Factors Influencing Faculty Success in Online Courses - SALT Washington Interactive Technologies Conference 2009

1. Factors Influencing Instructor Success in Online Courses Phil Ice, Ed.D. SALT, Washington Interactive Technologies Conference 2009

2. What Factors Influence Instructor Success in Online Courses?

4. a process model of learning in online and blended educational environments

5. grounded in a collaborative constructivist view of higher education

9. open communication (learning climate, risk free expression)

11. exploration (sharing information & ideas)

12. integration (connecting ideas)

14. facilitation (shaping constructive discourse)

16. 12 cognitive presence items (3 triggering, 3 exploration, 3 integration, 3 resolution)

18. principal component factor analysis

19. three factor model predicted by CoI framework confirmed

20. Arbaugh, Cleveland-Innes, Diaz, Garrison, Ice, Richardson, Shea & Swan – 2008

23. Impact of Pedagogical Training and Technical Support (n = 18 instructor and 512 students)

24. Training and Support hours regressed on Teaching Presence Subscales of Facilitation of Discourse and Direct Instruction

26. Pedagogical Guidance accounted for 2.1% of variance

27. Technical Support accounted for 1.9% of variance

28. Previous online teaching experience was not a significant predictor – in fact some of the highest scores came from first time instructorsIce, 2007

30. Modality for last degree earned – online vs. face to face

31. Degree Level

32. Co-variables – age, gender, courses previously taught, completion of additional pedagogical training

34. Gender was the only significant predictor

35. Being female accounted for 4% of the variance in Teaching Presence, Cognitive Presence and Facilitation of Discourse subscalePatrizi and Ice, 2009

36. So, what does matter? Research shows that commonly accepted factors have no impact. Is it all a matter of one’s outlook toward learning?

38. Based on Vygotsky’s concept of social mediated practice

39. Collaborative learning posits that individuals construct knowledge through dialogue, group discussion and peer modification.

41. A multitude of realities situated within each learner.

42. Dependent upon learners ability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate information.

44. Learners display an understanding of a single reality through declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge.

45. Premised on the instructor having complete control over the materials, pace and direction of learning.

48. 11 instructors interviewed – probing for understanding of technology.

49. Syllabi and learning activities placed within socio-epistemological framework.

51. Iterative, interpretive process to assess faculty understanding of application of technology.

52. Qualitative data used to support relationshiops from analysis of transformed data – understanding of technology & relationships to socio-epistemological orientations

53. Establishment of grounded theory was an objective.

56. Viewed technological tools as a replacement for pedagogy in online courses.

57. Believed various technologies would dictate how learning activities are structured.

58. Believed technologies had singular uses.

59. Beliefs not altered by significant training and support.

61. With respect to Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich’s (2006) Teaching Approaches Framework, an average of 76.19% of subgroup B’s activities were classified as objectivist-individual as compared to a mean of 27.02% for all other instructors.

63. The potential to screen potential instructors on the basis of socio-epistemological orientations may be of benefit to administrators.

64. Training and support structures may be needed to address paradigmatic orientations of faculty.