Impact of a Distance Learning Coordinator on Faculty Perceptions of Online Teaching

Impact of a Distance Learning Coordinator on Faculty Perceptions of Online Teaching

Katie M. Mercer Neil Morte Margaret R. Davies

Georgia Southern University

Journal of Higher Education Management, 36(2), 93-98 (ISSN 2640-7515). © Copyright 2021 by the American Association of University Administrators. Permission to reprint for academic/scholarly purposes is unrestricted provided this statement appears on all duplicated copies. All other rights reserved.

Online learning is increasing, and educators must adapt to this new environment to ensure high quality student education (Chapman & Henderson, 2010). One way to increase faculty self-efficacy and satisfaction is the addition of a Distance Learning Coordinator (DLC). The focus of this research is faculty satisfaction in distance learning formats and the perceived value of the DLC by faculty. Perceived value of the DLC in this research refers to if the faculty found the DLC to be a valuable resource while undertaking online or blended class teaching.

Background

What is a Distance Learning Coordinator (DLC)? A Distance Learning Coordinator has the responsibility of serving as the point of contact for faculty, staff, and students to create high-quality online courses (Owusu-Mensah, Anyan, & Denkyi, 2015; Chapman & Henderson, 2010). The DLC will ensure the online courses function efficiently for the students and faculty members. It is critical for the DLC to be familiar with and oversee the curriculum and material delivered (Owusu-Mensah, Anyan, & Denkyi, 2015). This would allow faculty members to seek assistance from the DLC, which can increase perceived usefulness of the DLC? (Wingo, Ivankova, & Moss, 2017). The DLC can also train faculty, so they can be comfortable communicating and adapting in an online learning environment (Valentine, 2002). DLC and faculty can work together to ensure there are standards, objectives, and expectations for high quality distance learning (Quality Matters, 2016). In addition, the DLC can serve as an extension to each faculty member in their courses for organization and facilitation (Simonson et al., 2009).

Faculty Satisfaction. Faculty satisfaction is one of the five pillars of quality for the Sloan Consortium Quality Framework (Moore & Moore, 2005). Previous studies have shown faculty that teach online courses have higher overall job satisfaction and are more motivated by the use of technology in comparison to faculty that do not teach online courses (Betts, 1998; Schifter, 2000). By assessing faculty satisfaction, an evaluation of distance learning can be made (Lock Haven University, 2004). When faculty experience challenges, lack proper training, or cannot access to resources, satisfaction can be low (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). An important consideration in distance learning is quality of teaching and delivery (Green, 2009). Quality of teaching and delivery can be dependent on the acceptance and attitude faculty have towards distance learning (Wingo, Ivankova, & Moss, 2017).

One of the biggest needs and common quality issues in distance learning is effective communication between administration and the DLC (Owusu-Mensah, Anyan, & Denkyi, 2015; Pajibo, Asare, & Dzikunu, 2019). Without effective communication, there are additional challenges. 93

These include quality of teaching, technological issues, financial implications, and the satisfaction level of faculty, staff, and students (Valentine, 2002). Barriers include financial implications and technological issues. The differentiator between online and traditional settings is the use of technology. The increased usage and lack of support with the technology will affect satisfaction (Simonson et al., 2009; Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). Lack of experience also plays a role – faculty members with no experience can negatively impact the quality of delivery, have lower satisfaction, and may not see the value of distance learning (Ulmer, Watson, & Derby, 2007). However, faculty with distance learning experience see the benefits and can be another resource for inexperienced faculty. Another factor is the additional time required to conduct distance learning courses, which some see as a barrier. It is a reason for a decline in motivation as it takes more time to create and teach the lecture material (Kebritchi, Lipschuetz, & Santiague, 2017; Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Maguire, 2008; Shea, 2007). However, there is evidence that the quality of education is similar between distance and traditional learning despite the difference in the structure and delivery of information (Allen et al., 2006).

Measurement, Models, and Factors for Faculty Satisfaction of Online Courses. To assess quality of online courses and programs, surveys, models, and factors have been applied. For DLC’s, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) has standards and benchmarks to ensure the highest quality for online programs and courses (Chapman & Henderson, 2010). Although this has only been used for business programs, the standards and benchmarks can be examined in other online programs (Chapman & Henderson, 2010). A part of faculty satisfaction is the attitudes and beliefs towards distance learning, teaching, and the use of technological tools. The technology acceptance model or TAM2 gathers feedback and assists coordinators and administrators on how to build training and selfefficacy of faculty members (Wingo, Ivankova, & Moss, 2017). The model is also a way to showcase the effectiveness of online courses. With experience teaching online courses and the usage of technology, faculty members are receptive to distance learning (Ulmer, Watson, & Derby, 2007). Faculty giving their input can drive institutions to add or expand upon distance learning and impact higher education culture (Ulmer, Watson, & Derby, 2007). The other pillars for quality include student satisfaction, learning effectiveness, access, and cost-effectiveness, can impact faculty satisfaction (Moore & Moore, 2005).

Other measurements for faculty satisfaction and feedback include surveys. The online faculty satisfaction survey (OFSS) pertains to challenges and barriers related to distance learning. The factors that affected faculty satisfaction were student related, instructor related, and institution related ‐ ‐ ‐(Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). According to the Managing Online Education Survey completed by personnel that manage distance learning, organization is a challenge, but the quality of delivery by faculty members is consistent with traditional classes (Green, 2009). Faculty satisfaction was not stated as it focused mainly on technical support, student support, and quality of the faculty members, but these constructs can impact satisfaction. Other studies with surveys have similar constructs and factors, which have shown to motivate or demotivate faculty members to participate in distance learning (Shea, 2007; Schifter, 2000; Betts, 1998).

Within the models and measurements are factors that affect faculty satisfaction. The positive factors include faculty motivation, opportunities for incentives, opportunities for collaborations, and support from administration (Maguire, 2008). The negative factors include reluctance to taking on changes that comes along with online learning, adjusting to different setting, amount of time, shaping teaching delivery of different learning styles and levels, and lack of support from a technical and/or administrative standpoint (Kebritchi, Lipschuetz, & Santiague, 2017; Maguire, 2008; Shea, 2007; Valentine, 2002).

Methodology

Sample. The sample consisted of the faculty members at Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health (JPHCOPH) at Georgia Southern University (42 individuals). The DLC conducting the survey has been in the position at the college since 2015. Of the 42 eligible individuals, there were 27 respondents (64.3%) regarding experience with distance learning and the coordinator.

Data Collection. All the faculty members at JPHCOPH were emailed to complete the brief survey. They were given the survey to provide feedback on their experiences in teaching online courses and on the assistance of the DLC. The faculty was given a link to a Qualtrics survey, which can take 5 minutes. The responses were anonymous and confidential. Two weeks were given to respond to the survey. A reminder was sent out to non-respondents after the first week. The responses were gathered as descriptive statistics or raw qualitative data as it relates to faculty satisfaction and the usefulness of the DLC.

Instrument. The survey had a total of three questions. Two of the questions required a yes or no response with one of the two asking a follow-up open-ended question requesting thoughts and ideas. The third question is an additional open-ended question to for additional information (see Table 1). The questions were built to receive feedback on distance learning experience and collaboration with the DLC and how that relates to faculty satisfaction.

Table 1. Survey Number Item 1 Do you currently teach or have you taught any online or hybrid classes at JPHCOPH in the last 3 years? 2 Has the distance learning coordinator been valuable to you in the online/hybrid classes you teach or have taught? If yes, please provide a short description of how the learning coordinator is helpful to you. If no, what ways can the coordinator improve to help serve you better? 3 Any other comments?

Results

It is clear that online and hybrid courses have increased and is a norm alongside traditional courses. For question 1, of the 27 respondents, there were 23 faculty members (85.2%) who are currently or have taught an online or hybrid class in the last 3 years. For question 2, of the 23 faculty members who currently or have taught an online or hybrid class in the last 3 years, only 20 responded to the question (no response from 3 faculty members). 18 out of 20 (90%) found the DLC helpful. The online and hybrid classes serve a large part of JPHCOPH.

Based on the qualitative data from question 2 on how the DLC has been valuable and what improvements can be made, the DLC has been valuable maintaining quality matters standards, logistics of the classes, and structure/delivery of content. However, faculty have expressed a disconnect when it comes to development and placement of course materials, but there is no

additional information on which courses need more assistance. Overall, the presence of the DLC is valuable and shows the importance of the role to provide high quality online and hybrid courses.

Responses to Survey Question 2. The survey asked participants, “Has the distance learning coordinator been valuable to you in the online/hybrid classes you teach or have taught? If yes, please provide a short description of how the learning coordinator is helpful to you. If no, what ways can the coordinator improve to help serve you better?” Selected responses included:

 Helped me with my course to satisfy the QM requirements. Her evaluation of my course helped me improve certain parts that needed attention.

 Very accommodating to my needs. Very timely in response to issues.

 Always helpful to have a 2nd set of expert eyes to review your online classroom.

 Recording lectures and tech support.

 The DLC reviewed my courses and gave very helpful feedback about how to improve the structure and deliver content.

 Provided guidance with online technologies -- folio, captivate, etc.

 So helpful! Provides resource suggestions and ways to better improve my online courses.

 Helpful in giving constructive feedback for improving the delivery and more importantly made me aware of recent technologies available in folio.

Limitations

Preliminary research indicates that having a DLC is helpful and valuable to the JPHCOPH faculty. Many faculty members teach online and reported positive personal experiences. However, this manuscript is subject to several limitations. The distinction between value of a DLC and value of the perception of distance learning needs further examination. A positive value of distance learning does not necessarily mean faculty satisfaction in delivering online courses.

The overall value of distance learning also needs examination. Positive factors of distance learning relate to benefits a faculty member has from teaching online courses, and negative factors relate to adaption and adjustment to the online format and support required. A better understanding of how these factors relate to perceived overall value of distance learning is needed. Additionally, more information is needed from faculty members to improve the value of distance learning and faculty satisfaction. Finally, this study was limited to faculty in one college on one campus, limiting its generalizability to the wider population of higher education.

Conclusion

The overall indication is that a DLC improves faculty relationship with online education. However, despite “high rate of faculty involvement in online education and a growth in the demand for online courses and online course offerings, faculty and institutional perceptions of the value, 96

legitimacy, and learning outcomes of online education has not changed significantly in the past decade”" (Lloyd, et al. 2012, p. 2). More research into this growing field should be conducted to improve DLC-faculty relationship and the approach to online learning.

References

Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the

Effectiveness of Distance Learning: A Comparison Using Meta-Analysis. Journal of

Communication, 54(3), 402-420. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02636.x Betts, K. S. (1998). An Institutional Overview: Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Distance

Education in Postsecondary Education in the United States: An Institutional Study. Online

Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(3). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.html Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116. doi:10.1080/01587910902845949 Chapman, B. F., & Henderson, R. G. (2010). E-Learning Quality Assurance: A Perspective of

Business Teacher Educators and Distance Learning Coordinators. Delta Pi Epsilon

Journal, 52(1), 16-31. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ887220 Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and Challenges for Teaching

Successful Online Courses in Higher Education. Journal of Educational Technology

Systems, 46(1), 4-29. doi:10.1177/0047239516661713 Lock Haven University. (2004, December). Assessment plan for programs using distance education.

Lock Haven, PA: Author. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from http://www.lhup.edu/planning-andassessment/assessment/assessmentplan/Distance%20Education%20Assessment%20Plan %2012-03-04.doc Maguire, L. L. (2005). Literature Review – Faculty Participation in Online Distance Education:

Barriers and Motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/ssw/files/pdf/Literature-Review-Faculty-Participation-in-OnlineDistance-Education_-Barr2.pdf Moore, C., & Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework and the Five Pillars.

Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.115.4238 Owusu-Mensah, F., Anyan, J. A., & Denkyi, C. (2015). Challenges Confronting Study Centre

Administrators of the Distance Education Programme of the University of Education, Winneba,

Ghana. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(16), 19-28. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/68d1/cff76e3ac9c4e3b3383dda967d8427e3f23d.pdf Pajibo, E., Asare, A., & Dzikunu, C. K. (2019). Challenges Confronting Study Centre Administrators of the Distance Education Programme of the University of Education, Winneba, Ghana. Global

Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 5(1), 14-27. Retrieved from http://www.onlinesciencepublishing.com/assets/journal/JOU0015/ART00275/1562741986_GJ

SSS-2019-5(1)-14-27.pdf Quality Matters, & Maryland Online. (2016). QM Rubrics & Standards. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards Schifter, C. C. (2000). Faculty Participation in Asynchronous Learning Networks: A Case Study of

Motivating and Inhibiting Factors. Online Learning, 4(1). doi:10.24059/olj.v4i1.1907 Shea, P. (2007). Bridges and Barriers to Teaching Online College Courses: A Study of Experienced

Online Faculty in Thirty- Six Colleges. Online Learning, 11(2). doi:10.24059/olj.v11i2.1728

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. M. (2014). Teaching and Learning at a Distance:

Foundations of Distance Education, 6th Edition (4th ed.). Charlotte, NC: IAP. Ulmer, L. W., Watson, L. W., & Derby, D. (2007). Perceptions of Higher Education Faculty

Members on the Value of Distance Education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 59-70. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/106716/ Valentine, D. (2002). Distance Learning: Promises, Problems, and Possibilities. Online Journal of

Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/valentine53.html Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, & The Campus Computing Project. (2009). Online Education Programs Marked by Rising Enrollments, Unsure Profits,

Organizational Transitions, Higher Fees, and Tech Training for Faculty. Retrieved from

Managing Online Education website: https://wcet.wiche.edu/sites/default/files/ManagingOnlineEd2009-ExecSummary.pdf Wingo, N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017). Faculty Perceptions about Teaching Online: Exploring the Literature Using the Technology Acceptance Model as an Organizing Framework. Online Learning, 21(1). doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.761