Online Learning Update: "Traditional Colleges Eye Online Learning Degrees"
The Dillard University Center for Teaching, Learning & Academic Technology Blog
Search DU CTLAT Blog
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
An Educator's Guide to Beginning Grant Writing
Get Started - Tutorials - Proposal Writing Short Course
Faculty Focus: Distance Education: The Centralization vs. Decentralization Debate
By Michael T. Eskey, PhD
The debate for “control” of distance education at institutions of higher learning continues. On one side, the administration side, there is a need for centralization of operations, to include course development, instructor training and development, scheduling, evaluation, and student and faculty issues. On the other side of the debate, faculty leaders (deans, department chairs, program coordinators) tend to favor decentralization.
In June 2010, the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunication (WCET) asked the membership how institutions were doing with this issue: centralization vs. de-centralization. Twenty-three administrators (provosts, VPs, associate VPs, directors, associate directors, COOs, deans, associate deans) and faculty members provided their valuable insights on the issue.
We are experiencing an era of reduced resources. Those favoring centralization espouse the benefits of both consistent instruction and course development, as well as the avoidance of more resource-consuming stove-piping prevalent if colleges/departments are allowed to develop their own online instructional programs. Those favoring decentralization are convinced that college/departmental control is the best solution for students, faculty, and institutions. The contention of these respondents was that college deans would take on the added responsibilities of their college’s portion of centralized operations of distance learning, faculty development, and learning technologies. A key is to find distance learning champions for each college within an institution. And, that is extremely costly when supporting multiple distance learning organizations versus one.
Both centralization and decentralization of distance learning have advantages and disadvantages; causing many to favor a hybrid approach. The recognition of local control and personal engagement of decentralization must be blended with centralized services that are often more efficient, cost effective, and liberating.
Ensuring the same level of service
Technology advancements have brought new opportunities and responsibilities for instructional quality and control. (Fletcher, J., Tobias, S. and Wesher, R) The true responsibility of this lies with the faculty.
When comparing distance learning to face-to-face instruction, a number of important factors emerge, including similarity of student learning experiences, student outcomes, and employer acceptance of credentials. It is important that the instruction provided in both venues be seamless. Centralization ensures that institutions offer services specifically to the online population, while ensuring that they receive the same level of service and instruction that the onsite students receive.
A number of institutions favor decentralization, but do not (or are not willing-to) hold their institutional campus to the same standard and rigor (metrics, support, quality, rubrics, etc.) as their online courses. The ability of college deans in the decentralized modes of administration to be able to discern the differences is the crux of the issue of whether services are better (and more economical) when provided “centrally” instead of by the college or departments.
Michael T. Eskey, PhD is an associate professor of criminal justice at Park University.
References
WCET (October, 2009) Online education programs marked by rising enrollments, unsure profits, organizational transitions, higher fees, & teach training for faculty, Managing Online Education, pp. 1 – 4.
Fletcher, J., Tobias, S. and Wesher, R (2007), Learning anytime, anywhere: Advanced distributed learning and the changing face of education, Educational Research, 36 (2), 96-102.
The debate for “control” of distance education at institutions of higher learning continues. On one side, the administration side, there is a need for centralization of operations, to include course development, instructor training and development, scheduling, evaluation, and student and faculty issues. On the other side of the debate, faculty leaders (deans, department chairs, program coordinators) tend to favor decentralization.
In June 2010, the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunication (WCET) asked the membership how institutions were doing with this issue: centralization vs. de-centralization. Twenty-three administrators (provosts, VPs, associate VPs, directors, associate directors, COOs, deans, associate deans) and faculty members provided their valuable insights on the issue.
We are experiencing an era of reduced resources. Those favoring centralization espouse the benefits of both consistent instruction and course development, as well as the avoidance of more resource-consuming stove-piping prevalent if colleges/departments are allowed to develop their own online instructional programs. Those favoring decentralization are convinced that college/departmental control is the best solution for students, faculty, and institutions. The contention of these respondents was that college deans would take on the added responsibilities of their college’s portion of centralized operations of distance learning, faculty development, and learning technologies. A key is to find distance learning champions for each college within an institution. And, that is extremely costly when supporting multiple distance learning organizations versus one.
Both centralization and decentralization of distance learning have advantages and disadvantages; causing many to favor a hybrid approach. The recognition of local control and personal engagement of decentralization must be blended with centralized services that are often more efficient, cost effective, and liberating.
Ensuring the same level of service
Technology advancements have brought new opportunities and responsibilities for instructional quality and control. (Fletcher, J., Tobias, S. and Wesher, R) The true responsibility of this lies with the faculty.
When comparing distance learning to face-to-face instruction, a number of important factors emerge, including similarity of student learning experiences, student outcomes, and employer acceptance of credentials. It is important that the instruction provided in both venues be seamless. Centralization ensures that institutions offer services specifically to the online population, while ensuring that they receive the same level of service and instruction that the onsite students receive.
A number of institutions favor decentralization, but do not (or are not willing-to) hold their institutional campus to the same standard and rigor (metrics, support, quality, rubrics, etc.) as their online courses. The ability of college deans in the decentralized modes of administration to be able to discern the differences is the crux of the issue of whether services are better (and more economical) when provided “centrally” instead of by the college or departments.
Michael T. Eskey, PhD is an associate professor of criminal justice at Park University.
References
WCET (October, 2009) Online education programs marked by rising enrollments, unsure profits, organizational transitions, higher fees, & teach training for faculty, Managing Online Education, pp. 1 – 4.
Fletcher, J., Tobias, S. and Wesher, R (2007), Learning anytime, anywhere: Advanced distributed learning and the changing face of education, Educational Research, 36 (2), 96-102.
Faculty Focus: Distance Education: The Centralization vs. Decentralization Debate
The Teaching Professor: Teaching Online vs. F2F: 15 Differences That Affect Learning
Featured Higher Education Presenter: Dr. Ike Shibley
Date: Thursday, 09/16/10
Time: 12:00 - 1:30 PM CDT
Cost: $279 ($304 after 09/09/10)
Three easy ways to register!
Phone: 800-433-0499 / 608-246-3590
If you’re thinking about teaching online or are looking for ways to improve your online instruction, join us on September 16 for Teaching Online vs. F2F: 15 Differences That Affect Learning, a Magna Online Seminar led by Dr. Ike Shibley, associate professor of chemistry and life science coordinator at Penn State Berks. In an email interview with The Teaching Professor, Shibley discussed how face-to-face (F2F) and online instruction differ, the benefits of online instruction, and how to meet the challenges of teaching online.
TP: What are the main pedagogical challenges of teaching online?
Shibley: The major issues seem to revolve around student engagement. In some ways engaging students in face-to-face learning is also a challenge. I think that the physical presence of the students in a F2F course helps remind them about the commitment they have made to learning. The F2F commitment is a bit like having a running partner: even if you don’t feel like running that day you know that your partner will be there and so you don’t want to let him or her down. I recently took a three-week online course and found that I completed the first several assignments at one time. But then I forgot about the course and had to struggle to complete assignments right at the end of the third week. My experience is probably not that much different from the experiences of students taking online courses. An online experience can be moved to the back burner all too easily. A teacher needs to design the course with clear checkpoints throughout the course and with continual communication to the class. Assigning students to teams for group projects helps them overcome a sense of isolation and motivates them a bit because they have a responsibility in the course beyond themselves (like having a running partner).
TP: Which differences are most significant in making the transition from face-to-face to online instruction?
Shibley: The lack of F2F contact is probably the biggest difference. You cannot find a substitute for that contact, but you can institute policies that help ameliorate the lack of contact. Email is a great way to communicate as are podcasts, message boards, and the course management system. Another difference is the need for clarity because any time you confuse students you will get a lot of emails. For teachers new to course management systems the technology can be a major hurdle to overcome, but there seems to be enough technical support at most institutions to help teachers surmount any technical difficulties.
TP: How can teaching online enhance face-to-face instruction and vice versa?
Shibley: I think that the organization required for online teaching helps you when you teach F2F because you become more aware of just how students might interpret the syllabus, assignments, etc. When I started teaching online I realized that good teaching has a lot of similarities in any kind of course. Good F2F teachers will probably be effective online teachers. Unfortunately, that means that teachers who face significant pedagogical challenges in the F2F environment will also face significant challenges online. So much of teaching is finding ways to help students connect with the course content, and whether F2F or online that connection is always difficult to create and to sustain. In either online or F2F the more reflective you are as a teacher–paying attention to what helps students learn–the better you’ll do the next time. That holds true for either online or F2F or a combination of the two (blended or hybrid courses).
TP: How might this online seminar affect the way instructors view online teaching?
Shibley: I’ve already had a comment from a Teaching Professor reader that the advertising for this seminar was disingenuous because I suggested that some aspects of online teaching are an improvement over F2F teaching. I stand by that assertion, and I hope that after 90 minutes of discussion about online education, participants will have a more positive view of online education. I am not claiming that online education is better than F2F, but I do believe that teaching online can help us improve our F2F pedagogy. The ideal learning environment continues to be one-on-one, but the reality of higher education is that we rarely achieve that ideal in undergraduate studies. Online education helps approach the ideal of one-on-one education if the course has been well designed. And when online sources improve learning they can be used to augment F2F teaching. I hope to help teachers who teach online to do so more effectively and to encourage those who are contemplating an online course to try it.
One price provides for unlimited attendees!
The cost to attend this live, 90-minute video online seminar is $279, regardless of the number of participants from a single sign-on location. To maximize your limited training dollars, we recommend planning to view this seminar from a conference center or meeting room large enough to accommodate a big group.
This video online seminar is appropriate for:
• Faculty considering teaching an online course
• Faculty getting ready to teach an online course
• Faculty who are currently teaching an online course
• Administrators who want to learn ways to support faculty who teach online
The Teaching Professor: Teaching Online vs. F2F: 15 Differences That Affect Learning
Innovative Educators Webinar: Teaching Students to Be More Successful Learners and Thinkers
$545.00
Friday, September 24 & Friday, October 1 ~ 1:00-2:30 EDT (2-part workshop)
You can register online by adding this product to your shopping cart. If you have any questions,
please call 303-775-6004.
OverviewIn this two part workshop, Dr. Timothy Walter will present a validated instructional program of basic cognitive and behavioral critical thinking and learning strategies that are viewed as general education outcomes by many institutions of higher education. The critical thinking and learning strategies these students have learned are those basic strategies upon which much higher level critical thinking and learning is based as described in Bloom's Taxonomy. The workshop will focus on introducing participants to the intellectual model upon which these cognitive and behavioral strategies are based and then participants will see how instructors in the classroom can engage students in interactive classroom exercises which facilitate the learning of basic critical thinking and learning strategies Participants will leave the workshop with skills to teach students in all courses the critical thinking and learning strategies upon which higher level thinking and learning is developed and which make thinking and learning more orderly and effective. They will specifically learn how to teach students to apply these cognitive and behavioral strategies to their texts, readings, lectures, and class discussions.
Objectives
Part I - Participants will . . .
Define what successful learners and thinkers do in the classroom and outside the classroom
Learn how to teach:
focusing reading, thinking, and learning
focused note-taking
focused test preparation
Part II - Participants will learn . . .
what the TCDR strategy of critical thinking entails as described in Dr. Walter's co-authored book "Critical Thinking: Building the Basics."
how Dr. Walter and his colleagues studied successful critical thinkers and learners to determine the essential characteristics of successful learning and thinking.
what more successful thinkers and learners do as compared to less successful thinkers and learners.
why the TCDR strategy is the basis upon which higher order thinking skills (i.e. applying, analyzing, and evaluating information) are based.
why the TCDR strategy is the basis for critical thinking skills required for academic success.
how to teach students the TCDR strategy of critical thinking by working through a series of exercises
how the TCDR strategy is related to Bloom's Taxonomy.
basic classroom instructional strategies that increase the likelihood of students learning the critical thinking and learning strategies that are the basis of the TCDR strategy of critical thinking.
Any college faculty member, staff member or administrator who interacts with or teaches students will benefit from participating in this workshop.
Dr. Timothy L. Walter, Dean of Academic and Student Services at Oakland Community College in Farmington Hills, Michigan. Dr. Walter is a leading authority in the area of student success. He has written eight editions of his text Student Success, three editions of The Adult Learner's Guide to College Success, and two editions of Critical Thinking: Building the Basics. He was honored in 1994 as an Outstanding Advocate of First Year Students by The National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. He has consulted widely in the area of student success and the first-year experience.
Innovative Educators Webinar: Teaching Students to Be More Successful Learners and Thinkers
DU Transporation Request Form 2010
Dillard University Fall 2010 Student Orientation, Advising & Registration Website
http://www.dillard.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=892&Itemid=899
Welcome to Dillard University!
Student Orientation, Advising & Registration (S.O.A.R.) marks the completion of your journey toward enrolling at Dillard University. S.O.A.R. is designed to provide all new students - whether freshman, transfer, resident, commuter, or non-traditional - with a full array of special events, programs, workshops and fun activities. All these activities combine to introduce you to Dillard University and prepare you for a successful college experience. S.O.A.R. 2010 will take place August 21-27.
We strongly encourage parents and guardians to participate in the concurrent parent orientation sessions that coincide with S.O.A.R.
For more information, please contact:
The Office of Admissions, Recruitment and Special Programs
Division of Student Success
2601 Gentilly Boulevard
New Orleans, LA 70122
Phone: (504) 816-4472
Fax: (504) 816-4895
Email: admissions@dillard.edu
Welcome to Dillard University!
Student Orientation, Advising & Registration (S.O.A.R.) marks the completion of your journey toward enrolling at Dillard University. S.O.A.R. is designed to provide all new students - whether freshman, transfer, resident, commuter, or non-traditional - with a full array of special events, programs, workshops and fun activities. All these activities combine to introduce you to Dillard University and prepare you for a successful college experience. S.O.A.R. 2010 will take place August 21-27.
We strongly encourage parents and guardians to participate in the concurrent parent orientation sessions that coincide with S.O.A.R.
For more information, please contact:
The Office of Admissions, Recruitment and Special Programs
Division of Student Success
2601 Gentilly Boulevard
New Orleans, LA 70122
Phone: (504) 816-4472
Fax: (504) 816-4895
Email: admissions@dillard.edu
Dillard University Fall 2010 Student Orientation, Advising & Registration Website
DU Fall 2010 QEP Course Grid 082410
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)