| Higher Education Course Migration from F2F to Online Instruction: Problems for Instructors |
||||
Solution Models, continued |
||||
University of Toledo's Division of Distance Learning (DDL)was established in 1995 to enable the university's eight colleges to develop distance education courses. Rapid growth and strong demand for services forced a reassessment of goals and strategies at DDL, and a new operational model was adopted. DDL borrowed a client service model from the corporate world of instructional design, and approached DE faculty, not as colleagues, but as clients. Using a combination of corporate and ISTE standards to insure quality, DDL provided all instructional design services, both technical and pedagogical, and utilized the client/faculty as SME, mentor, instructor, and course director. The teaching environment was enhanced by the implementation of a web-based faculty forum that included bulletin boards, chat room, and content areas providing the latest research in teaching at a distance. The forum helped reduce the sense of isolation that arises among DE faculty that do not also teach traditonal classes. DDL services are voluntary and DE faculty are free to "do it all" on their own if they prefer (Fink, 2002). The World Campus at Penn State approaches Distance Education in much the same way as does the University of Toledo's DDL, but controls are more restrictive, the program is not voluntary; DE faculty are selected by department administrators, and course ownership belongs to the university. Developed in a two-semester time frame, DE course development begins with a mentoring relationship between an instructional designer and the course instructor. The instructor is considered the course "author" but the work is "work for hire" and the instructor is paid for services as SME and content provider. During the second semester, an instructional design team fleshes out the course and adds the finishing touches. Feedback from instructors indicates satisfaction in some areas and dissatisfaction in others. In particular, the DE workload is an issue, as is a perception that DE is undervalued by the institutional culture. Also, the collaborative work arrangement and shared authority during course development is a problem for some faculty (Luck, 2001; Turgeon et al, JALN 2000.) Blackboard,
WebCt, and e-College are well-recognized CMS vendors. Each provides
an array of services from web-hosting, to IT instruction and support,
to course content. Perhaps the best way to approach these vendors is though
the RFP process where specifications can be outlined and costs can be
negotiated. [www.blackboard.com,
http://www.ecollege.com/indexflash.learn
|
||||