Advancing Online Teaching at an On-Ground Institution by Assessing Technical and Humanities Online Courses

Online learning has been expanding on many university campuses throughout the United States as well as worldwide, but the quality of such education needs to be assessed as compared to onground (in the classroom) education. To continue growth and experience in e-learning, universities are encouraged to develop online graduate and undergraduate courses and specialized certificate programs. A large comprehensive state university in New England, Central Connecticut State University (CCSU), created a task force to look closely at the university’s online and hybrid courses to ensure that the university delivers high quality online and hybrid instruction. Comprised of educators, administrators and technology experts, the task force’s objective is to develop recommendations to ensure that 1) online and hybrid courses taught at this state university reflect the best practices for online course design, 2) faculty teaching online and hybrid courses reflect the best pedagogical practices for online instruction, and 3) online and hybrid courses taught provide a positive learning experience for students. The purpose of this study is to explore the educational experience in the online classes offered to the primarily on-ground students, to evaluate the instructional effectiveness of various instructional tools used in the online class, and to assess viability of online course offering across majors, from technical (e.g., engineering and construction management) to humanity (e.g., communication and sociology). A survey was given to students who took online courses at CCSU during the Summer 2014 sessions to assess the instructional tools used and their effectiveness among other pertinent variables. The total number of academic departments that offered online courses was 38 and the total number of responders was 249 students. This paper, based on this survey and continuous discussion with faculty and administration, will recommend action items to maintain and improve online education by applying best teaching practices. This study will serve as a benchmark to continually monitor the progress of quality online education as the recommendations are implemented. Moreover, quality of online courses as compared to on-ground courses will be studied comparing the rigor and quality of the instruction. As in many other areas, a mixed strategy based on an appropriate combination of on-ground and online is desirable. The challenge is to determine that “mix” and support its multiple components. Implementation should include significant, ongoing training of faculty and investment in service and support for students and faculty. Quality of Online Education With the proliferation of distance education, there has been a paradigm shift in higher education over the past two decades. Academic institutions have offered online courses for students through various Learning Management Systems (LMS) and are still trying to expand online learning offerings. However, regulators and accrediting bodies have raised some concerns about online education, compared to on-ground face-to-face education. One of the biggest concerns resides in the quality of online instructions. There have been several attempts to define the quality standards that have been proposed for the delivery of online instructions. Criteria for quality assurance vary across the various areas of majors, ranging from technical (e.g., engineering and construction management) to humanity (e.g., communication and sociology). Different programs in higher education offering online courses might have their own unique perspective and interpretation to define the quality of online education. Nonetheless, there is P ge 26163.2 common ground to establish general characteristics for quality online instructions (e.g., clear statements of educational goals, instructional commitment to support learners, and collaborative processes of discovery). It might be difficult to define the quality of online teaching and learning because “quality” inclines to be measured based on a relative experience or an individual’s level of expectation. To assure the quality of distance education in the United States, the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET) initially drafted and published, in 1995, principles of good practice for electronically offered academic degree and certificate programs. To support the principles prepared by the WCET, the eight regional accrediting commissions developed a statement of commitment for the evaluation of electronically offered degrees and certificate programs. Both of these two documents together propose a consistent framework for developing quality standards of online education. Assessment of Quality Online Instructions Academic institutions have traditionally achieved quality in intellectual endeavors through the professionalism of academics, the principles of scholarship, and the rigors of peer review. Quinn argues that the roles of post-secondary institutions became increasingly vulnerable with the advent of the Information Age. For instance, faculty as well as students needs to be more open and to promote capacities to analyze, interrelate, and communicate about facts gleaned from the Internet. The quality in on-ground face-to-face instructions can be measured by “seat time”, “qualifications of instructors”, “intellectual property”, and “satisfaction rating by students”. However, the quality in online instructions might need to be measured differently. For instance, “seat time” which is one of the most common quality measures for on-ground face-to-face instructions may not be possible to be used for online or blended instructions. Compared to onground face-to-face instructions, there might be a separation of teaching and learning in online instructions. Therefore, the roles of faculty who teaches online courses must be shifted from a didactic teacher to a mentor or facilitator. This paradigm shift requires new quality measures for online instructions, which must be focused on learners, not on the instructor. Pond claims the traditional quality measures do not match this new climate of teaching and learning. The new paradigm measures for quality assurance need to focus on the characteristics in Figure 1. Traditional Paradigms Measures vs. New Paradigms Measures Teacher-Centered ↔ Leaner-Centered