Institutionally Supported Instructional Design

Institutionally Supported Instructional Design and Development

The longitudinal research over 100 higher education institutions offering distance education courses indicates the importance of institutional support when designing and developing online courses (Distance Education Demonstration Program, 2005). Studies by Bruce (2010) and Bruce and Zheng (2010) have shown that online learning has a better chance to succeed when there exists institutional support. This is critical at a time of rapidly growing student numbers in online courses (Sloan Consortium, 2007). This support has been defined in the national standards for online higher education document Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007), hereafter called Best Practices. It comprehensively and systematically defines the five separate components of institutional activity necessary for quality online distance education. These are in the areas of: 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support, 4) student support, and 5) evaluation and assessment. Together they constitute the evidenced-based online policies, practices, and standards established by the eight regional agencies that accredit all U.S. university academic programs, both conventional and online. Their individual and combined influence on instructional design and development is detailed in the Best Practices document and examined practically in policy and practice.

Related to institutional support is online curriculum and instruction. Research has documented the critical role of curriculum and instructional design in online learning (Dabbagh, & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). The curriculum and instruction component as defined by Best Practices entails instructor qualifications, changing faculty roles in planning and implementing online curriculum, and assuring teacher and student interaction as other considerations. Our studies and others (e.g., Dabbagh, & Bannan-Ritland, 2005; Zheng & Dahl, 2009) have shown that institutional support for curriculum and instruction is reflected not only in the policies and practices defined by the accrediting agencies but in their expression in the centers and technical support mechanisms that lead to quality instructional design. Technology centers and teaching and learning centers that provide training in online course development and design are the practical components of the online standards that pertain to online curriculum and instruction development.

Although faculty support in online learning has been widely studied, as of yet such study has rarely been conducted in the context of Best Practices relating to the support of instructors’ roles in online instruction. The authors hold the view that online faculty support should align with the policies and practices associated with intellectual property rights, increased training necessary for online instruction and changing approaches to pedagogy, instructional design, and student assessment which has found consideration in the Best Practices. In a separate study the authors found that institutions that follow the guidelines of Best Practices have a higher successful rate in terms of faculty motivation, student faculty relationship, etc. It is worth noting that faculty support should not only be implemented at the institutional level but also at the department level. Departments own the responsibility of directing their online instructors to the training centers (Irani & Telg, 2002) and support services and resources of their college or university. Instructional design that is supported at both levels will meet the needs of online faculty and their learners and thus are more likely to attain expected learning outcomes.

The student support component of the Best Practices addresses a number of key policies and practices. The components include practices related to the diversity of online student populations as well as student skills necessary for successful online learning. Other components include student access to educational resources and the technologies required to participate online. Interactions between teachers and students and among fellow students represent other considerations. Administrative, financial, and technical matters such as enrollment and advising form other parts of the student support component. Financial aid, online payments, and the provision of appropriate policies and procedures to assure the success of online students comprise still other components of student support in the Best Practices document. The consideration of diverse learners is a key consideration when applying online standards to instructional design and development. Contextualized lessons and lessons that consider cultural and historical elements are applications of diversity in design. Orientation and training for online instruction are critical to a student’s success. Access to a wide range of educational resources and research tools are other applications of agency standards. Lessons that involve the online learner in critical thinking, problem solving, discovery learning, and interactive group work meet students with evidence-based design (Dabbagh, & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Technologies and course management systems that provide for student-to-student and student-teacher interaction are other critical aspects of student support.

The evaluation and assessment component of the Best Practices document details policies and practices that consider both the online programs and student achievements in the programs. Alignment of student performance with intended learning outcomes and teaching effectiveness make up other elements of the evaluation and assessment component. Assurance of the veracity of student work, the protection of personal information, and addressing student expectations and satisfaction are other factors. Student aptitude in fundamental skills for technology uses and comprehension are still other components. Finally, institutional self-assessment related to the use of technologies, resources, and service provisions complete the evaluation and assessment component of the Best Practices document. Policies and practices that support instructional design and development can lead to better alignment of expectations with outcomes for student learning. Student aptitudes for online learning must be assessed and fundamental skills trained. Teaching effectiveness increases in direct proportion to lessons that are well designed, suited to the instructional technologies in use, and that incorporate both a pedagogical approach and instructional strategies suited to the online learner (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Additionally, student satisfaction can best be achieved when the instructional design engages the online learner in ways proven to be effective through evidence-based practice (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Finally, when used with the support of an institution, technologies can serve the assurance of student work and safety of personal information.

Each of the components in the Best Practices addresses in detail “specific matters describing those elements essential to quality distance education programming” (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007, p. 2). The Best Practices makes clear the purpose of describing each of the elements in detail. The design of the document guides institutions “in determining the existence of those elements when reviewing either internally or externally distance education activities” (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007). Alignment of instructional design and development with accrediting agency standards for online higher education can enhance not only instructional design but the quality learning associated with it. Through this alignment, online instructors and the instructional designs they create offer the best that the development and application of standards has to offer.

Excerpt from: Bruce, P. A. & Zheng, R. Z. (2010). Institutionally supported instructional design anddevelopment: A practical application of national online standards. Paper presented at the AACE E-Learn 2010 World Conference: E-Learning in Corporate, Govt., Healthcare, & Higher Education. Orlando, Florida: October 18-22, 2010.

Standards in Online Higher Education

Standards in Online Higher Education

A review of the research revealed a number of relevant findings. The University of London became the world’s first higher education institution to offer a distance learning program. In 1858, the University of London External System established the provision of higher education and degrees to students of any race, religion, gender, or location (University of London External System, 2008). The efforts laid the foundations for an approach to learning that would become a major source of higher education worldwide. It paved the way for correspondence study, extension divisions, and distance education programs in universities and colleges around the globe, including online distance education.

The University of London External System set up quality standards from its inception and these same standards continue to this day. Distance education standards required distance learning students to do exactly the same work at the same level of achievement as traditional campus-based students. Students, parents, employers, and other higher education stakeholders had confidence in the education and qualifications of distance learners knowing they had done exactly the same work as campus-based students. The equivalency standard saw adoption by default wherever distance education programs arose over the next 30 years.

A thorough review of the literature revealed that the development of quality standards for U.S. higher education distance learning, including online distance education, falls into three main phases: Early Phase, Middle Phase, and Current Phase. The Early Phase encompassed the time from the introduction of distance learning in the U.S. in the early years of the 1950s to the appearance of online distance education in the early 1990s. During this period, no specific standards for distance learning programs existed. The Middle Phase started in the first years of the 1990s and continued into the early 2000s. The phase included a proliferation of differing standards across many higher education interests. The Current Phase, from the early 2000s and continuing to the present, has seen accountability reforms, quality assurance changes, and the first U.S. higher education accrediting institution standards for quality in online distance education.

The Early Phase of Standards Development

The Early Phase in the U.S. begins with the pioneering work of the late Charles A. Wedemeyer, former Director of the Correspondence Study Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Wedemeyer originated a number of foundational ideas in both open and distance education. His grants from both the Carnegie and Ford Foundations in the 1950s and 1960s enabled his exploration of the integration of multimedia with print to enhance student learning outcomes. Wedemeyer’s Articulated Instructional Media Project has been viewed as foundational to U.S. online higher education. The project also influenced the rise of one of today’s institutional leaders in online distance education, Britain’s Open University in Milton Keynes, England (Wedemeyer, 2008). Wedemeyer formulated and enacted a new field of education – non-traditional learning. “This new discipline integrated adult, distance, open and independent learning with instructional systems design, applications of instructional technology, organizational development and evaluation” (Wedemeyer, 2008b, p.1). The development of correspondence courses combined with the availability of further education to veterans through the GI Bill after World War II to help shape the nature and popularity of U.S. distance education.

Questions related to quality standards for distance education in U.S. colleges and universities would not be answered for decades. Research during the Early Phase had yet to establish critical differences between the two learning environments in terms of pedagogical models, instructional strategies, and skill sets needed by teachers for effective teaching. Research had also not studied what students needed for successful learning in distance settings. Differences in both teacher-student and student-to-student interaction also remained unclear. With technologically mediated distance education, the differences would later become even more distinct. The equivalency standard remained in place and specific quality standards for distance education were not yet an issue in higher education research or policy, either in the U.S. or elsewhere.

There remained a lack of national standards for either accreditation or quality for online institutions during the Early Phase. The situation created numerous opportunities in the Middle Phase for diploma mills where degrees were being sold to whoever had the money to buy one. When Jones International University entered the ranks of U.S. higher education institutions as a fully online university during this phase, a debate arose in academia over standards of accreditation for online institutions. The controversy centered on whether online universities and colleges should be accredited in the same way as traditional, campus-based institutions. The question of quality standards for online distance education had yet to be raised in the research community.

The Middle Phase of Standards Development

The lack of national institutional standards of quality during the Early Phase left higher education institutions and programs on their own regarding standards. Most colleges and universities continued working under the default equivalency standards established 150 years earlier by the University of London. The Middle Phase, from the first years of the 1990s to the early 2000s, marked a widespread increase in the number of distance education programs in U.S. higher education. The data showed that the number of course offerings, enrollments, and both degree and certificate programs offered in distance education between 1994-1995 and 1997-1998 approximately doubled in U.S. higher education institutions (Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1997-1998, 1999). The report also concluded that while distance education had become commonplace in U.S. postsecondary education institutions, a number of unanswered issues remained. These included the accreditation and assurance of quality in distance education programs (Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1997-1998, 1999b). Quality took a back seat to technology from the start and accrediting agencies were slow to address the issue of quality assurance for online programs in higher education. Relative research, although accumulating, had not become compelling.

The American Federation of Teachers called on colleges and universities to adopt standards that would ensure quality in distance education programs. As one of the nation’s largest organizations of its kind, the federation recognized the need for standards and acknowledged that the majority of higher education institutions did not meet the standards the federation had proposed. The Federation’s standards addressed content, technical support for faculty and students, training educators to teach online courses effectively, and teacher interaction with students (Carnevale, 2001). Without national quality standards, institutions and their participating faculty members remained on their own to establish quality standards. In the process, various elements of distance education content, support, training, and interaction suffered, as the American Federation of Teachers’ research had demonstrated.

A number of institutions and organizations began addressing unresolved issues by establishing benchmarks of quality for online distance learning in 2002. Among these were the American Council on Education, the Higher Education Program and Policy Council of the American Federation of Teachers, and the Institute for Higher Education Policy. The question of accreditation standards for online education had still not been addressed nationally. During the Middle Phase, individual institutions, disciplines, and programs remained on their own to establish and implement standards, should they decide to do so.

The Current Phase of Standards Development

The Sloan Consortium’s report, Sizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2002 and 2003 (2003), reported a nearly 20% increase in the growth of U.S. online higher education students from 2002 to 2003. Standards of quality in online programs across higher educational institutions nation-wide were yet to be developed in the U.S. The Current Phase has, however, seen a number of accountability reforms and quality assurance changes both in the U.S. and abroad. The Current Phase has also witnessed the first application of accrediting agency standards for quality to U.S. online higher education in 2007. The development of the new national standards had been largely driven by the continuing growth in online enrollments and offerings. Online student enrollments had continued to grow at rates far exceeding campus-based enrollments.

The Sloan Consortium reported that nearly 3.2 million students took online courses in the fall of 2005 (Making the Grade: Online Education in the United States, 2006, 2006). Two years later, in 2007, national standards for quality in U.S. online higher education would finally be established. The eight regional accrediting agencies for higher education recognized by the U.S. Department of Education developed the new standards. It comprehensively addressed both online accreditation and quality standards in five key areas of institutional activity – institutional context and commitment, curriculum and instruction, faculty support, student support, and evaluation and assessment (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007). The question of institutional awareness and alignment with the new online standards for quality in online higher education remains unresolved.

Excerpt from: Bruce, P. A. & Zheng, R. Z. (2010). An inquiry into the online policies and practices of U.S. doctoral/research-extensive universities: A case study. Chapter in Huffman, S., Albritton, S., Rickman, W., and Wilmes, B. (Eds.). Cases on Building Quality Distance Delivery Programs: Strategies and Experiences. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR ONLINE EDUCATION

AN INQUIRY INTO THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR ONLINE EDUCATION AT ONE U.S. DOCTORAL/RESEARCH-EXTENSIVE UNIVERSITY: A CASE STUDY

Peter A. Bruce

Robert Z. Zheng

University of Utah. USA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The case study examines the policies and practices for online education at one doctoral/research-extensive university. It uses interview findings from the Chief Information Officer (CIO) as well as key secondary sources to better understand these policies and practices. The context for the study is one of dynamic interest in online education and reduced funding for public higher education nationwide. There were six recurring themes throughout the primary and secondary data. These were: 1) students; 2) technology; 3) teachers; 4) services; 5) resources; and 6) costs. These emergent themes are analyzed using the standards for online programs established by the agencies that accredit all American universities. The participating university was found to be a leader and innovator in the application of online and technology-mediated higher education. The case study methodology is offered as a template for the further study of online higher education. Applications in secondary and transition programs are also noted.

Issues in Online Higher Education

There is currently a lack of evidence-based research to build a well-informed understanding of the critical institutional components and leadership choices that shape the policies and practices for online education at American universities. In 2007, the Commission on Colleges (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) that accredits all U.S. colleges and universities created the components for the document, Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007). The Commission addressed the need for planning and assessing high standards of quality in U.S. university online programs, and defined the critical areas of concern in U.S. online higher education programs. These consist of: 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support, 4) student support, and 5) evaluation and assessment. In drawing its conclusion, the Commission called for a reexamination of the online practices of U.S. universities in light of the newly established best practices for quality online higher education programs.

Within an extensive body of research in online education, research on best practices as defined by the Commission on Colleges of the U.S. Department of Education is scarce (Bruce, 2010).This lack of research has increasingly affected program delivery in terms of the quality of the curriculum, pedagogy, and the assessment associated with online education. According to a recent report of more than 2,500 colleges and universities nationwide surveyed (Allen & Seaman, 2008), approximately 3.94 million students were enrolled in at least one online course in fall 2007. The growing number of students needing higher education has also placed increasing pressures on the university community to respond. Statistics indicate that online distance education has grown at all levels. A recent study by Bruce (2010) indicated that almost all higher education institutions described online education as important to their long-term strategic planning. Evidently, the movement of online education has radically redefined higher education in terms of its curricular boundary and student composition. In the meanwhile, it has significantly changed the landscape in higher education with respect to its learning concepts, strategies and application (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005; Zheng, 2009; Zheng & Dahl, 2009). Amidst the rapid growth of online higher education, there is a lack of general knowledge about the existing policies and practices pertaining to online learning in higher education and the reasons behind those policies and practices. Therefore, the study of the existing policies and practices in higher education distance learning is warranted.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The case study identified several important areas pertaining to policies and practices related to online education. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of online learning programs in the participating doctoral/research-extensive university with its policies and practices. These include student services, technology, teachers, services and resources. A comparison between the characteristics of the university online programs and standards for quality set by the Commission on Colleges would enhance our understanding of how a doctoral/research-extensive university performed in compliance with national standards in online education.

Categories	Characteristics of Online Programs
Student services	Institutional commitment to provide students’ support Online academic tracking for students’ progression Admission and retention tracking One of the top wired universities in the country
Technology	An infrastructure for reviewing, purchasing and implementing software and hardware A campus-wide network of tech support that is distributed across centers and individuals on campus Faculty is trusted to make decisions about the equipment and resources for their online instruction
Teachers	Dean oversight in programs, not the CIO Faculty members play a part in policy construction Faculty members involved in online teaching go through a formal training program
Services	Open content courses and workshops for both teachers and students at the undergraduate and graduate levels Provide collaboration tools and technologies Provide technology assisted curriculum
Resources	Technology center establishes and maintains a range of resources Technical and instructional orientation, training, and support A center for excellence in teaching and learning

Table 1. Characteristics of a doctoral/research-extensive university online program.

The eight regional accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education established the standards for quality online programs in the five areas of institutional activity (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 2007). Each area was interviewed in detail, the questionnaire being an abridgement that included all of these standards in question form. The complete wording of the accrediting agency standards in each of the five areas is also critically important for understanding how the participating university reflects these standards in their policies, practices, and initiatives.

Excerpt from: Bruce, P. A. & Zheng, R. Z. (2010). An inquiry into the online policies and practices of U.S. doctoral/research-extensive universities: A case study. Chapter in Huffman, S., Albritton, S., Rickman, W., and Wilmes, B. (Eds.). Cases on Building Quality Distance Delivery Programs: Strategies and Experiences. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Distance Education Quality Assurance

Distance Education Quality Assurance

Higher education has become a worldwide enterprise, a key part of a knowledge-based economy of enormous proportions. Public universities compete with private universities for students and higher education institutions worldwide struggle to meet growing student needs with reduced funding in a time of cross-border economic recession. Online distance education has answered much of the increasing need for access and provided innovative solutions to some of the ongoing funding constraints. Distance delivery platforms have become stable and secure and online delivery has been growing dynamically in the U.S., the U.K., and the E.U. over the past decade. The benefits of distance education environments include not only expanded access to students but savings in accommodation and travel costs. The challenges include the need for the training of higher education instructors for distance teaching, the incorporation of emerging online tools and technologies into instruction, new pedagogical models for distance learners, and quality assurance mechanisms that address the changing nature of early 21^st Century higher education.

These changes have seen the adoption of the regional accrediting agencies’ new quality standards for online certificate and degree programs in U.S. higher education (Best Practices for Electronically-Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, 2007).

United States Quality Assurance

The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) does not accredit but does officially recognize accrediting organizations. Accreditation and quality assurance systems for its 4000 plus degree-granting higher education institutions is done through its eight regional accreditation organizations. Their standards and processes are recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Recognition confirms that there is consistency between academic quality and accountability expectations (Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2010). Additionally, the regional accreditation organizations have established specific evidence-based quality standards for online certificate and degree programs (Best Practices for Electronically-Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, 2007). The Best Practices delineate 28 major policies and practices across five areas of institutional activity: institutional context and commitment, curriculum and instruction, faculty support, student support, and evaluation and assessment.

The nature of U.S. higher education accountability is described by the President of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). “All the national activities provide tools or frameworks by which higher education informs students and society about what is being done to promote student learning and advance institutional performance” (Eaton, 2009, p. 1). The aims of these efforts are towards, “(1) making conscious decisions to assertively address accountability, (2) locating and judging accountability at the institutional level and (3) acknowledging and embracing faculty leadership as central to academic judgments” (Eaton, 2009, p. 1).

Integrative Learning Design Framework

An Integrative Learning Design Framework

for Online Higher Education Classes

Peter A. Bruce

University of Utah

Lee M. Heller

Nova Southeastern University

The Instructional Learning Design Framework (ILDF) - Excerpt

To address the needs of online learners and the institutions that provide it, Nada Dabbagh and Brenda Bannan-Ritland (2005) have provided a model for designing, developing, and implementing online instruction that integrates “social learning principles, distance education research, and the availability of emerging online technologies” (Beaudoin, 2006, p. 249). The Integrative Learning Design Framework (ILDF) for online learning utilizes a constructivist pedagogical model, instructional strategies that develop critical learner competencies, and learning technologies that effectively design, manage, and deliver instruction in an online learning environment.

The ILDF of Dabbagh and Bannan-Ritland organizes the development of online learning into a system of three phases: exploration, enactment, and evaluation. At the center of these activities is the online learning developer (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005, p. 115). The ILDF process begins with the developer’s exploration of instructional context and pedagogical models moves to the enactment of instructional strategies through learning technologies, and follows-up with an evaluation that informs the developer about the pedagogical model and instructional strategies used (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005, pp. 116-117). All of this takes place in a social and cultural context of institutional structure that provides access to specific learning technologies, infrastructure, and funding constraints (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005, p. 118). Dabbagh and Bannan-Ritland (2006) present their instructional design model as a “constructivist adaptation of the familiar ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) models used in systematic instructional design” (Pina, 2006, p. 105). Constructivism is a part of the most recent cognitive branch of learning research, following the behaviorist and information-processing models (Kauchak & Eggen, 2003).

Constructivism holds that learning occurs when learners construct meaning. Social constructivism adds social, cultural, and historical contexts to the construction of meaning (Mace, 2005). Faulted as a comprehensive theory for failing to provide predictive capacity, constructivism is nonetheless widely accepted as a valued pedagogical model, especially in online distance education. The effective integration of constructivist pedagogical models into online learning is continuing to be supported in the research (Debevec, Shih, & Kashyap, 2006; Ball, 2000, May/June).

Recent studies provide a good deal of data for research-based online instructional strategies (Debevec, Shih, & Kashyap, 2006; MacGregor & Lou, 2004-2005, Winter). Dabbagh and Bannan-Ritland (2005, p. 203) define instructional strategies as “what instructors or instructional systems do to facilitate student learning.” The guiding principle for developers is the achievement of student learning outcomes. Dabbagh and Bannan-Ritland (2005, p. 201) detail instructional strategies that “align with the characteristics of constructivist-based pedagogical models and the enactment of these strategies by using features of online delivery.”

Instructional strategies in the ILDF are based on the five instructional design principles of Driscoll (2000). These are, 1) embedded learning in complex, real-world contexts, 2) social negotiation in learning, 3) support of multiple perspectives and representations, 4) promote self-reliance in learning, and 5) encourage awareness of knowledge construction in learning (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005, p. 204). Each of the pedagogical models used in the ILDF align with these instructional design principles.