’re in is sick. And just as in a native ecosystem, . . . you don’t just add virtual reality and it works. You can’t throw in something new and think that it fixes an ecosystem. If it’s not healthy, you have to take something out, right? And in the higher education ecosystem, I think [the unhealthy aspect is] affordability. I think it’s the cost basis by which universities run. (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019)

Moving Toward an Ecosystem: Shared Objectives For the many actors in higher education who are new to leveraging technology for learning, the task of developing online or blended programs can be daunting. This is particularly true at this moment in technological innovation when there is an overwhelming array of tools at our disposal. Morrow suggested starting with a narrow application—don’t try to tackle every challenge regarding developing an online or a blended program at once. Build on one lesson at a time. For example, when developing a business program, consider what institutions have the type of online business programs you are interested in creating and then consider what those programs do. See if an institution would be willing to share planning documents. Doing this sort of research can save you a lot of time and can help you avoid making old mistakes, while allowing you to learn by making some new mistakes of your own. Even if you don’t get full disclosure, you will get more insight than if you had not asked for anything. With that insight you can gain a concentrated view of how one particular player created a successful program, and that becomes an anchor for learning. Finding industry information can be surprisingly easy, partly because universities market themselves but also because people in higher education don’t perceive competition in the same way that people in other industries do. In the corporate world, a business competitor will not necessarily reveal how it developed a product. But a higher education institution is likely to share information when asked how it built a successful program.

178

ensuring operational effectiveness

A critical step in implementing a next-generation model is persuading academics and faculty to buy in to new technology solutions. In Morrow’s experience, although it sounds predictable, the most effective approach is to focus on shared objectives. Educators are passionate about why they do what they do, which is facilitate learning. So, it is much more compelling to show how next-generation learning can make the student experience easier or more meaningful or result in a better outcome than simply offering faculty another way to save time. As Morrow explained, So many people who are teaching do it because they’re passionate about student learning. So you have to go back to that, and that’s the source of the why. It also gets out of getting lost in features or technical discussion or integration or other things that matter but don’t matter at first. Your first principle is that this will actually provide a better learning experience, and here’s how. (S. Morrow, personal communication, August 5, 2019)

Conclusion At one level, online learning in higher education has already become mainstream as the result of the technology deployed to deliver instruction and support students. Most students take at least one course online, and online course consumption increases each year. Nonetheless, the adoption rate of new technologies (i.e., AI, virtual simulations, machine learning) are often hampered by piecemeal approaches that overlook the integrated impact on affordability, efficiency, and effectiveness. In moving toward the true integration of technology into the mainstream of higher education, institutions should consider an ecosystem approach where technology is strategically deployed to meet institutional goals. Culture, cost, and human capital barriers must be simultaneously addressed if institutions are to be successful.

Notes 1 For evidence of a perceived lack of quality in correspondence delivery, the U.S. Department of Education places limits on FSA support of said programs: “Correspondence programs are subject to certain restrictions: no more than 50% of a school’s programs may be offered through correspondence study, and no more than 50% of a school’s regular students may be enrolled in correspondence programs” (U.S. Department of Education, 2009–2010, p. 2).

moving into the technology mainstream

179

References Guzman, G., Pirog, M. A., & Jung, H. (2019). Cost of higher education: Forprofit universities and online learning. The Social Science Journal. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.03.010 Khan, S. R., & Gouveia, L. B. (2018). Moving towards cloud analyzing the drivers and barriers to the adoption of cloud computing in HE (higher education) institution in UK: An exploratory study with proposed solution. International Journal of Cyber-Security and Digital Forensics, 7(2), 142–154. https://link-galecom.proxy1.ncu.edu/apps/doc/A568570245/AONE?u=pres1571&sid=AONE &xid=4ab9be59 Parsons, K., Mason, J., & Soldner, M. (2016). On the path to success: Early evidence about the efficacy of postsecondary competency-based education programs. American Institute of Research. Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered. html Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0034752 Sumner, J. (2000). Serving the system: A critical history of distance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 15(3), 267–285. https:// www.doi.org/10.1080/713688409 Thune, J., & Wagner, M. (2019, August 27). Americans are drowning in $1.5 trillion of student loan debt. There’s one easy way Congress could help. Time. https://time.com/5662626/student-loans-repayment/ U.S. Department of Education. (2009–2010). 2009–2010 federal student aid handbook (Vol. 2). Author. https://ifap.ed.gov/fsahandbook/attachments/0910FSAH bkVol2Ch8DistanceEd.pdf VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197– 221. http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369

10 ACCESSIBILITY Cyndi Rowland and Kelly Hermann

I

nstitutions must transform to support digital accessibility for students and faculty members with disabilties, and eLearning leaders must have the operational knowledge and skills to support that transformation. While it is important for eLearning leadership to promote accessibility because it is the right and smart thing to do, many engage because it is the law. Civil rights laws for individuals with disabilities are not new. Higher education has responded to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act since 1973, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 since 1990. Web accessibility is also not new. The first technical accessibility guidelines were put in place by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1999. The first federal law requiring federal agencies to develop, procure, maintain, and use accessible electronic and information technology (i.e., Section 508, 1998) was signed into law in 1998, with a federal technical standard promulgated in 2001. Yet, decades later, higher education broadly has not delivered the accessible digital content needed by many people with disabilities. Digital accessibility is critical in the disability community and is seen as a contemporary battle for civil rights. Seaman et al. (2018) tracked the growth of eLearning over a decade in a series of annual surveys. In 2018 they reported on the continued rapid growth in the field. In periods of growth like this, student impact and institutional impact associated with inaccessible content also grows. Thousands of Office for Civil Rights (OCR) complaints referencing digital inaccessibility have been leveled against institutions of higher education. Litigation against hundreds of higher education institutions grows each year, with web accessibility lawsuits in the United States nearly tripling in 2018, exceeding 2,250 for the year (Vu et al., 2019). It is no wonder that web accessibility has been a top challenge reported for higher education. 180

accessibility

181

In the EDUCAUSE Key Issues Survey (Brown, 2019), web accessibility has remained in the top five issues over the past 3 years. It is also a focus area of the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), where staff puts efforts into inclusion, diversity, equity, and advocacy, and digital accessibility is a central tenet (OLC, 2019). During the annual conferences of both WCET (WICHE [Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education] Cooperative for Educational Technologies) and OLC in the fall of 2016, attendees were asked to identify “what kept them up at night” related to online learning. Accessibility was near the top of the list for both organizations (Ives et al., 2017). Likewise, survey results from the Instructional Technology Council (ITC), an affiliate of the American Association of Community Colleges, indicated that accessibility has been a top challenge for respondents (2-year and community colleges) since questions on the topic were included in 2015 (Lokken, 2018). eLearning leaders are tasked with facilitating operational effectiveness. Therefore, they must understand the critical challenges that face the institution as they shift toward accessibility for all. This chapter will provide a primer on digital accessibility, including the legal landscape and typical system-change workflow and data regarding the current state of digital accessibility in higher education. It will then discuss five top challenges: the institution itself, the needs of technical staff, the needs of content creators, the need to attend to cultural adoption and motivation, and, finally, the need to engage in ongoing assessment and continuous improvement. With information on these five issues, eLearning leaders will be ready to help their institution address this challenge.

The Primer The W3C indicated that “Web accessibility means that websites, tools, and technologies are designed and developed so that people with disabilities can use them. More specifically, people can: perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web, [and] contribute to the Web” (W3C, 2019). Tim Berners-Lee, director of W3C and inventor of the World Wide Web, stated, “The power of the Web is its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect” (W3C, 2019). Individuals who tend to have access issues with computer and internet use typically fall into one or more of the following five areas: Those who (a) are blind, have low vision, or are color-blind; (b) are deaf or hard of hearing; (c) have fine motor issues such that using a keyboard or mouse is difficult or impossible; (d) have cognitive impairments including difficulties in areas such as visual processing, memory,

182

ensuring operational effectiveness

literacy, comprehension, distraction to or from content, and problemsolving; or (e) have photoepilepsy. Institutions of higher education are required to ensure the programs, services, and activities they offer to students are accessible to students with disabilities. This requirement is created by the provisions of two federal laws: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Both were passed before the widespread use of technology and the internet; therefore, no references to digital accessibility exist in either law. Instead, these laws indicate that no qualified individual with a disability shall be discriminated against on the basis of their disability status and that covered entities must provide reasonable accommodations to ensure equal access to services, programs, and activities. In a time of unprecedented access to and use of technology, including virtual assistants such as Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa, self-driving cars, and websites that allow business to be conducted from the comfort of a user’s home, how do we prevent discrimination in technology use on the basis of disability? Moreover, how does an educational institution ensure that its digital programs and services are available to those with disabilities, free from discrimination? Consider the following scenarios and their impact for an online student with a disability: • Juan, who has quadriplegia, is trying to get information about his program of study and map out courses he can take in the coming term. He is unable to use a mouse but is very successful using a sip-and-puff switch that emulates a keyboard. However, the institution’s website has several interactions that are not keyboard accessible, thus preventing him from accessing information that would help him independently plan the most efficient way to complete the program. Unfortunately, he is unable to use the app that would link him to an online adviser for the very same reason. • Pat has obscured vision in her primary field of view. She uses custom styles, browser text resizing, and screen magnification software to improve online readability. Her online instructor provides students with weekly quizzes to firm up learning. These quizzes are voluntary but will feed both the midterm and final exams. The text and inputs in the quizzes are too small for her to read and interact with and are presented with very low contrast. Her attempts at resizing and customizing the website content cause the quiz form fields to disappear. She does not feel comfortable asking the instructor for assistance and hates that her requests are often viewed as complaining. She decides not to participate in the optional quizzes.

accessibility

183

• Talia is blind and is a proficient screen reader user. Courses in her major have extensive reading. Many of these articles are inaccessible to her as they present as one giant image with no information that can be extracted. Each term she makes a request to the Disability Services Office for accessible articles. They typically provide the course materials in three chunks. She gets a third of the readings at week 3, week 6, and week 9, often receiving the readings after they have been discussed in class, so she is frequently behind. She must take an incomplete at the end of the term just to finish the content, and she never learns the material in the same ways as her peers. More frustrating to her is that this happens in almost every class. She does not understand why the problem is not fixed by now and wonders if she will ever be able to take a class simultaneously with her peers. She wants her classes to be ready for her on day one! Accessibility and services for students with disabilities are unfunded mandates in higher education. Under Section 504, institutions are required to ensure that students with disabilities have equal access to its courses, services, programs, and activities when they accept federal funds, such as federal financial aid through Title IV (Rehabilitation Act of 1973). Institutions of higher education have long been used to address the needs of students with disabilities in a very reactive manner following an accommodation model: First, students disclose they have a diagnosis and submit documentation to substantiate their claims. Then, a disability services professional reviews the documentation, determines what is a reasonable accommodation, and communicates that decision to the student. Finally, faculty are notified of the reasonable accommodations and are directed to implement them in the course. This process is based on responding to students’ individual needs and customizing an accommodation plan for them. The accommodation model works well for individualization and customizing an accommodation approach that is reasonable and effectively provides the student with an equal opportunity to demonstrate learning. But in a survey conducted by Linder et al. (2015), the authors revealed that institutions often did not address accessibility issues until a student raised a concern after enrolling in a class; this parallels what happened to Talia in our earlier example. This is often too late for the student, as it can take weeks to retrofit content for accessibility, and it is often more expensive. In addition, questions of ownership were prevalent. “As we saw in our data, no one office has the resources to successfully advocate and police online content for accessibility at an institution” (Linder et al., 2015, p. 29). Since the early guidance from the OCR and Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2010, institutions have been put on notice that being reactive to student

184

ensuring operational effectiveness

requests is not enough for digital accessibility. The guidance has shifted from the reactive, accommodation model to a proactive, access model (Dietrich, 2014) where accessible resources are available when the student enters the course, not after a request. In a recent court ruling (Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, 2019), the institution was told that materials should be available to students with disabilities prior to, or at the same time as, their peers.

The Legal Landscape In 2009, the National Federation of the Blind filed a lawsuit and federal complaints against five colleges and universities in the United States that had entered into agreements with Amazon to deploy the Kindle DX ereader in several courses as a pilot (Lazar et al., 2015). The Kindle DX was inaccessible to individuals who were blind, as there was no way to have menu options read aloud, and the device did not have braille as part of the keyboard or other interfaces. As a result of these cases, the DOJ and the OCR in the U.S. Department of Education (OCR, 2010) released a “Dear Colleague” letter to university and college presidents specifying information and communication technologies (ICT) had to be accessible to all students, especially those who were blind. Despite this mandate, the 2010 Dear Colleague letter and the subsequent Frequently Asked Questions document published in 2011 (OCR, 2011) did not indicate which accessibility standard to follow. It did provide some practical, technical guidance that would demonstrate how institutions could increase accessibility, but what it meant to follow the law was still mostly unknown and subject to interpretation. Since that time, online course offerings and the use of multiple forms of ICT on college campuses have only continued to grow. So have OCR complaints and litigation. In a 2018 article on 50 lawsuits that had just been filed by a single individual against colleges for inaccessible web content, Peter Blanck put the action in context: “It’s been almost 30 years since the ADA was passed, and we should have made more progress. . . .There is no question that universities have been on notice for a long time” (McKenzie, 2018, para. 18) It is interesting to note that the recommended means of minimizing risk based on guidance from the OCR is to proactively address potential barriers to access and design regardless of the enrollment of students with disabilities. This is reminiscent of the social model of disability, which posits that disability does not exist because of impairment in the body but rather because of the barriers in place in the environment (Barnes & Mercer, 2010). As such, a campus has an affirmative obligation to identify and fix known barriers before they are encountered by students.

accessibility

185

Defining a Technical Standard for Accessibility Because there are no governmental regulations published that define an accessibility standard to follow, each institution has to define the standard to which it will conform, which can be a challenge. This is despite the DOJ having issued two separate notices of proposed rule making complete with public comments for digital accessibility covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is widely speculated that clarification of technical standards for digital accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act was set aside as President Trump initiated Executive Order 13771 (Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), which required agencies to remove two regulations for every one they wanted to enact (White House, 2017). Resolution letters from the OCR and several court rulings routinely reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) (W3C, 2018), an international specification. Furthermore, they reference the most current version and conformance to AA of that version. The W3C has three levels of conformance: A, AA, and AAA. Single A is the lowest conformance level, and this specification will have broad impact on the widest array of users. Double A conformance is considered the middle range of accessibility. Conforming to this specification means that you will meet the needs of most, but not all, users with disabilities. Triple A conformance is the highest level. It is widely viewed as aspirational, as many of the success criteria within the specification may be difficult or expensive to achieve. At this level, the focus of improvements and impact is on specific user populations. While past agreements and rulings reference WCAG 2.0 AA, the newer guideline, WCAG 2.1 AA (W3C, 2018), is now being referenced in court documents (e.g., Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, 2019). So, while we do not have governmental regulations published, this seems to be a common direction. It is important to be cautious, however, because these cases, with their resulting letters and resolution agreements, are not binding precedent.

The Work of Accessibility Transformation Other themes provided in the resolution agreements and rulings essentially set forth a workflow that an institution can follow as it tackles enterprisewide change on accessibility practices (Rowland, 2017). This provides broad operational aspects that are useful to any eLearning leaders as they strive to attain whichever standard is set by the institution: 1. Designate a person to coordinate information technology (IT) accessibility.

186

ensuring operational effectiveness

2. Define a policy specific to IT accessibility. 3. Provide a public link to an accessibility page and describe the process for submitting complaints and feedback. 4. Develop a plan for new content. 5. Develop a corrective action plan. 6. Define a process for evaluating accessibility as part of procurement. 7. Perform a technology audit on accessibility. 8. Specifically seek out feedback from those with disabilities. 9. Provide training to individuals consistent with their role as they create digital materials or websites.

Status of Web Accessibility in Higher Education It is useful to understand the scope and depth of the problem that must be addressed. Sadly, data do not paint a good picture. Ringlaben et al. (2014) studied 51 websites of departments of special education across campuses in the United States, finding that 97% of them had accessibility errors. Massengale and Vasquez (2016) analyzed six online courses for accessibility. They found that all had errors that would have made it difficult, or impossible, for a student with a disability to complete the course. Iniesto et al. (2016) cited Bohnsack and Puh’s (2014) work to evaluate five commonly used massive open online course (MOOC) platforms, which concluded that four of the five platforms had significant accessibility issues at that time. From 2016 to 2018 WebAIM engaged in longitudinal research of web content in higher education (Rowland & Joeckel, 2019). Following 62 universities, with at least one in every state and territory, they collected the home page plus 13 randomly selected pages from a pool of 250 that were automatically collected from the domain. These 868 pages were then put through the WAVE tool (WAVE.WebAIM.org) to look at accessibility errors that were machine detectable (note this is not all accessibility errors). It is important to know that this process does not yield data on accessibility but rather on inaccessibility of only machine-detectable errors; this is currently only about a quarter of all WCAG elements. While the result does not provide accessibility per se, it is believed to be a metric of whether accessibility is being considered by developers. This is because those elements are low-hanging fruit so to speak. Anyone working on web accessibility would have these issues fixed first, in part because they are easier to detect and fix. The resulting data are very conservative for actual accessibility. Pages without the detectable errors in this study may still have accessibility issues,

accessibility

187

but those errors were not automatically detectable. In 2016, data from the WAVE tool indicated that 78.2% of the pages contained automatically detectable errors. Over the next 2 years, improvements were seen on those pages such that by 2018 only 67.8% of the pages had automatically detectable errors. This is a nice improvement. While it is wonderful to see accessibility performance improve, it still points to the fact that many individuals with disabilities would be able to access roughly only one third of all the pages in this national sample. When you recognize the interconnected nature of the web and that people seldom go to a single page, this result is more troubling. Imagine being unable to fully access two thirds of the content you peruse on the web; there is a good chance you would never get to the intended destination, let alone perform the intended task. The Instructional Technology Council (ITC) executed a survey of its members to determine their perceptions of accessibility in higher education. The ITC survey (Lokken, 2018) revealed that ratings of accessibility compliance have decreased steadily over time. Consider this: In 2018, only 25% of the respondents indicated that most classes comply with accessibility, while 75% indicated that some classes were in compliance. Similar results were reported in 2017: 33% indicated their courses were completely or mostly compliant, while 61% indicated they had achieved some accessibility compliance. ITC contrasted these results with what respondents stated in 2008: 73% of respondents indicated their courses were completely or mostly compliant, and only 26% rated their courses as having some compliance for accessibility. Have that many courses at responding institutions declined in accessibility between surveys? Or are there other factors influencing the ratings? Because the ITC survey is based on the perception of eLearning professionals and not an objective review of the accessibility of online courses, it is difficult to discern if accessibility has decreased or if the professionals responding to the survey have become more aware of what they do not know about accessibility.

Challenges Accessibility work comes with challenges. Because of this it is good for eLearning leaders to be forewarned about specific issues that have an institutional impact. Those challenges are described in the following section and include the need to get the entire institution to address accessibility, the needs of technical staff, the needs of content creators who are largely faculty and staff, the need to consider cultural adoption and motivation, and finally the need for ongoing assessments of the work.

188

ensuring operational effectiveness

The Institution How do institutions address accessibility? And who is responsible for the work? Institutions that have succeeded in accessibility will point to their success being tied to the degree of institutional coordination and collective work. An eLearning leader should know that it does little good to engage in accessibility work in a singular department or unit. Accessibility has to be an institution-wide commitment, backed up by an accessibility policy. Multiple systems must be addressed (e.g., registration, textbook purchase systems, the learning management system [LMS], grading or transcript systems), accessible products must be procured by all (e.g., digital labs, library databases, web design consultant firms), and faculty must be supported in the creation and sharing of accessible content with sufficient resources, including budgetary support. Multiple leaders, including those in eLearning, must inform institutional leaders of the importance of accessibility and advocate for support. Developing an accessibility policy and strategy is an institution-wide task. An overall plan and strategy to guide these efforts is integral to supporting digital accessibility. Otherwise, “it becomes a piecemeal job between a variety of offices (ODSs [Offices of Disability Supports], CTLs [Centers of Teaching and Learning], instructional technology and faculty experts)” (Linder et al., 2015, p. 29). Institutions that have not developed an accessibility policy that governs who will do what and when to accomplish the goal of digital accessibility will find their faculty and staff overwhelmed by the job, as it has been shown to be a several-year process. Accessibility policies should include a statement of goals, address procurement activities, identify responsibilities and roles, adopt a benchmark standard of accessibility, and specify how the institution will support the policy through training and other resources. It is critical that multiple stakeholders are represented and that all have an opportunity to provide input. Many institutions have appointed a chair and accessibility committee to follow the work of accessibility from policy and strategy creation through training, support, budget requests, and annual data analysis to view progress and make continuous improvements. This is a common requirement found in OCR resolution agreements, as noted previously. While ownership of an accessibility policy may lie in the disability services office or within information technology, neither of those individual units has a full sense of every activity that will affect an institution’s digital accessibility. Committees composed of academics, disability services, technology, online learning and instructional design, procurement, student affairs, marketing, and admissions serve to provide input to the overall strategy and increase awareness of the need for digital accessibility across

accessibility

189

the campus (Rowland, 2012). Each institution has to construct a committee that will meet the needs of that campus and fit the institutional culture and climate. Another institutional challenge that must be addressed is procurement. To deliver accessible digital content, an institution must procure accessible technologies (e.g., the LMS, library databases, digital labs) or devote enormous resources to retrofitting or making accessible versions, which can be impossible to do. It is far better to place this cost on the vendor, who will benefit from having an accessible product to sell to others. For example, when an institution is considering procurement of the LMS, it must be accessible in and of itself. It has to allow students with disabilities to enter the class, just like the ramps and elevators provide physical access to the buildings on campus. However, the content uploaded into the LMS can turn an accessible experience into an inaccessible experience. Videos without captions, images without alternative text descriptions, forms without labels, and so on can exist within an accessible LMS, rendering the course inaccessible. Savvy eLearning leaders will know not to limit accessible procurement efforts to things that are “purchased.” Accessible procurement has to apply to all procurement, even those that are under the dollar threshold for the procurement policy. Important tools that are free or have a nominal charge could be overlooked. Examples include the use of freeware (i.e., Google Docs, Dropbox) that have tremendous impact across the enterprise, or items uploaded by the faculty member themselves. Failure to address accessibility in procurement is akin to digging the hole you are in without stopping to determine a way out (Rowland, 2018). How is accessibility addressed when timeliness is critical, resources are limited, and competition for those resources across the institution is stiff? For an institution, it is imperative to identify common accessibility barriers and remove them in anticipation of student needs. There are many elements critical for campuses to consider if they want to achieve and sustain accessibility. The point is to make sure it is done at the level of the institution or else you will experience problems achieving your intended result. The good news is that there are several road maps available to leadership. Ultimately, the work will need to be system-wide if accessibility will be achieved. In each instance, these models are based on the concept of continuous improvement over several years. Here are three examples: • The National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE), under U.S. Department of Education (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education [FIPSE]) funding, gathered

190

ensuring operational effectiveness

best practices in web accessibility system reform in higher education. In 2010 it created the first version of the Indicators for Institutional Web Accessibility, which has been updated a few times (NCDAE, 2016). The document steps the user through the following indicators of recommended practice to achieve system-wide web accessibility: (a) institutional vision and leadership commitment, (b) planning and implementation, (c) resources and support, and (d) assessment. Each indicator contains benchmarks for the specific indicator, and each benchmark contains statements of evidence for the benchmarks. This provides the users with a very basic road map they can use or adapt as they work toward institutional web accessibility. This document, along with a blueprint for institutions and an online benchmarking and planning tool, has been used with over 200 institutions. • The California State University (CSU) system’s Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI) improved on the NCDAE indicators process to create its maturity model used across the CSU system of 23 campuses. The ATI framework has 25 goals and more than 150 success indicators with levels that help identify where a campus needs to put effort. Accessing the full model can be done by contacting [email protected] (California State University Office of the Chancellor, n.d.). • Another group that has developed a model for higher education to use is the highly regarded CAST, which first truly evangelized the concept of universal design for learning. One initiative from CAST has been the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials (NCAEM). While NCAEM has worked mostly in the K–12 space, it recently broadened its work into higher education. NCAEM published a resource for higher education that focused on seven quality indicators, along with critical components for each indicator. Those indicators are (a) a coordinated system for the provision of appropriate highquality materials and technologies; (b) acquisition and provision of appropriate accessible materials and technologies in a timely manner; (c) written guidelines related to effective and efficient acquisition, provision, and use of accessible materials and technologies; (d) comprehensive learning opportunities and technical assistance that address all aspects of the need, selection, acquisition, and use of accessible materials and technologies; (e) a systematic data collection process to monitor and evaluate; (f ) use of the data collected to guide changes that support continuous improvement; and (g) allocation of resources sufficient to ensure the delivery and sustainability of quality services. The intent is that by following these quality indicators, an institution’s efforts would result in accessible educational materials and technologies (NCAEM, n.d.).

accessibility

191

No matter the model that is used, eLearning leaders should ensure that they apply an enterprise-wide approach to both attain—and sustain—accessibility across the institution. Failure to realize and address contributions made by the entire enterprise will doom long-term accessibility efforts.

The Needs of Technical Staff It goes without saying that web developers and designers will need to learn the technical standard to which the institution will adhere (e.g., WCAG 2.1 AA). Moreover, they will need to know how to do this (e.g., What does accessible HTML look like? What do I do to make JavaScript accessible? When is it appropriate to use ARIA?). There are numerous resources, training programs, and consultants to help get the technical staff up to speed, and these can be found quickly with a simple search using a search engine. Also, a savvy leader will consider how to provide staff supports beyond training new content. Setting up communities of practice, online discussion forums, or meet-ups on accessibility will enhance the support that personnel need through all phases of development, implementation, and revision. It is important to provide technical staff with tools they can use during development to test for accessibility. These include both assistive technologies and accessibility checkers. User testing, particularly with students, can be especially helpful, as it is common for content to be technically accessible and practically unusable by an individual with a disability. Understanding how assistive technologies are used will help in development efforts as long as standards are kept intact. There are many accessibility checkers. Some are free, some have a nominal cost, and some are prohibitively expensive. Some evaluate a page at a time; others evaluate the entire institutional domain. The purpose of data collection is important as well; tools used for annual testing on a more global scale may not be as useful to development teams evaluating the accessibility of their work. Consider the output of the tool first to see what is helpful and what is not. One free tool to consider is WebAIM’s WAVE tool (WAVE. WebAIM.org). It was designed specifically for developers. It tests one page at a time, as this is the way developers typically work, testing as they go. The WAVE output panel also has links to information about errors (e.g., What does this mean? Why is it important? How do I fix it?), as well as links to tutorials on specific errors. Hiring practices and reviewing job descriptions for technical personnel is another consideration. New technical staff can be screened for knowledge and skill sets related to accessibility, but it has to be included on the job description. It may be wise to start with accessibility as a “preferred” skill and over time shift this to “required.” Accessibility certifications are beginning to emerge

192

ensuring operational effectiveness

as well. The International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) has begun to offer certification testing so that personnel seeking employment can verify their skills. While it is important to know what any certification entails, it is a good sign that a prospective employee is already knowledgeable about some aspects of accessibility. As more and more tech companies and industry leaders recognize the need for accessibility skill sets, these professionals become increasingly valuable and difficult to retain in higher education. eLearning leaders need to monitor the competitive landscape and recommend adjustment to salaries and other benefits to keep pace with the field.

The Needs of Content Creators There is a common misconception that as long as the content is available in a digital format, it will be accessible to a student with a disability. The reality is that the compatibility between the student’s assistive technology, such as a screen reader, and the institution’s content and systems can often be an issue. The broader issue is whether the content created by faculty and staff was made accessible. Consider the PowerPoint presentations created by faculty and uploaded into the institutional LMS. Do faculty members know how to develop them accessibly? Consider the descriptions of academic programs often created in MS Word or made into a PDF by staff and then uploaded into the institutional website. Do staff members charged with this content know how to optimize Word or create a PDF so the resulting product is accessible? How about a student employee in public relations and marketing? When they use InDesign to create an institutional newsletter, do they know how to make it accessible before it is sent out via email and uploaded to the institutional website? While some smaller institutions have a vetting process for all web content, this can be too cumbersome at scale. Most institutions look at audacious plans for training all content providers in accessibility of the tools they use. This can mean hundreds or even thousands of personnel who now need training in accessibility. No matter the size of the task, training is a common requirement found in resolution agreements with OCR and in court rulings. But is training enough? Linder et al. (2015) found that faculty in their study were exposed to workshops and individual consultations regarding accessibility but still did not “feel equipped to transform their course materials into accessible content” (p. 30). Training has to be ongoing. Moreover, we must move beyond the spray and pray approach by evaluating knowledge and skills rather than merely requiring attendance or the reading of a resource. The greatest success will be found when faculty have access to accessible technologies, ongoing training in optimizing accessibility, and then broad support and technical assistance for their efforts.

accessibility

193

Some campuses have added accessibility to IT help desk functions and to all faculty teaching supports. Others have designated local experts at the departmental or unit level. They receive a summer salary to provide support to their peers during the year. Content can be developed by the institution through its subject matter experts and instructional designers, or it can be procured from third-party vendors who have expertise in the subject area. Content that is procured needs to be evaluated to determine how accessible it is and how it conforms to accessibility standards at the time of purchase or adoption. Developing an institutional policy about accessibility, including procurement activities, is routinely included in resolution agreements with OCR related to web accessibility. The purpose is to shape the marketplace, as the requirements of Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act do not apply to the companies developing these products; they apply only to the institutions purchasing them. This is one of the reasons why the Kindle lawsuits did not name Amazon as a defendant (Lazar et al., 2015). By requiring institutions to purchase accessible products, it creates a demand that vendors have to respond to in order to gain the business. Don’t forget that requirements for accessible content also apply to colisted content. More and more collaborative programs blend courses from several institutions. Students take all the courses but receive their degree or certification from one participating institution. If a course is required by an institution, even if all of the courses are not provided by the same institution, that institution has the responsibility to provide equal access. From a technical perspective, there are certain guidelines and standards that content creators should follow to ensure that the course is accessible to students. The principles included in the WCAG of the W3C is a good place to start, even when the content may not live online. This includes things like writing alternative text descriptions for all images and graphics, posting descriptive hyperlinks so a screen reader user knows what the link is without having to listen to a long URL, posting videos with captions and transcripts, and using accessible PDF documents. Accomplishing this requires training and including these items as a regular part of the course development and revision process. This allows the accessibility to be baked into the content, a seamless and integrated part of it, rather than bolted on like an ugly ramp on the outside of an older building. Both may offer accessible options, but the former is much more aesthetically appealing and may have a positive impact on the student experience. Discussions of content creation typically include calls for using universal design principles. Universal design was developed in 1985 by Ron Mace, an architect who used a wheelchair (The Center for Universal Design, n.d.).

194

ensuring operational effectiveness

Mace’s seven principles focused on creating a physical environment that was usable to as many individuals as possible, considering diverse preferences and abilities. The most common example of universal design in the built environment, the sidewalk curb cut, was designed to allow a wheelchair user to travel from the sidewalk to the pavement below but also has benefits for others, including travelers pulling wheeled suitcases at the airport, parents pushing baby strollers, or individuals using roller blades or riding a bicycle. What was originally implemented to meet an access need has now made the environment usable by many diverse people, with disabilities or without. The principles of universal design have been applied to learning under several different conceptions, including universal instructional design (UID), universal design for learning (UDL), and universal design for instruction (UDI) at all educational levels, from early childhood education through postsecondary education. These approaches have attempted to apply Mace’s seven principles to the learning environment to meet the needs of “diverse learners” in much the same way that the principles have been applied to the physical environment “to accommodate the range of potential users” (Pilner & Johnson, 2004, p. 107). The intent behind applying universal design to learning has been to create educational environments that reduce the barriers to learning and allow students with disabilities an equitable opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned without the need for prescriptive, individualized accommodations. In other words, applying the principles of universal design supports the access model of digital accessibility in removing barriers for students with disabilities long before they have to request an accommodation. eLearning leaders are often tasked with making decisions and setting policy about how to approach course design and delivery. Including universal design approaches and principles in that work can be one way to increase accessibility, especially along with stated technical standards.

Cultural Adoption and Motivation Any leader interested in enterprise-wide adoption of something new should care deeply about getting cultural adoption across the institution. Cultural adoption will facilitate a motivation to engage and participate in the work of accessibility. There are four important principles in this effort. The first principle is the visibility that is given to the initiative and the administrative importance that it receives. When a president or chancellor sends out an enterprise-wide memo describing the importance of accessibility, perhaps with some institutional data, and follows up with an administrative and institutional commitment to address it, along with the resources to

accessibility

195

accomplish it, people will pay attention. To contrast, if a unit head or vice president were to do the same, it is unlikely that many would pay attention for very long. Of course, it is the sustained visibility and commitment at the highest levels that are critical. The second principle is that of broad communication. Broad communication and sharing relevant details help transparency, which helps allay fears. It can create a comradery for the work ahead. Some campuses have begun a new initiative with a video (Portland Community College, 2015) and continue to distribute information all along the process. Examples include a monthly email tip, a quarterly postcard communication, or articles on accessibility accomplishments for the institution’s newspaper or online newsletter. Accessibility work can also present an opportunity for positive public relations and strengthen the institution’s brand by sharing relevant news with state and local leaders, policymakers, the institution’s board of trustees, and other peer institutions. The work of accessibility aligns with the mission of many institutions and can be used to highlight a commitment to diversity and student outcomes. All of these actions will help the entire enterprise stay in touch with an important initiative. The third principle is participation in the process. This will happen only if stakeholders are represented in committees who will create the work, the plan, and the strategies. Often a broader committee of stakeholders convenes with the smaller accessibility committee at crucial times to provide ideas and feedback and then take messages back to their broader constituency (e.g., faculty senate). It is also important that these plans are open for comment and revision. To the extent that personnel feel they have had a voice in what will occur, they will be more likely to support it or at least understand it. The fourth principle that can aid cultural adoption is to consider the motivation of the participants. In their book Nudge, Thaler and Sunstein (2009) present the concept of becoming “choice architects,” which is essentially influencing choice by organizing the context around which personnel will make affirmative decisions to engage in the work—in this case, the work of accessibility. These architects nudge others toward the desired behaviors. Motivation is part of this dynamic. For example, an institution may have a policy that only accessible content is uploaded in the institutional LMS. It may provide faculty with multiple options for accomplishing this requirement, such as providing access to accessibility or educational media specialists who can modify content, teaching faculty how to create accessible content, or contracting with a third party to provide content remediation. Regardless the institution stands firm on its decision to upload only accessible content.

196

ensuring operational effectiveness

A savvy leader will consider motivations that are part of institutional culture and use them. For many in education, knowledge that they are working to improve the civil rights of a group can be intrinsically motivating. For others, tangible motivators may be needed. Some institutions have provided seed funds for personnel to build accessible courses, sponsored competitions, or delivered awards or special activities to those working in accessibility. Others have looked at long-standing motivators already present; for example, approving accessibility as one way that faculty could demonstrate instructional best practices in their tenure portfolio (not required but accepted) or adding it to the annual performance evaluation of all faculty and staff. Motivation is critical and should be considered throughout planning (Smith, 2013). Most people are aware of the old adage “you can get them to move, by either the carrot or the stick.” Being aware of positive or punitive motivators is important; most prefer, and perform better, with the former.

Ongoing Assessment and Continuous Improvement Accessibility is a journey, not a destination. It will never be a “one and done.” An accessibility evaluation is valid only at the point in time when it is taken. As soon as a new release, iteration, or version of a product, content, or other resource is available, the opportunity exists to either improve or worsen its accessibility. It is important for eLearning leaders to recognize that content and technology, as well as the application of technology, are constantly evolving and changing. Assessments need to keep pace with changes. This sets up the need for a continuous assessment cycle that should be addressed in an institution’s accessibility policy and strategy. Policies and procedures should address how often content will be evaluated for accessibility and whether this review is conducted as part of the regular life cycle of the course, especially online courses. An important part of evaluating digital resources for accessibility is conducting automatic and manual tests that compare the resource’s code to the institution’s web accessibility standard. Yet, there is more to it than that. Taking a “holistic approach to accessibility” means that “whilst standards have an important role to play, they do not necessarily guarantee an accessible user experience” (Seale, 2014, pp. 93–94). After all, disability affects each person in a different way, even when both have the same diagnosis. Technical skills and expertise in using assistive technology can significantly affect the accessibility of a digital experience, which means that legal accessibility does not always guarantee functional accessibility. Individuals with disabilities are just as varied in their technical skills and expertise as the rest of the population. They range from super users who are

accessibility

197

highly skilled to novices who are just learning how to use assistive technology. Creating opportunities for user testing can enhance the information provided by standard assessment techniques, such as using screen readers and keyboard navigation. It provides real-world feedback on students’ interactions with the digital environment. These opportunities also allow the institution to learn more about its own students, which can inform prioritization of work and allocation of resources. For example, if an institution serves mostly adult students (e.g., average 36 years), it may need to factor in differences in disclosed disabilities, familiarity with assistive technology, persistence, and needs for resources, something an institution with a younger population of students might not have to do. Taken together, it would affect both plans for and evaluation of accessibility efforts. Data regarding students with disabilities in higher education at a national level are difficult to obtain. There are standard surveys to report incidence of disability among students, such as those managed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), but these figures are often underreported. Students with disabilities in higher education can choose to disclose their disability and request accommodations (Seale, 2014). There are no provisions within Section 504 or the Americans with Disabilities Act that require students to alert campus professionals to their diagnoses and use accommodations. As a result, there are often more students with disabilities enrolled in courses, especially online, than are counted in the disability services office. As such, the shift to an access model from an accommodation model for digital accessibility is critical to ensuring students have an equal opportunity to demonstrate learning. In addition to ongoing assessments of an institution’s accessibility output, successful initiatives also perform an assessment of its processes in regular intervals. Continuous improvement of goals and strategies is incredibly valuable and easily doable. The committee can review the written plan from the previous period to determine what worked, what was a challenge, and what was impossible. Any changes in institutional culture or new issues that affect the institutional work of accessibility can also be reviewed. Then, a new set of goals and strategies to meet these goals can be documented for the coming period. It is important to use data whenever possible, especially data that align to institutional goals and strategic plans.

Conclusion eLearning leaders need an understanding of digital accessibility as it affects individuals with disabilities. After all, students with disabilities are students

198

ensuring operational effectiveness

of the institution who will consume their work product and have the same right to access the courses, services, programs, and activities as any other student at the institution. Although there are multiple challenges to address when building accessibility into eLearning programs—including the complexity of institutional work, training and professional development needs, cultural adoption and motivation to sustain the initiative, and the need for continuous evaluation and assessment—the work offers benefits to all students, not just those with disabilities. Accessibility takes a village, and eLearning leaders are important members of the institutional villages in higher education.

References Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990). Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2010). Exploring disability (2nd ed.). Polity Press. Brown, M. (2019). Learning and student success: Presenting the results of the 2019 key issues survey. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2019/2/ learning-and-student-success-presenting-the-results-of-the-2019-key-issuessurvey California State University Office of the Chancellor. (n.d.). Accessible technology initiative web accessibility evaluation. http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/access/sites/ WebEvaluation.shtml The Center for Universal Design (n.d.). About the center: Ronald L. Mace. https:// projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_us/usronmace.htm Dietrich, G. (2014). Technology access: An institutional responsibility. In M. L. Vance, N. E. Lipsitz, & K. Parks (Eds.), Beyond the Americans With Disabilities Act: Inclusive policy and practice for higher education (pp. 69–82). NASPA, Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. Iniesto, F., McAndrew, P., Minocha, S., & Coughlan, T. (2016, April). The current state of accessibility of MOOCs: What are the next steps? In Open Education Global Conference 2016, Krakow, Poland. http://oro.open.ac.uk/46070/ Ives, K., Pedersen, K., & Poulin, R. (2017, April). OLC and WCET ask: “What keeps you up at night?” Part 1. OLC insights: The OLC blog. https:// onlinelearningconsortium.org/whatkeepsyouup/ Lazar, J., Goldstein, D., & Taylor, A. (2015). Ensuring digital accessibility through process and policy. Elsevier. Linder, K. E., Fontaine-Rainen, D. L., & Behling, K. (2015). Whose job is it? Key challenges and future directions for online accessibility in U.S. institutions of higher education. Open Learning, 30(1), 21–34. Lokken, F. (2018). Trends in eLearning: Tracking the impact of eLearning of community colleges. Instructional Technology Council. Massengale, L. R., & Vasquez, E. (2016). Assessing accessibility: How accessible are online courses for students with disabilities? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 69–79.

accessibility

199

McKenzie, L. (2018). 50 colleges hit with ADA lawsuits. Inside Higher Ed. https:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/12/10/fifty-colleges-sued-barrage-adalawsuits-over-web-accessibility National Center on Accessible Educational Materials. (n.d.). Higher education critical components of the quality indicators for the provision of accessible educational materials and accessible technologies. http://aem.cast.org/policies/highereducation-critical-components.html National Center on Disability and Access to Education. (2016). Indicators for institutional web accessibility. http://ncdae.org/goals/indicators.php Office for Civil Rights. (2010). Joint “Dear Colleague” letter: Electronic book readers. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html Office for Civil Rights. (2011). Electronic book reader Dear Colleague letter: Questions and answers about the law, the technology, and the population affected. https:// www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/504-qa-20100629.html Online Learning Consortium. (2019). IDEA: Inclusion, diversity, equity, and advocacy. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/attend-2019/accelerate/ideainclusion-diversity-equity-advocacy/ Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District. Central District of California, Case No. 2:17-cv-01697-SVW-SK. (2019). https://www.courtlistener.com/ recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.671736/gov.uscourts.cacd.671736.330.0.pdf Pilner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of universal instructional design for higher education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37, 105–113. Portland Community College. (2015). To care and comply: Accessibility of online course content [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eks3r-nE9lU Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973). Ringlaben, R., Bray, M., & Packard, A. (2014). Accessibility of American university special education departments’ web sites. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(2), 249–254. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-013-0302-7 Rowland, C. (2012, August). The institution’s web accessibility study team. NCDAE Newsletter. http://ncdae.org/resources/articles/2012team.php Rowland, C. (2017). Steps you can take now to address accessibility at your institution. WCET Frontiers. https://wcetfrontiers.org/2017/11/15/steps-you-can-takenow-to-address-accessibility-at-your-institution/ Rowland, C. (2018). The role of procurement in digital accessibility. OLC insights: The OLC blog. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/procurement-digitalaccessibility/ Rowland, C., & Joeckel, G. (2019, March). Three years of national web accessibility data: What trends emerge? Paper presentation to the CSUN Assistive Technology Conference (CSUN 2018), Anaheim, CA, United States. Seale, J. K. (2014). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge. Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www .onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered.html

200

ensuring operational effectiveness

Section 508 of the Revised Rehabilitation Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. https://www.fcc .gov/general/section-508-rehabilitation-act Smith, J. (2013). WebAIM’s hierarchy for motivating accessibility change. WebAIM Blog. https://webaim.org/blog/motivating-accessibility-change/ Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness (Rev. ed.). Penguin Books. Vu, M. N., Launey, K. M., & Ryan, S. (2019). Number of federal website accessibility lawsuits nearly triple, exceeding 2250 in 2018. ADA Title III News and Insights. Seyfarth Shaw. https://www.adatitleiii.com/2019/01/number-of-federalwebsite-accessibility-lawsuits-nearly-triple-exceeding-2250-in-2018/ White House. (2017, January). Presidential executive order on reducing regulation and controlling regulatory costs. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ presidential-executive-order-reducing-regulation-controlling-regulatory-costs/ World Wide Web Consortium. (2018). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ World Wide Web Consortium. (2019). Introduction to web accessibility. www.w3.org/ WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/

11 O P E R AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P I N A S T R AT E G I C C O N T E X T Raymond Schroeder

I

n this new and constantly evolving field, many leaders have emerged from a related specialty. Some have come from operational leadership positions in professional education, instructional design, instructional technology, or student services. Others have emerged from the faculty, many of whom have become devoted to eLearning at a distance as a means of serving students who have previously not been served because of geographic or other impediments to coming to the campus. It becomes a mission to afford access to learning. This chapter examines a range of strategic leadership challenges and opportunities within the context of operational concerns such as the organizational culture, marketing, and the continuing fluidity caused by technology change.

Operational Leadership The field of eLearning evolved in the mid-1990s as the internet and, particularly, the web became widely used. The web itself only came into reality with the first visual browser, Mosaic, in 1992. But colleges and universities that had long been engaged in the internet prior to the web recognized the potential to harness this worldwide network to offer learning opportunities to those who did not have ready access to a campus. As the field began, specialists came from operational leadership positions. They were leading the instructional designers, faculty developers, and video production units. Leading those units required the significant qualities of operational leadership. The University of Scranton outlined the following five key qualities of the successful operational leader: 201

202

ensuring operational effectiveness

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

An operations manager is realistic. An operations manager looks for efficiency. An operations manager focuses on quality. Operations leaders are effective at supply chain management. Operations leaders do not manage; they lead. (“5 Management Traits,” 2019)

These are essential leadership skills that are keys to success in unit building, team building, and team leading. The ability to make realistic assessments of budgets, staff abilities, university plans, and the overall environment in which the unit operates is used every single day as the leader sorts through project schedules, prioritizes initiatives, reports on progress, and makes shortterm plans for the unit. This requires excellent project planning skills. It also requires keen documentation abilities to justify expenditures and initiatives. Efficiency is a core value in university production and support units to ensure optimum productivity and best stewardship of funds and other resources. As operational leaders move into more strategic positions such as executive director, dean, associate vice chancellor, and division head, the focus on efficiency becomes even more acute. Stakeholders, particularly taxpayers and legislatures supporting public institutions, increasingly demand efficiency. In “A Lost Decade in Higher Education” (Mitchell et al., 2017), the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities reported that all U.S. states spent on average 16% less on higher education in 2017 than they did in 2008. Budgets are far tighter than they have been historically. In the meantime, student debt has exceeded $1.5 trillion and continues its upward spiral. Families taking on that debt are more and more reluctant to pay higher tuition. They seek efficient and effective outcomes at affordable prices. As a result, operational managers are called on to drive greater efficiency to achieve the same or better results with fewer resources. Quality assurance is another of the five key operational leadership qualities. Successful outcomes most often hinge on quality and its many components. At some point in the process, quality may be measured in educational content, but it also is measured in engagement of the learner, pedagogical efficacy for the intended learners, use of best practices, accessibility and universal design, effective assessment, student satisfaction, and employment of the student in their chosen field. All of these together build quality outcomes with learners assimilating, applying, retaining, and demonstrating they have accomplished the designated outcomes. Supply chain management in educational operational leadership includes ensuring that tools, materials, and modes of dissemination are all available

operational leadership in a strategic context

203

and accessible to all learners when they are needed. One aspect of supply chain management focuses on offering accessibility to all students. Universal design is expressed as designing learning for all learners. This goes beyond merely ensuring those with sight or hearing impairment can access the materials. For example, universal design for learning (UDL) is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn (CAST, 2019). Ensuring accessibility is yet another of the priority tasks of the higher education operational manager. The final of the five key qualities leads to a key quality of strategic leadership. It is, simply, leadership, both operational and strategic. Such leadership is not as much about managing as it is about being an example, being a mentor, being a vision maker, and engaging a broad community both internal and external to the institution. Leadership is personal, not positional (Gurchiek, 2017). It is this personal approach to leadership that is shared in both operational and strategic leadership in eLearning. In the continuum of roles in creating, supporting, and sustaining eLearning, there are many positions, units, and opportunity for leadership. All of these must come together to create success for the institution’s eLearning initiative.

Hallmarks of Excellence in Online Leadership In 2015, the University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA) commissioned a list of the Hallmarks of Excellence in Online Leadership (Halfond et al., 2019). The report is freely available under a Creative Commons license. Led by Jay A. Halfond of Boston University, a group of national online leaders from across the country was assembled to contribute to the project. Participants included Andrew Casiello, Old Dominion University; Dave Cillay, Washington State University; Nancy Coleman, Keypath Education; Vickie Cook, University of Illinois Springfield; John LaBrie, Northeastern University; Mary Niemiec, University of Nebraska; and Witt Salley, Clemson University. The charge was to develop an aspirational list of hallmarks of leadership in the eLearning field. It was anticipated that no single institution would truly excel in all areas but that each of the hallmarks was an important component of leadership of eLearning at all colleges and universities. Since 2015, the hallmarks have been formally endorsed by many of the major associations in higher education, including the American Council on Education, EDUCAUSE, the Association of College and Research Libraries, MERLOT, the National Association of College and University Business Officers, NASPA–Student

204

ensuring operational effectiveness

Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, Quality Matters, and the search firm, AGB, that specializes in higher education executive personnel searches. The hallmarks enumerate seven key areas of leadership that help to define excellence in leading eLearning. Each of those areas is relevant to all colleges and universities, but the emphases among the areas change from institution to institution. The hallmarks provide a framework within which to explore operational leadership in a strategic context.

Internal Advocacy eLearning exists within the context of many initiatives and priorities at a college or university. Many competing priorities command the attention of administrators, faculty and staff members, and students. Whether honors programs, library needs, international studies, innovation incubators, advanced laboratories, or a host of other initiatives, eLearning must compete for attention and support within the institution. Advocating for the adult distant learner means building internal alliances that reflect the goals and vision of the institution (Halfond et al., 2019). These alliances are critically important for the eLearning initiative to gain both the financial support and the votes on important oversight committees to thrive. Internal advocacy for the eLearning administrator begins with identifying the key stakeholders. These include the faculty and students, of course, but also those who provide student services, faculty development, technology support, networking infrastructure, instructional design, academic media, advising offices, tutoring units, and the library. It takes a large base to effectively and efficiently support the delivery of instruction online and support distant students. The eLearning leader is well served by developing close and congenial relationships with all these units. Key to success in doing so is creating a shared purpose and vision for serving students who are not in the classroom. A well-worn refrain in instructional design is “never technology for technology’s sake alone.” It is important that the eLearning leader assume the role of advocating for a pedagogically sound use of technology to serve those off campus. One of the criticisms leveled at early programs was that they were driven by those enamored of technology at the expense of sound pedagogy. So, it is especially important for the eLearning leader to have ready access to relevant data such as the comparison of learning outcomes online and on campus, the rising enrollments of adult professionals who compose today’s students, and the shifting sands of employer needs to serve the fourth

operational leadership in a strategic context

205

Industrial Revolution (Schwab, 2016). This means vigilant monitoring of relevant data sources and internal enrollment trends. This kind of internal advocacy in the leadership role may be served in part by assembling a formal or an informal internal advisory committee for the eLearning leader. The committee may coordinate operations, initiatives, purchases, and policies to best advance the interests of the students. For example, upgrades or changes in the learning management system or synchronous conferencing system should be coordinated among the various affected units with planned transfer of materials, training of faculty, training of students, and an implementation schedule. All of the units responsible for those activities should be included on the advisory committee. Technology adoption can cause significant anxiety among many faculty members (Ascione, 2019). For that reason, as well as the obvious importance of engaging faculty in the planning and visioning processes, it is particularly important to include faculty members in any internal committee. Internal leadership should include data-driven assessments and annual reports to validate outcomes, efficiency, and relevancy. Part of the internal leadership may include leading the institution’s drive to generate deep data on student success from the student information system and the learning management system. Many important but previously obscure connections can be revealed through big data analysis. For example, at the University of Illinois Springfield, we uncovered data showing that students who took at least two classes online in the summer were twice as likely to graduate in 4 years than those who did not. Heat maps and analysis tree diagrams can reveal gateway courses that slow the progress to degrees. All of these data tools can be used by the leader to make better informed decisions and to provide a broad context to the importance of eLearning. Success in the area of internal advocacy for eLearning should be monitored most directly in terms of data reflecting adoption and success of eLearning programs. Powerful data analytics can provide information on the nuances of successful and unsuccessful programs. Student evaluations, class completion rates, overall enrollments, and numbers of faculty members engaged in the programs are all examples of sources of validation. More broadly, success in this area of leadership is reflected in cooperation and collaboration with other university units, respect for the eLearning initiatives, and recognitions, awards, and publications (Halfond et al., 2019). Taken together, these activities, documentation, and achievements generate a strong base for upper administration confidence in the initiative.

206

ensuring operational effectiveness

Entrepreneurial Initiative eLearning; distance learning; and associated technologies, methods, and modes of delivery continue to evolve daily. The field of eLearning began in the 1990s with various scattered entrepreneurial initiatives. It continues to grow through entrepreneurship that uses new technologies, new methods, and new approaches to achieve learning opportunities for learners in a wide variety of ways. Leaders in this field are those who can vision the needs in society and connect to means in which those needs might best be met. Thinking outside the box is a critical skill in this area. As the field continues to rapidly evolve, we see new opportunities to lead. Competency learning, microcredentials, badging, blockchain distribution of certificates, open learning, and associated methods and modes provide space for entrepreneurial innovation and collaboration. Entrepreneurship often calls for innovative approaches to start-up funding and continuing collaborations to achieve sustainability. Building relationships, both internally and externally, is essential for success. Internally, an eLearning leader must often meet the challenge of gaining the confidence and support of the faculty and administration to assemble the start-up resources needed for the initiative. In the case of larger entrepreneurial initiatives, leadership extends to the entire campus, governing boards, accreditors, and a wide assortment of stakeholders. In most cases the faculty leadership must be brought aboard to affirm that the initiative is consistent with the mission of the university. If faculty are to serve as content experts and teach as part of the initiative, it must meet faculty compensation needs while remaining cost-effective to enable the initiative to become self-sustaining. Leadership in this case often engages respected faculty leaders to assist with making the case. Often, faculty members are suspicious of administrators who come with great ideas. They feel that the ideas serve the administration but not those faculty members who do the actual content building and delivery to the students. Tactful forthrightness by the eLearning leader is important to build and sustain faculty trust. Success with entrepreneurial initiatives often requires effective public relations to reach and extend the audience of learners. Sophisticated media strategies and savvy market analysis and marketing can cultivate enrollments. These are elements that the eLearning leader must master or secure from other sources. Self-knowledge of the leader’s strengths and abilities is important to avoid making mistakes in deciding who, how, when, and where marketing and media exposure creates the best return on the investment of time and money.

operational leadership in a strategic context

207

Assessing the success of entrepreneurial initiatives is essential. Certainly, quantitative outcomes such as how many, how much, how soon, and sustaining must be assessed. However, less obvious outcomes must be considered such as expertise accumulated for future initiatives; partnerships created that may be used for other, even larger, projects; and regional or national reputation enhanced by the initiative. These less quantitative outcomes may be even more valuable than those measured in dollars and numbers of enrollments.

Faculty Support At the core of every eLearning initiative is the support of the faculty members, whether they are full-time tenured professors, continuing instructors, part-time adjuncts, or teaching assistants. They all play an essential role in teaching the learners through modeling, interaction, exemplars, and assessments. Supporting these faculty is the third of the widely endorsed Hallmarks of Excellence. Support is even more important in eLearning than in most classroom instruction because it engages new and evolving technologies and associated pedagogies and methods. In many cases, faculty members were not exposed to high-quality online instruction as students; they have no clear model for the best practices, techniques, and current technologies in our field of eLearning. Strategically, it is important that support is successfully provided so that faculty satisfaction and student satisfaction are achieved. As we implement new and emerging teaching technologies across the curriculum, both on campus and online, faculty members have the need and expectation that they will be fully supported so that they can provide the most effective and highest quality learning to their students. Operationally, the eLearning leader is responsible for providing faculty development that will enable the faculty to do their jobs well. This begins with establishing policies for development and quality assurance. This establishes a baseline of expectations and services. That said, faculty support for eLearning is not merely a onetime on-boarding experience; it requires continuing professional development to ensure that faculty members are fully aware and schooled in the required and best practices. Onboarding new faculty members to the eLearning program sets the foundation for future development. The University of Illinois Springfield holds a New Faculty Academy, which orients the incoming faculty to university policies, practices, and expectations. A key part of the initial weeklong academy is to introduce the principles of universal design. Universal design refers to the practice of designing learning materials for use by all

208

ensuring operational effectiveness

learners of all cultures and backgrounds, including those with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Teaching methods, pedagogies, and best practices, both online and on campus, are introduced to those who are new to the university to ensure a shared understanding and shared values in serving our entire student base. Universal design is especially significant in meeting the needs of those with sight, hearing, and related disabilities. All colleges and universities are subject to both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (U.S. Department of Education, 2018) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2000). The federal and, in many cases, state governments can take action against a college or university that does not comply with the rigorous rules in this area, and private citizens, associations, and others can file suit for damages based on noncompliance of eLearning classes. Even prestigious universities, such as Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are being held to account for failing to fully caption eLearning video materials (McKenzie, 2019). Thus, the eLearning director must ensure that both faculty members and others responsible for class materials are fully aware of the accessibility rules that apply to eLearning. A course design team approach is often used to provide for efficient and effective course building. This includes the content expert (often the faculty member), an instructional designer, a media specialist, and other professionals who may contribute to the success of designing the course. This can be a time-intensive experience, especially for the first iteration of a course. Setting workload and faculty compensation expectations for the development are commonly part of the shared governance process and may vary based on course level, college, and delivery models. All of this work comes together in courses and programs that meet the needs of students and prospective employers. Outcomes are measured in several ways. Placement of students, salaries of graduates, student evaluations, discipline-based accreditation, and other such tools are commonly used. Also in common use is the priorities survey for online learners (PSOL) (Ruffalo Noel Levitz, 2019). It is a nationally normed survey of some 600,000 students at nearly 1,000 institutions that sheds light on eLearning student perceptions and priorities. While faculty members constitute the core of the institution, students are the raison d’être for the institution. Supporting those students is an essential element of the eLearning administrator’s role. It is the next of the Hallmarks of Excellence.

operational leadership in a strategic context

209

Student Support The strategic goal of student support is that the institution creates an outstanding experience for the student that will encourage the learner to continue to engage with the university and encourage others to do so as well. This means the eLearning administrator must ensure that students enjoy reliable technological and pedagogical delivery of learning. There must be consistent, high-quality delivery systems with organization of learning materials in a clear and consistent way across the curriculum. Students should be able to rely on a robust learning system with proactive support and roundthe-clock personal assistance if needed. All learning materials should be readily available and fully accessible. Technological services should enable students to access learning materials across the range of platforms (e.g., iOS, Android, and web). Mobile access should be readily available for students on the go. Careful instructional design is important to ensure that students from a variety of backgrounds may thrive in the class. Clarity and transparency are paramount in ensuring that students do not become frustrated with understanding materials and expectations. The use of grading rubrics can help make clear faculty expectations for assignments and examinations. Where appropriate, students may be asked to provide input into the design of classes, outcomes, and assessments. These add to the learning experience. One characteristic of eLearning classes is that they often draw a wider range of students of a variety of ages, geographic and cultural backgrounds, and personal situations (e.g., parents, caregivers for family members, multiple jobholders). This makes for a rich exchange of viewpoints in online discussions. However, this also requires that the design team take into account the special needs and preferences of the diverse group. The eLearning administrator must cultivate a clear understanding of the range of learners among faculty and staff engaged in the initiative. A challenge for eLearning students is the relative proximity to the campus. Unlike resident students, distant eLearners cannot easily queue up at the registrar’s office, the bursar’s office, or the department office to tend to matters that arise in the course of degree completion. As a best practice, many universities use program coordinators or persons operating under similar titles to represent the student on campus. In such matters, the program coordinator can set up a three-way phone connection to assist the student in resolving issues that involve other offices on campus. In addition, the program coordinator can actually appear in person, representing the student’s interest in an appeal or in seeking clarification of their status. In doing so,

210

ensuring operational effectiveness

the program coordinator can save the student hours of travel, childcare, and frustration. An essential service on any university campus is the library. Strategically, this is no less necessary or important in the online campus. Distance students require access to the same services and materials as resident students. It is important that the eLearning administrator engages the dean of the library to create a shared vision of robust services to be provided online to eLearners. In some ways, the online classes provide new opportunities for engaging librarians in the teaching and learning process. Embedded librarians, for example, can be included in online courses to help lead discussions of resources, support students conducting research, and serve as a resource for the entire class, including the instructor (“Embedded Librarian [eLearning],” 2019). The successful employment of graduates of eLearning programs is a key strategic goal for all universities. It is reviewed by discipline-area accreditors and university rankings. One of the challenges in providing full student support is that of career support services. Certainly résumé building, interviewing skills, and related techniques can be delivered online, but in programs with nationwide and even international enrollments, the eLearning administrator is faced with finding ways in which connections may be made to employers far beyond the state and region. In this case, having an external advisory board composed of corporate leaders can be useful. Through connections on the board and associations with other universities, the eLearning program may be able to help leverage interviews for its grads. The eLearning administrator must also provide for the extension of tutoring, mentoring, and related services to students at a distance. In many cases this is done successfully through a combination of online conferencing and electronic sharing of draft papers. Some institutions have even noted that when such services are extended online for eLearning students, the residential students prefer the online mode, conducting tutoring and advising sessions from their dorm rooms. The summative goals of all these services are to improve retention of students, enhance student satisfaction, and achieve superior learning outcomes for students who are enrolled at a distance. These goals are met through the series of operational actions that touch many parts of the campus. The eLearning leader is once again called on to craft and coordinate work across various units in the university.

Digital Technology In achieving excellence in an eLearning program, the leader is called on to master the ever-changing technology of the field. The strategic importance

operational leadership in a strategic context

211

of excellence in this area extends from ensuring state-of-the-art technology that delivers top-quality, reliable, stable video and audio to supporting seamless interaction and adaptive learning. Virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality are also providing a competitive advantage over other providers, not through technology for technology’s sake but rather through meaningful engagement that results in enhanced learning outcomes. It can be challenging to determine the right time to move to a newer version of a technology or change to a new technology that meets those needs. These changes are often met with resistance from faculty or students who were accustomed to previous versions. Yet, hardware and software progress move forward. Providing responsive student and faculty support can ease the transition. Perhaps most frustrating in this field are the instances when start-up companies fail, taking down their cloud products with little or no notice. Even large corporations withdraw support for products on short notice as they move forward with other new products. If these products are among those that the institution depends on for the delivery of the curriculum, it can be devastating. Even if the institution has moved away from a technology that fails a year later, the impact can be significant for students who are working on “incompletes” from prior semesters. The vision and product marketplace scanning of the eLearning administrator is paramount in avoiding or minimizing the impact of failed products. The administrator must be vigilant to ensure that students and faculty members are not significantly affected by such failures. Increasingly, learners are relying on smartphones to complete coursework. It is important that learning materials are dynamically formatted for the most popular mobile devices, as well as desktops and tablets. Interoperability among devices does not come automatically with all products. Nuanced differences in display and interaction features on various platforms can have a significant impact on learner experiences. It is essential that the instructional design teams remain sensitive to these differences, however subtle they may seem, to ensure that acceptable displays and features are maintained for all learners. Technology further extends to the networking infrastructure that carries signals to and from the internet backbone. Anticipating increases in bandwidth requirements is an important administrative task. Adequate bandwidth must be available both to and from the internet and the campus. We are entering a new fifth generation of wireless networking. As the 5G system rolls out, we can expect that some of our learners will have very robust connectivity, far exceeding their prior connections. Of course, this will not immediately be implemented everywhere; there will be disparities

212

ensuring operational effectiveness

that must be considered in choosing products and practices in the eLearning program. Cloud storage for data and programs is a further technological consideration. The eLearning administrator must make wise choices among the available options. Price, “up” time, expandability, and accessibility of resources stored in the cloud are all important considerations. Continuous monitoring of performance and the alternative options is very important. An institution cannot afford to run out of space or suffer an extended outage of cloud-based software and data repositories. Strategically, it is essential that the eLearning administrator provides for backup servers, alternative fiber paths, and contingency plans to cut over to the backups as seamlessly as possible to ensure continuity of service between faculty and learners. Natural disasters, sabotage, and a variety of accidents may threaten the infrastructure. Leaders in our field became acutely aware of these vulnerabilities in September 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, closing some two dozen colleges and universities. A major online initiative was mounted to provide online classes to the students of those universities that were forced to close at the beginning of a semester (Lorenzo, 2019). Backups and contingency plans are important not only for the online program but also universities that have been subject to extended snow closures or extensive damage to their campuses and have turned to delivering otherwise on-campus classes online. Technology enables pedagogy. It is through the use of enhanced technology that we are able to test new learning strategies and practices. Only with refined, reliable technology can the eLearning program thrive.

External Advocacy eLearning exists in a worldwide environment. There are many associations, accrediting boards, alumni groups, businesses, social and traditional media, and a host of other forums and entities through which eLearning programs are promoted, assessed, evaluated, and considered. The eLearning administrator best serves the institution through providing a positive visible image of the university and program to these constituencies. Visibility and leadership are highly valued at the regional, national, and international scale. The reputation of the program and university is a critical element of overall success. University rankings are awarded in part on the reputation of the programs. Recognition and resulting familiarity among eLearning programs are important elements in marketing. These, in turn, help drive student enrollment and corporate hiring.

operational leadership in a strategic context

213

The eLearning administrator is able to take a leadership role among regional and national associations, accreditors, and regulators. In these positions, eLearning administrators can expand visibility and affect outcomes. In national associations, leadership can come in the form of making conference presentations, leading committees and commissions, and serving in leadership offices such as the president or board member. These roles create visibility, generate recognition, and open the doors to collaboration with others. In the case of accreditors, both regional and in a discipline area, participation can lead to serving on teams to accredit other universities. This helps in multiple ways, including creating a better understanding of the criteria and values of the accreditor. It also exposes the eLearning administrator to other universities and their approaches to eLearning, which may provide possible alternatives for the administrator’s home institution. It is always good to examine closely what other institutions are doing in eLearning. National and regional commissions can provide an opportunity to do the good work of informing the public about the advantages of quality distance education. Testimony at governmental hearings can result in greater legislative support of eLearning initiatives, resulting in better policies and even greater appropriations to support eLearning initiatives and eLearner scholarships. Social media presence can be a potent platform from which to advocate for eLearning. It is possible to reach thousands of professionals and prospective students through an assortment of social sites. Through this kind of presence, one can cultivate relationships that will expand and enhance the eLearning initiative. Social media presence can lead to traditional media recognition. Popular blogs and podcasts reach large audiences, but they also reach news reporters in the traditional media. Often, news reporters recognize experts through blogs and podcasts. These can result in even greater reach through the mass media of radio, television, newspaper, and news magazine coverage. All these forms of external advocacy for the eLearning program are effective in advancing the university and the program. National recognition and leadership can provide the margin for success for a program. Through this kind of leadership, there is exposure to others in the eLearning field who, based on observing the leadership, may be well disposed toward collaborations. These activities are also effective in advancing the reputation and familiarity with the people in those visible positions. The eLearning administrator may find that other universities are inclined to offer invitations to

214

ensuring operational effectiveness

apply for leadership positions as they open on other campuses. This can be a springboard to career advancement, but only if the eLearning manager performs and is perceived highly as a professional.

Professionalism The U.S. Department of Labor defined professionalism in part as follows: “Professionalism does not mean wearing a suit or carrying a briefcase; rather, it means conducting oneself with responsibility, integrity, accountability, and excellence. It means communicating effectively and appropriately and always finding a way to be productive” (U.S. Department of Labor, 2019, p. 114). This is a high standard, but it is entirely appropriate when applied to eLearning leadership. This is the last, but perhaps the most important, of the seven Hallmarks of Excellence in Online Leadership. For the eLearning director, this is the guidepost for most all the other actions discussed in this chapter. It is critically important that the administrator be beyond reproach. In all personal conduct, a professional is honest and forthright, without subterfuge. Lesser conduct will damage the reputation of not only the individual but also the program and university by association. The eLearning administrator becomes the public persona of the eLearning program. If the administrator is deemed intelligent, articulate, supportive, innovative, and thoughtful, these characteristics will naturally be associated with the program as a whole. If the administrator falls short of these personality traits, observers will question whether the entire program reflects the shortcomings of the administrator. As described in the internal and external advocacy aspects of leadership, professionalism includes openness to collaboration and relationship building with other leaders. This leverages the eLearning program on a larger scale that, in turn, may be more sustainable and return value to the institution. The reputation of the institution is extended through connection with other leading institutions and is enhanced through shared initiatives. Modeling exemplary behavior and acting with professionalism enable the administrator to lead others both within and outside the university. Faculty members value leaders who lead with integrity. Displaying transparency is always a good practice that cultivates trust among others. This, too, engenders support and respect. With clear support from faculty and staff, the eLearning administrator is positioned to exert influence with the top administration of the university, thereby serving the best interests of not only the eLearning program but also the university.

operational leadership in a strategic context

215

Making the most of leading the eLearning initiative requires not only displaying the characteristics of excellence and pursing the daily leadership functions but also synthesizing all of these into a vision that can be conducted daily. That vision is not a static goal but a dynamic, living, aspirational view of how the eLearning program can best serve the interests of the students; university; and, more broadly, society as a whole.

Visioning the Future In this rapidly changing field of eLearning, creating a vision for the future at any college or university is no longer an annual event; it is a daily task. The weight of responsibility is felt by eLearning administrators for making the right recommendations; choosing among the emerging options in course delivery; preparing alternatives in case one or another element of the initiative fails; and implementing acceptable but not intrusive levels of security for students, staff, and the institution. This is truly applying strategic thinking to the operation. There is no single path to ensuring security, but steps can be taken to help ensure success. They are a scaffold to creating a vision. Too often, because of the crush of other responsibilities, there is no clear vision beyond keeping within budget and maintaining the status quo with modest growth. Visioning of any meaningful sort is pushed back to an annual exercise. That is not the recipe for success in this environment of expanding competition and changing best practices (Schroeder, 2019). Successful visioning for those in our field includes the following information gathering: • Critically, eLearning leaders must be well informed and fully and deeply up to date on the latest technologies, trends, regulations, and practices. This involves daily vigilance. Social and traditional media offer a fire hose of information that must be sorted and assimilated daily. Leaders must find credible, quality sources that are relevant to the institution and eLearning initiative and check them daily. Due diligence is required to be familiar with existing technologies, emerging technologies, best practices, current regulations, and trends in all of the areas related to the initiative. • Knowing competitors—what they are doing, what new initiatives are being launched, where they are marketing, and which of their programs are succeeding and which are floundering—is essential to responding

216

ensuring operational effectiveness

•

•

•

•

with agility. Some of this information is gleaned from social media, as well as the traditional media. More of this information comes from attending conferences and networking and going to sessions. Knowing the institution well is yet another aspect of effective visioning. Which campus programs are thriving, and which are not? Know each of the deans and, if possible, all of the department chairs and directors. Touch base with campus leaders to identify their programmatic desires and needs. Knowing the administration’s priorities and goals and knowing the institutional marketing plans and initiatives are key to interpreting the implementation of strategic goals. Know what is driving the administration’s priorities: the board of the institution, state mandates, federal regulations, alumni desires, regional corporate learning needs, and other relevant environmental factors. As mentioned previously, assembling a corporate advisory board, including small businesses along with the larger employers, gives the eLearning administrator a finger on the pulse of knowledge and skills in demand. Listening carefully and often to their needs enables the administrator to track the changing environment that learners will soon face. What learning do they need for employees and prospective employees? What new technologies are emerging for which there is a shortage of trained or certified workers? How can your institution help through online or self-paced programs for which there is an emerging market? It is a best practice to engage staff in information gathering and sharing. The astute administrator will tap their wisdom and collaborate with them in decision-making. This is important to create a cohesive unit with a shared vision. Sharing these perspectives makes the team stronger and creates a smoother path to succession (Schroeder, 2019).

These steps toward visioning bridge operational responsibilities to strategic success. The practices lead to forward-thinking, agile adaptations and relevancy to both the learners and the administration. They build on the array of high-bar characteristics, best practices, and widely influential engagements extending beyond the institution. Collectively, these are powerfully synergistic when guided with a daily updated vision.

Conclusion As eLearning has matured in higher education, it has moved from the periphery of the university to the central core of the academic mission. Serving

operational leadership in a strategic context

217

adult professional learners has increasingly become the focus of the university. What was once called the nontraditional learner served through eLearning has become the new norm for university learning. The administrator of eLearning carries the challenging operational responsibilities of merging technologies, pedagogies, and practices into a smooth, sustainable operation to fulfill the strategic vision of the institution. As on-campus enrollment drops nationally while online enrollment rises, the pressure for success in eLearning is increasingly intense. The success of the institution is balanced on the success of eLearning to consistently meet the needs of students. The eLearning administrator leads the broad enterprise of innovation, engagement, quality assurance, and outreach across the institution. eLearning administration is more than a job, more than an occupation. When passionately pursued with professionalism and a vision, it is transformative in careers, institutions, and lives. That is the essence of operational leadership in a strategic context.

References 5 management traits of an operations manager. (2019). University of Scranton. https://elearning.scranton.edu/resource/business-leadership/5-managementtraits-of-operations-leaders Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990). Ascione, L. (2019, June 27). Higher-ed tech adoption is surprisingly stressful for faculty. eCampus News, 1–2. https://www.ecampusnews.com/2019/06/27/highered-tech-adoption-is-surprisingly-stressful-for-faculty/ CAST. (2019). About universal design for learning. http://www.cast.org/our-work/ about-udl.html#.XURc0m_Yr9E Embedded librarian (eLearning). (2019). Prince George’s Community College. https://pgcc.libguides.com/c.php?g=60064&p=386011 Gurchiek, K. (2017). In focus: Leadership is “personal, not positional.” https://www .shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/global-andcultural-effectiveness/pages/in-focus-leadership-is-personal-not-positional.aspx Halfond, J. A., Casiello, A., Cillay, D., Coleman, N., Cook, V., LaBrie, J., Niemiec, M., & Salley, W. (2019). UPCEA Hallmarks of Excellence in Online Leadership. https://upcea.edu/resources/hallmarks-online/ Lorenzo, G. (2019). The Sloan semester. Online Learning, 12(2), 5–40. https://olj .onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1693 McKenzie, L. (2019, April 8). Legal battle over captioning continues. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/08/mit-and-harvard-failget-out-video-captioning-court-case Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Masterson, K. (2017, August 23). A lost decade in higher education funding: State cuts have driven up tuition and reduced quality. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1–29. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/ files/atoms/files/2017_higher_ed_8-22-17_final.pdf

218

ensuring operational effectiveness

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973). Ruffalo Noel Levitz. (2019). Priorities survey for online learners: Retaining students in distance education. https://www.ruffalonl.com/complete-enrollmentmanagement/student-success/student-satisfaction-assessment/priorities-surveyfor-online-learners/ Schroeder, R. (2019, August 7). Visioning your unit’s future. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/online-trending-now/ visioning-your-unit%E2%80%99s-future Schwab, K. (2016, January 14). The fourth Industrial Revolution: What it means, how to respond. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/ the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/ U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Teaching excellence in adult literacy: Universal design for learning. https://lincs.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2_TEAL_UDL.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Protecting students with disabilities. https:// www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html U.S. Department of Labor. (2019). Professionalism. https://www.dol.gov/odep/ topics/youth/softskills/Professionalism.pdf U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2000). The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/1990s/ada.html

PA RT T H R E E S U S TA I N I N G T H E I N N O VAT I O N

12 LEADING A QUALIT Y O N L I N E O R G A N I Z AT I O N Jennifer Mathes and Kaye Shelton

A

t many institutions of higher education, senior leaders (e.g., provosts, presidents) find themselves responsible (at some level) for online learning without fully understanding what is needed for an effective program. This chapter will focus on what leaders need to do to create and sustain a culture of quality in all aspects of an eLearning program. It will also address the various components that leaders need to consider, coupled with an overview of resources and best practices, to help them successfully lead. In addition, the case is made for why quality is important for an online program, especially in regard to accreditation and regulation.

Leading a Quality Online Organization Offering eLearning courses and programs as an option for students has quickly become an expectation at many colleges and universities, both nationally and internationally. In fact, those that fail to take advantage of this modality often find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, which could cost them students over the long term. To avoid this possibility, many institutions of higher education have created online learning programs that are often developed using the same internal processes used for traditional learning practices without fully understanding the best practices for establishing a quality program. While there is clear recognition of the need to offer eLearning, senior leaders at institutions, as well as those responsible for leading the initiative, may not have the experience or background to build and support an effective program. The good news is that many of the steps they need to 221

222

sustaining the innovation

take are similar to those used in traditional teaching environments. Leaders should simply recognize that some distance learning needs may differ from on-campus needs, and they should weave processes that support continuous improvement throughout the online learning program to support sustainability and student success. Throughout this chapter, we identify the various components that those leading an eLearning program need to consider to establish and support a culture of quality. With this, we provide information on an established, research-based, credible, and well-respected resource that higher education leaders can use to support and inform their effort to have a quality eLearning program. Throughout this chapter, we use online learning and eLearning interchangeably. This is done intentionally and reflects the use of the term online in the main resource that we have incorporated as a guide for this chapter.

Program Evaluation In spite of the success of eLearning in higher education for almost three decades, the need to evaluate online program quality is still a topic of discussion in the literature and conference discussions (Biro et al., 2014; Britto et al., 2013; Irele, 2013; Jung, 2011; Kentnor, 2015; Martínez-Caro et al., 2015; Mitchell, 2010; Rovai et al., 2008). In fact, Sir John Daniel (2012) said it best: “Distance education has always had an image problem” (p. xiii). This could be a result of some stakeholders still doubting eLearning can be as good as face-to-face delivery with the instructor and student in the same room, the attempt to compare the two to determine if one is better than the other, or the misnomer that eLearning is much cheaper to deliver and therefore a subpar degree. Typically, program quality evaluation is completed for external accreditation reviews or internal program reviews. Early on, distance education, or off-site programs, were treated differently by accreditors. However, eLearning is not that much different from traditional learning because the majority, if not all, of the traditional support services are needed. As Biro et al. (2014) reminded us, “Accreditation serves as the validation process by which institutions are evaluated by certified, external review teams that compare the institution’s educational practices with established standards to assure a high level of educational quality for inter-institutional and external stakeholders” (p. 239). The process of identifying evidence to demonstrate accreditation compliance creates a culture of quality assurance that should lead to student success. While all public and private nonprofit colleges and universities must comply with accreditation guidelines and maintain ongoing accreditation,

leading a quality online organization

223

the regional accreditors have offered only general guidelines for online programs through the Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education from the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (2011). However, Hinck (2016) asserted that “relying solely on accreditation standards may not adequately address the unique quality assurance needs of online learning” (p. 4). In fact, the lack of clear guidance by accreditors regarding online learning programs leaves many program administrators and institutional leaders confused and unsure of how they should differentiate online learning from traditional learning modalities while demonstrating quality assurance. In the absence of clear guidelines specific to eLearning programs, many institutions attempt to look at their own internal measures to validate the quality of their programs, which may result in a more narrowly focused review that misses key elements needed for an effective program (Hinck et al., 2018; Meyer, 2002). When a limited evaluative scope is used to assess effectiveness, the results provide only a small part of the quality story (e.g., student completion, grade, satisfaction, etc.) and, as a result, may skew the overall results and impact; therefore, using a framework that addresses all of the areas involved will tell the true story. As we outline throughout this chapter, having a more complete picture will provide more benefits and could be useful in justifying the need for additional resources or other changes to support the eLearning program.

Quality Evaluation of Online Programs Quality evaluation is usually left up to the administration in charge of the academic programs and is rarely done more than every few years. Chen (2009) suggested that using a quality framework for the evaluation can serve as a foundation for stakeholders while providing a systematic and effective process. We propose that evaluating eLearning program quality using a framework such as the Online Learning Consortium’s (OLC’s) Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs can be used to do several things: demonstrate the achievement of successful student learning outcomes, identify program needs and create a path to continuous improvement for accreditation purposes and program improvement, provide a way to involve multiple stakeholders in the process that strengthens communication and supports institutional mission and vision, recognize that program quality involves many areas of the institution, support leadership in developing a culture of quality, and communicate the strategic value to key stakeholders. Using a research-based tool provides eLearning leaders with a valuable resource that adds credibility to their quality efforts while providing best

224

sustaining the innovation

practices that address multiple functional areas within the institution important to the online learner. Demonstrate Successful Student Learning Numerous meta-analysis studies comparing online and face-to-face education (Bernard et al., 2004; Means et al., 2013; Sitzmann et al., 2006) have revealed that learning outcomes using online delivery are either similar to or slightly better than face-to-face traditional education. While the studies in the database on the nosignificantdifference.org website are not all considered rigorous research, Nguyen (2015) found that about 92% of the studies listed indicated that online distance education “is at least as effective as, if not better than, traditional education” (p. 315). In spite of this, skepticism still exists (Lowenthal & Davidson-Shivers, 2019). To address this skepticism, Hinck et al. (2018) suggested that “placing an additional focus on quality and quality assurance will help online programs to overcome negative perceptions related to this delivery modality” (p. 244). Completing a quality evaluation of online programs could provide data that will convince the skeptics, because data would be collected and analyzed to demonstrate student learning; for example, using the Quality Scorecard requires data to be collected and examined for student learning outcome completion, student retention, student satisfaction, and faculty satisfaction. Identify Needs and Create a Path to Continuous Improvement Because using the Quality Scorecard for online program evaluation requires a comprehensive approach, it also becomes a needs assessment tool that can provide valuable information. Watkins et al. (2013) defined needs assessments as “systematic processes and tools designed to collect information and guide decisions” that “measure gaps between desired and current results, and then compare alternative activities that can achieve those aims” (p. 452). That is exactly what the Quality Scorecard can do if applied correctly using the collection of evidence and narrative justifications for program quality that align with each of the 70 quality indicators. In fact, after their deployment of the Quality Scorecard, Adams and Brinthaupt (2019) found it “provided a template to not only ‘pull everything together’ but also to identify and fill the gaps that were uncovered” (para. 26). Likewise, Piña and Bohn (2015) used the Quality Scorecard as a second phase to prepare for a regional accreditation visit after the accreditation guidelines were completed. They asserted this process strengthened their online degree programs and improved instructional design policies and procedures and training and support for online faculty and course development.

leading a quality online organization

225

Stakeholder Involvement Kunz and Cheek (2016) reminded us, “This is a highly competitive environment, and if we are not prepared in the US to handle the demand for quality online education, students will find what they demand elsewhere, even globally” (p. 113). This is a critical statement that addresses the fact that an increasing number of institutions around the globe are turning to eLearning as an option to increase enrollments. Where it was once rare, it is now the norm to offer fully online programs to attract an increasingly internet-savvy population of learners who want the flexibility offered through that delivery modality. No longer is competition limited to institutions within a short geographical range. Even though eLearning is becoming more mainstream and an important strategy (Seaman et al., 2018), an institution looking to develop or maintain a quality program needs to understand the perceptions of faculty, staff, and students (Templeton & Linder, 2018) to identify changes needed. By involving all stakeholders, the online learning leader is also better positioned to gain critical support and buy-in from those who could otherwise become roadblocks to the success of the program (Ryan, 2015). In fact, Beaudoin (2016) asserted, The truly transformative distance educator engages other key stakeholders in all phases of the change process, fostering a culture of innovative and productive growth with the least amount of disruption, while having the maximum influence and impact at both the micro level (e.g., online program) and the macro level (e.g., the entire institution). (p. 16)

When implementing the Quality Scorecard, an online learning leader should engage all stakeholders (i.e., students, faculty, support staff, registrar, library, financial aid, advising, admissions, employers) in order to collect accurate information that reflects the current state of the program. Developing a cross-functional team that can capture all of the needed data and information not only creates buy-in for the review process (Burnette, 2015) but also helps establish and recognize the needs of the online learner. It is through this process that stakeholders are able to better understand the best practices that go into developing a quality eLearning program. From this, it is possible to identify the gaps and actions needed to improve the overall program effectiveness while helping stakeholders be better positioned to agree on needed goals (Singh & Trivedi, 2018; Thorton & Koech, 2018). In addition, keeping stakeholders aware of the evaluation results will also support buy-in, as stakeholders will be able to see the data and evidence of success (Cavanagh & Thompson, 2018), as well as encourage confidence in

226

sustaining the innovation

student learning (Alaniska et al., 2006; Chalmers & Johnstone, 2012; Hinck et al., 2018; Stalmeijer et al., 2016). Course Quality Versus Program Quality In discussion with institutional leaders, it is often discovered that many leaders do not fully understand the importance of reviewing overall program quality and believe that evaluating course quality is enough. Course quality was the primary focus of the literature for a long time, with several excellent rubrics being developed to assist faculty and instructional designers with guidelines for best practice in course development. This has resulted in wide acceptance for the implementation of best practices related to course quality and a recognition that, at some level, an institution needs to review the effectiveness of the online course design and develop a continuous improvement process. The Quality Scorecard does include an entire section dedicated to quality course design as part of overall program quality. While this section is not meant to be an actual course-level rubric, it addresses the best practices that need to be found in an effective review of eLearning courses and that serve as a guide for leaders regarding what standards need to be in place for a quality online organization. When completing this section of the Quality Scorecard, an institution should provide information that focuses on the processes and practices employed as part of the institutional quality initiative. However, this is not enough. Evaluating only online course quality is like attempting to drive a car without a steering wheel or seats. You may have an engine and wheels that can get you around, but the ride will not be comfortable, and you are not sure where you will end up. In fact, you probably cannot sustain it for the long term, and the missing elements will be visible to others. Reviewing only one component of eLearning fails to consider the whole learning ecosystem that is needed to support student success, which in turn leads to the success of the overall program. Leadership, Strategic Planning, and a Culture of Quality Beaudoin (2004) observed early on that a lot of literature focused on the new role of faculty in eLearning but failed to recognize the new roles for leadership that were needed for the shift to a more distributed education model. In fact, he said it is not so much about selecting appropriate technology; rather, it involves asking the right questions about the consequences of desired changes. This process requires that leaders articulate and arrive at an inspirational and doable mission for their organization, empower and energize followers

leading a quality online organization

227

to implement that mission, be aware of their various stakeholders’ values and needs, integrate congruent values into the organizational culture with minimum disruption and resistance, and press their institutions to improve continuously and ethically. (Beaudoin, 2019, p. 333)

He recommended that leadership should focus on a macro view to “bring the entire organization to a new place” (Beaudoin, 2004, p. 85), which would require tasks such as needs assessments, strategic planning, market analysis, and program evaluation and accreditation, all of which could affect program quality. While the role of eLearning leaders has continued to evolve over time, strategic planning for the program continues to remain a priority (Fredericksen, 2017). Leaders wanting to establish and maintain an effective eLearning program must start by integrating quality throughout all aspects of the student learning experience and embracing it at all levels. This means that online learning as a modality has been thoughtfully incorporated into the mission, vision, and strategic priorities for the institution. According to Picciano (2015), If you examine institutions that have been successful in developing online education applications, most derive their success from applications that relate directly to their missions and goals. They did not try to use online education to remake themselves into something totally different from their fundamental missions. (p. 148)

While it has been widely understood and expected by accreditors that an institution needs to have a mission and vision, eLearning is typically not considered and often left out of the strategic priorities. This lack of attention can leave the institution vulnerable and the quality of the program at risk. “Online learning initiatives must be consistent with an institution’s mission and fully supported by its infrastructure, academic programs, technology, systems of governance, student support services, planning, and budget processes” (Biro et al., 2014, p. 243). Without clear direction provided through the strategic planning processes, the institution creates an environment where eLearning may be left with insufficient resources, creating a subpar learning environment for learners. This results in poor outcomes and, potentially, the overall failure of the program (Rovai & Downey, 2010). To avoid this scenario, institutional leadership must start from a position where a quality eLearning program is valued (Cavanaugh, 2003). Furthermore, a common mistake is to develop and offer online learning without first understanding how the delivery modality aligns with the

228

sustaining the innovation

institutional mission, vision, and strategic priorities. This can result in the program struggling to get adequate resources (e.g., financial, technical, personnel, etc.). It can also create an environment where quality standards and best practices are ignored in favor of traditional or inadequate methods of developing online curriculum. As Angolia (2016) reminded us, “A university’s vision ultimately determines the success of developing and sustaining a quality DE [distance education] program” (para. 34). For eLearning to be truly valued, it needs to be included in the strategic priorities for the institution. This reflects the importance of this modality to the senior leadership and signals a willingness to commit resources (e.g., funding, personnel, technology, etc.) that are needed to establish a quality program. This also can lead to an interest in supporting continuous improvement efforts to ensure the effectiveness and relevancy of the eLearning program over the long term. According to Watkins et al. (2013), If any of your institution’s missions—or even the objective of an existing distance learning program—do not guide decisions toward the achievement of the overall vision, then this mission should be revised before any decisions about distance education are made. (p. 456)

Using the Quality Scorecard as a guiding framework, an institution should review its current mission, vision, and strategic priorities to determine the role and importance that have been given to eLearning. Through this process, the eLearning leader needs to identify the artifacts (or evidence) that reflect the significance of online learning to the institution and determine if changes need to be made. With the mission and vision for the institution driving the goals of the organization, the next step is to develop an effective strategic plan that outlines how the online program will reach success. This not only signals the importance of the eLearning program to others within the organization but also drives the direction of the program. When the strategic plan for the eLearning program aligns to the institutional strategic plan, it also serves as a guiding document that can be used to acquire needed resources to support the program. MacNeil et al. (2010) further reflected on the need for a strategic plan: How does . . . [a strategic plan] contribute to staying sane? Everyone not only knows about the plan, but they also participated in the creation of the plan. A roadmap exists to guide the implementation of the various strategic areas and even if bumps in the road occur, focus shifts back on the plan to continue down a successful path. (para. 4)

leading a quality online organization

229

The completed strategic plan can be used to provide guidance over a longer term; however, given the nature of eLearning, it is critical that the plan be reviewed at a minimum on an annual basis to update and maintain the continued applicability of it. This allows the program to be flexible and responsive to an ever-changing external environment. In addition, it is important that, early in the strategic planning process, appropriate metrics to determine success are identified. This also requires the eLearning leader to complete the follow-up to make sure that metrics identified are regularly reviewed and that changes are made when needed. Taking these appropriate steps and reviewing the plan regularly will keep the strategic plan from becoming stagnant. Communicating the Strategic Value Critical to leading an eLearning program and getting needed resources is regular communication to key stakeholders about the strategic value of eLearning to the institution. According to Watkins et al. (2013), “Leaders must create conditions conducive to energy, initiative, and innovation in their particular milieu, and bring others along, both above and below them in the organizational hierarchy” (p. 474). It is up to the eLearning leader to ensure that others within the organization have accurate information to make critical decisions for the success of the program. This should not be taken to imply that only senior leaders should have this information in order to allocate appropriate resources. A strategic leader also recognizes the need to communicate at all levels of the organization to develop excitement and interest in developing and sustaining a quality online learning program. In addition, it is important to pay attention to best practices, trends, and other changes happening in the external environment that may have an effect on the eLearning program. This regular communication can help an institution be more responsive and prepared for any changes (whether required for compliance or to better serve students) and minimize potential impacts to the institution’s online program. “It is important that educational institutions have a practical and useful leadership strategy to help navigate through environmental changes” (Khan, 2017, para. 8). Through use of a resource like the Quality Scorecard, the institution is also able to communicate to all stakeholders the strategic value of online learning. There is nothing more important than creating an effective learning environment for the institution’s students. The best way to create and sustain this is by reviewing the quality and overall effectiveness of the entire program.

230

sustaining the innovation

OLC Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs The OLC’s Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs (Shelton, 2010) is a tool for administrative leadership (provosts, deans, program directors, or coordinators, although faculty may use it as well) to evaluate online programs using standards from the literature and research. In the results of three Delphi Method research studies in 2010, 2014, and 2018, the Quality Scorecard provides a foundational framework for quality evaluation with specific standards that are clearly identified in the literature. The Quality Scorecard provides 70 quality standards in seven categories to examine online programs and reveal opportunities for improvement: institutional/administrative support, technology support, course development/instructional design, teaching and learning, faculty support, student support, and evaluation and assessment. Each standard can be scored up to 3 points each (1 point = developing, 2 points = accomplished, and 3 points = exemplary) with a perfect score equaling 210 points. The Quality Scorecard can be used for program evaluation, needs assessments, program planning, and strategy road map and to inform continuous improvement strategies. The goal for using the Quality Scorecard should not necessarily be a perfect score but to reveal areas with a need for improvement. However, OLC does offer an endorsement process that uses three external reviewers to examine artifacts and written narrative in order to certify the Quality Scorecard score. Online programs scoring in the top 10% (189 points–210 points) earn an OLC quality seal that may be used on the website and for marketing purposes. Adams and Brinthaupt (2019) at Middle Tennessee State University successfully completed the endorsement process for their online programs and called it “a tangible and well-respected standard of excellence that can be used to promote the quality of the university’s online program” (para. 34). In addition, Pollard (2017) found the Quality Scorecard to be “a valuable case study instrument for collecting important data and feedback regarding an online program in order to evaluate current status and recommend future improvement strategies” (p. 17). The Quality Scorecard can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the eLearning program at any stage in its life cycle. For online leaders implementing a new program, the tool provides best practices that should be implemented in those initial stages. Those same standards can also be used to help a more mature program with its overall continuous improvement efforts. When the Quality Scorecard is initially used, the baseline score achieved for each standard can then be used to identify priorities and resources needed to better support the eLearning program.

leading a quality online organization

231

The Quality Review Cycle Planning a regular and robust cycle of quality review is essential for the longterm success of quality online learning. Following is a brief description of each of the categories: • Institution/administration support: The category of institutional/ administration support addresses areas of mission, strategic planning, resource allocation, continuous improvement, and stakeholder communication. • Technology support: Given the nature of online learning, the technology support category is critical to the success of the program, as it provides the foundation for teaching and learning to occur. This category provides standards that focus the institution’s back-end systems, course delivery systems, and contingency planning. This includes the need to provide training on technologies used in the online learning environment. • Course development/instructional design: The course development/ instructional design category is divided into two areas: a focus on systematic course development process at the program or institutional level and a focus on quality at the course level. Each of the indicators focuses on the development of course materials and continuous improvement. • Teaching and learning: It is clear that the role of the faculty member is just as important in online learning as it is in traditional teaching. Best practices support the need for appropriate communications with the faculty member and relevant faculty-to-student engagement (Alexiou-Ray & Bentley, 2015). • Faculty support: The literature clearly demonstrates that faculty support is crucial to online program success (Baran & Correia, 2014; Hammond et al., 2018; Kerrick et al., 2015; Mohr & Shelton, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2016). This category is divided into sections of quality indicators to provide best practice support for faculty: course development support and online teaching support, both of which affect faculty success in the eLearning classroom. • Student support: There are many areas throughout the institution that provide relevant services to students taking courses in an online environment, such as advising, counseling, bookstore, library, tutoring, registrar, and so on. This category provides a closer look at the best practices in these areas to create an overall environment where students receive the same or equal services to those provided for on-campus students.

232

sustaining the innovation

• Evaluation and assessment: The category that solidifies the quality evaluation process all together is the evaluation and assessment category. It is in this area where the institution truly reflects its commitment to continuous improvement by providing opportunities for feedback from key stakeholders. This is also an opportunity to review data collection processes and key metrics and ensure that additional needed processes are established and followed. Quality in online learning is measurable. Anyone who says otherwise has not done sufficient research or does not understand what a quality online learning program encompasses. That statement may seem harsh; however, given the current growth in enrollment trends and expectations by accreditors, government regulating bodies, and other stakeholders, creating an effective online learning environment is critical to the continued success of higher education institutions. Using a research-based tool like the Quality Scorecard to measure quality provides institutions with credible results that can be used to validate what they do well while identifying areas for continuous improvement. Student-centric institutions that truly embrace quality in online learning then pursue third-party review. Those institutions that score in the top tier may be eligible for an OLC endorsement that can be used to market their program. However, the third-party review should not be done solely by institutions that consider their program exemplary. While this is a wonderful recognition to be able to claim, this process is equally useful to those that know they have challenges. Just like in any situation, having an outside expert verify that you need additional resources to support student success and the quality of your online program can help you make a stronger case. Conducting a comprehensive review of an online program requires an institution to commit time and other resources to thoroughly examine all aspects included in program evaluation. Making the decision to undergo this in-depth examination is not easy, but it will provide the institution with valuable information that can be used to improve the eLearning program and potentially lead to a more effective learning environment for students.

Quality Scorecard Best Practices The following are best practices identified by those who have used the Quality Scorecard to evaluate online program quality for their institution and the Quality Scorecard external review team members.

leading a quality online organization

233

Use the OLC Quality Scorecard Handbook and Rubric One of the first steps is to read the OLC’s A Practical Handbook to Implement the Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs (Shelton, 2019) and and use the Quality Scorecard rubric (in the handbook) as a guide to inform the process. The handbook was developed to further explain each of the 70 quality indicators and provides literature support, presents a rubric describing the scoring levels for each of the indicators, and reveals how the Quality Scorecard is supported by the OLC Five Pillars of Quality Online Education. Several of those online education administrators who led the Quality Scorecard deployment and evaluation process said the first thing they did was divide the handbook into each of the Quality Scorecard sections and distribute it to those who needed to read it before developing narrative justifications and seeking out evidence of support. In addition, they provided copies of the Quality Scorecard rubric included in the handbook to all stakeholders. Manage and Lead the Continuous Quality Review Process Effectively completing the Quality Scorecard is best achieved when a primary person is appointed (or self-selects) to be the project manager. This person can help make sure deadlines are met while also making sure that all sections are completed accurately and include appropriate artifacts (evidence) justifying the response provided. In addition, the project manager will often be the key communicator to all of the stakeholders throughout the process. Create a Cross-Departmental Committee Cross-departmental discussions should occur around quality and the Quality Scorecard standards throughout the process. Adair and Diaz (2014) asserted, Quality assurance processes that require broad collaboration within and across different institutions and constituencies and that are focused on continuous improvement may have the best chance of creating the kind of shared understanding of quality necessary to evaluate the rapidly developing innovations in distance education. (p. 11)

In addition, online programs are often in separate silos; a crossdepartmental committee should be involved in the quality evaluation process (Kearsley, 2013) and the next steps for planning and implementation (Pollard, 2017).

234

sustaining the innovation

Faculty Involvement in the Quality Scorecard Evaluation Process Is a Must Much has been discussed in the literature regarding faculty buy-in and online learning and how it is a challenge for many. Accordingly, Pollard (2017) recommended faculty should be involved in the Quality Scorecard evaluation process to continue to increase buy-in. Having key faculty involved in the process may also create ambassadors for the process and help convince other faculty of the need for such a process. Ensure Positive Communication Throughout the Process Positive communication around the project is needed, reminding everyone involved this is a way to improve and allocate resources and not a practice to tear down and note blame. Pollard (2017) noted that the leader of the Quality Scorecard evaluation project must communicate effectively to encourage, define the purpose of the project, and provide consistent and clear information throughout the entire process. Shelton et al. (2014) echoed that as well and suggested leading meaningful and strategic collegewide discussions at various points throughout the process. Conduct Appropriate Data Collection and Analysis for All Metrics Identifying what metrics are to be reviewed, the data to be collected, and how it will be collected is an important step to measure program effectiveness. This also means that appropriate stakeholders need to be included to gather or provide feedback. According to Reissman (2017), Obtaining feedback from online learners about the support services they need, the ones already provided, and the quality of digital tools and online faculty instruction is an essential part of identifying what works and where improvements should be made—in a higher education online learning setting—in order to provide quality service to students and prevent student dropout. (p. 122)

Inclusion of Online Learning in the Institutional Strategic Plan As recommended earlier in this chapter, online learning should be included in the institutional strategic plan (Barefield & Meyer, 2013; Murphy, 2018; Shelton & Pedersen, 2015). Slimp (2014) agreed and also recommended the online program maintain its own intrinsic strategic plan and incorporate both faculty and leadership in the strategic planning process to develop a shared vision.

leading a quality online organization

235

Comprehensively Review the Online Learning Program A quality eLearning program is composed of multiple moving parts (departments) with somewhat different missions and cultures that must all be aligned and moving in the same direction to support an effective learning environment. Focusing on only one aspect (e.g., quality course design) fails to consider significant aspects of the eLearning ecosystem (technology, student support, student engagement, etc.). However, many institutions don’t go beyond course quality when looking at program effectiveness, leaving the institution at risk and lacking information on improvements needed for all other areas.

Conclusion Throughout this chapter, we have provided guidance on the steps an eLearning leader can take to create and sustain a culture of quality for the online learning program. This has included establishing a practice of regularly conducting a quality evaluation of the online program. Taking this step allows the program leader the opportunity to fully understand all of the nuances of the program and identify areas where improvements can be made. Our focus included an introduction to the well-respected and widely used Quality Scorecard. This tool provided a framework for much of the discussion, because it can serve as a guideline that institutions can follow when developing or maintaining their online learning program. We see comprehensive program evaluation of the online learning program as paramount to the continued success of the online learning program at an institution. The quality review allows for an in-depth examination of all areas that touch the online learning environment, but we have also found that those online learning _leaders who dedicate the time and resources to conduct a comprehensive program review are signaling their commitment to provide a quality online learning student experience. While we recognize that there are other online program review standards available, the Quality Scorecard provides a comprehensive list of best practices that are supported through research. The tool is updated regularly to capture the rapidly changing eLearning environment and can be downloaded from the website for the OLC (onlinelearningconsortium.org). We have touched on many best practices in this chapter that should be used to lead a quality online organization. Our focus was to identify many of the relevant steps that should be taken while recognizing that how

236

sustaining the innovation

an institution implements quality standards will depend on the resources available and the culture of the organization. With a focus on improving the overall quality of the online student experience, our hope is that more institutions will embrace developing a culture of quality and provide the resources necessary to implement many of the best practices for online learning that are currently known.

References Adair, D., & Diaz, S. (2014). Stakeholders of quality assurance in online education: Inputs and outputs. In K. Shattuck (Ed.), Assuring quality in online education (pp. 3–17). Stylus. Adams, C. L., & Brinthaupt, T. M. (2019). Obtaining an exemplary online program endorsement: A case study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, XXII(2). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer222/adams_ brinthaupt222.html Alaniska, H., Codina, E. A., Bohrer, J., Dearlove, R., Eriksson, S., Helle, E., & Wiberg, L. K. (2006). Student involvement in the processes of quality assurance agencies. DG Education and Culture. The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) Conference in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. https://enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/workshop -and-seminar/Student%20involvement.pdf Alexiou-Ray, J., & Bentley, C. C. (2015). Faculty professional development for quality online teaching. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, XVIII(4). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter184/ray_bentley184.html Angolia, M. G. (2016). Factors for successful evolution and sustainability of quality distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, XIX(3). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall193/angolia_pagliari193.html Baran, E., & Correia, A. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 58(5), 95–101. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0791-0 Barefield, A. C., & Meyer, J. D. (2013, Winter). Leadership’s role in support of online academic programs: Implementing an administrative support matrix. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 10, 1f. https://www.ncbi.nlm .nih.gov/pmc/journals/486/ Beaudoin, M. (2004). Reflections on research, faculty, and leadership in distance education. Bibliotheks-und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg. Beaudoin, M. (2016). Issues in distance education: A primer for higher education decision makers. New Directions for Higher Education, 2016(173), 9–20. https: //doi.org/10.1002/he Beaudoin, M. (2019). Distance education leadership reconsidered. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehls (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 323–335). Routledge.

leading a quality online organization

237

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379 Biro, S., Mullins, C., & Runyon, J. (2014). The role and realities of accreditation: A practical guide for programs and institutions preparing for an accreditation visit. In K. Shattuck (Ed.), Assuring quality in online education (pp. 239–256). Stylus. Britto, M., Ford, C., & Wise, J. (2013). Three institutions, three approaches, one goal: Addressing quality assurance in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(4), 1–14. Burnette, D. M. (2015). Negotiating the mine field: Strategies for effective online education administrative leadership in higher education institutions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(3), 13–25. https://www.infoagepub.com/ qrde-issue.html?i=p5670c49c98f56 Cavanagh, T. B., & Thompson, K. (2018). Keeping FIRRST things first: The delicate dance of leading online innovation at your institution. In A. Piña, V. Lowell, & B. Harris (Eds.), Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations leading and managing e-Learning (pp. 1–12). Springer. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61780-0 Cavanaugh, C. (2003). Distance education quality: Success factors for resources, practices and results. In R. Discenza, C. Howard, & K. Schenk (Eds.), The design and management of effective distance learning programs (pp. 686–692). Information Science. Chalmers, D., & Johnstone, S. (2012). Quality assurance and accreditation in higher education. In I. Jung & C. Latchem (Eds.), Quality assurance and accreditation in distance education and e-learning (pp. 1–12). Routledge. Chen, M.-P. (2009). An evaluation of the ELNP e-learning quality assurance program: Perspectives of gap analysis and innovation diffusion. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 12(1), 18–33. Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2011). Interregional guidelines for the evaluation of distance education. Retrieved from https://www.nc-sara.org/files/ docs/C-RAC%20Guidelines.pdf Daniel, J. (2012). Foreword. In I. Jung & C. Latchem (Eds.), Quality assurance and accreditation in distance education and e-learning (pp. xiii–xvi). Routledge. Fredericksen, E. E. (2017). A national study of online learning leaders in U.S. higher education. Online Learning, 21(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i2 .1164 Hammond, H. G., Coplan, M. J., & Mandernach, B. J. (2018). Administrative considerations impacting the quality of online teaching. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, XXI(4). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ winter214/hammond_coplan_mandernach214.html Hinck, G. L. (2016). Visions of quality assurance in online MBA programs [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Boise State University. https://scholarworks .boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2266&context=td

238

sustaining the innovation

Hinck, G., Rice, K., Lowenthal, P. R., & Perkins, R. (2018). Visions of quality assurance in online MBA programs. Online Learning, 22(4), 243–261. https: //doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1514 Irele, M. E. (2013). Evaluating distance education in an era of internationalization. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 493–506). Routledge. Jung, I. (2011). The dimensions of e-learning quality: From the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 445–464. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9171-4 Kearsley, G. (2013). Management of online programs. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 425–436). Routledge. Kentnor, H. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1–2), 21–34. Kerrick, S. A., Miller, K. H., & Ziegler, C. (2015). Using continuous quality improvement (CQI) to sustain success in faculty development for online teaching. Journal of Faculty Development, 29(1), 33–40. Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or transactional leadership in current higher education: A brief comparison. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 178–183. Kunz, M. B., & Cheek, R. G. (2016). How AACSB-accredited business schools assure quality online education. Academy of Business Journal, 1(2016), 105–115. Lowenthal, P. R., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2019). Strategies used to evaluate online education. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehls (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (4th ed., pp. 415–427). Routledge. MacNeil, D., Luzius, K., & Dunkin, S. (2010). How strategic planning keeps you sane when delivering distance programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, XIII(II). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer132/ macneil_luzius_dunkin132.html Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2015). An application of the performance-evaluation model for e-learning quality in higher education. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 26(5–6), 632–647. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3). Meyer, K. A. (2002). Quality in distance education: Focus on on-line learning [ASHEERIC Higher Education Report, 29(4)]. Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, R. L. G. (2010). Approaching common ground: Defining quality in online education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(150), 89–94. https: //doi.org/10.1002/cc.408 Mohr, S., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional development: A Delphi study. Online Learning, 21(4), 123–140. https:// www.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1273 Murphy, C. (2018). A framework for aligning campus data with accreditation requirements. In A. Piña, V. Lowell, & B. Harris (Eds.), Educational commu-

leading a quality online organization

239

nications and technology: Issues and innovations leading and managing e-Learning (pp. 169–188). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61780-0 Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319. Picciano, A. G. (2015). Planning for online education: A systems model. Online Learning, 19(5), 142–158. Piña, A. A., & Bohn, L. (2015). Integrating accreditation guidelines and Quality Scorecard for evaluating online programs. Distance Learning, 12(4), 1–6. Pollard, T. (2017). Garnering faculty buy-in to improve online program quality. In K. Shelton & K. Pedersen (Eds.), Building, growing, and sustaining e-learning programs (pp. 1–19). IGI-Global. Reissman, S. (2017). A new model of online student service in the digital age: Increasing retention based on service satisfaction. In K. Shelton & K. Pedersen (Eds.), Building, growing, and sustaining e-learning programs (pp. 103–127). IGI-Global. Rovai, A. P., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 141–146. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/the-internet-andhigher-education Rovai, A. P., Ponton, M. K., & Baker, J. D. (2008). Distance learning in higher education. Teachers College Press. Ryan, T. (2015). Quality assurance in higher education: A review of literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/ hlrc.v5i4.257 Schmidt, S. W., Tschida, C. M., & Hodge, E. M. (2016). How faculty learn to teach online: What administrators need to know. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(1). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring191/ schmidt_tschida_hodge191.html Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www .onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered.html Shelton, K. (2010). A quality scorecard for the administration of online education programs: A Delphi study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 36–62. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ909912 Shelton, K. (2019). A practical handbook to implement the Quality Scorecard for the administration of online programs. Online Learning Consortium. Shelton, K., & Pedersen, K. (2015). Benchmarking quality in online learning programs in higher education. In Proceedings of Global Learn Berlin 2015: Global conference on learning and technology (pp. 280–295). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/150872/ Shelton, K., Pedersen, K. L., & Holstrom, L. A. (2014). Evidencing quality: Using the Sloan-C Quality Scorecard. In M. Orleans (Ed.), Cases on critical and qualitative perspectives in online higher education (pp. 393–414). IGI-Global.

240

sustaining the innovation

Singh, D. K., & Trivedi, A. (2018). Quality management in educational institutions. International Journal of Recent Research Aspects, 5(1), 40–44. Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623–664. Slimp, M. (2014, November). Trends in distance education: What college leaders should consider. Instructional Technology Council. https://aacc.confex.com/ aacc/2015am/webprogram/Handout/Session15402/TrendsinDistanceEdNov2014.pdf Stalmeijer, R., Whittingham, J., de Grave, W., & Dolmans, D. (2016). Strengthening internal quality assurance processes: Facilitating student evaluation committees to contribute. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.976760 Templeton, L. L., & Linder, K. E. (2018). Establishing an e-learning division. In A. Piña, V. Lowell, & B. Harris (Eds.), Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations leading and managing e-Learning (pp. 45–60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61780-0 Thorton, A., & Koech, J. (2018). Building an e-learning center from the ground up: The challenges and lessons learned. In A. Piña, V. Lowell, & B. Harris (Eds.), Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations leading and managing e-Learning (pp. 73–86). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31961780-0 Watkins, R., Kaufman, R., & Odunlami, B. (2013). Strategic planning and needs assessments in distance education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 452–466). Routledge.

13 LEADING BEYOND THE O R G A N I Z AT I O N Meg Benke and Mary Niemiec

M

any eLearning leaders ask themselves whether they have time to engage with organizations outside their institution. Too many supervisors of those same individuals see external engagement as a personal benefit to the employee only, a time conflict, and little benefit to the institution. These perceptions of the eLearning leader and the supervisor can be barriers to efforts that have the potential to bring long-term benefits to the institution and to the individual’s career. We feel that external engagement is critical. The past decade has been one of significant higher education policy change. Much of this has been driven by the dramatic innovations in the use of technology in teaching, allowing institutions to increase access, serve place-bound students, and enhance both teaching and learning. The opportunity that technology provides can also create unintended consequences that affect national, state, local, and institutional policy. Federal financial aid and consumer protection became key issues that drove many of the policy changes and considerations. The complexity of these issues does not lend itself to simple solutions. Without diverse stakeholder input, policy statements can result in narrow or broad, vague language that does not provide resolution and can have negative consequences. Personal growth is also a benefit of external engagement. The ability to engage in a committee, commission, or board that weighs the pros and cons of policy decisions is an invaluable experience. Networking with colleagues from like and not-so-like institutions develops a broader and more inclusive perspective. Prior assumptions and preconceptions are often shown to be inaccurate. The ability to view drive, mission, and culture from other points of view grows a leader professionally and personally. 241

242

sustaining the innovation

In addition, the inside baseball information gained from this engagement provides the eLearning leader the opportunity to share this knowledge at home. Becoming the individual who keeps the institution informed and advises senior officers is an important leadership role. The eLearning leader who provides strategic perspective, disseminates time-sensitive information, and represents the institution well is seen as a vital member of the leadership team. Ultimately, a balance of time, priorities, and commitment drives the choice and level of engagement. eLearning leaders must weigh the benefits and cost for their own and their staff ’s activity. These considerations include those addressed previously and more. As we continue this discussion throughout the chapter, keep this thought in mind: If you want to have input on a decision, you must be engaged in the process of deciding.

Influencing Policy Engagement in organizations that serve local, state, or national advocacy roles can help influence policy that affects institutional resources and students. The 2020 federal guidelines around distance education are an excellent example. The potential ramifications to state authorization, reciprocity, licensure programs, and eligibility for federal financial aid are significant. Numerous organizations that represent institutions are engaged in providing rational and logical voices as the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) considers regulations to protect consumers. Without multiple institutional input and perspectives, unintended consequences could result in higher costs and less protection for students. By the time this book is published, the new regulations may have been adopted, and we will be able to measure the impact those voices had on the final rules. Involvement at the state and regional levels can often provide the opportunity for even greater impact on policy and process. The National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA) was created in 2013 to address the inconsistent and costly requirements for students studying outside the state where the enrolling institution is located to enroll in programs offered fully at a distance. NC-SARA was formed by national and regional efforts involving state regulators, national professional associations, regional accrediting bodies, the USDOE, and institutional leaders. Funding to explore and establish the effort came from the Lumina Foundation. The resulting governance model established a national steering committee and SARA advisory committees from each of the four regional compacts (Midwest Higher Education Consortium [MHEC], Southern Regional Education

leading beyond the organization

243

Board [SREB], New England Board of Higher Education [NEBHE], and Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education [WICHE]). New initiatives and, especially, ones like NC-SARA that have widereaching ramifications for states, institutions, and students were launched based on a set of guiding principles and value propositions. As the reality of implementation unfolds, adjustments and modifications are a continuing part of the process. Stakeholder input is critical to developing appropriate modifications while maintaining consistency with the founding mission. The regional compact SARA committees provide the NC-SARA staff and the national steering committee invaluable input regarding the benefits and consequences associated with the agreement requirements for all stakeholders. The committees represent state regulators and institutional leaders located in states served by the regional compact. The challenge of attempting a one-size-fits-all approach that reciprocity agreements try to achieve is that it rarely works 100% of the time. Compromises and exceptions become part of the agreement out of necessity. A specific example of this is licensure requirements. Diverse and complex state requirements for professional licensure are so varied that a single agreement in even one profession was not possible. Consequently, the SARA requirement for licensure became one of public disclosure only. The value of having multiple perspectives and roles in establishing when and if a compromise and/or exception occurs is critical to maintaining the core value proposition. Those eLearning leaders who served and continue to serve on the national effort and the regional SARA committees provide the NC-SARA staff with institutional and student-centric advice regarding the ongoing viability and effectiveness of related policies and processes.

Professional Associations Leadership participation with professional associations and consortiums is equally important and presents even greater opportunity for engagement by eLearning professionals across the institution. There are multiple organizations that have a primary mission of service to higher education, adult learners, and eLearning professionals. Each of these associations has some unavoidable overlap within the eLearning market. However, each also has a unique purpose, approach, and particular priorities and benefits for members. All of the professional associations and consortiums have professional staff for day-to-day operations and strategy implementation. The organizations also rely heavily on volunteer participation from members. This form of engagement can be on committees, such as conference planning, policy, awards, and membership. More committed involvement could entail service

244

sustaining the innovation

on advisory boards (peer-reviewed journals, special initiatives) and the board of directors. As an example of the scope of member participation, the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) employs 30 professional staff, and, throughout the course of a calendar year, it engages more than 750 members as volunteers in various capacities. Other organizations, such as WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET) and the University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA), have similar levels of volunteer engagement. Professional associations also present eLearning leaders with the opportunity to have a more direct impact on the discipline. Most of the associations offer an array of tools and resources that can be used for professional growth and employee and faculty development. Most of the resources and tools developed by the associations are created from research and knowledge from experts in the field: their members. Contributions by the eLearning leader that result in guides, articles, metrics, and effective practices not only allow for wide dissemination through higher education but also bring with them individual acknowledgment and recognition. The decision as to which organization individual eLearning leaders offer their time to should be based on a number of factors. Evaluating institutional priorities and goals helps determine the direct benefit back to the university for the leader’s time, engagement, and resources. Longer term career goals should also be a consideration as the networking opportunities within these organizations allow for mentoring, professional, and collaborative relationships to develop. The benefits of the networks that can evolve should not be undervalued. The higher education online environment is diverse and, at the same time, close. Recommendations, references, and recruitment have often resulted from the networks built through involvement in these professional associations. Engagement in more than one organization can be beneficial and does not necessarily present a conflict of interest (with the exception of serving on the board of directors), although conflicts of time are more difficult to avoid. A sample list of the types of organizations in which a leader might engage is included at the conclusion of this chapter. The list represents a variety of specialized online organizations, adult learning and international organizations, technology user groups, and foundation-connected groups.

Academic Networks and Consortia Collaborative consortia and groups provide additional opportunities for engagement and networking. These groups are primarily tied to institutional academic alliances, and participation in them is limited to the specific role

leading beyond the organization

245

of leaders at their institution. The groups vary in mission, focus, and membership—touching on all aspects of higher education. Most institutions are members of one or more alliances that provide collegial opportunity for sharing and partnership. One such example is the Big Ten Academic Alliance for Online Educators. The Big Ten is unique in the aspect that beyond college sports, strong collaboration occurs across the institutions: chief academic offices, chief information offices, registrars, enrollment management, and so on. In addition to the formal networks, informal groups called Academic Alliances exist to expand the collaboration and networking across key institutional initiatives. The group mentioned earlier is composed of designated representatives from each of the institutions within the Big Ten who are leading the online efforts. The formation of Academic Alliances provides the opportunity to share information, effective practices, and multi-institutional benchmarking. The collegiality of the groups allows for open and in-depth conversations regarding challenges, opportunities, policies, and practices. Over the years, the Online Educators Academic Alliance has shared templates, definitions, processes, position descriptions, and other administrative and strategic information. The group also has coordinated responses to national policy that had the potential to affect online learning, such as state authorization. Another example is the Competency-Based Education Network (CBEN), a “network of colleges, organizations and individuals dedicated to realizing the potential of competency-based education” (CBEN, n.d., para. 1). This group shares best practices and advocates for policies to support innovation.

Accrediting Bodies eLearning leaders can also influence the broader context of higher education by becoming engaged and developing their expertise in accreditation, including regional accreditation and specialized professional accreditation. The first opportunity is generally available by serving on an institution self-study team and by being a regular contributor and leader with the institution’s efforts to review quality in the provision of online learning. Regional accreditation now relies more heavily on a continuous approach to quality review, and the eLearning leader should aid in this process, both from the perspective of learning outcomes and from the perspective of reviewing administrative and student services for quality improvement. There are also opportunities to encourage campus-wide assessment through tools such as Quality Matters, OSCAR (a free instrument created by the State University of New York Online), and the OLC’s scorecards, which are more fully described in chapter 8.

246

sustaining the innovation

Once greater expertise is established, volunteering to become a team member through the regional association gives an opportunity both to learn from another institution and to contribute to peer review. Because many institutions now offer distance learning, the accreditation associations are actively looking for peer reviewers with eLearning experience. Professional accreditation in the disciplines is another area of engagement. Within the institution, the deans and academic departments appreciate the eLearning leader’s assistance with the accreditation reviews. At times, these external reviewers may have less understanding of eLearning and may need assistance with expertise in the approaches to the delivery of services and education. Many associations also have subgroups dedicated to a better understanding of eLearning, which may be a place for institutional eLearning leaders to get involved and influence future policy directions.

Managing Expectations Getting back to the initial question of time, balance, and expectations, nothing is more vital for sanity, health, and job security than establishing parameters and priorities. Managing expectations is important to do both within the institution and with the external engagements. Following through on commitments falls in the category of Credibility 101. However, being realistic about the scope and scale of external commitments is vital to the primary commitment made to the leader’s institution. In other words—don’t forget the day job. Following are two key considerations for managing expectations. First, overcommitting serves no one—especially the individual. Unfortunately, the awareness that there has been an overcommitment of time, talent, or stamina often occurs only when it’s been done. So, how can a leader balance commitment and management expectations? Second, establish a clear understanding that institutional needs have priority. Communicate to your immediate supervisor the level of external commitment (i.e., travel, resources, and any other needs). Also, make certain the immediate team is aware, especially if administrative support will be needed. For many leaders, the commitment extends to support staff in addition to the individual. Maintain an awareness of the expectations on your staff ’s time and the opportunity cost of pulling the team away from responsibilities.

Trends and Future Leadership Some leaders, particularly faculty and instructional designers, also become involved in cutting-edge issues and future trends. Those in the field of

leading beyond the organization

247

distance education always have an eye to future perspectives. Leaders emerge as translators and national speakers or experts on emerging trends in technology and education. As these communities of practice develop, leaders emerge who have the ability to scan current environments; stay abreast of future trends; and join ideas, tools, and perspectives into a cohesive strategy. Various chapters in this book give a number of perspectives related to how the contributors became involved as leaders and what motivated each to pursue a higher level of engagement in the field. Emerging leaders have a great number of opportunities, starting with the Institute for Online Learning (delivered by the OLC). The major professional associations all have communities of practice and boards of directors, and there are opportunities to be part of conference planning committees or to present at seminars or workshops.

Examples of Professional Associations The following list of professional associations is a representative sample of what is available to professionals who are interested in working with likeminded colleagues, learning about professional development opportunities, and better understanding the national and international scope of their work. There are also opportunities for people to connect through LinkedIn groups, which most of the associations offer, as do groups targeting a specified population such as technology-using professors.

Sector-Based Associations American Association of Community Colleges: The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) supports and promotes its member colleges through policy initiatives, innovative programs, research and information, and strategic outreach to business and industry and the national news media. Its efforts are focused in five strategic action areas: recognition and advocacy for community colleges; student access, learning, and success; community college leadership development; economic and workforce development; and global and intercultural education. AACC has a student success commission and student readiness commission. Recent activities of the commission are to promote innovation and to provide technical assistance in areas that support student success (AACC, n.d.). University Professional and Continuing Education Association: Founded in 1915, the University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA) advances leadership in professional, continuing, and online education. According to its website, UPCEA (2019) “serves its members with

248

sustaining the innovation

innovative conferences and specialty seminars, research and benchmarking information, professional networking opportunities and timely publications” (para. 3). UPCEA has a national council for online learning for those who lead online education at the institutional level. National Council for Online Education: The National Council for Online Education (National Council) is dedicated to advancing quality online learning at the institutional level. The National Council is uniquely focused on excellence at the highest levels—leadership, administration, strategy—applying a macro lens to the online teaching and learning enterprise. Its engaged members include the stewards of online learning at most of the leading universities in the nation. (National Council for Online Education, 2019, para. 1)

Online Learning Organizations OLC: The OLC has been a leader in advancing online learning since 1999. In 2014, its name was changed from the Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C) to the Online Learning Consortium. The OLC is a collaborative community of higher education leaders and innovators, dedicated to advancing quality digital teaching and learning experiences designed to reach and engage the modern learner—anyone, anywhere, anytime. OLC inspires innovation and quality through an extensive set of resources, including best-practice publications, quality benchmarking, leading-edge instruction, community-driven conferences, practitionerbased and empirical research, and expert guidance. The growing OLC community includes faculty members, administrators, trainers, instructional designers, and other learning professionals, as well as educational institutions, professional societies, and corporate enterprises. (OLC, 2019, para. 2)

OLC has invitational leadership conferences and seminars and sponsors a summer Institute for Emerging Leadership in Online Learning on a cooperating campus, which has been operating for almost 20 years. EDUCAUSE: The goal of EDUCAUSE, a nonprofit association, is to “support those who lead, manage, deploy, and use information technology to advance higher education” (EDUCAUSE, n.d.-a, para. 2). A comprehensive range of resources and activities is available to all interested employees at EDUCAUSE member organizations, with special opportunities open to designated member representatives (EDUCAUSE, n.d.). EDUCAUSE has several electronic mailing lists for those interested in online and blended learning and maintains communities of practice in areas such as learning analytics.

leading beyond the organization

249

WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies: WICHE maintains the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET), which “is the leader in the practice, policy & advocacy of technology-enhanced learning in higher education” (WCET, n.d., para. 1). Focus areas for the cooperative include student authentication, mobility, adult learners, accountability, student retention and student completion, institutional success, policy and regulations, student success, and technology. The National University Technology Network (NUTN) was recently absorbed into WCET (NUTN, n.d.).

Distance Education Organizations United States Distance Learning Association: The United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA), through its mission “supporting the development and application of distance learning . . . focuses on all legislation impacting the distance learning committee and its varied constituencies” (USDLA, 2019, para. 5). International Society for Technology in Education: The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) “inspires the creation of solutions and connections that improve opportunities for all learners by delivering: practical guidance, evidence-based professional learning, virtual networks, thought-provoking events and the ISTE Standards” (ISTE, 2019, para. 2). IMS Global Learning Consortium: The IMS Global Learning Consortium’s mission is to advance technology that can affordably scale and improve educational participation and attainment. To ensure that the ‘Learning Impact’ of technology-enabled innovation is achieved around the world, IMS’s influential community of educational institutions, suppliers, and government organizations develops open interoperability standards, supports adoption with technical services, and encourages adoption through programs that highlight effective practices. (IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2019, para. 1)

The IMS Global Learning Consortium recently announced a collaboration with CaseNetwork: “CaseNetwork’s mission is to create a global standard for education and training of healthcare professionals by providing the most advanced and innovative framework for conveying content, measuring skills, and improving proficiencies” (CaseNetwork, n.d., para. 1).

Adult Education Organizations Council for Adult and Experiential Learning: Under its vision to support meaningful learning, credentials, and work for all adults, the Council for

250

sustaining the innovation

Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) “pursues work at all levels within the public and private sectors to enhance learning opportunities for adults around the world” (CAEL, 2019, para. 1). It offers members professional development opportunities, including conferences and journal discounts. Association for Talent Development: According to its website, the Association for Talent Development (ATD) is “a professional membership organization supporting those who develop the knowledge and skills of employees in organizations around the world. The organization was previously known as ASTD” (ATD, 2019, para. 8). This group focuses more on corporate and government learning and has conferences and other professional development programs that focus on online and blended delivery. American Association for Adult and Continuing Education: The mission of AAACE [American Association for Adult and Continuing Education] is to provide leadership for the field of adult and continuing education by expanding opportunities for adult growth and development; unifying adult educators; fostering the development and dissemination of theory, research, information, and best practices; promoting identity and standards for the profession; and advocating relevant public policy and social change initiatives. (AAACE, n.d., para. 1)

International Organizations International Council for Open and Distance Education: “The International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) is the leading, global membership organization that works towards bringing accessible, quality education to all through online, open and distance learning” (ICDE, 2019, para. 1). It offers a biennial World Conference, as well as networking opportunities for members to work on projects together. ICDE maintains an excellent directory of open and distance education associations from around the world on the website. Inter-American Distance Education Consortium: Located on Nova Southeastern University’s campus, Inter-American Distance Education Consortium (CREAD) is committed to creating strong partnerships that use local potential for the development of each country, improving the standard of living and quality of life through educational opportunities, fostering a better understanding of different cultures and identities, and enhancing cooperation between countries through shared action. (CREAD, n.d., para. 1)

European Distance and E-Learning Network: The European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN) “exists to share knowledge and improve

leading beyond the organization

251

understanding among professionals in distance and e-learning and to promote policy and practice across the whole of Europe and beyond” (EDEN, 2019, para. 1). A research conference is offered regularly. European Association for Distance Learning: The European Association for Distance Learning (EADL) represents “all privately-owned and nongovernmental European organisations offering high quality and educationally sound distance learning. EADL aims to improve the quality and acceptance of distance learning to ensure the maximum benefit for students. EADL provides its members with a forum for open discussion of all issues related to distance learning and for sharing ideas and good practice” (EADL, n.d., para. 1).

Foundation Organized Groups Foundations often convene groups of grantees to work on problems and challenges to improve education at scale. The following list includes some of the most recent efforts in the eLearning area. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation supports work to accelerate efforts already underway in higher education and to spark new thinking. We support the enormous talent, creativity, and energy of faculty, administrators, policymakers, and other higher education leaders who are working to improve student access and completion rates, and lower costs, while raising the quality of the U.S. postsecondary education system. (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2019, para. 1)

Gates has organized convenings on adaptive learning, personalized learning, learning technology tools, and faculty engagement in eLearning. The Kresge Foundation: The Kresge Foundation’s Education Program focuses on “increasing postsecondary attainment while eliminating gaps for low-income students and students of color in the United States and South Africa” (The Kresge Foundation, 2019, para. 1). Lumina Foundation: The Lumina Foundation provides grants to higher education institutions through its Goal 2025 Program, which seeks to “increase the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees, certificates, and other credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025” (Lumina Foundation, n.d., para. 1). Lumina has organized convenings on prior learning assessment and competency-based learning. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation “assists colleges, universities, and other institutions in training scholars; improving the educational attainment of historically underrepresented

252

sustaining the innovation

groups; diversifying the next generation of college and university faculty; and producing scholarship in the humanities that contributes to culture and society” (The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 2019, para. 1). Walmart Foundation: The Walmart Foundation supports educational opportunities for U.S. veterans by seeking “to help veterans and military families successfully transition from active duty to civilian life, supporting programs that strengthen the systems they need for reintegration” (Walmart, 2019, para. 1).

Faculty Research Organizations Adult Education Research Conference: The Adult Education Research Conference (AERC) “is an annual North American conference that provides a forum for adult education researchers to share their experiences and the results of their studies with students, other researchers, and practitioners from around the world” (AERC, 2019, para. 1). Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood: The Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood (SSEA) “is an international, multidisciplinary organization focused on theoretical, empirical, and policy research issues related to emerging adults, ages 18 to 29” (SSEA, 2014, para. 1). It hosts a biannual international conference and offers members access to a database of publications on the topic and a venue for networking.

Product User Groups Blackboard: Blackboard offers “a place for Blackboard users to connect and collaborate” (Blackboard Community, n.d., para. 1). Blackboard users come together to form connections that help them become more successful by learning from their peers or like institutions that have tackled similar problems. Moodle: With a common interest in Moodle, users can sponsor conferences or community groups and post them at MoodleMoots. “MoodleMoot conferences are held around the world, with a focus on encouraging collaboration and sharing of best practices of the open source learning platform” (Moodle, 2017, para. 1).

Open Education Associations Creative Commons: The vision of Creative Commons is to realize the full potential of the internet: universal access to research and education and full participation in culture “to drive a new era of development, growth, and productivity” (Creative Commons, n.d., para. 1).

leading beyond the organization

253

Lumen Learning: Lumen Learning provides affordable course materials designed to strengthen learning using open educational resources (OER). Because learning is about student success as well as affordability and access, we apply learning science insights and learning data analysis to develop iterative improvements to our course materials and learning tools. Lumen’s OER course materials are engineered to improve subject mastery, course completion and retention. (Lumen Learning, 2017, para. 1)

Open Educational Resources universitas: The Open Educational Resources universitas (OERu) is a virtual collaboration of like-minded institutions committed to creating flexible pathways for OER learners to gain formal academic credit. The OER university aims to provide free learning to all students worldwide using OER learning materials with pathways to gain credible qualifications from recognized education institutions. It is rooted in a community service and outreach mission to develop a parallel learning universe to augment and add value to traditional delivery systems in postsecondary education. Through the community service mission of participating institutions, pathways are available for OER learners to earn formal academic credit and pay reduced fees for assessment and credit. (OERu, 2015, para. 1)

Open Education Consortium: “The Open Education Consortium (OEC) is a non-profit, global, members-based network of open education institutions and organizations. OEC represents its members and provides advocacy and leadership around advancement of open education globally” (OEC, n.d., para. 1). WikiEducator: WikiEducator is an evolving community intended for the collaborative planning of education projects linked with the development of free content, development of free content on WikiEducator for e-learning, work on building open education resources (OERs) on how to create OERs, and networking on funding proposals developed as free content. (WikiEducator, 2018, para. 1)

Conclusion As we discussed at the beginning of this chapter, personal, professional, and institutional benefits result from networking and external service. Online

254

sustaining the innovation

learning will continue to be a rapidly changing field that requires those responsible for the success of these efforts at their institution to be aware of the changes, best practices, market, and current research. Consequently, engaging outside of the institution should not be viewed as optional by the online leader. Instead, we feel that external engagement is an essential role online leaders should embrace and something they should encourage at their institution. In addition, leaders should support the efforts of those who report to them.

References Adult Education Research Conference. (2019). Adult education research conference. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/ American Association for Adult and Continuing Education. (n.d.). Home. https: //www.aaace.org/ American Association of Community Colleges. (n.d.). Commissions. https://www .aacc.nche.edu/about-us/commissions/commission-charges/#success The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. (2019). Our core programs: Higher education and scholarship in the humanities. https://mellon.org/ Association for Talent Development. (2019). Home. https://www.td.org/ Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2019). Areas of focus. https://postsecondary .gatesfoundation.org/areas-of-focus/ Blackboard Community. (n.d.). Welcome to the community. https://community .blackboard.com/ CaseNetwork. (n.d.). Our social mission. http://casenetwork.com/about/our-mission/ Competency-Based Education Network. (n.d.). About. www.cbenetwork.org/ Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. (2019). About us. https://www.cael .org/about/us Creative Commons. (n.d.). What we do: What is Creative Commons? https:// creativecommons.org/about/ EDUCAUSE. (n.d.-a). About EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/about EDUCAUSE. (n.d.-b). Home. https://www.educause.edu European Association for Distance Learning. (n.d.). Vision and mission. http://www .eadl.org/vision-and-mission/ European Distance and E-Learning Network. (2019). What is EDEN? http://www .eden-online.org/about-us/ IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2019). About the IMS Global Learning Consortium. https://www.imsglobal.org/aboutims.html Inter-American Distance Education Consortium. (n.d.). About. http://www.cread.org/ International Council for Open and Distance Education. (2019). Who we are. https://www.icde.org/ International Society for Technology in Education. (2019). Be bold with us. https:// www.iste.org/about/about-iste The Kresge Foundation. (2019). Education. https://kresge.org/programs/education

leading beyond the organization

255

Lumen Learning. (2017). Mission. https://lumenlearning.com/about/mission/ Lumina Foundation. (n.d.). Lumina’s goal. https://www.luminafoundation.org/ lumina-goal Moodle. (2017). What is a MoodleMoot? https://support.moodle.com/hc/en-us/ articles/115003736691-What-is-a-MoodleMootNational Council for Online Education. (2019). National Council for Online Education. https://upcea.edu/the-national-council-for-online-education/ National University Technology Network. (n.d.). Welcome NUTN members! https:// wcet.wiche.edu/NUTN Online Learning Consortium. (2019). Learn anytime, anywhere. www.onlinelearn ingconsortium.org Open Education Consortium. (n.d.). About the Open Education Consortium. https:// www.oeconsortium.org/about-oec/ Open Educational Resources universitas. (2015). OERu (open planning pages). https://wikieducator.org/OER_university Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood. (2014). About SSEA. http://www.ssea .org/about/index.htm United States Distance Learning Association. (2019). History. https://usdla.org/ about/history/ University Professional and Continuing Education Association. (2019). Leaders in professional, continuing, and online education. www.upcea.edu Walmart. (2019). Strengthening community: Veterans and military families. https:// walmart.org/what-we-do/strengthening-communities/supporting-veterans-andmilitary-families WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies. (n.d.). Home. http://wcet .wiche.edu WikiEducator. (2018). Welcome to WikiEducator. http://wikieducator.org/Main_ Page

14 P R E PA R I N G T O L E A D THE eLEARNING T R A N S F O R M AT I O N Kathleen S. Ives, Devon A. Cancilla, and Lawrence C. Ragan

T

his chapter explores the many facets of eLearning leadership within the context of a successful professional development program for emerging leaders in education. The primary program presented, the Institute for Emerging Leadership in Online Learning (IELOL), was a collaborative effort between the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) and the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) to support and strengthen the skills of those entering the quickly changing field of eLearning. eLearning leaders in higher education have increasingly broad responsibilities and expectations as both business leaders and academic leaders. This chapter provides a historical perspective of eLearning leadership based on the experiences from the IELOL program and also explores leadership strategies and competencies that will serve eLearning leaders in the future.

Introduction to Leadership in eLearning The worldwide growth of eLearning has created significant opportunities globally, presenting a broad spectrum of education institutions with the opportunity to revisit the operating parameters of the design, development, and delivery of their academic programs. The effect of this game-changing opportunity has been dramatic speed of adoption and penetration as eLearning progresses into the third decade of its integration into every fabric of education. The ramifications of this integration are not completely understood, but reversing the trend appears not to be an option. The pedagogical, 256

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

257

structural, cultural, financial, and accessibility benefits far outweigh the resistance of maintaining the status quo of current technology-deficient education models. This growth and continued evolution of eLearning in multiple variations has led to the need for leadership that can survive and thrive in a rapidly shifting landscape of social, pedagogical, technological, administrative, and financial changes. These leaders need business savvy, academic awareness, and financial acuity, as well as change management skills and competencies. Many of these future leaders are currently positioned within their institutions in introductory or midlevel management roles. Others may be positioned in senior leadership roles already but without the history and background of the digital education movement necessary to navigate the emerging landscape.

Three Distinct Generational Phases The first generation of leadership in eLearning (beginning in the 1990s) was leading from the outside. While some came from within the distance education community of earlier technologies as detailed in chapter 1 (television, correspondence courses, computer-based learning), others came from academic units or other parts of the institution. First-generation leaders did not have a tradition or a community guiding them to find their way in a swiftly evolving technological environment. Institutions demanded that leaders drive experimentation, innovation, research, and development in an unproven domain. Institutions exploring eLearning were not experienced or well prepared to respond to the impact of this new teaching and learning modality. The second generation of leaders faced the challenge of further integrating the systems, processes, and operations necessary for a successful eLearning program into the mainstream of the institution. As eLearning moved from an experiment on the fringe to an increasingly accepted methodology, second-generation leaders needed to address how to change legacy models to accommodate the new needs required to serve learners in a digital learning environment, near to and far from the institution. Although resistance was still prevalent, the conversation shifted from the question of “Can it really work?” to “How do we make it work at our institution?” The third and future generations of leadership, who are rising now in their institutions, will face the challenge of driving and stimulating innovation and creativity while maintaining the financial viability of the eLearning program. Increasingly accelerated technological change compounds online learning’s evolution. Tom Friedman (2017) noted that society has entered a world of dizzying acceleration. One of the key tenets in his book

258

sustaining the innovation

Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations focused on technology changing at a much greater speed than social organizations. This phenomenon places staggering pressure on the new generation of leadership to not only respond to innovative technologies but also build a mainstream institutional environment open to both technological and organizational change, enabling the institution’s stakeholders to keep pace. Leadership pathways within these distinct phases have proved to be diverse. Much like the future leaders currently positioned in their institutions in introductory or midmanagement roles, many of the pioneering leaders in eLearning higher education came to the field through various career paths, disciplines, and experiences. The first cohort of leaders included librarians, faculty and instructors, technologists, instructional designers, researchers, and administrators who recognized the potential of eLearning and forwarded the idea that technologically delivered instruction had a place in the ecosystem of education. They served as change agents, either by personality, position, or a compulsion to embrace the opportunities available in order to capitalize on the affordances being presented by the emerging trends in education. The challenges facing today’s leaders include navigating increasingly complex networks, data security issues, a plethora of technology-enabled devices, advances in cognitive science, data-driven decision-making, and changing financial and political pressures. As the speed of technology and social change increases, so does the need for skills in agile decision-making, strategy development, driving innovation, and responding to the needs of changing demographics. Leaders must focus on new areas of innovation, while not negatively affecting the financial return on the institutional investment in their eLearning operations.

Impact of Demographic Shifts Many first-generation leaders are now near retirement or called to broader leadership roles within their institutions. To ensure effective succession planning, institutions must actively and intentionally identify and prepare the subsequent generation of leaders. Several leadership development programs have been created to address this gap in the eLearning domain. For example, MarylandOnline has delivered multiple offerings of the MarylandOnline Leadership Institute (MOLLI). The primary goal of this institute is to identify and develop the leadership capability of a wide array of future leaders within the state of Maryland. Another program of note is the Leadership Roundtable sponsored by the University Professional and Continuing

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

259

Education Association (UPCEA). This professional development program seeks to advance the knowledge and skills of eLearning leaders in a variety of topics affecting the field. In the realm of international eLearning professional development initiatives, multiple organizations in Latin America have partnered to sponsor the International Diploma of Leadership Training in Distance Education. The National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)—through the Coordination of Open University and Distance Education (CUAED), the Technical University of Loja (UTPL) of Ecuador, the Consortium-Network of Distance Education (CREAD), and the Latin American and Caribbean Institute of Quality in Distance Higher Education (CALED)—offered its inaugural program in Mexico City in 2018. For the purposes of this chapter, the contributors focus on the IELOL, a partnership program that began in 2009 between OLC and Penn State in the United States. IELOL was launched to prepare the next generation of change agents and leaders to succeed within the context of today’s education ecosystem. To date, 11 institute sessions have been offered serving more than 400 higher education professionals.

Implications for Leadership Succession Planning The implications for leadership succession planning prove to be compelling in this rapidly changing environment. As educational technology and the profile of higher education students inevitably evolve, those individuals leading in academic institutions need to evolve as well. The numbers indicate that it is a question not of whether online and blended learning will continue to develop but of at what pace these practices will continue to unfold.

Implications for Online Leadership While the field of distance education has evolved from the 1800s to the present, today’s academic online leader operates in an infrastructure largely possessing vestiges of its origins. From the beginning of distance education in the United States, the academic leadership structure in higher education included a president and a board of control and a governing structure taken from the European postsecondary model (Brubacher & Rudy, 2005; Rudolph, 1990). As the American university moved into the 21st century, a number of issues—including the complex dynamics of institutional tasks and functions, a shift in student demographics, the increasing need for entrepreneurial behavior, the influx of technological innovations, and upsurges in external interest group involvements—considerably taxed existing organizational

260

sustaining the innovation

structures and processes. The exponential growth in the demand for continuing education, the establishment of online learning programs by increasing numbers of colleges and universities, and an uncertain regulatory climate further challenge existing organizational structures.

A Paradigm Disrupted As a result, the traditional postsecondary leadership paradigm has been significantly disrupted. Leadership in higher education has been forced to reexamine itself as institutions transition from singular to multiple instructional delivery modalities. For example, in numerous institutions, online learning programs operate alongside traditional programs. The leadership requirements of the two areas differ in many aspects, creating operational dissonance (Nworie, 2012). Leaders in online learning manage an emergent field that relies heavily on digital technologies, a geographically dispersed student population consisting of both traditional students and adult learners, and instruction delivered either synchronously or asynchronously (Nworie, 2012). In addition, students in online programs tend to be diverse and are often learning in different cultural and pedagogical environments than their traditional counterparts (Nworie, 2012). Unfortunately, online higher education leaders must lead in this everchanging environment and yet adhere, when challenged, to the old paradigm of bureaucratic leadership (Nworie, 2012). As a result, nurturing and developing online leadership talent throughout postsecondary institutions has become a strategic imperative. Most institutions never assess their own leadership supply and demand. Those few institutions who critically assess their internal leadership pool tend to misjudge the potentially damaging impact of unexceptional leadership (Hill, 2005). Organizational transformation is not only a necessity but also proves vital in the recruitment, training, and development of individuals embarking on a leadership path within the institution. The rapidly changing nature of higher education requires an intentionality of leadership planning for future growth and success.

Challenges Facing Online Leadership Online learning emerged as a disruptive force in higher education in the mid-1990s. Although online learning was marginalized in the beginning, eventually every aspect of higher education has been affected by the infusion of asynchronous and/or synchronous learning modalities. Three decades later, all higher education institutions must address the nature and role of online learning as a dimension of the mission and vision of the organization, as exemplified by the 70.8% of academic leaders who stated that online

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

261

learning is critical to their institution’s long-term strategy (Allen & Seaman, 2015). Certainly, the field is beyond the need for proof of concept. Online learning is no longer an emergent trend in learning but an invaluable way to serve millions of learners and has been accepted as a potential revenue center for many institutions. Although not implemented in a consistent and standard manner, institutions of all sizes, shapes, and missions have reconciled their present and future state in the context of a technology-based learning system. As online learning has evolved and expanded over the past decade, it is expected that the leadership skills and competencies required to advance online learning over the next 20 years will differ from those in the first 20 years and therefore will require the third and fourth generations of online leaders to have a unique set of knowledge, skills, and abilities to keep pace with this societal force. Online learning has put pressure on leadership at multiple levels, from institutional governance bodies, technological infrastructures, faculty support systems, and accounting practices to new pedagogical practices, instructional design models, marketing, and student services. Leadership in this environment requires knowledge of a variety of facets of the institution, as it is often the expectation of senior administrators that leaders in technology-driven roles are all-knowing and are able to interface with everyone from accounting to faculty to external vendors. Like many of the first generation of online leaders, today’s leader thrives on the challenging nature of the work; however, there is an increasing amount of pressure due to the rapid change within the field and the increasing expectations to manage this change both departmentally and institutionally. At many institutions, these leaders now sit at the table with chief administrators, playing a crucial role in decisions ranging through the student life cycle, from prospective student marketing through to graduation. The evolution of this role calls for continued and timely development of current and future leaders in the field. Most research strongly supports that leadership in postsecondary distance education is different from traditional postsecondary education leadership. As far back as 2001, Care and Scanlan noted, “There is a general lack of understanding regarding the experiences of administrators, faculty, and staff from other departments in the development of distance education courses” (p. 2). The call for agile leaders due to the quickly changing shifts in the field of online learning was fairly alien in the traditional academy and, some argue, still proves equally alien today. While there is still a need for checks and balances throughout the university’s decision-making bodies, decision-making often spans multiple areas including, but not exclusive to, marketing, website design, student services,

262

sustaining the innovation

digital and library services, assessment and institutional effectiveness, finance, and academic affairs. Navigating interdepartmental politics and gently educating or guiding different constituents while driving innovation requires a change agent who is armed with the skills to persist and is passionate and knowledgeable about the field of online education.

Crafting a Professional Online Leadership Development Program: The Evolution of IELOL Effective administration of online learning programs requires strong leadership skills. Unfortunately, in the burgeoning field of online education, the requisite leadership skills did not always come naturally. Developing and cultivating these skills was essential for institutions to thrive, yet no formal professional development programs existed. Two entities stepped in to address that void, leading to the inception of IELOL.

Recognition of Need As the online learning landscape continued to evolve, the demand for skillful leaders was outpacing supply. OLC, then called Sloan-C, and Penn State recognized the need and through a partnership created IELOL. The partnership beween OLC and Penn State to create the IELOL was instituted at a pivotal time for online education. There was a recognized need to begin succession planning, as many of the first generation of online leaders would be retiring or continuing their career trajectory into broader leadership roles. These senior leaders were still passionate about the field of online learning. Leadership development became imperative for those who would assume their roles. In addition, the online learning landscape was evolving at a rapid rate, and the IELOL would be poised to play a pivotal role in providing the new generation of leaders with the leadership skills necessary to navigate the ever-changing landscape.

Audience and Faculty Selection Of all the issues that needed to be addressed to structure a professional development program, the most critical, and perhaps elusive, were these: identifying the characteristics of the ideal candidate and designing a program that addressed their professional development needs. At the time, the existing leaders in online learning represented a wide range of titles and backgrounds. As an emerging field of practice, there did not exist a formal or even an informal path for professionals to assume leadership roles in advancing online learning. Early leaders who provided direction, guidance, and vision

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

263

for online learning came from varied backgrounds such as continuing and extension education and media services, and faculty came from areas such as education, science and technology, and educational leadership. As technologists, engineers, instructional designers, and educators, they were all change agents oriented toward a common goal: considering where and how online learning fit into the educational landscape at all levels. In forming IELOL, the first generation of online leaders quickly realized that the early participants in IELOL would reflect a medley not unlike their own in that they possessed similarly eclectic academic and workplace experiences. Just as online learning afforded access to education with few barriers, Penn State and OLC agreed that access would be provided to emerging online leaders who were nominated by their institutions. Ideal candidates would be individuals, regardless of background or title, with current potential leadership responsibilities for leading the online learning initiative at their respective institution. These candidates may have had little or no actual leadership experience and may have been from institutions that hosted active online learning programs or were interested in exploring the option of creating online programming. It was also agreed that the institute would host participants regardless of their affiliate institution’s profit or nonprofit status, location, or affiliations. IELOL faculty were recruited from Sloan-C membership institutions and brought depth and breadth to the topic areas, as well as representation of multiple institutional models of online learning. The faculty were recruited primarily through reputation and personal networks, with attention to varying backgrounds such as institutional type, subject expertise, and leadership in the field. The first several years of IELOL revolved around the Sloan-C Five Pillars of Quality Online Education: learning/instructional effectiveness, access, scale (capacity enrollment achieved through cost-effectiveness and institutional commitment), faculty satisfaction, and student satisfaction. Faculty were selected to address those five dimensions of quality online programs. Subsequently, the faculty included international representatives who brought experience from a different context.

Program Design The initial offering of IELOL consisted of three components offered over a 3-month time period. The goal of this design was to use a 4-day, face-to-face immersion experience to create community and expand the participants’ network and to approach an in-depth study of the leadership issues around the Sloan-C five pillars. Following the immersion experience, the second component, a 3-week online experience, offered the opportunity for participants to

264

sustaining the innovation

define a project based on their institutional needs and use the IELOL faculty and other IELOL participants for input and guidance. The third and final component was a half-day workshop preconference session at the annual Sloan-C conference. This preconference session reunited the IELOL program participants and faculty and provided an opportunity to share results and updates from the project component of the program. After the initial offering in 2009, subsequent offerings of IELOL expanded to a 4-month time frame through the inclusion of a 3-week online primer prior to the immersion experience. This addition enabled the participants to become familiar with the course content, gather necessary institutional information for use during the immersion program, and become acquainted with the other participants.

Ten Years Later A decade later, the IELOL maintains a preimmersion, immersion, and postimmersion framework, as well as an optional master class at the annual OLC Accelerate Conference. Resources and activities for each phase of the program are provided within the learning management system. Faculty, who are knowledgeable digital leaders, are recruited for their breadth of experience and to support the learning objectives of the program. Each faculty member is assigned as a mentor to participants based on pre-IELOL surveys of interest. To encourage networking among participants, multiple opportunities for both synchronous and asynchronous meetings were developed. These include the use of web-conferencing tools and facilitated networking sessions for the online environment. An active IELOL Facebook page allows alumni from each year to continue to engage with the broader alumni community after completion of the IELOL program.

The Dynamic Needs of Online Learning Leadership The needs of the pioneer leaders of online learning, or the first and second generations of leaders, and those of individuals entering the field in the current climate, the third and fourth generations of leaders, are significantly different because of the speed at which online learning is advancing. Therefore, the current generations of emerging leaders require the consideration of a set of competencies that is different and broader than that of their predecessors. For example, in today’s climate, most higher education institutions are drafting strategic plans that include goals that speak to where and how online learning fits the institutional mission and vision. In the mid-1990s, these statements did not exist in most institutional strategic plans. Instead,

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

265

the discussions revolved around the relevancy and effectiveness of online learning. Early leaders in the field also championed change management as a leadership trait; this required new skills and understandings and the ability to read cultural and political landscapes within and beyond their institutions. Likewise, today’s leaders require change management competencies but do so in a more integrated and structured administrative setting. Today, leaders are required to possess significantly greater business acumen and vendor relationship management than their counterparts of 20 years ago. Many of today’s online leaders are now seated at the table with their institutional leader counterparts and therefore must have high-level knowledge in a multitude of areas. As the field has changed, so have the professional development needs of the emerging leaders. The IELOL provides a unique lens on the leadership skill requirements in a rapidly and still evolving field. By exploring the changing characteristics of the early applicants and the evolution of the program, the nature of the field itself can be traced and recorded. In addition, the future direction and trajectory of online learning and its impact on higher education is now strategically considered and prepared for, a benefit that wasn’t afforded 20 years ago to the pioneer leaders of online learning.

Initial Professional Development Needs In innumerable ways, the participants in the first several years of IELOL represented the nature of the field at that time. Many were from institutions with either no defined online learning initiative or little direction or vision for the role online learning might eventually serve within the institution. These individuals also represented a broad range of job titles, educational backgrounds, and experience in online learning. This array of backgrounds was representative of the state of the field. Many institutions were grappling with where and how to accommodate online learning in the institutional mission. Organizationally, many institutions approached online learning as an alternative delivery system with questionable potential for return rather than a strategic, mission-driven imperative for the future of the institution. Many of the participants in the first several years of IELOL expressed feelings reflective of the state of online learning within higher education. Without a defined role and often with confusing and conflicting expectations and a lack of clear objectives, individuals felt isolated, without a sense of direction, and yet they were expected to produce outcomes and, in many cases, revenue for the institution. The program design, content, structure

266

sustaining the innovation

around the Five Pillars of Quality, and format of IELOL addressed the needs of these emerging leaders in an evolving field of practice, as well as a community for those faced with similar ambiguities in their roles at varying institutions. This structure served several purposes, including familiarizing the participants with a specific taxonomy and common nomenclature of the field, as well as a framework for addressing the range of issues that needed to be considered at their home institutions. In addition, the early research and data presented in the program could be used to support and validate institutional decisions and actions surrounding online learning.

Evolving Professional Development Needs Over the years, as online learning became recognized as a new teaching and learning modality, the original Sloan-C five-pillar structure no longer served the needs of the program participants. The field had become more complex and advanced, requiring a more responsive and fluid program design that would serve the applicants to IELOL who brought to the program more experience in the field and a deeper grasp of the research, trends, and issues of online learning. These individuals came with more specific goals, mission statements, and institutional vision reflecting the role and potential of online learning as an integral and necessary component of the future of their higher education institutions. As these institutions moved to adjust to the emerging reality of online learning, the need for a prepared, competent, and informed leadership able to guide the process became even more apparent. Within IELOL, these dynamics were also becoming evident as the individuals applying to the program described more nuanced and articulate professional development needs aligned with their institutional goals. In many ways, the needs of the participants in IELOL shifted from learning about the field to needing to manage and lead institutional change. Online learning was putting increasing pressure on many institutions to adjust traditional organizational models to more complex, matrixed, and integrated systems of operation. Lines of organizational demarcation that previously served the institution well were no longer effective in a rapid, fluid, and dynamic field of technology-based online education. IELOL was also challenged to adjust as a result of these new realities. The original five pillars of Sloan-C would not suffice to address issues such as managing institutional change; managing rapid prototyping; using data analytics; understanding global competition; and handling the ubiquitous challenges of maintaining quality, scale, and access. Constructing a flexible content scaffold and ensuring the engagement of qualified IELOL faculty

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

267

has positioned the program to modify and adjust to the changing practice of online learning and the changing needs of emerging leaders in the field, as well as prepare for future leadership needs for online learning.

The Dynamics of Leadership Development Serving as a leader and change agent within a rapidly evolving field requires agility, self-awareness, flexibility, and steadfastness. These requirements stress and challenge every leader. The most effective professional development program needs to reflect these challenges and accommodate through program adjustments in order to maintain relevance and impact. IELOL has attempted to maintain a dynamic approach throughout the annual offerings. Each year improvements have reflected new developments, experiences, and research in the field of online learning. Of particular importance to the relevancy of the program, the content, faculty, and activities have been adjusted to reflect the changes in the participants’ background and experiences. With a growing number of IELOL alumni, new needs are emerging that present an opportunity for a next-level professional development program. One response to this need is the design and delivery of the IELOL Master Class, the culminating component of the IELOL program. In the IELOL Master Class, offered as a single-day preconference workshop at OLC’s annual International Online Learning Conference, current-year participants and IELOL alumni are encouraged to explore topical challenges, network, and strategize solutions considering the appropriate leadership response. This component not only allows for culmination of the prior 4 months’ work but also provides a space for networking among all generations of leaders in the field.

Identifying the Unique Needs of the Emerging Online Leader As noted by Spendlove (2007) regarding the needs of leaders in higher education, the necessary skills and competencies to succeed are increasingly more similar to a business setting than the traditional academy. In addition to business acumen and expertise with complex team management, those leaders with online learning responsibilities require several additional abilities. This list includes, but would not be limited to, the ability to negotiate with internal political powers and external vendors and to lead in areas such as change management, public relations, data analytics, and institutional awareness of technology capabilities and trends. The distributed management structure for the online education enterprise requires an increased need for flexibility and creativity and a willingness

268

sustaining the innovation

to perform toward a common institutional goal. More often than not, this structure requires a high-performing team skilled in shared governance and the politics of higher education. Individuals aspiring to leadership roles in online education, regardless of the size, mission, or status of the institution, need to engage in a continual process of professional development, including higher education administration and change management.

Competency Domains for Leadership Professional Development The competency domains for online leadership professional development prove different from those required by academic leaders in the past. Shifting demographics, new technologies, often unpredictable shifts in funding sources, and declining financial support have significantly affected the academic community. Colleges and universities are facing immense challenges with no clear-cut solutions. This means possessing more in-depth knowledge and skills pertaining to a wide range of business practices in addition to administrative experience. The following discussion illustrates the hard and soft skill sets needed by online leaders to lead their institutional programs.

Strategic Vision and Commitment to Institutional Integrity Leadership at any level requires a combination of developing and championing a vision and honoring the institutional mission and values. The leader’s passion and drive will have effect only to the level of their personal integrity and commitment to the highest standards of quality. Communication skills that articulate the reason for striving toward a vision create meaning for others to engage and support. Online learning leadership in higher education requires a delicate balance between honoring and respecting the traditional values and history of the institution and articulating a vision of forward progress and change in order to maintain relevance and viability. Unit- or department-level mission and vision must be crafted as nuanced reflections of the larger institutional purpose.

Digital Leadership Digital leadership encompasses the set of skills necessary to create and support an institutional culture that effectively integrates technology to meet the current and future goals of the institution. Digital leadership is not solely about online education or about technology. Digital leadership is the art of

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

269

embracing change at all levels of an institution in ways that encourage innovation through the use of technology.

Budget Management Budget models vary from institution to institution and sometimes between individual units within an institution. Budget models may be centralized, decentralized, or hybrid with varying levels of oversight and authority. Understanding and participating in the budgeting process provides insights into the motivation behind an institution’s digital strategy. For example, falling campus-based enrollments and associated revenue may be the primary motivation to move online as a reaction to falling revenue. Alternately, a strategic investment of funds based on an understanding of the needs of both students and faculty is a proactive investment to develop and support an evolving digital culture. Examples include student support services and faculty professional development. Understanding the financial motivation behind an institution’s move to online learning helps leaders develop and manage digital strategies that are appropriate for the needs of the institution.

Change Management Change management represents the process by which organizations evolve. Change management involves working within and understanding the institution’s cultural climate while effectively navigating internal and external challenges in ways that catalyze change. A challenge for digital leaders is matching the institution’s capacity for change against the pace of change required to compete in an increasingly competitive digital environment, including course and program development and the effective use of new technologies enhancing the teaching and learning experience. The dynamic nature of the digital environment requires leaders who are adept and willing to continuously change and who create a culture inspired by controlled and directional change rather than a culture of chaotic and uncontrolled response.

Policies and Regulations External factors directly affect a digital leader’s ability to manage an effective digital strategy. For example, accountability measures imposed by a state legislature may dictate the types and frequency of data collection and reporting. At the federal level, the requirement within the Code of Federal Regulations to support regular and substantive interactions directly affects the design

270

sustaining the innovation

of online courses (Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008). Lawsuits brought forward under the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) are catalyzing a greater movement toward universal course design. Evolving policies around alternative or microcredentialing, along with competition from or partnerships with alternative providers, are creating nontraditional avenues for program development and delivery. Awareness of situational, policy, and regulatory factors outside the control of the institution is an essential element of digital leadership in this arena.

Shared Governance Various online learning programs are the result of complex and mutually beneficial partnerships between academic units and the necessary delivery and support services. These partnerships require the leader to be adept at developing and maintaining relationships that address the concerns and wishes of multiple stakeholders, not all of whom share the depth of resources or experience in online learning.

Vendor and Partnership Management Increasingly, effective online learning enterprises consist of both internally operated technology and services and externally managed systems. These external vendor relationships require skills for recognizing and building productive and cost-effective networks and agreements that serve a critical added value to the existing functionality of the academic institution. External relationships also frequently include the services of institutional procurement and legal contract services to ensure adherence to purchasing and contract agreements.

Flexibility and Adaptability Online programs are often formed as amalgamations of a variety of institutional units (e.g., information technology [IT] units and faculty development centers). Some online programs are embedded within academic units, whereas others are within nonacademic units such as continuing education programs. Often there is a continuous mixing and matching of units in various attempts to optimize online delivery. This requires leaders to be flexible and adaptable and to understand the challenges involved in building a campus-wide digital culture.

Tenacity Recognizing the rapidly changing nature of all aspects of the online learning enterprise suggests that leadership is about constantly gaining new

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

271

knowledge, skills, and competencies based on lessons learned from failures and successes. With this wisdom comes a willingness to embrace and champion strategic change necessary for long-term success. Realizing and accepting that institutional politics, shifting mandates, and forces unknown will intervene and attempt to derail or stall the progress toward that goal require a degree of perseverance, persistence, and purpose.

Emerging Trends The technological and pedagogical enhancements affecting the design and delivery of the online learning space are progressing at a pace that would be challenging for any one individual to monitor and assess. For the online learning system to continue to keep pace with emerging trends and affordances of new tools and services, the online learning leader must be able to monitor and assess new and developing trends that may affect the health of the online program. Frequently, this means that leaders use multiple strategies for monitoring, assessing, and adopting and adapting these advancements into the framework of the online learning enterprise. The generation of and access to data made possible through evolving technologies is a significant driver to emerging trends in digital education. Datainformed decisions, unimaginable only a few years ago, continue to expand and are now possible across the digital teaching and learning environment. From learning analytics that measure the effectiveness of teaching strategies, to early interventions that support student success, to the management of enrollments, data are allowing for a more agile approach to the management of an institution’s digital portfolio. Data stewardship and validation are two key areas of responsibility for digital leaders. Data validation is essential both to ensure that it is trusted and to ensure its moral and ethical use, providing confidence for its use in decision-making. Data stewardship ensures the integrity of the decision-making process by defining the standards for collection of data and its dissemination and use. This includes data collected externally by vendors, such as those that provide plug-ins to an institution’s learning management systems. As the trend toward the use of alternative digital providers grows, so too will the need for data-driven metrics associated with evaluating their effectiveness relative to traditional educational providers.

Future Needs of Leaders in Online Learning Because of online education’s accessibility, the future is bright for students seeking a degree. By decreasing costs and eliminating physical barriers, the online modality opens doors of opportunity to individuals who otherwise might not avail themselves of a postsecondary education. Online learning

272

sustaining the innovation

changes the paradigm of a “once in a lifetime” higher education experience to an ongoing quest for new knowledge, enabling individuals to meet their education needs across a lifetime.

Adapting to the Evolving Ecosystem How can higher education leadership adapt or accommodate and adapt to this evolving ecosystem? As highlighted throughout this discussion, emerging learning theory in higher education administration is inexorably connected in this evolving archetype. New developments in learning theory will require higher education to adjust teaching and learning practices throughout the institution. Learning theory and teaching practices are adjusting very quickly, while postsecondary institutions tend to respond more slowly. Leaders considering their position in the emerging landscape need to adopt a mind-set that allows them to see past the way “it has always been done.” Instead, the 21st-century leader should focus on creating an environment that supports potentially disruptive technologies in content creation, access, tools, and formats directly affecting learning.

Avoiding Risk Aversion Postsecondary leaders will have to move away from the more traditional approach of protecting the existing enterprise to one that embraces a future of innovation that may put current institutional, instructional, and financial models at risk. Whereas in the past the typical college president profile included a doctorate in education and previous tenure as chief academic officer (Cook & Kim, 2012), more and more institutions recognize the need for strong managerial, technical, and communication skills fostered in the business environment (Selingo et al., 2017). The “new” postsecondary leader will need to possess an entrepreneurial spirit; a mental model of leading in a learner-centric academic environment; and the ability to lead transformation of institutional, instructional, credentialing, and financing models based on learning requirements of the 21st-century learners.

Ideation The value of an idea is appreciated only by examining its ultimate impact. Some individuals generate a new idea many times a day or at least weekly; others do so less frequently. Although there is great value in the “ideation” exercise alone, the real judgment of the notion is via its implementation and ultimate impact. At times, the challenge is as much what not to pursue as it is the selection of which to carry through to fruition. Regardless of the context, moving an idea through the process from inspiration to impact takes careful

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

273

navigation through decision gates, a willingness to step away if necessary, and a stubbornness to stay with it if it has merit. In the rapidly evolving field of communications technology and social media, new approaches, apps, and ideas seem to be generated at a rate faster than one per minute, certainly faster than any one individual can monitor. This presents a specific challenge to anyone required to not only generate innovative solutions but also track emerging trends and consider their application to a given field. The theory and practice of online learning is no stranger to this phenomenon. With increased global competition for online programming and a plethora of new and emerging technologies, all participants in the field are required to observe, select, decide, and act with lightning speed.

Quality and Measurement Students, financial return on investment, and geographic reach serve as measurable variables in determining the effectiveness of an online higher education program. One variable in particular, that of quality, remains the most elusive goal of all. The elusiveness of this construct is based simply on the variety of definitions, interpretations, and examples used to qualify what quality means. With a wide variety of definitions, quality will never be a single point of consistent measurement. One aspect used to quantify the quality of online learning programs is the application of new and novel technologies and pedagogies that not only improve the learner experience but also help distinguish the program in a crowded field of offerings.

Looking Out and Looking In: The Scholarship of Leaders The ability and skill of managing the generation of ideas, commonly referred to as innovation, to bring the best to market by leaders and faculty engaged in online learning require a constant transition between the strategic, long-view vision and the tactical or application process. Leaders are required to interpret and adapt to rapidly changing inputs and seamlessly move from the strategic to the tactical and back again. This requires digital leaders to make evidence-based and data-informed decisions and to embrace the scholarship of leadership. Indeed, potential digital leaders transitioning from academic origins as teachers and researchers to institutional leadership roles are sometimes hesitant to do so because of the mistaken belief that this would end their scholarly activities. The us-as-faculty versus them-asadministrators dichotomy sets up an artificial barrier to career transitions into leadership roles.

274

sustaining the innovation

An important element often understated in preparing future leaders is the potential to conduct original and evidence-based research into the scholarship of teaching and learning through leadership. Digital leaders have access to an incredibly diverse set of data generated through a wide variety of institutional activities that provide a vast number of opportunities to conduct original research. Examples include the effectiveness of faculty development programs, the success of teaching initiatives, and the effectiveness of student support services. Research-based leadership allows leaders to make more informed and timely decisions both internal and external to the institution. Digital leaders have the capacity to include research elements in the initiatives they lead across an institution. This creates partnership opportunities and the potential to engage a wider population of individuals in the success of the initiative and ultimately the institution.

Career-Long Leadership Professional Development The plethora of offerings in professional development in higher education suggests an ongoing and increasing demand that will not soon abate. These programs address many similar topics from different perspectives using a variety of instructional approaches. The use of case-based studies, team projects, and inspirational speakers is a common practice throughout these programs. As a onetime experience, these programs serve the initial needs of the online learner. Increasingly, however, participants are expressing the need for a career-long engagement to support their professional growth needs. By design or not, these professional development programs are often the start of a community of practice among participants. Relationships are formed and networks are developed that can last the entire professional career for the eLearning leader. To more fully meet the career-long needs of these leaders, organizations and programs may consider organizing and supporting communities of practice that offer a range of services and activities for participants. Maintaining a members-only discussion forum, formalizing mentor relationships, hosting regular programming on emerging trends, and encouraging interinstitutional collaborations to address industry-wide challenges increase the value of the professional development program. These activities also provide ample opportunity for program alumni to demonstrate leadership within their field.

preparing to lead the elearning transformation

275

Conclusion In today’s dynamic postsecondary environment, establishing continuity in leadership at multiple levels is an institutional imperative. One of the keys to success lies in fostering the continual development of individuals with the skills and competencies necessary to guide, direct, and navigate the institution through a rapidly emerging higher education environment. Leadership development of individuals throughout the institution serves to ensure the foundation for future growth and change, helping the institution remain financially healthy while staying true to the history and tradition of the organization. Leadership training programs, such as IELOL, can facilitate the entrée into a promotion, providing a pathway to a higher level administrative position or simply maintaining and expanding the skills necessary to lead from a current position. Succession planning is as essential to higher education as it is to the traditional business sector. Institutions need to actively develop and promote future leaders from within the organization and identify new talent externally in order to maintain a competitive advantage and remain viable. Development and promotion from within the organization also serve to retain talented individuals before they are enticed to move to another institution. Participation in leadership programs allows for the development of a strong network of individuals whose professional relationships extend throughout their careers. Many examples of leadership training programs exist within the higher education community. The authors focused on the postsecondary “emerging leader,” as grooming these individuals provides the organization depth in leadership that enables the organization to respond to the forces of change facing higher education. Moreover, good leaders surround themselves with talented people and are not afraid to bring others along. This practice ensures the longevity of the institution and the institution’s capacity to attract and retain good people, much as the IELOL ensures the longevity of prepared online leaders for institutions. Strategically supporting the career-long professional development needs of the eLearning leader is a critical dimension of professional development programs. Program strategies for addressing these needs may include supporting a community of practice, providing leadership opportunities, establishing and maintaining a network, and offering ongoing education on emerging trends. The growth and development of eLearning leaders cannot be a once-and-done proposition. The rapid change and evolving landscape

276

sustaining the innovation

of higher education must be met by well-prepared leaders able to not only survive but also thrive in order to meet the educational needs of today’s and tomorrow’s learners.

References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/survey-reports/ Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990). Brubacher, J., & Rudy, W. (2005). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities (4th ed.). Transaction. Care, W. D., & Scanlan, J. M. (2001). Planning and managing the development of courses for distance delivery: Results from qualitative study. Online Journal of Distance Learning, 4(2), 1–9. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bbdf/f814cbe314f07f6b31a1191dd0f0dfcd6f34.pdf Cook, B., & Kim, Y. (2012). The American college president. American Council on Education. Friedman, T. L. (2017). Thank you for being late: An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations. Picador. Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078 (2008). Hill, L. (2005, January 1). Leadership development: A strategic imperative for higher education. EDUCAUSE: Forum for the Future of Higher Education, 27–30. https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0506s.pdf Nworie, J. (2012, Winter). Applying leadership theories to distance education leadership. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(5). http://www .westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter154/nworie154.html Rudolph, F. K. (1990). The American college and university: A history (2nd ed.). University of Georgia Press. Selingo, J. J., Chheng, S., & Clark, C. (2017). Pathways to the university presidency: The future of higher education leadership. https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/ en/industry/public-sector/college-presidency-higher-education-leadership.html Spendlove, M. (2007, June 26). Competencies for effective leadership in higher education. International Journal of Education Management, 21(5), 407–417. https:// doi.org/10.1108/09513540710760183

15 EMERGING LEADERSHIP ISSUES Elizabeth Ciabocchi Contributors: Cristi Ford, Mary Niemiec, Russell Poulin, Lawrence C. Ragan, Cynthia Rowland, Raymond Schroeder, Andrew Shean, and Karen Swan

T

his final chapter brings together the voices of a number of colleagues in a virtual roundtable discussion format. The contributors, who are recognized experts within their respective eLearning domains, responded to a series of questions and provided valuable insights, guidance, and well-informed opinions regarding a range of eLearning leadership issues, as well as challenges and opportunities that eLearning leaders are likely to confront now and in the future. In the 5 years since the first edition of Leading the eLearning Transformation of Higher Education was published, what is the most significant change that has occurred in the higher education domain, and how has that change affected eLearning leaders? Raymond Schroeder (RS): These 5 years have been a time of rapid and significant change. On-campus enrollments have declined each of those years, while online enrollments have risen (Camera, 2019; Lederman, 2018). This shift represents a sea change in higher education. It is driven by significant societal forces. Students are demanding more affordable education that better prepares them for the workforce. Employers are demanding that employees come with up-to-date, relevant knowledge and skills. Employers are also demanding a continuous cycle of retooling, upskilling, and updating of their employees. These forces are best served by just-in-time eLearning that can be taken anywhere and anytime. 277

278

sustaining the innovation

University administrators, pressed by a decline in state and federal support of institutions in direct appropriations, as well as research and scholarship programs, have recognized the changes. They have taken actions to move continuing, professional, and eLearning that had once been housed on the periphery of the institution to the center of the university. This shift has resulted in accelerating growth and importance of eLearning within the university. In addition, the advent of Coursera, edX, Udacity, FutureLearn, and other “at-scale” eLearning initiatives have added impetus to the online move. Lawrence C. Ragan (LCR): In many ways, it appears that the forces of tightening financial models, increased pressure on securing enrollments, and global competition brought on by new institutional entries into online programs have always been in play. At this point, the impact of these forces is exacerbated by changing demographics and the speed of the required institutional response. One tension, in particular, that challenges institutions of higher education is maintaining an innovation mind-set while needing to maximize return on the eLearning investment. During the initial phase of eLearning—in particular, online learning— the culture and much of the practice was built around experimentation and a trial-by-fire approach. Few standards and boundaries were established, and creativity and innovation were the norm. This, of course, was due to the simple fact that the seismic shift that occurred in the mid-1990s and early 2000s was unprecedented in higher education. As eLearning has been assimilated into the framework of virtually every aspect of institutional operations, the challenge of stimulating experimentation in the innovative and creative evolution of eLearning will need to be addressed in order to adequately serve the needs of the learner of tomorrow. Karen Swan (KS): The most significant change in higher education, in my opinion, has been the changing role of eLearning itself. Digital technology has moved from the periphery of postsecondary teaching and learning to the center. Online and blended learning are now integral to most institutions’ master plans, as are the use of digital devices and open educational resources (OERs). New and emerging technologies, principle among them learning analytics and competency-based and adaptive learning systems, are likewise playing a major role in enrollment and retention initiatives, and institutional structures are changing accordingly. These changes are driving the creation of new senior leadership positions related to eLearning; indeed, they are creating eLearning leaders. According to Fredericksen (2017), most senior eLearning positions have been created in the past 5 or 6 years, and

emerging leadership issues

279

they are linked to enrollments, retention, student engagement, and instructional innovation. Andrew Shean (AS): For more than the past 5 years, universities that have had success with approaches to online teaching and learning models have provided a strong and viable pedagogical foundation that has represented good practices. During this time, many universities have introduced innovations that have maintained the model’s currency and relevance. Since the early adoption, however, continuing advances in the cognitive sciences and adaptive learning have given us new insights regarding how to create even more effective digital learning environments. These advances, combined with the incessant pace of innovation in digital technologies that facilitate better scaffolding experiences, have created a unique opportunity to reimagine online learning. eLearning leaders have begun to challenge the status quo of online course design to leverage and reimagine the learning experience. Good examples are the Arizona State University “Flipped and Sync” approach and the Austin Community College Math Emporium model. At the National University System, we have adopted the phrase “high tech, high touch” (National University, 2018, para. 4) that is a cornerstone of our approach to innovative delivery models as we seek to reinvent the traditional classroom experience replicated online. The bottom line is that technology is transforming our entire economy and society—the past 5 years have represented notable growth and evolution in the online learning space. In the next 5 years, however, we are likely to see more seismic shifts. Cynthia Rowland (CR): While accessibility issues certainly existed 5 years ago (in fact the first World Wide Web Consortium [W3C] standards were released in 1996), the higher education community was slow to take needed action. Perhaps it was considered a one-and-done issue versus an ongoing issue? Perhaps it was considered a technological problem that would be solved by technology personnel, rather than a system-level issue that must be addressed by all content creators (nearly all faculty and staff ) and central institutional processes like procurement, human resources, offices of diversity, and sponsored programs? Or perhaps it was considered the role of disability services, thus shielding the rest of the enterprise? No matter the reason, within the past 5 years, awareness of central solutions for accessibility has blossomed. Cristi Ford (CF): The revolutions that I have witnessed in higher education have focused on the use of big data and the ways we are now looking

280

sustaining the innovation

to measure learning. For decades, we have used notions of learning based on high-level metrics; however, with machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), and greater institutional focus on analytics, the game is drastically different. We are starting to determine new ways—as a field—to put accountability in place and to actually start measuring learning in more meaningful ways. This has been an evolving strategic agenda in the past 5 years, and it will continue to elevate the types of learning experiences we provide to students. We are witnessing a growing demand for and emphasis on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in society as a whole. What are the implications of these social movements for eLearning leaders in higher education? CF: We addressed this in chapter 4, but I will reiterate components of it here. I think it is a call to action for the eLearning sector. We have worked so hard to demonstrate the validity of eLearning as a viable modality for the field of education. Collectively, the field has advanced the scholarship to demonstrate that just because eLearning was different did not mean it was not of the same quality as face-to-face learning. Now, we have numerous years of research to solidify this point. We must take this same action as we think about inclusivity with respect to eLearning leaders. We must be intentional in the ways we think about inclusive practices, standards, and opportunities for marginalized groups of leaders and redefine our opportunities to address and debunk ill-defined assumptions that limit the inclusion of nonmajority leaders. It is important to find actionable ways to value the contributions of diverse leaders that will inform best practices to serve 21stcentury learners. Mary Niemiec (MN): I’ve often heard speakers state that eLearning is the great equalizer, and I agree that it can be. We have the opportunity and technology to create access for place-bound learners through programs offered fully online in flexible formats. We can serve students who do not have the means to leave a position or stop taking care of family members. We can design courses that go beyond basic accessibility standards. We can create programs that address academic deficits and create pathways toward relevant credentials. We can be student centric in our offerings, our support systems, and recruitment; however, that does not happen without deliberate intention and strategic effort. eLearning leaders must integrate the goals of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility into all aspects of goal setting, resource planning, and outcome measurements.

emerging leadership issues

281

CR: While accessibility is an issue for some learners, some employees, and some community members with disabilities, the national focus on civil rights complaints and litigation in higher education may have put this topic into view for many. This is not isolated but rather a nationwide topic of action. While not specific to higher education, federal accessibility complaints under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) have grown tremendously. Accessibility was identified as a key issue in teaching and learning in one of the 2019 EDUCAUSE surveys, and it is a topic that is being addressed by regional accreditation commissions too. The implications in eLearning could not be clearer. Access to education and employment are civil rights issues. Those who decide not to address the accessibility of web content are saying by their actions (perhaps not in their hearts or minds) that those with disabilities matter less. It is no wonder that when students sense this, they reach out for legal redress. AS: There are many. If I could focus on one that is personally and professionally sacred to me, it is accessibility—this is an area we must get right. If one of the essential premises of online education is to expand access to diverse learners (e.g., working adults, historically underserved populations, etc.), and if online higher education fails to meet the needs of students who need special accommodations, we seriously miss the mark. For eLearning leaders, this means knowing the law, hiring instructional designers and other related staff with experience and knowledge in creating digital materials that are aligned with accessibility standards (e.g., captions for videos and so on), and investing in dedicated staff to support students who need other accommodations to be successful. Furthermore, we must cultivate—beyond the previously stated basics—a culture that embraces unique learning needs as an opportunity to serve the greater good as opposed to a burden or additional cost. KS: Well, the obvious answer is that eLearning leaders need to familiarize themselves with the various federal laws governing accessibility; primary among these is the refresh of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973— which went into effect in January 2018—and whether the various courses they oversee are in compliance. But eLearning leaders should also be proactive and explore ways in which they can be more inclusive. For example, online leaders should look for ways to make their online offerings more welcoming of people of color. Similarly, they should look for ways to celebrate diversity and diverse cultures across the curriculum. LCR: An earlier mantra of the eLearning movement was the breaking down of the barriers of time and location. This was the initial foray into an exciting

282

sustaining the innovation

and dynamic period of opportunity for learners who previously had no or limited access to quality educational opportunities. Implicit in this new model was the potential to broaden the learning culture by the inclusion of populations that did not represent those who had access to an on-ground experience. In some ways, the early eLearning experiences still required the distance learner to adjust and accommodate to the culture of the home institution. Through a variety of small- and large-scale eLearning initiatives, the broader appreciation for learner diversity and for providing an equal voice to all learners has emerged. eLearning leaders must proactively design and deliver offerings that embrace and maximize the power of an increasingly diverse student population. What was once seen as an “accommodation” for special populations is now viewed as a required element of universal design for all. Russell Poulin (RP): For higher education to survive, we need to address the inevitable demographic shift that is now enveloping us. There will be fewer traditional-age students, and they increasingly will come from groups not well represented in colleges and universities. It will take time, but we need to start adjusting the faculty and administration to reflect the changing population that we serve. This is a leadership challenge. On accessibility, it is much easier to address these needs when building courses and programs than it is to try to find accommodations quickly once a student identifies with a disability. Also, once the courses adopt accessibility tools, those features now serve everyone. For example, closed-captioning can be a lifesaver in many situations. RS: Inclusion in terms of diversity, equity, and accessibility is important to the success of distance education and eLearning programs. In many respects, eLearning is well designed to serve these imperatives. The ubiquity of eLearning enables learners everywhere and in most all circumstances to access the internet. There are now more smartphones than there are people in the world, and although not everyone has a phone, a vast majority of people—even in developing countries—have access (Murphy, 2019). While physical access to learning is available in some form or another, barriers to universal access remain. Instructional design has not yet morphed into universal design everywhere. Accessibility remains a problem, but one that can be—and by some measures is being—resolved year by year. The gender pay gap in higher education is greater than the workforce at large. This is an issue that can be—and must be—resolved (Chamberlain, 2019). It is critically important for faculty members as well as those in allied fields such as the development of AI. A critical flaw among the AI algorithm

emerging leadership issues

283

design teams is the lack of gender, racial, and ethnic diversity. Eighty percent of university professors who specialize in AI are men, and at leading AI companies like Facebook, women compose only 15% of the AI research staff. At Google, women account for only 10% of AI research staff (Vanian, 2019). Given the current higher education policy environment at the federal and state levels (which also affects accrediting bodies), what are some of the most important issues or trends to which eLearning leaders will need to pay attention in the coming years? RP: The most important event on the near horizon is the release of the final rules resulting from 2019’s Department of Education negotiated rulemaking process. The first set of regulatory changes to be released focus on accreditation, such as who can be an accrediting agency and how accreditors review colleges. Also being released are regulations on state authorization of distance education, which will tie institutional eligibility to disburse federal financial aid to having the proper approvals in a state. Additional requirements were released in late 2019 (Student Assistance General Provisions, The Secretary’s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, The Secretary’s Recognition Procedures for State Agencies, 2019). These changes (e.g., the new definition of regular and substantive interaction) promise to have an impact on the everyday activities of higher education innovation professionals. Following the release of these regulations, it will be interesting to follow how accrediting agencies and states react. It is unlikely that the reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act will occur any time soon. There is the possibility that a few changes to federal financial aid could occur outside of a larger bill. Congresspeople for years have been talking about forcing colleges to absorb some of the risk for financial aid. Could the threat to force more “skin in the game” for colleges come true? Another key trend to watch will be how states and accrediting agencies deal with nonaccredited providers. There are more of these nontraditional, postsecondary organizations emerging. We are one disaster away from states being very worried about the lack of consumer protection for their students. In addition, will we see the continuing disinvestment in public higher education by many state governments? In some states, it has led to changes in state oversight. For other states, the legislature wants the same level of oversight even though they are providing less support. Which trend will take hold?

284

sustaining the innovation

RS: The policymakers have failed to understand the changes that have taken place in society, and in higher education in particular, in the past few decades. They hearken back to their days at a traditional college or university and fail to recognize that now more than one third of those in college are eLearners. We have entered an era of lifelong learners in which students continuously upskill, reskill, and update their knowledge and abilities (Branon, 2018). As we approach a 100-year life expectancy, people are expected to work longer. As a result, they will need continuing and professional education for decades more than they do now. This is sometimes referred to as the “60-year curriculum” (Harvard University, 2019). Harvard University’s (2019) Office of Continuing Education and University Extension has designed its programs on just this premise. Regulators and accreditors must recognize these changes and revise rules to become relevant and supportive of these changes. For example, seat time is no longer a relevant measure of learning (if it ever was). We have advanced to setting learning objectives and outcomes for all classes. The attainment of learning comes through many modes and in many forms, both online and in person. In-person, experiential, self-paced, and adaptive forms must be understood and embraced by regulators. MN: The 2019 Federal Guidelines for Higher Education will affect institutions who serve distance students and institutions with professional programs (Student Assistance General Provisions, The Secretary’s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, The Secretary’s Recognition Procedures for State Agencies, 2019). While the new guidelines are less restrictive than the 2016 regulations, the focus on licensure programs would now extend to all programs offered by a campus—not just those offered fully online. This will require institutions to publicly disclose whether a professional program that leads to licensure does so in the state in which a student resides. The 2019 guidelines remove the individual disclosure requirement; however, the resource impact of keeping up-to-date information visible will be significant for institutions. eLearning leaders will need to work with campus leaders to establish a process that ensures information is current and readily accessible for potential students. AS: State authorization continues to be a challenge for many universities going online who wish to expand beyond their regional areas. State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARAs) have been a significant force to finding creative ways through what is a very outdated and often bureaucratic process, although California has still not signed. Universities who wish to offer their programs across the United States must often hire teams of dedicated staff and lawyers to support the current requirements.

emerging leadership issues

285

Credit-hour policies make a move toward competency education, and innovative delivery models in general, challenging. The notion that time and learning are somehow intimately intertwined is outdated when we know each unique individual learns in different ways and at a difference pace. The focus should be on ensuring high-quality outcomes, regardless of timebound requirements. Financial aid policies, especially substantive interaction and overly complicated application processes, need to be redesigned with the modern era and student in mind. Don’t get me wrong—I think faculty engagement, feedback, and presence are extremely important in any higher education learning experience—but the current rules as written are outdated and lack specificity. CR: Accessibility is a system issue that needs a system solution. Federal, state, and some accreditation bodies have taken this up in law, policy, and requirements. Higher education leaders need to consider this in the same ways the enterprise considers digital security. Central policies and practices are developed, and everyone is trained on them because everyone must perform them. Then, this is monitored in an ongoing way to ensure the intended result. Changes are made based on data, and continuous improvements are made to the system effort. Given the criticality of web accessibility, leaders ignore this topic at their own peril. Higher education leaders are under considerable pressure to innovate with emerging technologies and digital resources, for example, learning analytics, OERs, AI, blockchain, and virtual reality, to promote student learning and prepare graduates for a digital future. What are some of the most important considerations for leadership in this area? KS: The most important considerations for eLearning leaders contemplating the adoption of emerging technologies are whether the innovation will support the mission of their institution and whether the innovation will indeed enhance student learning. Beyond these, they should at least try to think through the ways in which adoption of a particular technology might affect their institution at all levels. Institutional adoption of learning analytics, for example, privileges learning that can be quantified and tested and marginalizes learning that cannot in ways that might dramatically affect institutional culture. Institutional adoption of learning analytics thus can drive changes in educational goals across an institution to favor quantifiable outcomes and changes in power relationships that develop around measurement and data collection (Swan, 2016).

286

sustaining the innovation

MN: The challenge faced when new (or recycled) ideas hit the industry is managing expectations. It is critical that when a president and/or chancellor directs the eLearning leader to innovate and implement the emerging trends that they fully assess institutional capacity, culture, infrastructure, and policies that would affect these new innovations. Successful institutions evaluate, address, and prepare a road map for implementation. The other key consideration is to keep a focus on the student and continually ask the question “Is this increasing student success and learning?” If innovation and new initiatives are tied to mission and goals, the chances of success increase significantly. LCR: As these and other technologies evolve, the primary challenge for the eLearning leader will be one of developing and maintaining a strategic approach. The affordances these technologies offer have tremendous potential to transform the experience in all dimensions of higher education. The eLearning leader must account for tracking the emerging technologies, selecting potential technologies for testing, evaluating potential impact on education, establishing and assessing pilot projects, conducting return on investment scenarios, and managing the implementation within the existing technology infrastructure—all of this while ensuring the security of institutional and personal data. The increasingly complex field of information and instructional technologies makes it incumbent on the eLearning leader to be capable of directing complex, matrix-driven processes. Identifying, assembling, and coordinating the human resources necessary to remain current becomes a consideration of paramount importance. The eLearning leader in higher education must develop a strategic and disciplined approach to achieve success. AS: I am living this every day! The most important advice I can offer is start with the end in mind. What is the intended outcome? What problem are you trying to solve? For example, jumping into AI for the sake of being progressive may not accomplish your goals and objectives. Instead, align innovative solutions with strategic priorities. At the National University System, we are obsessed with lowering the cost of the degree. If OER can replace pricey textbooks, then there is alignment that our faculty and leadership will support. If AI can reduce the number of people having to answer basic questions in the early phases of the enrollment funnel, and the savings is returned to the student in the form of scholarship, reduced fees, and/or tuition, then it’s a win. In addition, if you are leading from an academic lens in these innovation areas, I would strongly encourage a tight partnership with one’s chief

emerging leadership issues

287

information officer and/or technology leadership. Developing effective and sustainable educational technology solutions often requires strong partnerships across the university, especially with academics and technology. When one works at a system level, this becomes doubly important. Last, balance Moore’s law with the hype cycle. In other words, some innovation and advances will expand and evolve rapidly, while others will fizzle, such as Google Glasses versus the iPhone. One must be prudent and establish policies and procedures (e.g., rubrics, steering committees, pilot projects) before scaled implementation. I suppose the essential leadership word here is efficacy. Does the innovation deliver on the intended result? If so, plan to scale. If not, fail cheaply and quickly. CF: eLearning leaders must pivot in their thinking around these innovative practices. We should start focusing on making space for iterative improvements and allow for the risk of failure in the face of moving forward. We need to understand that the research required to go beyond a proof of concept will require senior leadership to understand the long game of the innovation investments. It takes time to realize the return on investments in innovative approaches. We also need to start doing a better job of creating a narrative that can provide a true sense of, and timeline on, the return on investment in ways that resonate with the most senior leaders at our institutions. CR: Many technologies we enjoy today (e.g., captions for video, hands-free car phones, speech dictation) were early innovations accomplished because a user with a disability needed it. These technology innovations then became widespread and were used to benefit many. The same will continue to happen in the digital space. It is also important to know that accessibility initiatives exist in every area of innovation. While some have expressed concerns that accessibility will suppress innovation, this has not been the case historically. With proper care, accessibility can be built into uses for emerging technology. For example, holographic imaging still needs a way for alternative text or, in the case of a speaker, for captions. In addition, virtual or augmented realities can be built with accessibility in mind, and AI can learn the needs of all users. RS: While many of the new and emerging technologies are very powerful and useful, it is essential that we remember these are tools, not outcomes, in education. One must never use the technology for its own sake. Rather, it is to be employed in the service of enabling, enhancing, and measuring learning.

288

sustaining the innovation

To an extent, blockchain is different from the others. While it can be used effectively to disseminate learning and connect learners, the more immediate application of creating an annotated, verified ledger of learning is outside the normal teaching and learning process. Blockchain, I am convinced, will become the medium of dissemination of credentials. In that use, it is most transformative by giving the student, rather than the institution, control of documentation of learning. Currently, failure to pay a parking ticket may stand in the way of students being able to share a validated record of learning (transcript) of their own work with a prospective employer. Blockchain will put that documentation in the hands of the learner where it belongs. RP: We can’t keep up. At least most of higher education will not be able to keep pace. There are so many innovations, and so many options within an innovation, that the traditional methods of assessing what works and procuring those tools are quickly being outpaced. There is really only one answer and that is joint action, because we will not be able to go it alone. One solution is collaboration in exploring, procuring, and supporting technologies. Recent examples of such partnerships include the University Innovation Alliance and Unizen. Some state systems have successfully organized collaborative efforts for years. Another option is outsourcing. Online program managers, or OPMs, are finally adopting fee-for-service models that are more appealing to most. An institution can buy expertise. It will be interesting to see how we innovate on effective collaborations in the future. Discussion about the “convergence” of K–12 and higher education—or the notion of K–12 and higher education as a single pipeline—has been on the rise. How might this trend affect how higher education institutions develop various aspects of eLearning (OERs, microcertificates, etc.)? RP: Developing a truly effective pipeline will take some time, because it will require really hard work. There is a slow movement to the educational “currency” switching away from credit hours and courses completed toward competencies. Once we develop a more common language around competencies, it may be possible that microcredentials could be the path to making that switch. If we can agree bit by bit on clumps of competencies covered in a microcredential, we may one day find that our pipeline is now less clogged. And we may have the technology to make it happen. As Ray Schroeder mentioned previously, there is early promise in blockchain to document certified credentials emerging from different educational providers. Another

emerging leadership issues

289

promising new technology that may bridge the gap is adaptive learning. Institutions should be implementing it or considering it soon. If both K–12 and higher education institutions come to adopt the same or similar software, we are again coming to agreement on competencies. LCR: With the discussion of education as a cradle-to-grave endeavor, approaches such as OER, massive open online courses (MOOCs), and microcredentialing, coupled with data analytics, AI, and machine-learning technologies form the foundation of an exciting and promising learning ecosystem. The opportunity exists for all levels of education to engage in a more fluid, flexible, and transparent lifelong learning experience serving the changing needs of the learner. With this promising landscape comes the daunting challenge of negotiating administrative and bureaucratic barriers and the historical separation of learning stages. Progress may come in the form of incremental changes and experimentation rather than sweeping reforms, preparing the groundwork for a seamless lifelong learning experience. The eLearning leader is well positioned to influence and affect this process. RS: We are only now more fully recognizing that learning is lifelong. It does not begin in elementary school, nor does it end with the baccalaureate. It is lifelong. Certainly, we are now seeing high school students who are completing associate degrees before they receive a high school diploma. Many of the college classes taken concurrently are delivered through eLearning in order to accommodate schedules and physical locations. This trend will only expand in years to come. We are developing the philosophy of meeting learner needs when and where they occur, rather than regimenting the order and calendar of learning by grade levels. OERs are growing by leaps and bounds. Most famously, technology pioneers Stewart Brand and Steve Wozniak had the following conversation in 1984: On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So, you have these two fighting against each other. (Gans, 2015, p. 1)

There is no more important place for information to be free than in learning materials. That is at the essence of creating equity of access and affordability.

290

sustaining the innovation

AS: The biggest area that comes to mind is engaging K–12 students in postsecondary opportunities prior to graduation. At the National University System, we have two K–12 virtual high schools that provide students with A-G courses—courses that high school students must take to qualify for college admission in California—and advanced placement courses that count toward college credit. Often, students enjoy the online learning experience, and with very clear articulation agreements and pathways for admission, students take advantage and begin college at one of our four affiliates within the system. KS: Of course, eLearning technologies such as OERs, microcertificates, dual enrollment courses, and adaptive learning will be important in easing the development of a K–14 education, but the most important element will be content. There needs to be the same kind of congruence between high school curricula and college curricula as there is between elementary curricula and secondary curricula. eLearning might be well positioned to take the lead in such development, as it is not as entrenched in institutional traditions as older parts of the university. CR: Because accessibility is similarly required in K–12 education, converging education should be a nonissue; however, there are instances where one entity is accessible and another is not. During points of convergence (e.g., concurrent enrollment), it is vital that all parties are on an equal footing. It is vital to make sure that if you are blending pipelines, whatever you push is accessible. Remember that you remain legally responsible for delivering accessible content, even it if comes from another source for which you may not have control. MN: There is no single pipeline! Preparing K–12 students for life beyond secondary school is critical. However, there is no one size fits all. The U.S. higher education system is composed of institutions that are complex and diverse for this very reason. As students make choices about initial career paths, alternative credentials can provide options that fit those goals. It is very important to keep in mind that individuals are likely to change careers and/or jobs several times during their working life. This is why there is no single pipeline. Several institutions have emphasized the 60-year learner as a response to this pattern. Institutions would be wise to evaluate academic offerings with these patterns in mind. Accountability and economic pressures have prompted the emergence of new business models, providers, institutional and corporate

emerging leadership issues

291

partnerships, and alternative credentials that are changing the landscape of higher education at a remarkable pace. What advice would you give eLearning leaders in higher education in adapting to these forces? RS: It is essential that leaders be informed. That means making it a top priority to track the technologies, trends, and research every single day. Only by being informed can we have a chance of predicting what is coming next, what will succeed, and what will fail. Fortunately, there are tools to facilitate this. Social media provides a multitude of sources; choose wisely among those sources to determine which ones are most accurate and comprehensive. The vision of eLearning units is a solemn and challenging task of paramount importance. Failures of initiatives, programs, and even entire colleges can be traced to actions based on misinformation and not enough information. To thrive in this field, leaders must be well informed, and they must constantly adjust their vision and the course of their units. MN: Declining 18-year-old populations, reduced state funding support, and heightened concern regarding student debt are just a few drivers that have resulted in the demand for institutions to look to a variety of strategies to increase enrollment, revenue, and affordability. It is the role of the eLearning leader to assess, evaluate, and recommend approaches that are mission consistent, academically sound, student centric, and sustainable. Easy, peasy! Asking the core questions—what problems are we trying to solve and what are the benefits—is critical in setting institutional goals. Thereafter, it is possible to develop actions to address these goals. RP: Given the increased competition in the online space and the demographic realities of declining traditional students, institutions should seek to reexamine their business strategies and shore up their markets. One (possibly counterintuitive) move is to reassess your pricing strategies. There will continue to be pressure on higher education to make college more affordable for students. Those who can find a way to do so will have a competitive advantage and will take some of the political pressure off themselves. I have seen institutions that set their pricing (tuition plus fees) years ago. Meanwhile, their costs of doing business have lowered, while what students pay continued to increase. Often, changing tuition or fee rates is a difficult process, and you will need to work at it. Meanwhile, consider bold partnerships with those who can help you secure markets of students or do what you cannot now accomplish. Can you work with a corporation to serve its employees? Can you work with an

292

sustaining the innovation

alternative provider to provide an educational pathway that expands options for its students? Can you create a cooperation agreement with other institutions so that you are not competing but working in concert to serve adjacent niches of students? Be creative. AS: I spent a good deal of time over the years working on a variety of projects aimed at unbounding the degree, for example, microlearning, corporate partnerships, coding boot camps, and so on. The advice I would give someone exploring these spaces is do your homework and make sure you understand the competition and your differentiation strategy. For example, if your university isn’t an elite institution that has immediate name cachet, and you are considering going into the microlearning space, conduct an environmental scan of the more than 100 players in the space, for example, Coursera, Udacity, LinkedIn Learning, MasterClass, Learn@Forbes, and so on. How will your cost to build, deliver, and market stack up to these larger and already established entities in the space? In other words, don’t just dive in: Do your homework and develop a strategy that has a return on investment model that people can rally around. CR: I would encourage eLearning leaders to make sure that work toward enterprise-wide accessibility does not become victim to competing priorities. Accessibility is a core issue in eLearning. Moreover, it is a legal responsibility. CF: I would share with leaders that it is imperative to have a growth mind-set in their leadership approach to these new models. Create a strategy that challenges the evolution of these models in various ways. Think about the opportunities to explore new and nascent models, but also be willing to rediscover these options as the field matures. What we are seeing now is a rebirth of higher education in many ways. We are starting to break the current, industrial era higher education mold. KS: My advice would be to do what seems right for your school and your students and to try not to bend to pressures to do things that feel wrong. What could be worse than to give in to what seems to you to be lesser education and then lose everything anyway? For me, it’s the importance of a liberal education for everyone. I think a strong democracy depends on a citizenry informed in more than just job skills. I think we all have to decide what is important to us and our students and not compromise it. In your opinion, what is the greatest challenge to the future of eLearning in higher education in the next 5 years? What is the greatest opportunity?

emerging leadership issues

293

KS: I think the next 5 years will be loaded with challenges to higher education itself. We are living in a time of major transformation, and it isn’t clear that higher education will survive in its current form. My guess is that it won’t, and that just as the university replaced apprenticeship systems, something else will replace the university. The challenge and the opportunity for the future of eLearning lies in how it responds to the changes roiling higher education generally. eLearning must free itself from the temporal chains of higher education—credit hours, semesters, maybe even grading systems as we know them—but keep the things that make college education wonderful, like fostering critical thinking and taking multiple perspectives. Also, eLearning was born out of the need to provide access to higher education for people who didn’t have it previously; that shouldn’t be lost. MN: I think the greatest challenge is that institutions will look at eLearning as a growth strategy tied more to revenue than access. Consequently, initiatives will be a draw on resources and risk failure rather than align with academic mission and goals. The greatest opportunity may be that the symbiotic relationship between pedagogy and technology will create opportunities to teach, engage, and learn in innovative ways that provide increased access and greater impact. CR: Anything that undermines the proposition that education is available to all poses a great challenge to the future of eLearning. Accessibility issues could be such a challenge. With care and strategies, administrators can mitigate this challenge and deliver their programs accessibly. This then can become an opportunity as well. As individuals with disabilities continue to seek educational opportunities, they will gravitate to those programs that offer them the access they require. This becomes an opportunity to capture markets hungry for eLearning. CF: The greatest opportunity in the field of eLearning is the opportunity to be the largest catalyst for change in higher education. The pedagogical innovations occurring in the eLearning space will inform the larger context of teaching and learning in higher education institutions to meet the needs of the 21st century. This is also the challenge to the future of eLearning, as we are testing innovation practices today that have profound implications, and the implementation of these innovations in a sustainable way will be of paramount importance. LCR: The higher education eLearning leader functions in a dynamic, rich, and complex environment of educational reforms and learning advances

294

sustaining the innovation

supported and sometimes driven by information and instructional technologies. The barriers of time and location are gone. The opportunity to contribute to an educational ecosystem that provides access to learning throughout a lifetime is unprecedented. Serving learners throughout their lives regardless of limitations—financial, physical, or otherwise—has the potential to transform societies. With this incredible opportunity comes serious challenges. Security and privacy remain foremost. Also of significance is the creation of sustainable business models that enable education providers to remain financially viable. The next 5 years will see continued advances in the creation of new opportunities to engage learners in all aspects of their education. The ability to develop those advances with a focus on the needs of the learner will ultimately define success. AS: We must increase opportunity and success for the underserved while at the same time reducing the cost of the degree. Consider this: If you come from a family in the top 25% of socioeconomic status, you have an 80% chance of earning a college degree. If you come from the bottom 75%, you have less than a 30% chance. Michael Crow reminded us that the university should be “measured not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes and how they succeed” (Arizona State University, n.d.). This should be our nation’s new higher education mantra. When it comes to affordability, consider that higher education has increased in cost faster and more than any other sector in our economy over the past 10 years, including health care. That alone should be a wake-up call to change. Beyond that, we’ve all seen the headlines about mounting student debt—more than $1 trillion—unemployed graduates moving back in with mom and dad, ever-increasing tuition, layoffs at colleges, and dramatically reduced government support for public institutions. This economic shortfall isn’t happening on the fringes, and it should serve as a wake-up call to move institutions to innovate. RP: The greatest challenge is the adaptability of colleges and universities. The structures and rules of traditional higher education will keep us from being nimble enough to quickly respond to the changing needs. Sometimes, whole new structures are needed. Calbright College (California’s 115th community college) is an experiment in starting from scratch to meet the needs of an underserved community. Western Governors University did this years ago. I can also point to similar efforts that failed, but experiments are risky. What can you do in your own setting to make innovation happen?

emerging leadership issues

295

The greatest opportunity is in our own backyard. eLearning is definitely having an impact on the one third of students who are taking an online class in a given semester. Not counted are the blended and technology-enhanced classes. There is opportunity in using eLearning in these and the remaining courses to not only enhance learning but also be transformational. An example is the promise of adaptive learning. If that promise is fulfilled, we will be getting students to mastery and not just learning part of the curriculum. RS: Societal demands are changing. Technologies are advancing daily. Educational institutions are enduring reduced public support and increased corporate competition. It is in this context that eLearning continues to grow in numbers and reputation. The greatest challenge in our field is to survive the funding challenges in order to freely innovate and rapidly respond to learning needs among a diverse lifelong learning clientele. Anticipating and responding just in time to these changing needs are equally great challenges. The greatest opportunity in our field is to respond to a plethora of learning needs among learners of all ages in locations and conditions as wide as the world. eLearning is poised to make a difference in the lives of billions of people. We can be instruments for enlightenment, understanding, and vision for people everywhere.

Conclusion Has there ever been a time in the history of higher education that has brought more significant challenges, rapid change, and growing complexity than the present? The experts who contributed to this chapter highlight a broad and deep range of possible opportunities and likely obstacles ahead for future eLearning leaders in higher education. Their collective experience as higher education faculty members, senior college and university administrators, and/or professional organization leaders spans decades. Through their eyes, we can see just how far eLearning has progressed, the place it currently occupies, and its potential to continue to transform higher education in the future. While each contributor brings a unique perspective to the discussion, some common themes emerge from their responses to the questions posed: • Changes in student demographics and enrollment patterns in higher education will continue to figure prominently in eLearning, forcing

296

sustaining the innovation

•

•

• •

institutions and eLearning leaders to adapt their structures and strategies to equitably accommodate an increasingly diverse population across the lifespan—especially working adults, people of color, and differently abled individuals. The competitive landscape and rising cost of higher education will continue to drive innovation in pedagogy, delivery formats, and technology integration, which will require eLearning leaders to pursue strategic initiatives with demonstrable return on investment and positive learning outcomes tied to student success. Technological advancements such as blockchain, AI, OERs, and adaptive learning will require eLearning leaders to carefully evaluate the relationship of digital innovation to institutional mission, goals, and student learning outcomes, as well as the associated risks, to ensure appropriate alignment of strategic plans and resource allocation for such initiatives. Future higher education policy and regulatory changes will likely focus on issues such as accreditation, state authorization, new and nonaccredited providers, and accessibility in eLearning. The current higher education business model is under considerable strain, and eLearning leaders will need to explore partnerships with industry, employers, and other institutions, as well as develop new learning pathways and credentials, to deliver education on demand.

While economic, social, and political forces will undoubtedly continue to create significant challenges for higher education in the foreseeable future, current and aspiring leaders can take heart in the potential of eLearning to transform the lives of learners in all dimensions of diversity and across the lifespan. This is the promise of eLearning.

References Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990). Arizona State University. (n.d.). ASU charter. https://president.asu.edu/asu-missiongoals Branon, R. (2018). Extend your education: Lifelong learning is the new reality for a successful career. Seattle Business. https://www.seattlebusinessmag.com/ commentary/extend-your-education-lifelong-learning-new-reality-successfulcareer Camera, L. (2019). Nationwide college enrollment is down again. U.S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/201905-30/nationwide-college-enrollment-is-down-again

emerging leadership issues

297

Chamberlain, W. (2019). The gender pay gap of higher education. Medium. https:// medium.com/dialogue-and-discourse/the-gender-pay-gap-of-higher-education30d076ca312b Fredericksen, E. E. (2017). A national study of online learning leaders in U.S. higher education. Online Learning, 21(2). Gans, J. (2015, October). “Information wants to be free”: The history of that quote. Digitopoly: Competition in the Digital Age. https://digitopoly.org/2015/10/25/ information-wants-to-be-free-the-history-of-that-quote/ Harvard University. (2019). Meet the dean: Huntington D. Lambert. The 60-year curriculum. https://www.extension.harvard.edu/about-us/meet-the-dean Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. L. No. 110-315, 122 Stat. 3078 (2008). Lederman, D. (2018). Online education ascends. Inside Higher Ed. https://www .insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/11/07/new-data-onlineenrollments-grow-and-share-overall-enrollment Murphy, M. (2019). Cell phones now outnumber the world’s population. Quartz. https://qz.com/1608103/there-are-now-more-cellphones-than-people-in-theworld/ National University. (2018, July 9). National University system advances efforts to increase access to a quality, affordable college degree for $8,500 a year with the aaunch of JFKu Online Powered by FlexCourse™ . https://www.nu.edu/news/jfku-onlinepowered-by-flexcourse/ Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973). Student Assistance General Provisions, The Secretary’s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, The Secretary’s Recognition Procedures for State Agencies, 84 CFR § 58834–58933 (2019). Swan, K. (2016). Learning analytics and the shape of things to come. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(3), 5–12. Vanian, J. (2019, April). Eye on A.I.: How to fix artificial intelligence’s diversity crisis. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2019/04/23/artificial-intelligence-diversitycrisis/

CONTRIBUTORS

David W. Andrews is president of National University, one of California’s largest private nonprofit universities, serving 30,000 students. With over three decades of acclaimed higher education experience in a broad range of academic and educational leadership posts, Andrews is leading National University’s commitment to transforming higher education through innovation, collaboration, and an exceptional student experience. Prior to coming to National University, Andrews was dean of the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University. During his tenure the school established a reputation for quality that earned it U.S. News and World Report’s number-one ranking of Graduate Schools of Education 2 years in a row. While at Johns Hopkins University, he helped found the nonprofit organization Deans for Impact in Education and led the design and building of the first new public school (PK–8th grade) in East Baltimore in over 25 years. Prior to his work at Johns Hopkins, Andrews led a merger that resulted in the creation of the College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University and was the new college’s founding dean. His scholarly work has focused on intervening in the life course of high-risk students. Andrews holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Auburn University, a master’s degree from Kansas State University, and a doctorate from Florida State University. Meg Benke is provost and executive vice president for academic affairs at SUNY Empire State College and professor, School of Graduate Studies, in adult learning and emerging technologies. Benke has had an extensive administrative career at Empire State College, previously serving as dean of the Center for Distance Learning and acting president. Benke, as professor, was also department chair for the Graduate Division of Education. In 2013, Benke was inducted into the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame for her contributions to adult and online learning. Benke was recognized for the Most Outstanding Achievement in Online Learning by an Individual by the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) in 2007 and was named in 2010 to its inaugural class of fellows for her extraordinary qualifications, significant experience, distinguished service, and leadership in the field of online learning. She was president of the board of directors of the OLC for 6 years. Benke also served as a commissioner for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, chairing the substantive change committee. She participated as a commissioner for the National Commission on 299

300

contributors

Inter-state Regulation of Distance Education, which served as a foundation for the development of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA). She also serves as a member of New York State’s Regents Advisory Council and assisted the New York Department of Education for advancing materials for reviewing competency-based programs. Benke’s presentations and publications focus on adult learning, online learning, prior learning assessment, and progressive education. Recent book chapters include “Game Changers: Education and Information Technology,” edited by Diane Oblinger (EDUCAUSE, 2012), and “SUNY Empire State College: A Game Changer in Open Learning,” an EDUCAUSE Digital Book. Benke was a Fulbright Scholar to the Waterford Institute of Technology in Ireland in 2015 and continues to do research on online learning with colleagues in Ireland. Victoria Brown served as the assistant provost for the Center for eLearning and is currently pursuing her research interest as faculty in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Florida Atlantic University. During the 5 years she served in the assistant provost role, she oversaw the development of online degrees, course development, faculty professional development, and online student support and provided an online student experience. Brown is a board member for the Florida Distance Learning Association, chair of the Online Student Support work group for the 2025 Strategic Plan for Online Education in Florida, and chair of Student Services for Florida Virtual Campus. She received the Meritorious Service Medal from the Civil Air Patrol for her instructional design work and was awarded the Distance Educator of the Year for Higher Education by the Florida Distance Learning Association. Through her research work, she codeveloped the Online Student Support Scorecard available through the OLC. Devon A. Cancilla is an educational consultant with over 20 years of experience in higher education. Most recently, he was the chief knowledge officer for the OLC. He has served as the vice provost for academic innovation and online education at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, where he led the institution’s online initiatives. Cancilla has also served as dean and then associate provost for learning at American Sentinel University, a fully online institution. Cancilla was associate professor of environmental science and director of scientific technical services at Western Washington University, where he led the development of the Integrated Laboratory Network, an online laboratory initiative funded by the National Science Foundation. Cancilla has received both the Sloan-C (now OLC) Outstanding Achievement Award for Online Education and an Effective Practice Award for his research into the development and use of online laboratories. He attended the University

contributors

301

of Iowa, where he earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and UCLA, where he received his doctorate in environmental health science. His current research interests relate to the use of analytics in the design and development of online courses and the promotion of online STEM education. He is currently leading an initiative to conduct a national survey on the state of online STEM education. Thomas B. Cavanagh is vice provost for digital learning at the University of Central Florida. He oversees all classroom technology and the distance learning strategy, policies, and practices of one of the nation’s largest universities. He has administered eLearning for both academic audiences (public and private) and corporate audiences. He has been recognized with numerous awards, including the United States Distance Learning Association Leadership Award and the Richard Jonsen Award from Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET) and has been named as a fellow of the OLC. He is a frequent speaker at industry conferences and often consults with other institutions regarding academic innovation and digital learning. He is active in the higher education community and serves on a number of national advisory boards. Elizabeth Ciabocchi serves as associate provost for academic affairs at Adelphi University, where she oversees all curricular offerings and serves as the primary institutional liaison to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), New York State Education Department, and U.S. Department of Education. She previously served as vice provost for digital learning and executive director of online learning and services at St. John’s University, where she led academic initiatives to develop digital learning strategies for hybrid and online degree programs. Prior to St. John’s, Ciabocchi served in academic administration at Long Island University, Pacific College of Health and Science–New York Campus, and the New York College of Health Professions. She has published peer-reviewed journal articles and presented her research on leadership and eLearning in higher education at numerous professional conferences. She teaches graduate-level courses for the School of Education at St. John’s University and taught undergraduate courses at the New York College of Health Professions. She is an evaluator for MSCHE and currently serves as vice president of the board of directors of OLC, where she is also a fellow. Ciabocchi earned her EdD in higher and postsecondary education from Teachers College, Columbia University; a DC from New York Chiropractic College; and a BS in biology from the University of Scranton.

302

contributors

Cristi Ford is a noted speaker and an executive at several online higher education entrepreneurial ventures with more than 15 years of cumulative experience in higher education at the local, regional and international level. Her reach has allowed her to focus on building online education in the United States and the African continent. During her most recent tenure as the CAO of a college in East Africa, her focus was on developing blended and online culturally relevant content. Ford’s previous experience includes serving in many senior-level positions related to online education, including a position as the associate vice provost for the Center for Innovation in Learning and Student Success at the University of Maryland Global Campus. In this capacity, she provided thought leadership in identifying promising nextgeneration online learning innovations and led the implementation of this plan through rapid prototyping and piloting. Ford’s realm of experience in online education has provided her a deep understanding of the complexities and depths of online learning. Additionally, Ford has spent much of her career in support of program evaluation which has allowed her to serve as a Middle States Distance education expert for the past decade. Her experiences also include instructional design, quality assurance and corporate training in the online context. Ford holds a PhD in educational leadership from the University of Missouri-Columbia as well as graduate and undergraduate degrees in the field of psychology. Eric E. Fredericksen is the associate vice president for online learning and provides leadership for the exploration of online learning initiatives at the University of Rochester. Fredericksen is also associate professor in educational leadership in the Warner School, where he teaches in the classroom and online and is program director for online teaching and learning programs. He has extensive experience in online education and instructional technologies. He was associate vice provost for academic and research IT at the University of Rochester from 2005 to 2012. Prior to the University of Rochester, Fredericksen served as the director of academic technology and media services at Cornell University. Before Cornell, Fredericksen was the assistant provost for advanced learning technology in the State University of New York, where he provided leadership for all system-wide programs focused on the innovative use of technology to support teaching and learning. This included the nationally recognized SUNY Learning Network, winner of the EDUCAUSE Award for Systemic Progress in Teaching and Learning and Sloan-C awards for Excellence in Faculty Development and Excellence in Institution-wide Online Programming. Fredericksen was the co-principal investigator and administrative officer for three multiyear, multi-milliondollar grants on online learning from the Sloan Foundation. Since 2002, he

contributors

303

has been designing and teaching graduate online courses in education. His research has included studies of the student and faculty experience in online courses and, more recently, of the role of the chief online learning officer. He was chair of the Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning and served as chair of the Sloan-C Awards Program for Excellence in Online Teaching and Learning. In 2012, he was elected to the board of directors for the Sloan Consortium; he served as president of the board in 2018 and 2019 and was honored as a Sloan-C fellow in 2013. Kelly Hermann is the vice president of accessibility, equity, and inclusion for the University of Phoenix. She has oversight of the university’s accessibility initiative, including the evaluation and remediation of curricular resources; the Disability Services office, which provides accommodations to students with disabilities; and the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which works with university stakeholders, community partners, and corporate sponsors to create an inclusive educational environment for the students, faculty, and staff. Prior to joining the University of Phoenix, Hermann was the director of disability services for SUNY Empire State College for 12 years and started her career in academic support and disability services at the College of Saint Rose in Albany, New York, in 2000. In 2009, Hermann was appointed to the Instructional Materials Advisory Council in New York by then-governor David Patterson and has been active in the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), chairing the special interest group on online and distance education for AHEAD; she was the chair of AHEAD’s standing committee on public policy from 2009 to 2013. She frequently presents at national conferences, such as OLC, WCET, and AHEAD, regarding online learning and accessibility for students with disabilities. She joined the Accessibility Advisory Board for McGraw-Hill in 2019. Hermann holds a master of science degree in education in communication sciences and disorders and is nearing completion of a doctoral degree in educational policy and leadership. Kathleen S. Ives has worked in online technology for over 30 years in the nonprofit, higher education, and corporate arenas. Ives currently serves as a member of the senior staff for the National Laboratory for Education Transformation (NLET) and the director of higher education transformation as the organization develops tools, programs, and best practices to advance the workforce agenda by supporting educational systems and employers in building talent pools relevant to today’s business needs. She also serves as strategic adviser for Packback, an education technology company that builds smart discussion communities via artificial intelligence to allow professors to

304

contributors

promote and assess critical thinking in students. Previously, Ives served as the OLC chief executive officer and executive director, where she led the organization to become a fully self-sustaining member association. In addition, Ives serves as adjunct faculty in organizational leadership and management communications at Wentworth Institute of Technology. Ives began her career at CBS and helped develop the service that evolved into Prodigy. She then spent 14 years designing and implementing consumer online information services, first at AT&T and then at Verizon, where she spearheaded the development of the nation’s first online Yellow Pages product, now called superpages .com. She received undergraduate and graduate degrees in communication and communication management from the University of California at Davis and the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism, respectively. She received her doctorate in organizational leadership from the University of Phoenix. Colin Marlaire is vice president of academic technology for National Education Partners and chief technology and learning officer for Northcentral University. He has more than 15 years of experience in higher education, serving previously as an associate vice president, director, and professor. He and his team support all academic technologies and work with the schools to identify innovations for and improvements to the student and faculty experience. He conducts work and research in all elements involved in developing a scalable model for continuous innovation in educational delivery: incentivizing participation and innovation, obtaining legible analytics, fostering collaboration, knowledge management, and intentional modality (online, hybrid delivery). In those roles, he has led the adoption of new technology institution-wide, including eight learning management system conversions at various universities, three student information systems, and other enterprise solutions. He has presented at a variety of conferences, including those hosted by EDUCAUSE, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Sloan-C, and many others. His presentations focused on topics such as virtual communities, best practices for teaching online, use of mobile in higher education, scaling innovation, and continuous improvement processes. He received his PhD in English from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and has published work in his area of focus (British Romantic and Victorian periods, particularly Jane Austen, George Eliot, and Charles Dickens). He continues to teach as an adjunct and dissertation chair at Northcentral University. Jennifer Mathes is a senior leader at OLC. In this role, she provides the strategic direction for the organization, while working collaboratively to

contributors

305

research, manage, and evaluate key projects and programs to support OLC members. Mathes has more than 20 years of experience in both public and private education, where she has supported digital learning initiatives since she taught her first online course in 1997. She has been instrumental in working with start-up initiatives and leading growth in institutions with an existing technology-enhanced program. In addition, Mathes is the author of the International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) report Global Quality in Online, Open, Flexible and Technology Enhanced Education: An Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (2019) and coeditor of the OLC Quality Scorecard Handbook: Criteria for Excellence in Blended Learning Programs (2017). She has presented at many conferences and has been invited to conduct workshops and training sessions for institutions. She has also served as a consultant, providing recommendations to institutions on steps to take to implement best practices in online education. Her recent work has involved collaborating with higher education associations and institutions internationally to support the global adoption of best practices in online learning. Mathes holds a doctor of philosophy degree in education from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, where she wrote her dissertation on “Predictors for Student Success in Online Education.” She also has earned a master of science degree in business education and a bachelor of science degree in mass communications from Illinois State University. Michael Grahame Moore has devoted his career to the development of distance education as a field of academic study and research since proposing a definition and its first theory in 1972. He taught the first course in distance education at The University of Wisconsin-Madison in the mid 1970s and initiated the idea of holding a national conference there, a conference that continues today. Moore joined the faculty at The Pennsylvania State University in 1986 and established the American Center for Study of Distance Education, experimenting with new forms of teaching online through the 1980s and 1990s. He also established a national research symposium and one of the first online forums (Distance Education Online Symposium). In 1986 he founded the first American research journal (The American Journal of Distance Education) and continues as its editor to the present time (2020). Recognitions include honorary doctorates at the University of Guadalajara, Mexico, Athabasca University in Canada and Universidad del Salvador, Argentina; an appointment as consulting professor at Shanghai Open University, China; visiting research fellow at the University of Cambridge, and visiting professor at the Open University. In March 2020 The University of Wisconsin-Madison announced the award of its Honorary Doctorate of

306

contributors

Humane Letters. Moore is listed among the 128 “most important, influential, innovative and interesting thinkers on education of all time” in The Routledge Encyclopedia of Educational Thinkers (Routledge, 2016). Gary E. Miller is executive director emeritus of the Penn State World Campus. Prior to his retirement, he served as associate vice president for outreach and executive director of continuing and distance education at The Pennsylvania State University and was the founding executive director of the Penn State World Campus, the university’s online distance education program. He earlier served as executive director of the International University Consortium and associate vice president at the University of Maryland University College. He holds a DEd in higher education administration from Penn State. He is the author of The Meaning of General Education (Teachers College Press, 1988) and a coauthor of Leading the E-Learning Transformation of Higher Education (Stylus Publishing, 2014) and numerous journal articles and book chapters on distance education and the undergraduate curriculum. In March 2004, he was inducted into the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame. He has been recognized with the 2004 Wedemeyer Award from the University of Wisconsin and The American Journal of Distance Education, the 2007 Irving Award from the American Distance Education Consortium, the 2008 Distinguished Service Award from the National University Telecommunications Network, and the 2009 Prize of Excellence from the International Council for Open and Distance Education for his contributions to the field. In 2010, he was named an inaugural fellow of OLC. Mary Niemiec is the associate vice president for digital education and director of University of Nebraska Online. In her role at the University of Nebraska, she coordinates the system-wide collaborative initiative that pulls together the 135-plus online programs offered by the four campuses of the NU system. She has worked in the areas of higher education online and blended learning for more than 20 years. In addition to her university responsibilities, she represents and promotes the university nationally by serving in leadership roles in various professional organizations. She currently serves as vice president for the board of directors of OLC. She also serves as cochair for the Nebraska Information Technology Commission’s Education Council and cochair of the Policy Committee for University Professional and Continuing Education Association. She was named an OLC fellow in 2011. Russell Poulin leads WCET, the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies. It focuses on the practice, policy, and advocacy of technology-

contributors

307

enhanced learning in higher education. As WICHE vice president, he advises on policy and projects for the regional higher education compact. Poulin represented the distance education community on federal negotiated rule-making committees and subcommittees. He has received recognition from the Presidents’ Forum, Excelsior College, and the National University Technology Network for his contributions to policies for technologyenhanced postsecondary education. Poulin received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado Denver and a master’s degree from the University of Northern Colorado. Lawrence C. Ragan retired from The Pennsylvania State University in 2018 after serving in a variety of leadership positions over his 34-year career in higher education. Ragan has been a part of the creation and management of Penn State’s World Campus since its inception in 1998. Ragan served as director for instructional design and the director for academic outreach faculty development. From 2012 to 2017, Ragan served as the codirector for the Center for Online Innovation in Learning (COIL) at Penn State, where he directed the center’s mission of research, scholarship, technology innovation, and leadership development programming. Ragan served as inaugural codirector and faculty of the EDUCAUSE Learning Technology Leadership Institute (2005–2007). From 2009 to 2017, Ragan served as the codirector of the Institute for Emerging Leadership in Online Learning (IELOL). In partnership with Penn State and OLC, IELOL addresses the operational and strategic leadership on the design and development and preparation of the next generation of leadership in online learning. Ragan also serves on national and international leadership development programs, including the Maryland Online Leadership Institute and the Diplomado Internacional de Formación de Líderes en Educación a Distancia. Cyndi Rowland is the founder and executive director of WebAIM and the National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE), both housed at Utah State University. Since 1999 she has focused on research, tool and resource development, training, and policy initiatives for web accessibility in education. WebAIM and NCDAE are viewed as important resources in web accessibility. Both groups have a rich history of research and product development to benefit the broader community and an inclusive web. WebAIM is consistently in the top five Google returns when searching for “web accessibility,” where there are typically millions of returns. Some of WebAIM’s content includes issues and technical recommendations for developers who wish their designs to be inclusive of individuals with disabilities. NCDAE has rich resources for administrators and faculty alike who wish

308

contributors

to make changes in their systems and individual practice. This includes a benchmarking and planning tool, as well as accessibility cheatsheets used frequently by others. Rowland has engaged in her accessibility work at top-tier national and international levels. Examples include sitting on the Section 508 refresh committee and working on UN organization initiatives such as the International Telecommunication Union and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Rowland was an invited expert to UNESCO in the creation of global guidelines for online distance education, where accessibility plays a role for UN member states. Raymond Schroeder is professor emeritus, associate vice chancellor for online learning at the University of Illinois Springfield (UIS), and senior fellow, founding director of the National Council for Online Education at the University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA). Schroeder began his academic career in 1971 as an instructor in the College of Communications at the University of Illinois. He left Urbana in 1977 to become an assistant professor in communication at Sangamon State University (which became UIS in 1995). He advanced to associate professor and later full professor and in 2001 to professor emeritus. His career and publications focus on the application of technology to enhance teaching and learning. As associate vice chancellor for online learning, he oversees 26 online graduate and undergraduate programs, as well as many certificate programs. The undergraduate programs and select graduate programs are highly ranked among the “Best Online Colleges” by US News. UIS delivers some 500 online classes each semester to students in 48 states and 10 countries. Schroeder is the recipient of the 2010 Frank Mayadas Online Leadership Award from the Sloan Consortium, now OLC. He is an inaugural fellow of OLC and currently senior fellow of UPCEA. In 2011, Schroeder received the University of Illinois Distinguished Service Award. The United States Distance Learning Association Hall of Fame Award and the Mildred B. and Charles A. Wedemeyer Outstanding Practitioner Award in Distance Learning were given to Schroeder in 2016. Schroeder received the Who’s Who Worldwide Lifetime Achievement Award in Education and Technology in 2018. He has published a number of book chapters and articles. He publishes daily to an array of social media outlets with more than 12,000 daily readers to his publications. His biweekly Inside Higher Education Trending Now column is widely read. A frequent keynote speaker and invited lecturer, Schroeder is well-known nationally and internationally for his expertise and writings in technology-enhanced learning.

contributors

309

Peter Shea is associate provost for online learning at the University at Albany, SUNY, and provides leadership and strategy for online teaching and learning in collaboration with academic, administrative, and support units across the university. Shea is also a professor in the University of Albany School of Education with a joint appointment in the Informatics Program in the College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity. His research focuses on technology-mediated teaching and learning in higher education. He is the author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and several book chapters on the topic of online learning and coauthor of The Successful Distance Learning Student (Wadsworth, 2002). He is a corecipient of several national awards, including the EDUCAUSE Award for Systemic Progress in Teaching and Learning for the State University of New York and Sloan Consortium Awards for Excellence in Faculty Development and Asynchronous Learning Networks Programs, and he was named a Sloan-C fellow in 2011. He is also editor in chief of the OLC’s Online Learning Journal. Shea has also been the recipient of significant external funding for his recent work. This includes three grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to research faculty and student experiences in complete online learning environments and support for the development of hybrid learning environments at the University at Albany. He was also principal investigator on a U.S. Department of Education grant to research and develop an online system to support the teaching of Chinese to children in K–12 public schools. Previously Shea was involved in several SUNY system-wide initiatives, including serving as director of the SUNY Learning Network, the online education system for the 64 colleges of the State University of New York. Shea has also served as manager of the SUNY Teaching, Learning, and Technology Program and project director for SUNY’s participation in the Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching, an international collaboration for peer review of discipline-specific online learning resources. Andrew Shean is the chief academic officer at the National University System. Previously Shean was the chief academic learning officer for Bridgepoint Education, where he led development of new program design, strategic direction for products, curriculum operations, instructional design, library, tutoring, and the writing center. Shean was the vice provost of curriculum and innovation at Ashford University, where he was responsible for providing leadership, supervision, and direction for all academic and educational affairs of the university and related programs. Prior to assuming the position of vice provost, Shean was the executive dean of Ashford’s College of Education. In 2014, Shean was selected to be one of six faculty to lead the

310

contributors

Institute for Emerging Leadership in Online Education through Penn State World Campus in partnership with OLC. This program is intended for a selective group of emerging leaders from online institutions. In 2017, Shean was selected as a chief academic officer digital fellow, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with 31 other chief academic officers from across the country. In the earlier stages of his career, Shean helped lead the Poway Unified School District’s initiative to develop online and one-onone education programs. He also served as a high school English teacher, where he was named the 2009 District Teacher of the Year. Shean earned his doctorate of educational leadership and management degree from Alliant International University. He holds master of arts in education and a bachelor of arts in sociology from the University of Northern Colorado. Kaye Shelton is professor of educational leadership in the Center for Doctoral Studies in the College of Education and Human Development at Lamar University. Previously, as the dean of online education for Dallas Baptist University, she led the development and ongoing operations of the online education programs with over 55 majors and degrees offered fully online. She is certified as an online instructor, teaching online since 1999, and is also an online education consultant. Shelton has been involved with research in online education since 1997 and has spoken at numerous conferences and workshops and advised peer institutions regarding the creation of an online education program and best practices for teaching online and faculty support. Since 1998, Shelton has trained or mentored hundreds of faculty members from various institutions in how to teach online and adopt best practices. In addition, she is the researcher for OLC’s Quality Scorecard for Online Programs and the Quality Course Teaching and Instructional Practice Scorecard that focuses on online pedagogy. She is a recent inductee of the Texas Distance Learning Hall of Fame and winner of both the Blackboard and the eLearning exemplary online course awards, and she has published over 45 articles and book chapters in the field of online education, including a coauthored book titled An Administrator’s Guide to Online Education (Information Age Publishing, 2005). Shelton was also awarded a Sloan-C Effective Practice Award for her research on the Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Education Programs, the John R. Bourne Award for Outstanding Achievement in Online Education, and the NCPEA Morphet Dissertation Award. Recently, Shelton has been involved in the national and international use of the Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Programs as it has been adopted by institutions in Latin America. She is also an OLC Quality Scorecard program evaluator and teaches workshops regarding its implementation.

contributors

311

Joshton Strigle is director of eLearning and Learning Support Centers at the College of Central Florida. He began serving online students and faculty in 1998 and has been his institution’s online leader since. He has served as the College of Central Florida’s representative to the Florida Virtual Campus (FLVC) Members Council for Distance Learning and Student Support since 2010 and as the chair during the 2018–2019 academic year. He chaired the FLVC 2019 Open Educational Resources Summit, bringing online learning professionals together with faculty, librarians, and administrators to discuss the challenges and benefits of the adoption of open educational resources. Through his work at the FLVC, he collaborated with Victoria Brown on the creation of the Online Student Services Scorecard, which has since been adopted into the OLC scorecard suite. Their work has been shared at conferences nationwide, earning a best-in-track award at OLC Accelerate 2018. Strigle maintains his connection to students through teaching online each term. This combination of student, administrative, faculty, and policy experience serves him well, as he seeks to continually improve the learning experience for online students. Karen Swan is the James J. Stukel Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership and a research associate in the Center for Online Learning, Research, and Service at the University of Illinois Springfield. Swan holds a doctorate in communication, computing, and technology in education from Teachers College, Columbia University, and has coauthored four books and over 150 book chapters and journal articles on educational technology topics. She has directed several grants from such funders as the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, the New York City Board of Education, the Gates Foundation, and AT&T. Swan has been teaching online for over 20 years and researching online learning for almost as long. Her current research focuses on interactivity and social presence in online learning and student retention and progression online. She is a fellow of OLC and a founding member of the OLC board of directors. Swan is a member of the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame and received the OLC award for Outstanding Achievement by an Individual, the National University Technology Network (NUTN) award for Outstanding Service, the Burks Oakley II Distinguished Online Teaching Award, and the Distinguished Alumnus Award from her alma mater. Kelvin Thompson is a popular speaker and facilitator who regularly addresses groups throughout the United States on topics related to online and blended learning and educational technology, while he serves as the executive director of the University of Central Florida’s (UCF’s) Center

312

contributors

for Distributed Learning (http://cdl.ucf.edu) with a faculty appointment as a graduate faculty scholar in UCF’s College of Education and Human Performance. Thompson has collaborated on the design of hundreds of online and blended courses over the past 22 years and is active in the online education community. Thompson developed the BlendKit Course open courseware (http://bit.ly/blendkit) as part of UCF’s Blended Learning Toolkit, and he also cohosts TOPcast: The Teaching Online Podcast (available on iTunes and at http://topcast.online.ucf.edu). Thompson is active in the higher education professional development community and has held leadership roles within the work of EDUCAUSE and the OLC. His personal research interests center around how interaction affects learner engagement. Information on his Online Course Criticism qualitative evaluation model for facilitating the scholarship of teaching and learning in online and blended environments is available online (http://onlinecoursecriticism .com). Thompson holds an doctor of education degree in curriculum and instruction and master of arts in instructional systems technology from UCF and a bachelor of music education degree from the Florida State University.

INDEX

AAACE. See American Association for Adult and Continuing Education AABHE. See American Association of Blacks in Higher Education AACC. See American Association of Community Colleges academics academic affairs, 144–45 academic networks, 244–45 community for, 38 distance education and, 43–44 research on, 31–32 for students, 166 studies on, 139–40 study for, 49 support teams for, 151–52 technology and, 286–87 access, 8, 140–43, 289 accessibility challenges for, 187–97 civil rights and, 281 IAAP, 191–92 initiatives, 287 for institutions, 180–81, 197–98, 282, 290 for MOOCs, 186 policy for, 285 for students with disabilities, 181–87 Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI), 190 accommodation model, 183 accreditors, 213, 245–46, 284 ACE. See American Council on Education

achievement, 86 active learning, 98 adaptation, 270 adaptive challenges, 62–63 adaptive learning, 107–9, 170–72, 288–89 disruption and, 14–17 for diversity, 62–63 to ecosystems, 272 to MOOCs, 172–73 for universities, 53 adjunct faculty, 20–21, 121, 123–24, 129 administration, 60–61, 231, 278 adult education organizations, 249–50 Adult Education Research Conference (AERC), 252 advocacy, 242 AERC. See Adult Education Research Conference AESP. See Appalachian Education Satellite Program affordability, 172, 176, 294 agriculture, 4–5 AG*SAT. See American Distance Education Consortium AI. See artificial intelligence Alcoholics Anonymous, 48 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, 7–8, 24 alliances, 203–4 ALN. See Asynchronous Learning Networks American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE), 250

313

314

index

American Association of Blacks in Higher Education (AABHE), 64 American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), 247 American Council on Education (ACE), 65 American Distance Education Consortium (AG*SAT), 6 Americans With Disabilities Act, 148, 180, 182, 185, 193, 208 analysis, of data, 234 analytics, 79–82, 105–6 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 251–52 androgyny, 99 APLU. See Association of Public Land Grant Universities Appalachian Education Satellite Program (AESP), 5–6 Arbaugh, Ben, 83 artificial intelligence (AI), 108–9, 157, 167, 282–83 The Art of the Long View (Schwartz), 52 assessment, 132 for disabilities, 196–97 evaluation and, 232 of large public institutions, 146–48 of learning processes, 82–84 of online student services, 143–44 program evaluations, 222–23 technology for, 286 assignments, 128, 153–54 Association for Talent Development (ATD), 250 Association of Public Land Grant Universities (APLU), 7, 10–14

associations. See specific associations asynchronous learning networks (ALN), 7, 24 ATD. See Association for Talent Development ATI. See Accessible Technology Initiative augmented reality, 170 authority, 11–12 awards, 133–34 Babson Research Group, 16–17, 171 background experience, 34–38 balance time, 126 barriers, 60–62, 174–76, 178, 271–72 behavioral psychology, 170 best practices, 229, 235–36 big data, 20, 279–80 Big Ten Academic Alliance for Online Educators, 245 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 251 Blackboard, 252 blockchain technology, 206, 287–88 Boggess, Laurence B., 118 bold approaches, 61 Brand, Stewart, 289 British Open University. See Open University of the United Kingdom broad communication, 195 budgets, 51–52, 269 Building an Argument, 154 Burge, Elizabeth, 50–51 CAEL. See Council for Adult and Experiential Learning Cape Town Open Education Declaration, 18

index

career considerations, 65–66, 274 careers, 165–66 case studies, 146–54 catalysts, 28–29 CBEN. See Competency-Based Education Network CCCOER. See Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources Center for American Progress, 55 Center for Transforming Student Services (CENTSS), 152 certificates, 20 challenges for accessibility, 187–97 adaptive, 62–63 for faculty, 260–62 leadership, 3–4, 292–95 in professional development, 122 for success, 64 for vision, 291 Chaloux, Bruce, 22 change bold approaches for, 61 chaos and, 52 for communities, 47 in course design, 168–69 in higher education, 80, 275–76 in hiring, 60 Industrial Revolution and, 163–64 for institutions, 65–66, 256–57 knowledge for, 50–51 leadership and, 43–46, 53, 277–80, 288–90, 295–96 management, 269 OLC for, 7–8, 36 in organizational structure, 28–29 in policy, 284 radical, 44

315

study for, 49 success for, 65 from technology, 176–77, 296 in tuition, 291 Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE), 39–41 chaos, 52 CHLOE. See Changing Landscape of Online Education Chuck D. Dziuban Award for Excellence in Online Teaching, 133 civil rights, 281 classroom management, 125, 129 cloud computing, 164, 212 cognitive presence, 78–79 CoI. See Community of Inquiry collaboration, 15, 214 with consortia, 244–45 engagement and, 66, 244 for faculty, 38 for innovation, 26–27 OER for, 19–20 Collins, Jim, 44–46 communication broad, 195 communications technology, 273 effective leadership communication for, 13–14 for higher education, 11 ICT, 184 for institutions, 246 for leadership, 13–14 media and, 97 positive, 234 of strategic value, 229 telecommunications, 7 communities for academics, 38 change for, 47 for institutions, 51, 203

316

index

LGBT community, 59 planning for, 47–48 technology for, 14–15 Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources (CCCOER), 18 community colleges AACC, 247 data on, 34 online learning for, 77 Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, 184–85 research on, 27–30 studies on, 25–27 universities and, 30–34, 40 Community of Inquiry (CoI), 75–79, 83–84, 100–101, 104 compensation, 208 competency competency-based education, 107–8, 173–74 domains, 268–71 knowledge and, 107–8, 215–16 leadership and, 117–18 of online faculty success, 124–25 in online learning, 261 Competency-Based Education Network (CBEN), 245 competition in distance education, 291–92 for financial support, 25 for leadership, 215–16, 296 computers, 100, 160, 162 confidence, 225–26 connectivist pedagogy, 98–99 consortia, 244–45 constructivism, 83, 97–98, 100–101 content creators, 192–94 content scaffolds, 266–67

continuous improvement, 189–90, 196–97, 224 Cooperative for Educational Technologies, 138–39, 154–55 Coordination of Open University and Distance Education (CUAED), 259 cost-effectiveness, 8–9, 286–87, 294 “Cost of Higher Education,” 160 Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), 249–50 course completion, 85 course design big data for, 20 change in, 168–69 delivery team processes and, 128 model online, 131–32 MOOCs for, 98–99, 105–7 organizational structure and, 101 professional development for, 119 websites and, 148 course development, 231 course quality, 226 Coursera, 106 CourseShare, 19 CREAD. See Inter-American Distance Education Consortium Creative Commons, 252 creativity, 51, 267–68 credibility, 133 CRM. See customer relationship management system cross-departmental committees, 233 CUAED. See Coordination of Open University and Distance Education culture cultural adoption, 194–96 cultural barriers, 174–76 diversity in, 131

index

higher education and, 67–68 of institutions, 133–34, 285 of learning, 282 online learning for, 278 of quality, 226–29 curriculum development, 35, 295 customer relationship management system (CRM), 162 data access, 271 AI and, 108–9 analysis of, 234 big, 20, 279–80 on community colleges, 34 data-based decision making, 79–82 on distance education, 171 enrollment, 85, 277 in Grade Increase, 16–17 for higher education, 162–63 institutional, 149–50 NCES for, 197 for professionalism, 204–5 for research, 26 from WAVE tool, 186–87, 191 debt, 167–68 decision making, 79–82 delivery team process, 128, 227–28 demographic shifts, 258–59, 295–96 Department of Education, U.S. (DOE), 242–43, 283 Dickens, Charles, 158 differentiation strategies, 292 digital leadership, 268–69, 271 digital technology, 97–99, 180–81, 196, 210–12, 279 direct instruction, 101 disabilities Americans With Disabilities Act, 148, 180, 182, 185, 193, 208

317

assessment for, 196–97 content creators and, 192–94 in higher education, 186–87 for institutions, 185–86, 188–91 motivation and, 194–96 for online learning, 181–84 technical staff for, 191–92 technical standards for, 185 discipline-specific skills, 122–23 disruption adaption and, 14–17 for higher education, 260 online learning as, 159–65 technology and, 53, 157 distance education academics and, 43–44 alliances in, 203–4 certificates from, 20 competition in, 291–92 CREAD, 250 CUAED, 259 data on, 171 diversity in, 121 effective leadership communication for, 13–14 effectiveness in, 100–101 emerging technology for, 104–9 endorsement process for, 230 engagement in, 77 expansion of, 16–17 expertise in, 246, 277 funding for, 12–13 GP IDEA, 19 history of, 3–7 ICDE, 20 impact of, 45 institutional leadership for, 10–11 International Council for Open and Distance Education, 20

318

index

Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education, 222–23 leadership for, 11, 21–22 OER for, 18 online faculty success in, 124–25 organizational structure for, 11–12 organizations, 249 outcomes, 85–87 passion in, 45–46 strategic planning for, 11, 280 technology for, 96, 159–65, 167–68 traditional classroom instruction and, 76–79 distance learning, 17–21 distributed education model, 226–27 distributed leadership, 63 diversity adaptation for, 62–63 cost-effectiveness and, 294 in culture, 131 in distance education, 121 at institutions, 59–60 leadership and, 55–56, 67–69, 121–22, 280–83 in learning, 126 mentoring for, 64–65 for OLC, 181 organizational structure for, 64 quality and, 162 research on, 57, 60–61 Dodd, Bucky, 118 DOE. See Department of Education EADL. See European Association for Distance Learning ecosystems, 176–78, 272

EDEN. See European Distance and E-Learning Network EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 40, 154–55, 181, 203–4, 248 EdX, 106 effectiveness in classroom management, 129 cost-effectiveness, 8–9, 286–87, 294 in distance education, 100–101 for faculty, 131 in higher education, 174 for leadership, 13–14, 75–76, 87–88 LMS for, 80–84, 131–32 of online learning, 76–77 efficiency, 173–74, 202 eLearning. See specific topics embedded support, 153 Emerging Leadership in Online Learning (IELOL), 65, 256, 259, 262–67, 275 emerging technology, 104–9 employment-relevant learning, 166 endorsement process, 230 endurance, 45 Energy Providers Coalition for Education, 19–20 engagement, 68 collaboration and, 66, 244 in distance education, 77 external, 241–42, 246, 253–54 for isolation, 142 leadership and, 125 OER for, 278–79 in online learning, 143 success and, 138–40 enrollment, 85, 160–61, 277, 291–92 entrepreneurial initiatives, 206–7 equality, 56

index

essential services, 210 ethical realism Ethical Realism, 47–50 for institutions, 51–52 universities and, 47–51 ethnic groups, 55, 58–59. See also underrepresented groups European Association for Distance Learning (EADL), 251 European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN), 250–51 evaluation, 232 Executive Leadership Summit, 64 expectations, 246 experience, 34–39 experiments, 44–45 expertise, 246, 277, 295 external advocacy, 212–14 external engagement, 241–42, 246, 253–54 External Programme, 158 Facebook, 264 face-to-face classrooms, 87–88, 121, 124 facilitation, 101, 131–32 faculty adjunct, 20–21, 121, 123–24, 129 budgets for, 51–52 challenges for, 260–62 collaboration for, 38 effectiveness for, 131 faculty research organizations, 252 financial support for, 13 incentives for, 133–34 instructional design and, 246–47 interactivity with, 175 leadership for, 86–87, 206 LMS for, 188

319

model online course design for, 131–32 online learning for, 134–35 online legalities for, 127–28 online teaching for, 120–24, 130–31 participation, 20–21 professional development for, 129, 134–35 program design for, 132–33 quality for, 234 research on, 32–34 satisfaction, 9 selection, 262–63 staff and, 64 students and, 11, 29, 67, 165–67 success for, 124–25 support for, 116–20, 207–8, 231 teaching presence for, 125–26 technology skills for, 126, 192 feedback, 172, 234 Female Empowerment Organization, 61 financial support, 13, 25, 175, 241, 283 FIPSE. See Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Five Pillars of Quality, 8–9, 139, 233 flexibility, 270, 289 Flexible Higher Education (Burge), 50–51 Ford, Cristi, 279–80, 287, 292–93 foundation organized groups, 251–52 Friedman, Thomas, 15, 257–58 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), 103 funding, 12–13, 183 future leadership, 246–47

320

index

Garrett, Richard, 39 gender, 282–83 in higher education, 34 identity and, 59 research on, 56 women and, 57–58 general education requirements, 56 generational phases, 257–58 globalization, 14 goals, 30 Good to Great in the Social Sectors (Collins), 44–46 GP IDEA. See Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance grace, 50 Grade Increase (Babson Research Group), 16–17, 171 grants, 24, 150–51 Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance (GP IDEA), 19 growth mind-sets, 292–93 Hampton University, 64 Harper, Anna Eliot, 158 Hase, Stewart, 99 Hathaway, Sheryl, 118 HBCU. See historically Black colleges and universities hedgehog concepts, 45–47, 51–52 Hess, Abigail, 17–18 heutagogy, 99 higher education. See also specific topics AABHE, 64 administration in, 60–61 affordability in, 172, 176 AI in, 108–9 ALNs for, 24 authority in, 11–12

barriers for, 60–62, 271–72 big data for, 279–80 careers after, 165–66 change in, 80, 275–76 CHLOE for, 39–41 communication for, 11 continuous improvement in, 196–97 “Cost of Higher Education,” 160 culture and, 67–68 data for, 162–63 debt from, 167–68 disabilities in, 186–87 disruption for, 260 effectiveness in, 174 efficiency in, 173–74 experiments in, 44–45 funding for, 183 gender in, 34 history of, 158–59 Industrial Revolution for, 4–5 Information Revolution for, 5–6, 53 innovation in, 169, 288, 294–95 institutional villages in, 198 K-12 education and, 288–90 leadership in, 50–51, 61, 120, 290–92 “A Lost Decade in Higher Education,” 202 mission statements in, 245 MOOCs for, 98–99, 105–7, 109, 132 online learning for, 39, 68–69, 216–17, 259–60 online technology for, 7 Open Educational Resources in, 151 partnerships in, 19–20 policy, 296 radical change for, 44

index

reform in, 293–94 shared objectives in, 177–78 society and, 57 stakeholders in, 62 studies on, 30–34 telecommunications for, 7 training and, 19 universities for, 27–30 in U.S., 3, 39 Western Interstate Cooperative for Higher Education, 7, 138–39, 154–55, 181, 249 high touch, for leadership, 61–62 hiring, 60, 191–92, 207–8, 262–63, 281 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCU), 69 history of APLU, 10–14 of distance education, 3–7 of higher education, 158–59 of Information Society, 14 of MOOCs, 159–60 of OLC, 248–49 of online learning, 118–20 How People Learn, 98 Hulsman, John, 47–50 human capital, 178 human tutoring, 171 humility, 48–50 IAAP. See International Association of Accessibility Professionals ICDE. See International Council for Open and Distance Education ICT. See information and communication technologies ideation, 272–73 identity, 59 IELOL. See Emerging Leadership in Online Learning

321

IMS Global Learning Consortium, 249 incentives, 133–34 inclusive strategies, 62–66, 282–83 Industrial Revolution agriculture during, 4–5 change and, 163–64 for higher education, 4–5 Information Age after, 79–80 information, 12, 289 Information Age, 79–80 information and communication technologies (ICT), 184 Information Revolution, 3, 5–6, 21, 53 Information Society, 14–15 information technology (IT), 35–36, 185–86 initiatives, 287 innovation acceleration and, 15 collaboration for, 26–27 endurance and, 45 grants for, 150–51 in higher education, 169, 288, 294–95 Innovation Award in Online Student Services, 152 for institutions, 21–22, 66 investment in, 287 success of, 52 inputs, 81–82, 84–85 institutions accessibility for, 180–81, 197–98, 282, 290 change for, 65–66, 256–57 commitment for, 8–9 communication for, 246 communities for, 51, 203 cost-effectiveness for, 286–87 creativity for, 51, 267–68

322

index

culture of, 133–34, 285 data from, 149–50 demographic shifts for, 258–59 disabilities for, 185–86, 188–91 diversity at, 59–60 ethical realism for, 51–52 financial support for, 241 generational phases for, 257–58 goals for, 30 grants for, 24 growth mind-sets for, 293 hiring for, 262–63 innovation for, 21–22, 66 Institute for Online Learning, 247 institutional-level services, 117 institutional strategic plan, 234 institutional villages, 198 integrity for, 268 large adult-serving, multicampus public, 150–54 large public, 146–48 leadership for, 10–11, 25–26, 39–41, 57–58, 124, 130 LMS for, 188–89, 195 metrics for, 85–86 mission statements for, 44–46 in New York, 83 OCR and, 183–84 online learning for, 27–30, 227, 234 online student services for, 145–46 opportunities for, 52 partnerships between, 296 professionalism for, 43 in public sector, 141–42, 145–46 quality for, 235–36 resources for, 12–13 society and, 62 strategic planning for, 264–65

student-centric, 232 studies on, 27–30, 51–52 support from, 129 underrepresented groups at, 55–56 in U.S., 30–34 vision for, 117–18 instructional design, 35, 231 computers for, 100 faculty and, 246–47 hiring of, 281 for needs, 224 for online teaching, 99–104 pedagogy and, 96 skills and, 119–20 UDI, 127 instructional technology, 129 Instructional Technology Council (ITC), 187 instructor social presence, 102–3 integrity, 268 intelligent tutoring systems, 170–71 interactivity, 82, 99–100, 175 Inter-American Distance Education Consortium (CREAD), 250 internal advocacy, 203–5 International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP), 191–92 International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE), 20, 250 international organizations, 250–51 International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), 249 International University Consortium for Telecommunications (IUC), 6 Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education, 222–23

index

isolation, 139, 142 issues, 17–21, 283–85 ISTE. See International Society for Technology in Education IT. See information technology ITC. See Instructional Technology Council IUC. See International University Consortium for Telecommunications Jenkins, Henry, 96 job skills, 292 John Hopkins University, 159 K-12 education higher education and, 288–90 skills for, 88 in U.S., 17–18, 75 Kennan, George, 47 Kenyon, Chris, 99 knowledge for change, 50–51 competency and, 107–8, 215–16 Knowledge Society, 15 modeling, 79–80 skills and, 86–87 Knowles, Malcolm, 99 Koller, Daphne, 106 Kresge Foundation, 251 Land-Grant College Act, 4 large adult-serving, multicampus public institutions, 150–54 large public institutions, 146–48 lawsuits, 180–81, 184–85, 193 LCTLs. See less commonly taught languages leadership. See also operational leadership accreditors and, 245–46

323

challenges, 3–4, 292–95 change and, 43–46, 53, 277–80, 288–90, 295–96 communication for, 13–14 competency and, 117–18 competition for, 215–16, 296 with consortia, 244–45 continuous improvement for, 189–90, 224 with cross-departmental committees, 233 digital, 268–69, 271 for distance education, 11, 21–22 distributed, 63 diversity and, 55–56, 67–69, 121–22, 280–83 effectiveness for, 13–14, 75–76, 87–88 engagement and, 125 Executive Leadership Summit, 64 experience and, 34–38 external engagement for, 241–42, 253–54 for faculty, 86–87, 206 future, 246–47 in higher education, 50–51, 61, 120, 290–92 high touch for, 61–62 humility for, 48–49 IELOL, 65, 256, 259, 262–67, 275 inclusive strategies for, 62–66 for institutions, 10–11, 25–26, 39–41, 57–58, 124, 130 internal, 205 issues for, 283–85 IT for, 185–86 Leadership and Mentoring Institute, 64 loyalty for, 48 management and, 35

324

index

MOLLI, 258 needs for, 267–68 OLC and, 233 for online learning, 24–26, 30–34, 38–39, 181, 214, 256–59, 264–67, 271–74 for online organizations, 221–22 for online student services, 138–40, 144–45, 154–55 for online teaching, 96–97, 109 philosophy for, 62–63 planning for, 52, 234–35 policy influence for, 242–43 positive communication by, 234 professional associations for, 243–44, 247–53 professional development for, 262–64, 268–71, 274 prudence for, 47–48 quality for, 226 research on, 56, 59–60 by respect, 50 responsibility for, 49 scholarship of, 273–74 with stakeholders, 225–26 strategic planning for, 226–29 with students, 80, 106, 224 study for, 79 succession planning, 259–62 for sustainability, 8–9 technology for, 285–88 training for, 275–76 in universities, 213–14 visibility and, 212–13 Women in Leadership Conference, 61 learning. See also online learning active, 98 adaptive, 107–9, 170–72, 288–89

analytics, 79–82, 105–6 climate, 67–68 CoI for, 75–76 culture of, 282 diversity in, 126 effectiveness, 9 employment-relevant, 166 engagement of, 68 engineering, 170 facilitation of, 101 learner characteristics, 82, 124–25 learner satisfaction, 85 Learning Outside the Classroom Program, 24 machine, 108–9 needs, 289, 293 next-generation learning models, 168–69, 174, 176–78 nontraditional learners, 217 objectives, 284 in objectivism, 105 outcomes, 75–76, 85–87 from peers, 172 perception in, 102 personalized approaches for, 108 processes, 82–84 from professionalism, 50–51 scope of, 27–28, 40 for students, 224 teaching and, 76, 231 UDL, 127 learning management systems (LMS), 162–63, 175 for effectiveness, 80–84, 131–32 for institutions, 188–89, 195 legal landscape, 180–81, 184, 192 Legon, Ron, 39 less commonly taught languages (LCTLs), 19 LGBT community, 59

index

libraries, 210 licensure, 243, 284 Lieven, Anatole, 47–50 life coaches, 140–41 LMS. See learning management systems Lobosco, Katie, 17 “A Lost Decade in Higher Education,” 202 loyalty, 48 Lumen Learning, 253 Lumina Foundation, 251 Mace, Ron, 193–94 machine learning, 108–9 machine teachers, 104–5 Macromedia, 163 management, 35, 66 mandatory participation, 130–31 marginalized groups, 55–60, 67 MarylandOnline Leadership Institute (MOLLI), 258 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 159 massive open online courses (MOOCs) accessibility for, 186 adaptation to, 172–73 AI and, 157 flexibility from, 289 history of, 159–60 for online learning, 98–99, 105–7, 109, 132 media communication and, 97 integration, 122–23 interactivity and, 99–100 meetings, 168–69 mentoring, 64–65 metrics, 85–86, 234 micro-aggression, 59

325

microcredentials, 288–89 mission statements in higher education, 245 for institutions, 44–46 vision and, 47, 51 MIT. See Massachusetts Institute of Technology MOLLI. See MarylandOnline Leadership Institute MOOCs. See massive open online courses Moodle, 252 Morganthau, Hans, 47, 49 Morrill Act, 4 Morrow, Susan, 157, 166, 170, 176–78 Mosaic browser, 201 motivation disabilities and, 194–96 Motivational Framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching, 67–68 vision and, 46 multidisciplined approach, 66 National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), 259 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 197 National Center on Disability and Access to Education (NCDAE), 189–90 National Council for Online Education, 248 National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA), 242–43 NCDAE. See National Center on Disability and Access to Education

326

index

NCES. See National Center for Education Statistics NC-SARA. See National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements needs, 224, 267–68, 289, 293 neuroscience, 169 New York, 83 next-generation learning, 168–69, 174, 176–78 Ng, Andrew, 106 Niebuhr, Reinhold, 47–48 Niemiec, Mary, 280, 284, 286, 290–91, 293 nontraditional learners, 217 Nudge (Thaler/Sunstein), 195 objectives, 177–78, 284 objectivism, 83, 97–98, 105 OCR. See Office for Civil Rights OEC. See Open Education Consortium OER. See Open Educational Resources Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in court rulings, 192 for disabilities, 180–81 institutions and, 183–84 resolution agreements, 188–89, 193 OLC. See Online Learning Consortium on-boarding, 207–8 online learning assumptions about, 69 Big Ten Academic Alliance for Online Educators for, 245 CHLOE for, 39–41 for community colleges, 77 competency in, 261 for culture, 278

disabilities for, 181–84 as disruption, 159–65 effectiveness of, 76–77 engagement in, 143 environment, 96–97 experience in, 39 facilitation of, 132 for faculty, 134–35 for higher education, 39, 68–69, 216–17, 259–60 history of, 118–20 IELOL, 65 inputs for, 81–82 Institute for Online Learning, 247 for institutions, 27–30, 227, 234 leadership for, 24–26, 30–34, 38–39, 181, 214, 256–59, 264–67, 271–74 legalities for, 127–28 MOOCs for, 98–99, 105–7, 109, 132 multidisciplined approach for, 66 National Council for Online Education, 248 next-generation learning models, 168–69 online gateway courses for, 153 Online Learning Consortium, 7–8, 36 organizational theory for, 26–27, 139–40 process of, 81–82 program design for, 116 PSOL, 208 quality of, 245 research on, 76–77, 87–88 reviews of, 235 studies on, 39–41 systems complexity, 128 in U.S., 25–26

index

Online Learning Consortium (OLC). See also Emerging Leadership in Online Learning for change, 7–8, 36 diversity for, 181 HBCU and, 69 history of, 248–49 membership in, 244 program design for, 263–64 Quality Scorecard, 120, 143–44, 149–51, 223–24, 230, 232–35 online organizations leadership for, 221–22 OLC Quality Scorecard for, 230, 232–35 program evaluations for, 222–23 quality evaluations for, 223–29 quality review cycle for, 231–32 online student services assessment of, 143–44 case studies of, 146–54 delivery models for, 140–43 for institutions, 145–46 leadership for, 138–40, 144–45, 154–55 online teaching Chuck D. Dziuban Award for Excellence in Online Teaching, 133 for faculty, 120–24, 130–31 instructional design for, 99–104 leadership for, 96–97, 109 pedagogy for, 97–99 quality for, 127 skills for, 117 training for, 141 online tutorials, 151 online tutoring, 150 Open Educational Resources (OER), 18–20, 151, 253, 278–79

Open Education Associations, 252–53 Open Education Consortium (OEC), 253 Open University of the United Kingdom (OU), 6 operational leadership digital technology for, 210–12 entrepreneurial initiatives for, 206–7 external advocacy for, 212–14 faculty support for, 207–8 internal advocacy in, 203–5 professionalism and, 214–15 student support for, 209–10 success in, 201–3, 216–17 vision and, 215–16 opportunities, 52 organizational structure change in, 28–29 course design and, 101 for distance education, 11–12 for diversity, 64 organized anarchy, 26–27 for support, 145 organizational theory, 26–27, 139–40 OU. See Open University of the United Kingdom outcomes, 75–76, 85–87 overall course grades, 85 participation, 20–21, 130–31, 195 partnerships, 203–4 for enrollment, 291–92 in higher education, 19–20 between institutions, 296 management of, 270 passion, 45–46 patriotism, 47–48

327

328

index

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, 184–85 PBS. See Public Broadcasting Service Pearson, 163 pedagogy, 82–84, 109 instructional design and, 96 for online teaching, 97–99 technology and, 131, 212, 271, 293 peers, 172 perception, 102 performance, 45, 77, 87 personalized approaches, 108 personalized feedback, 172 personal responsibility, 68–69 philosophy, 56, 62–63 Pickett, Alexandra M., 118 pivot points, 45–46 planning. See also strategic planning budgets, 51–52 for communities, 47–48 for leadership, 52, 234–35 for management, 66 resources and, 46 succession, 259–62 policy for accessibility, 285 change in, 284 higher education, 296 influence, 242–43 regulations and, 269–70 positive communication, 234 Poulin, Russell, 282–83, 288–89, 291–92, 294–95 predictive analytics, 105–6 priorities, 228–29 priorities survey for online learners (PSOL), 208 product user groups, 252 professionalism

background experience and, 36–38 data for, 204–5 expertise and, 295 IAAP for, 191–92 for institutions, 43 learning from, 50–51 licensure for, 284 operational leadership and, 214–15 professional associations, 243–44, 247–53 professional development, 102, 117, 119, 122, 129, 134–35, 262–71, 274 research on, 34–35 in support, 140 UPCEA, 154–55, 247–48, 258–59 proficiencies, 87 program coordinators, 209–10 program design, 116, 132–33, 263–64 program evaluations, 222–23 program quality, 226 program quality evaluation, 222–23 proprietary LMS, 163 prudence, 47–48 PSOL. See priorities survey for online learners psychology, 170 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), 6 public sector, 141–42, 145–48 public television, 5 QM. See Quality Matters quality. See also online organizations assurance, 202 culture of, 226–29 diversity and, 162

index

evaluations, 223–29 for faculty, 234 Five Pillars of Quality, 8, 139, 233 for institutions, 235–36 key qualities for operational leaders, 201–2 for leadership, 226 measurement and, 273 OLC Quality Scorecard, 120, 143–44, 149–51, 223–24, 230, 232–35 of online learning, 245 for online teaching, 127 in online technology, 7–9 program quality evaluation, 222–23 review cycle, 231–32 standards, 103–4 of support, 143–44 Quality Matters (QM), 103–4, 109, 120, 127, 143–44 quotas, for meetings, 168–69 Ragan, Lawrence C., 278, 281–82, 286, 289, 293–94 Reading Rainbow, 163 reform, 293–94 Regis University, 61 regulations, 269–70, 284 regulatory barriers, 174–75 Rehabilitation Act, 182, 208, 281 research on academics, 31–32 by Center for American Progress, 55 on community colleges, 27–30 data for, 26 on diversity, 57, 60–61 educational, 35 on ethnic groups, 58–59

329

on faculty, 32–34 on gender, 56 on instructor social presence, 102–3 on interactivity, 82 on isolation, 139 on IT, 35–36 on leadership, 56, 59–60 on online learning, 76–77, 87–88 on predictive analytics, 105–6 on professionalism, 34–35 on students, 99 studies from, 39 on teaching, 102 from UK, 58 on women, 57–58 resources, 46 respect, 50 responsibility, 49, 68–69 review, 235 RFD. See Rural Free Delivery Riggs, Shannon, 118 risk aversion, 272 Rowland, Cynthia, 279, 281, 285, 287, 290, 292–93 Rural Free Delivery (RFD), 5 SaaS. See Software as Service salary, 58–59 Salve Regina University, 61 SARAs. See State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements scheduling, 128 scholarship, of leaders, 273–74 Schroeder, Raymond, 277–78, 282–84, 287–89, 291, 295 Schwartz, Peter, 52 scope, of learning, 27–28, 40 sector-based associations, 247–48 self-awareness, 50 services, 182–83, 210

330

index

shared governance, 270 shared objectives, 177–78 Shean, Andrew, 279, 281, 284–87, 290, 292, 294 skills discipline-specific, 122–23 instructional design and, 119–20 job, 292 for K-12 education, 88 knowledge and, 86–87 for online teaching, 117 society, 15 technology, 126, 192, 196–97 Sloan-C. See Online Learning Consortium small rural colleges, 149–50 SMEs. See subject matter experts social constructivism, 100–101 social media, 213 social presence, 78–79 society, 57, 62 Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood (SSEA), 252 Software as Service (SaaS), 164 special education. See disabilities SSEA. See Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood staff, 64 stakeholders, 62, 68, 225–26 standards, 103–4 start-up companies, 211 State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARAs), 284–85 strategic planning for distance education, 11, 280 for faculty development program, 131 for institutions, 264–65 for leadership, 226–29 priorities, 228–29

for professional associations, 243–44 strategic value, 229 students. See also online student services academics for, 166 accommodation for, 126 AI for, 167 computers for, 160, 162 confidence for, 225–26 credibility with, 133 curriculum development for, 295 debt for, 167–68 demographic shifts in, 295–96 with disabilities, 181–87 enrollment of, 160–61 experience of, 37–38 faculty and, 11, 29, 67, 165–67 financial support for, 175 Information Revolution for, 3 leadership with, 80, 106, 224 learning for, 224 online tutorials for, 151 performance of, 77 personalized feedback for, 172 research on, 99 satisfaction for, 9 services for, 182–83 student affairs, 144–45 student-centric institutions, 232 student-instructor ratio, 121–22 success for, 134, 224 support for, 13, 68–69, 82, 209–10, 231 surveys for, 83–84 teaching and, 101 video tutorials for, 141–42 studies on academics, 139–40 on background experience, 34–38

index

on community colleges, 25–27 on higher education, 30–34 on institutions, 27–30, 51–52 on online learning, 39–41 from research, 39 study, 49, 79 subject matter experts (SMEs), 167 substantive interaction, 175 success career considerations for, 65–66 challenges for, 64 for change, 65 engagement and, 138–40 for faculty, 124–25 of innovation, 52 in operational leadership, 201–3, 216–17 for students, 134, 224 succession planning, 259–62 superior performance, 45 supply chain management, 202–3 support administration, 231 embedded, 153 for faculty, 116–20, 207–8, 231 from institutions, 129 organizational structure for, 145 professionalism in, 140 quality of, 143–44 for students, 13, 68–69, 82, 209–10, 231 teams, 151–52 surveys CoI, 83–84, 104 by EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 181 before IELOL, 264 by ITC, 187 PSOL, 208 for students, 83–84 sustainability, 8–9

331

Swan, Karen, 278–79, 281, 285, 290, 292–93 systems complexity, 128 teaching. See also online teaching awards, 133–34 climate, 67–68 interaction and, 100 learning and, 76, 231 machine teachers, 104–5 pedagogy in, 109 personality, 122 presence, 78–79, 101, 125–26 research on, 102 students and, 101 traditional classroom instruction, 76–79, 158–59 team building, 126, 233 teams, 151–52 technical staff, 191–92 technical standards, 185 technology academics and, 286–87 for adaptive learning, 288–89 adoption, 205 AI, 108–9 for assessment, 286 barriers for, 174–76 blockchain, 206, 287–88 change from, 176–77, 296 communications, 273 for communities, 14–15 Cooperative for Educational Technologies, 138–39 digital, 97–99, 180–81, 196, 210–12, 279 disruption and, 53, 157 for distance education, 96, 159–65, 167–68 emerging, 104–9 Five Pillars of Quality for, 9

332

index

globalization for, 14 ICT, 184 information and, 12 in Information Revolution, 21 instructional, 129 ISTE, 249 for leadership, 285–88 for next-generation learning, 176–78 online, 7 pedagogy and, 131, 212, 271, 293 practical considerations for, 172–74 skills, 126, 192, 196–97 support, 231 for videoconferencing, 81 telecommunications, 7 tenacity, 270–71 Thank You for Being Late (Friedman), 15, 257–58 Thrun, Sebastian, 106 Ticknor, Anna Eliot, 158 time management, 153–54 tradition face-to-face classrooms, 87–88, 121, 124 for marginalized groups, 67 nontraditional learners, 217 traditional classroom instruction, 76–79, 158–59 at universities, 63 training higher education and, 19 for leadership, 275–76 on-boarding and, 207–8 for online teaching, 141 trauma, 59 Trump, Donald, 185 tuition, 17–18, 291 tutoring, 150, 152–53, 170–71

Udacity, 107 UDI. See universal design for instruction UDL. See universal design for learning U.K. See United Kingdom UNAM. See National Autonomous University of Mexico underrepresented groups, 55–60, 63–64 unemployment, 294 unintended consequences, 52 United Kingdom (U.K.), 6, 58 United States (U.S.) ACE, 65 Americans With Disabilities Act in, 148, 180, 182, 185, 193, 208 DOE in, 242–43, 283 ethnic groups in, 58–59 higher education in, 3, 39 institutions in, 30–34 K-12 education in, 17–18, 75 lawsuits in, 180–81 marginalized groups in, 55–56 online learning in, 25–26 PBS for, 6 QM in, 103–4 Rehabilitation Act in, 182, 208, 281 tuition in, 17–18 urbanization in, 4 United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA), 249 universal design for instruction (UDI), 127, 194 universal design for learning (UDL), 127, 194, 203 universities adaptation for, 53 administration at, 278

index

community colleges and, 30–34, 40 ethical realism and, 47–51 HBCU, 69 for higher education, 27–30 large adult-serving, multicampus public institutions, 150–54 large public institutions, 146–48 leadership in, 213–14 politics of, 261–62 Regis University, 61 small rural colleges, 149–50 traditions at, 63 University of Maryland College, 7 University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA), 154– 55, 247–48, 258–59 urbanization, 4 U.S. See United States USDLA. See United States Distance Learning Association vendor management, 270 videoconferencing, 81 video tutorials, 141–42, 154 visibility, 212–13 vision challenges for, 291 for institutions, 117–18 mission statements and, 47, 51 motivation and, 46

333

operational leadership and, 215–16 strategic, 268 W3C. See World Wide Web Consortium wages, 58–59 Walmart Foundation, 252 WAVE tool, 186–87, 191 WCAG. See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines WebAIM, 186, 191 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), 185 websites, 148 Western Interstate Cooperative for Higher Education, 7, 138–39, 154–55, 181, 249 WikiEducator, 253 wireless networking, 211–12 women ACE’s Women’s Network, 65 in ethnic groups, 58 research on, 57–58 Women in Leadership Conference, 61 Working With Graphs, 154 workload, 126 World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 180–82, 185, 279 Wozniakin, Steve, 289 Writing With Sources, 154