<%BANNER%>

Distance Education Faculty Support Programs and Policies at Associate and Associate Dominant Colleges in Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042812/00001

Material Information

Title: Distance Education Faculty Support Programs and Policies at Associate and Associate Dominant Colleges in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: SHERMIS,BECKY L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: COLLEGES -- COMMUNITY -- DISTANCE -- FACULTY -- FLORIDA -- ONLINE -- POLICIES -- STATE -- SUPPORT
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DISTANCE EDUCATION FACULTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS AND POLICIES AT THE ASSOCIATE AND ASSOCIATE DOMINATE COLLEGES IN FLORIDA By Becky L. Shermis May 2011 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to identify the differences in distance education faculty support programs, practices, and policies in Florida?s associate colleges with a two-year mission and Florida?s associate dominate four-year institutions as classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The impact of increased enrollments, students demanding alternative delivery methods, and the lack of faculty support programs and resources has raised concerns of the quality of distance education teaching and learning at community colleges. The study was founded on two previous dissertation studies and a national survey conducted on 21 institutions that had been identified as having effective online practices. The current study employed a mixed methods approach by administering a survey questionnaire and collecting data based on follow-up interview questions. The results of the study suggested that the Florida associate dominate colleges in the sample were implementing more effective practices and support than Florida associate colleges in the sample. One important conclusion was that in order for two-year community colleges to become more proactive in online practices, resources have to be allocated for more faculty support. Moveover, two-year institutions may require more planning as they attempt to merge their offerings at the associate degree level with institutions that have four-year programs. Two-year institutions required more commitment of leadership, program level support including centralized services and policies, technical support, and advocacy at higher administrative levels than their four-year counterparts. Implications for practice were listed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by BECKY L SHERMIS.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Honeyman, David S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042812:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042812/00001

Material Information

Title: Distance Education Faculty Support Programs and Policies at Associate and Associate Dominant Colleges in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (194 p.)
Language: english
Creator: SHERMIS,BECKY L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: COLLEGES -- COMMUNITY -- DISTANCE -- FACULTY -- FLORIDA -- ONLINE -- POLICIES -- STATE -- SUPPORT
Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DISTANCE EDUCATION FACULTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS AND POLICIES AT THE ASSOCIATE AND ASSOCIATE DOMINATE COLLEGES IN FLORIDA By Becky L. Shermis May 2011 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to identify the differences in distance education faculty support programs, practices, and policies in Florida?s associate colleges with a two-year mission and Florida?s associate dominate four-year institutions as classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The impact of increased enrollments, students demanding alternative delivery methods, and the lack of faculty support programs and resources has raised concerns of the quality of distance education teaching and learning at community colleges. The study was founded on two previous dissertation studies and a national survey conducted on 21 institutions that had been identified as having effective online practices. The current study employed a mixed methods approach by administering a survey questionnaire and collecting data based on follow-up interview questions. The results of the study suggested that the Florida associate dominate colleges in the sample were implementing more effective practices and support than Florida associate colleges in the sample. One important conclusion was that in order for two-year community colleges to become more proactive in online practices, resources have to be allocated for more faculty support. Moveover, two-year institutions may require more planning as they attempt to merge their offerings at the associate degree level with institutions that have four-year programs. Two-year institutions required more commitment of leadership, program level support including centralized services and policies, technical support, and advocacy at higher administrative levels than their four-year counterparts. Implications for practice were listed.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by BECKY L SHERMIS.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Honeyman, David S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042812:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 DISTANCE EDUCATION FACULTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS AND POLICIES AT THE ASSOCIATE AND ASSOCIATE DOMINATE COLLEGES IN FLORIDA By BECKY L. SHERMIS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Becky L. Shermis

PAGE 3

3 To my husband, Dr. Mark Shermis, and sons Ryan and Jamie

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to my husband, Dr. Mark Shermis, and son, Ryan, for their patience, love, and encouragement throughout my doctora l journey. Without their endless support and commitment, I would not have achieved this dream. This accomplishment is not mine alone. I also share this success with my family and others whom I wish to extend my gratefulness. I thank my parents, Jay and Linda Porier, for their continued prayers, weekly phone calls, and their belief in me that I could accomplish this goal. They gave me spiritual support and inspired me to always do my personal best. My dads encouraging words at the end of every phone call, Im so proud of you, helped me stay steadfast and focused on achieving this objective. I am grateful for the leadership and guidance of my dissertation chair, Dr. David S. Honeyman. His foresight and expertise guided and challenged me through the dissert ation writing process. He provided key insight, asked difficult questions, and helped me stay centered on my research goals. Special thanks go to the members of my doctoral committee, Drs. Tom Dana, Dale Campbell, and Craig Wood, each helping me refine m y dissertation research. Their contributions of providing mentorship and guidance were extremely beneficial. I would also like to thank Angela Rowe for her assistance in answering all my questions, helping with each semesters registration, and sending ema il reminders to ensure our cohort did not miss important deadlines. I would also like to thank Jillian Ramsammy, a special colleague in my Leadership in Educational Administration Doctorate (LEAD) Cohort group. We spent many nights encouraging one another, studying together, and giving each other support to take one day at a

PAGE 5

5 time, and pray for continued strength to make it to graduation. Her kindred spirit and friendship will continue to be a part of my life for years to come. I am also grateful for the LEAD Cohort members who were a part of this journey from the beginning. There is truth to feeling supported by a learning community built around relationships. Thanks to Dr. Campbell and Dr. Honeyman for providing opportunities for our learning community to grow, learn, and encourage each other. Lastly, throughout my academic studies, I have asked for God to give me patience, help me balance my work life, home life, and school life, and give me the endurance to make this dream possible. I thank God and give Him praise and unquestionable gratitude for answering my prayers.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................12 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................15 Background of the Problem ....................................................................................................15 Statem ent of the Problem ........................................................................................................17 Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................................18 Research Questions .................................................................................................................19 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................19 Carnegie Foundation Terminology .........................................................................................20 Definitions of Terms ...............................................................................................................20 Delimitations ...........................................................................................................................22 Overview of Research Methods ..............................................................................................23 Phases of the Study .................................................................................................................24 Organization of the Study .......................................................................................................26 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................................27 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................27 History of Distance Education in Higher Education ..............................................................28 MegaUniversities ...........................................................................................................32 United Kingdom Open University ...................................................................................34 Diploma Mills ..................................................................................................................35 For Profit Institutions ......................................................................................................35 Distance Education Accreditation ..........................................................................................36 Focus on Quality Practices .....................................................................................................38 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act ................................................................................39 Quality of Distance Education Programs ...............................................................................40 Institutional Context and Commitment ..................................................................................40 Faculty Support .......................................................................................................................41 Student Support ......................................................................................................................41 Evaluation and Assessment ....................................................................................................42 Community Colleges Become Leaders in Online Education .................................................42 Distance Education Growth in Community Colleges .............................................................44 Challenges of Distance Education in Community Colleges ...................................................44 Addressing Faculty Support in Community Colleges ............................................................46

PAGE 7

7 Key Studies Identify Faculty Support Best Practices and Priorities .......................................48 Alliance for Higher Education Competitiv eness Study ..........................................................48 Impact of Policy: Building on Two Dissertation Studies and a National Survey ..................52 Hodges Study ........................................................................................................................53 Amasons Study ......................................................................................................................55 Document Review ..................................................................................................................58 Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC) National Study ....................59 Framework Development ................................................................................................59 Community College to Baccalaureate Status .........................................................................60 Florida Mandate to Increase Online Degree Programs ...........................................................61 Summary .................................................................................................................................61 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................68 Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................................68 Design Considerations ............................................................................................................69 Participants .............................................................................................................................70 Instruments .............................................................................................................................72 Procedure ................................................................................................................................73 Research Questions .................................................................................................................74 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................74 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................77 Section 1: Survey Results .......................................................................................................79 Section 2: Survey Results by Institution Type .......................................................................82 Summary of Survey Results ...................................................................................................87 Section 3: Follow up Interview Analysis ...............................................................................88 Analysis: Research Question 1 ...............................................................................................89 Similarities .......................................................................................................................89 Differences ......................................................................................................................92 Analysis: Research Question 2 ...............................................................................................97 Analysis: Research Question 3 ...............................................................................................99 Analysis: Research Question 4 .............................................................................................101 Faculty Support Best Practices .............................................................................................103 Internal Professional Development Offerings (Two and Four year Institutions) ...............103 New Faculty Trainings, Orientations, and Online Certification Processes (Two and Four year Institutions) .......................................................................................................106 Centralized Support Services and Leader Advocates (Twoand Four yea r Institutions) ....107 Formalized Course Review Processes (Two and Four year Institutions) ...........................109 Instructional Designers to Help in Content Development (Twoand Four year Institutions) .......................................................................................................................110 Monetary or Release Time Incentives for Developing Courses (Two and Four year Institutions) .......................................................................................................................111 Full time Faculty Helpdesk: Technical and/or Content Development Support (Four year Only Institution) ........................................................................................................112 Making Connections between the Qualitative and Quantitative Data Results .....................112

PAGE 8

8 5 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................149 Discussion of Findings .........................................................................................................150 Finding 1: Commitment of Leadership .........................................................................150 Finding 2: Program Level Support ................................................................................151 Finding 3: Faculty Support ............................................................................................152 Conclusion of Findings .........................................................................................................154 Implications for Practice .......................................................................................................159 Implications for Practice 1: More Leadership Support for Twoyear Institutions ........159 Implications for Practice 2: Providing More Quality Resources for Two year Institutions ..................................................................................................................160 Implications for Practice 3: Improving Faculty Support Initiatives at Two year Institutions ..................................................................................................................161 Recommendations for Further Study ....................................................................................162 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT ....................................................................................................165 B FOLLOW UP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .........................................................................178 C TWO YEAR INSTITUTIONS FACULTY SUPPORT FEEDBACK FROM FOLLOW UP INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................180 D FLORIDA BACCALAUREATE FACULTY SUPPORT ANALYSIS FEEDBACK FROM FOLLOW UP INTERVIEWS .................................................................................182 E INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL AND CONSENT LETTER ............................................................................................................185 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................188 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................194

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 21 King s et al. policy analysis f ramework related to faculty support ...................................67 22 Levels of support analysis framework ...............................................................................67 31 Demographic enrollment information on the two samples compared with the Florida college system t otals (20092010) .....................................................................................76 41 Respondent self assessment of knowledge, experience, and background with Internet supported learning ..............................................................................................116 42 Descriptive statistics for part 1 of the survey (motivation) ..............................................116 43 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for motivation ..............................117 44 Descriptive stat istics for Part 2 of the survey (commitment/leadership) .........................117 45 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for commitment/leadership .........117 46 Descriptive statistics for part 3 of the survey (program level support) ............................118 47 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for program level support ............118 48 Descriptive statistics for part 4 of the survey (faculty support) .......................................119 49 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for faculty support .......................120 410 Descriptive Statistics for Part 5 of the Survey (Student Support) ...................................120 411 Des criptive statistics associated with the index score for student support ......................121 412 Descriptive statistics for part 6 of the survey (measurement) ..........................................121 413 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for measurement ..........................122 414 Rank orders of importance of actions related to improving an institutions Internet supported learning efforts ................................................................................................122 415 Descriptive statistics for part 8 of the survey (goals) ......................................................123 416 Respondent self assessment of knowledge, experience, and background with Internet supported learning by institutional classification ...............................................124 417 Descriptive statistics for part 1 of the survey (motivation) by institutional classification ....................................................................................................................125

PAGE 10

10 418 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for motivation by institutional classification ....................................................................................................................126 419 Descriptive statistics for part 2 of the survey (commitment/leadership) by institutional classification ................................................................................................127 420 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for commitment/leadership by institutional classification ................................................................................................128 421 Descriptive statistics for part 3 of the survey (program level support) by institutional classification ....................................................................................................................129 422 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for program level support by institutional Classification ...............................................................................................131 423 Descriptive statistics for part 4 of the survey (faculty support) by institutional classification ....................................................................................................................132 424 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for faculty support by institutional classification ................................................................................................134 425 Descriptive statistics for part 5 of the survey (student support) by institutional classification ....................................................................................................................135 426 Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for student support by institutional classification ................................................................................................137 427 Descriptive statistics for part 6 of the survey (measurement) by institutional classification ....................................................................................................................138 428 Descrip tive statistics associated with the index score for measurement by institutional classification ................................................................................................139 429 Rank orders of importance of actions related to improving an institutions Internet supported learning efforts ................................................................................................140 430 Descriptive statistics for part 8 of the survey (goals) by institutional classification .......141 431 t test results by institutional classificatio n .......................................................................143 432 Ranking of index score by means ....................................................................................144 433 Ranking of index scores by means by institutional classification ...................................144 434 Levels of support analysis framework .............................................................................145 435 Internet supported Learning (IsL) survey results: A comparative analysis .....................146

PAGE 11

11 436 Summary of similarities and differences of highest ranked survey items in sample schools compared to highest ranked items of Abels 2005(a) study ...............................148 437 Fall 20092010 headcounts for participating institutions ................................................148

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 21 Kings et al. three tiered policy analysis framework. (Kings et al., 2000) .......................65 22 Amasons policy analysis framework: Policy diffusion conclusions based on document review. (Amason, 2007b) ..................................................................................65 23 A comparison of priority faculty support attributes as defined by Abels, ITCs, and Sloan Cs study results. (Abel, 2005; Instructional Technology Council, 2009, Allen & Seaman, 2009) ...............................................................................................................66 24 Abels priority rankings for effective distance education programming based on the 21 institutions in the initial research sample. (Abel, 2005b) .............................................66

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DISTANCE EDUCATION FACULTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS AND POLICIES AT THE ASSOCIATE AND ASS OCIATE DOMINATE COLLEGES IN FLORIDA By Becky L. Shermis May 2011 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to identify the differences in distance education faculty support pr ograms practices, and policies in Floridas associate colleges with a two year mission and Floridas associate dominate four year institutions as classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The impact of increased enrollments, students demanding alternative delivery methods, and the lack of faculty support programs and resources has raised concerns of the quality of distance education teaching and learning at community colleges. The study was founded on two previous dissertation studies and a national survey conducted on 21 institutions that had been identified as having effective online practices. The current study employed a mixed methods approach by administering a survey questionnaire and collecting data based on follow up interview questions. The r esults of the study suggested that the Florida associate dominate colleges in the sample were implementing more effective practices and support than Florida associate colleges in the sample. One important conclusion was that in order for two year community colleges to become more proactive in online practices, resources have to be allocated for more faculty support. Moveover, twoyear institutions may require more planning as they attempt to merge their offerings at the associate degree level with institutions that have four year programs. Two year institutions required more co mmitment of leadership,

PAGE 14

14 program level support including centralized services and policies, technical support, and advocacy at higher administrative levels than their four year counterparts. Implications for practice were listed.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem From 2000 to 2010, the infusion of distance education offerings at community colleges across the United States grew dramatically. Community colleges embraced this alternative delivery system as a way to meet the needs of their changing stud ent demographics, as well as honor openaccess enrollment at an affordable rate. However, the costs associated with the delivery of online courses raised concerns regarding the quality of the instruction and the appropriate levels of support provided to f aculty in developing and facilitating distance education courses (Commission on Higher Education, 2001; Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 2002) Institutions have faced the challenge of developing strategies in standards, processes, and/or policies to ensure faculty members are prepared, able, and motivated to teach online (Koehler, Punyashloke, Hershey, & Peruski, 2004) Historically, faculty issues and involvement related to distance education have been traced back to the early 1990s. For example, Wolcott and Shattuck (2007) referenced early research work during this time period that focused on faculty involvement in distance education and what persuaded them to participate or not to participate in this type of delivery experience. The definition of faculty support, as used in this research study, is the provision of ongoing resources for online faculty in the areas of technical, design, production, pedagogica l training, and assistance (Commission on Higher Education, 2001) Rahman (2001) stated that the survival and success of online distance education cannot happen without the endorsement and active participation of faculty. Researchers targeted specific barriers and concerns related to faculty support:

PAGE 16

16 inferior or lack of technical support (Gerson, 2000; Instructional Technology Council, 2007; Koehler et al., 2004; Maguire, 2005) inferior or lack of training and staff development support in development of distance education course content, assessments and online student learning styles, that is pedagogical models (Gerson, 2000) published guidelines (Commission on Higher Education, 2001; Ellis & Phelps, 1999; Gerson, 2000; Hodge, 2000; Instructional Technology Council, 2007; Koehler et al., 2004; Ma guire, 2005) concern and confusion over who owns the course, that is intellectual property (Amason, 2007a; Gerson, 2000; Instructional Technology Council, 2007; Koehler et al., 2004; Maguire, 2005) concern over compensation, release time, or wor kload issues (Amason, 2007a; Gerson, 2000; Graff, 2008; Instructional Technology Council, 2007; Koehler et al., 2004; Maguire, 2005) concern over lack of incentives or recognition (Amason, 2007a; Gerson, 2000; Graff, 2008; Koehler et al., 2004; Maguire, 2005) lack of policy or procedures that demonstrate commitment of the institution to support faculty to be highly effective online facilitators (Amason, 2007a; Ellis & Phelps, 1999; Hodge, 2000; ITC, 2007; Koehler et al., 2004; Maguire, 2005) In 1997, the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) established a theoretical framework to reinvent the community college of the 21st century by restructuring initiatives to meet the needs of its diverse and nontraditional student bodies. The report cautioned that though students were becoming more comfor table in a technology environment and faculty benefited from alternatives to traditional methods of delivery, it was critical that the system did not implement technology just for the sake of technology (Weiner, McVeigh, Clever, Brasington, & King, 1997, p. 9) The critical element was using technology to improve the curriculum and enrich the processes of teaching and learning. Specifically, the VCCS report addressed the paucity of faculty preparation and support programs to ensure the delivery of quality distance learning.

PAGE 17

17 Statement of the Problem Though the surge of online distance educati on offerings in community colleges grew considerably since 2000, many educators raised concerns as to whether or not too much attention was given to quantity over quality of online instruction in post secondary institutions. For example, in the 20002001 academic year, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that more than 90% of twoyear public institutions offered distance education courses (Clark, 2007) This percent was a dramatic increase from 1997 1998, which reported that 62% of twoyear public institutions offered distance education courses. In 2000 2001, 48% of all students enrolled in a public twoyear institution were taking distance education courses (Clark, 2007) In 2002, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that the community college student profile was changing. More students, who were enrolled in twoyear institutions, were older, had families, worked full time, and attended college part time. These types of students were demanding alternative forms of delivery to meet their workand family related needs. In 2005, NCES reported the average age of a community college student was 29, 58% were identified as female, and 62% were enrolled in college as part time students (Clark, 2007) Community colleges were turning to distance learning to address the changing demographics and to make post secondary education more affordable and accessible (Clark, 2007) Community colleges concentrated on distance education to respond to economic shortfalls, budget cuts, and meeting open access requirements without the burden of increasing physical space (Clark, 2007) Though perceived as a low cost alternative, the cost of quality education became a high stakes question. In 2000, the concern for distance education quality manifested itself at the federal level (Cla rk, 2007) By 2001, all eight of the regional accrediting commissions, under the umbrella of

PAGE 18

18 the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, adopted the Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs (Commission on Higher Education, 2001) The goal was to create common guidelines for accredited public post secondary institutions in offering distance education programs. Specific language address ed the responsibility of the institutions to provide faculty and student support when developing distance education programs. Two dissertation studies focused on recommendations for further study into the problem of lack of faculty support programs and policies for distance education learning. Hodge (2000) explored community college policy areas that made a significant impact on providing quality distance education programs. In her discussion, she identified three specific problems areas, the most important of which was the lack of faculty and student support. Amason (2007a) conducted a study on examining current conditions of community college distance education policies at the state, consortia, and institutional levels. By identifying the similarities and differences in these policies, his goal was to pr opose guidelines for community college online distance education programs. In his findings, Amason (2007a) reported that faculty rewards were almost nonexistent at all three levels. He recommended that institutions and states consider engaging their faculty more in online teaching by offering more faculty incentive. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify if differences existed in distance education faculty support programs, practices and policies in Floridas baccalaureate degr ee granting institutions and Floridas community colleges with a two year mission. This study also sought to find common attributes of quality faculty support programs and/or policies, and discriminate which practices and policies were more successful than others. The study also examined discrepancies in faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding these practices and policies.

PAGE 19

19 Research Questions In order to address the purpose of the study, four research questions were developed: What similarities and differences exist in distance education faculty support programs in community colleges and baccalaureate state institutions? What is the relationship between distance education faculty support practices and policies in community colleges and s tate colleges? Does a discrepancy occur between faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding practices and policies? What are recommended attributes for institutions to consider in developing a distance education faculty support program mode l? Significance of the Study As the economic crisis continued to impact individuals and communities throughout the world, e learning programs became the solution in the 21st century to delivering communication, training, and instruction. Strong development s of e learning were seen in the corporate and academic sectors, stemming from lower costs, attraction to flexibility and convenience, and the high demand for e learning by students and clients (Gualtieri, 2008) While the supply and demand was expanding in academ ics, it was critical that training, resources, guidelines, and infrastructures were put into place to ensure that quality of instruction did not become second class to quantity. Resources were too limited to make hasty decisions that negatively impacted t he involvement of faculty and the outcome of student learning. This study sought to identify what support practices and policies were the most effective for both faculty and administration in developing and facilitating quality online courses. By analyzin g the similarities and differences of practices and policies in existing institutions, the goal of the study was to develop a model of best practices. While past studies identified barriers and strengths of faculty support programs for distance education, and accreditation agencies

PAGE 20

20 established formal guidelines for best practices, few studies existed that addressed a sample of institutions and reviewed what practices work ed for them. Recommendations from this study would benefit faculty and administrators at community colleges who designed and implemented online course deliveries. These recommendations would also benefit four year institutions that targeted online learning as an alternate form of traditional classroom delivery. Carnegie Foundation Termino logy The institutions in this study were located in the state of Florida and in the Florida College System. The four Florida state baccalaureate, degreegranting institutions in the sample were officially classified as Associate Dominant colleges by the Carnegie Foundati on for the Advancement of Teaching (2010). For the purpose of this study, they were referred to as four year institutions or state baccalaureate, degree granting institutions. The four community colleges in this study were officially clas sified as Associate colleges by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010). For the purpose of this study, they were referred to as two year institutions. Definition s of Terms The worlds of distance education and post secondary education come complete with their own terminologies and technical jargon. To assure a common understanding, the following terms and clarifying definitions are provided, which are specific to this study. ASSOCIATE COLLEGES: Institutions in the Florida College System; referred to as community colleges and twoyear institutions in the study; defined as an associate school by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. These institutions award associates degrees, but no bachelors degrees (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010, p. 1) ASSOCIATE DOMINATE C OLLEGES: Institutions in the Florida College System; referred to as state baccalaureate, degreegranting institutions and four year institutions in the study; defined as an associate dominant school by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement

PAGE 21

21 of Teaching. These institutions award both associates and bachelors degrees, but the majority of degrees awarded were at the associates level (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010, p. 1) ASYNCHRONOUS: Students attending to the teachings of instructors at some interval after the instructors have spoken, written, or provided some other form of teaching (Schlosser & Simonson, 2006, p. 6) An example of this type of interaction is the use of discussion board communication. Subjects can respond to one another in written comm unication without responding at exactly the same time. BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRONICALLY OFFERED DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE PROGRA MS: Endorsed by the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions in 2001 as guidelines to help post secondary institutions prepare, implement, and assess distance learning courses to ensure quality and provide essentials to inform and facilitate policies relate d to distance education (Clark, 2007) DISTANCE E DUCATION: Institutionally based, formal education where the learning group is separated, and where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners, r esources, and instructors (Amason, 2007a; Schlosser & Simonson, 2006, p. 6) FACULTY SUPPORT: Training and preparation; the provision of ongoing resources for online faculty in the areas of technical, design, production, pedagogical training, and assistance (Commission on Higher Education, 2001) INCENTIVE: These external factors may have a m otivational effect in reducing or minimizing barriers that may be perceived as negative. Incentives connected to distance education include: 1) rewards offered by the institution to attract faculty to teach online, that is stipends and decreased teaching load; or 2) environment attractors or enhancers that are apparent in the institutions climate, that is, support services, creating a favorable environment to teach online, or supportive administration to help the faculty succeed (Wolcott & Shattuck, 2007) INTERACTIVE COMMUNICA TIONS: The mode of connecting instructor and learner (Schlosser & Simonson, 2006, p. 4). POLICY: A written plan of action to facilitate or guide program development in a specific dir ection or area, that is procedure, statute, rule, or regulation (Simonson, 2007, p. 1) SYNCHRONOUS INSTRUCTI ON: Students interacting with instructors in real time (Schlosser & Simonson, 2006, p. 4) WEB-ENHANCED: Addi ng email or web based interactivity to either a web mounted course or a paper based distance education course without significant redesign of teaching and learning strategies (Ellis & Phelps, 1999, p. 2)

PAGE 22

22 Delimitations The studys scope was a r eplication of a previous study conducted by Abel (2005a) and the nonprofit Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, Inc. (A HEC), but on a different population. Representatives from the institutions in the current study completed an Internet version of Abels (2005c) self study survey and participated in a follow up phone interview. This current study used similar methodology methods Schools were purposeful ly selected for both parts of the study. The state baccalaureate institutions (fouryear) w ere purposeful selected, based on their longevity in the Florida College System as baccalaureate institutions. Phase 2 of the study limited its research to four Florida community colleges (two year) that were not applying for baccalaureate status in 2010 or 2011. All institutions were part of the Florida College System. The intent was to focus at a local level of analysis and not at a national level. Also, the Florida schools had specific classification definitions per the Carnegie Foundation. The Florida community colleges were those institutions that awarded only associate degrees and classified as associate schools. The state baccalaureate schools were those defined as associate dominant schools and awarded both associates and bachelors degrees, b ut mostly associate degrees (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010). The information for classification of the schools and the number of schools in the Florida College System identified as baccalaureate were taken from the most current information updates at the time of the study. As schools moved to baccalaureate status, this information was continually changing. Phase 1 of the analysis was limited to survey responses obtained from institution respondents who were allowed to answer the items based on their own perceptions and the perceptions of faculty and administrators. Surveys were obtained only from the four community

PAGE 23

23 colleges selected and the four purposeful ly selected baccalaureate state schools. All schools were selected from the state of Florida. Overview of Research Methods The study researched the differences in distance education faculty support practices and policies in Floridas baccalaureate degree granting institutions and Floridas community colleges with a two yea r mission. The primary objective was to identify possible differences in perceptions as an attempt to determine if some practices and policies were more successful than others. A secondary objective was to narrow the focus from looking at community colleg es at a national level to a local/state level. The analysis was built on two past dissertation studies conducted by Hodge (2000) and Amason (2007a) as well as on a national survey/interview study conducted by Abel (2005a). Hodge (2000) conducted a quantitative study in 2000 to address the broad issues of distance education in community colleges. Specifically, her study examined the differences in states that had distance education policies and those that did not have such policies. The purpose of her study was to examine the similarities and differences of state policies to find effective and efficient policy benchmarks for each state that could be used to develop model distance education programs (Hodge, 2000) Hodge found a discrepancy in practices with those states that had distance education policies compared to those that did not. She identified three areas of significant impact on the quality of distance education programs. These included infrastructure, program development, and faculty and student support (Hodge, 2000, p. vii) Amason (2007a) conducted a normative analysis study on distance education policies at the institution, state, and consortia levels of community colleges to understand the diffusion of policy concepts in this increasingly central medium (p. 15) He sought to triangulate state, co nsortia, and institutional policies with policy analysis frameworks, regional accreditation

PAGE 24

24 policies, and best practices (Amason, 2007a, p. 17) The goal of his study was to understand the impact of policy diffusion on student proximity and recommend policy guidelines for community college distance education program models at the s tate level. He found that diffusion increase d when policies and guidelines were closer in proximity to students. States therefore had lower distance education policy diffusion, and institutions had the greatest policy diffusion (Amason, 2007a) In relation to faculty factors, Amason concluded that overall low policy diffusion occurred, and the mos t ignored factor was faculty rewards. He recommended that more attention be given to this area at the institution and state levels to avoid faculty resistance against distance education deployment (Amason, 2007a) In 2005, Rob Abel, president and founder of Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC), conducted a nationwide survey and fol low up interviews with 21 higher education institutions from various categories that regarded the online education programs at their respective institutions as being successful. Findings from this report revealed that executive leadership and support and f aculty and academic leadership commitment were the top criteria for higher education distance education success (Abel, 2005b). In regard to specificity about faculty online support, his data showed that faculty support was more successful in community col leges, and that faculty did a good job in nurturing grass roots efforts affording them more buy in and ownership opportunities in developing and/or teaching online courses ( Abel, 2005c, p. 23). This finding was noted as a key factor in distance learning success for those institutions surveyed. Phases of the Study Phase 1 of this study began with exploring characteristics of effective online practices and/or policies in higher education and in community colleges. This document review and content analysi s were conducted on the following three bases: 1) two dissertation studies; 2)

PAGE 25

25 researching national and regional standards for effective online practices; and 3) analysis of national surveys conducted specifically to gain information on challenges and effe ctive practices around online distance learning practices in higher education and community college institutions. The content analysis led to the construction of a conceptual framework called the Levels of Support Framework for Analysis to be used as an a nalysis tool in the research methodology. Phase 2 of the study was dedicated to administering an Internet survey instrument and follow up interviews to enrich and expand the survey analysis and attempt to answer the research questions. The survey tool sel ected for the current study was replicated from a national survey with a different population. Eight public colleges in the Florida College System were purposefully selected for the sample. Four of the 19 Florida state baccalaureate, degreegranting institutions were identified based on their longevity in the Florida College System as baccalaureate state schools. Their official classification, as reported by the Carnegie Foundation was Associate Dominant schools, (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2010). Four of the 9 Florida community colleges were identified for the study based on the likelihood that they would not apply for baccalaureate status in 2010 or 2011. The criteria for selection came from the recommendation of the executive vi ce chancellors Office of Student and Academic Success under the Florida College System. The official classification of the community colleges in the study, as reported by the Carnegie Foundation was Associate schools, (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancem ent of Teaching 2010). At the time of this study, there were 28 schools in the Florida College System, all locally governed, and overseen by the Chancellor of Florida Colleges. The respondents from each institution were selected for having the most knowle dge and experience in their respective schools online programs. They were also

PAGE 26

26 selected to best answer the items based on their own perceptions and based on the perceptions of faculty, students, and administrators. Organization of the Study Chapter 1 pr esented the introduction, background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, and a brief statement about the methodology, followed by an introduction of assumptions, limitations, delimi tations, and definitions of terms. Chapter 2 reviews the literature of distance education faculty support programs and policies. Chapter 3 gives the methodology used in the research study and the research design. Chapter 4 offers a thorough analysis of t he data collected and a detailed description of the findings. Chapter 5 summarizes and discusses the findings, implications for practice, and issues and recommendations for further study.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the differences in distance education faculty support practices and policies in Floridas baccalaureate, degree granting institutions and Floridas community colleges with a two year mission. This study also sought to find common attributes of quality faculty support programs and/or policies, and discriminate which practices and policies were more successful than others. The study was to examine discrepancies in faculty perception and administrative offerings rega rding these practices and policies. In other words, did a relationship exist between what the faculty thought were important support attributes and what the administration offered in pedagogy, technical, or incentive support? The analysis of this research was to also determine attributes that were the most effective for both faculty and administration. In order to address the purpose of the study, four research questions were developed. What similarities and differences exist in distance education facul ty support programs in community colleges and baccalaureate state institutions? What is the relationship between distance education faculty support practices and policies in community colleges and state colleges? Does a discrepancy occur between faculty p erception and administrative offerings regarding practices and policies? What are recommended attributes for institutions to consider in developing a distance education faculty support program model? C hapter 2 begins with the history of distance education and provides a foundation for understanding how it has impacted post secondary education institutions in the United States and abroad. It also includes a discussion of the origin of mega universities and their perceived successes and criticisms It also investigates the team approach to designing and delivering

PAGE 28

28 online education, as well as identifying what worked and what did not work in deploying this model. This chapter then looks at the impact of accrediting bodies on post secondary distance educati on and their influence on ensuring quality. Chapter 2 presents a literature review of community colleges and the challenges they face in meeting the demands of their students by providing online education and, at the same time, ensuring that quality educa tion is at the helm of distance education delivery systems The dependent variable, faculty support, is then explored as a major gap that had already been identified and emphasized in the literature as a major influence in ensuring quality and success of distance education courses and programs. Because this study was built on two previous dissertation studies, which focused on distance education policy and community colleges, and on a national study, a section is reserved for highlighting key findings and recommendations from these specific resources. History of Distance Education in Higher Education Distance education emerged in the United States in the 1950s as an alternative to traditional teaching in both the K 12 and university settings (Black, 2007) Its original goal was to provide learning without the barriers of place or time and to make learning accessible to students who could not be in a traditional classroom setting on campus. Distance education became known and embraced as an innovative way to provide teaching and learning for all students. Keegan (1980) defined six essentials in most distance education programs: 1) teachers and students are separated with no face to face contact, 2) the online environment is subjected to an the influenc e of an education organization, 3) distance education programs use technology/media delivery systems, 4) communication is two way, 5) some programs have optional synchronous seminars, and 6) the new delivery system is part of an industrial era of education

PAGE 29

29 In the 21st century, distance education became a convenience and a commodity for students who wanted an education that fit their lifestyle and pocketbook. It became the delivery of choice for many students, and higher education was expected to deliver and be receptive to the needs of students (Hann a, 2007) The growth of online programs in higher education has continued to surpass projections. In 2005, 2 million college students took online courses (Allen & Seaman, 2006a) In 2006, 96% of the larger universities (totaling more than 15,000 students) offered double the number of online courses that smaller institutions offered. Close to two thirds of these larger institutions offered full online programs compared to one sixth of the smaller colleges and universities. Doctorate and research schools saturated the online market with more than 80% of their courses and/or programs being offered online in 2006 (Allen & Seaman, 2006a) Overall, the number of students taking online courses grew from 2 million in 2003 to 2.4 million in 2006 (A llen & Seaman, 2006a) According to the 2006 Sloan Consortium report, 40% to 60% of traditional courses at higher education institutions were offered online. In this same report, the authors reported that almost two thirds of the online courses taught were facilitated by fulltime faculty and not adjuncts (Allen & Seaman, 2006a) In the 2010 Sloan Consortium report, the increase of students taking at least one online course surpassed all other Sloan survey reporting. In 2002, there were over 1.6 milli on students taking at least one online course, but in 2009, there were over 5.6 million students taking courses (Allen & Seaman, 2010). According to Allen and Seaman (2010), this increase surpassed all higher education overall enrollment growth. Due to the increase of more online courses offered, it was critical not to sacrifice quality for quantity. Skepticism continued to exist regarding online delivery systems and their impact on student achievement. Faculty support was a critical factor in assessing the quality of distance

PAGE 30

30 education programs, and though accrediting bodies, states, and institutions put policies in place to support faculty, the gap continued to be a major issue and concern. A momentum of distance education began in the late 1950s and e arly 1960s, but historians have traced the first correspondence studies back to the 1700s (Black, 2007) Correspondence studies in the 1700s were the first form of distance education and were the most lasting predecessor of distance education (Evans & Nation, 2007) Teachers and students communicated i n writing. These courses provided education to students who did not have access to college (Feasley & Bunker, 2007) Independent study programs became a variation of correspondence courses in the 1920s, predominantly in high schools. Inde pendent study was a frequently used term by universities in the 1960s (Clark, 2007) This kind of study essentially was distance education without technology, and it provided instruction to students without having them attend class. Students were allowed to complete independent course assignments on their own. Independent study was an individualized approach of instruction between student and faculty and was carried out via long distance. Vocational schools also provide d independent study courses and referred to their independent study programs as home study programs (Moore & Kearsley, 2005) The National University Extension Association (NUEA) tracke d enrollments of these courses beginning as early as the 1930s. Independent study courses saw a rapid growth during World War II because the war created a shortage of teachers, and the military draft affected a rise in high school enrollments (Clark, 2007) When the war was over, fewer individuals took advantage of these types of correspondence courses until the mid1950s when enrollments began to rise again. The first network broadcast for education programming was developed at the University of Iowa. This was a twoway satellite communication from one television in one school to a

PAGE 31

31 television in another school. It was popular for schools that were far apart, and it provided a mechanism for rural students to be a part of the classroom without traveling. By 1999, an average of 40% of K 12 schools were using this form of satellite communication (Clark, 2007) The Articulated In structional Media (AIM) project originated in the 1960s at the University of WisconsinMadison ( Black, 2007) It was the first attempt to look at distance education as a whole system. Wedemeyer combined disciplines and created an integrated liberal studies program (Wedemeyer & Najem, 1969). T his program incorporated a variety of teaching deliverable systems into its courses, including independent study, tele lectures, seminars, short sessions, radiotelevision, and portable libraries and laboratories. This innovated approach to teaching and l earning marked the way for the first open universities (Wedemeyer & Najem, 1969) Community colleges in the 1970s were leaders in post secondary education in exploring distance education learning tools (Mullins, 2007). Offerings included tele courses, such as live television setup at satellite campuses, video, PBS recorded broadcasts, taped sessions, and correspondence course deliveries. In the mid1990s, the internet became the online delivery of choice (Mullins, 2007) Many community colleges took advantage of the course management tools such as Blackboard and WebCT. This surge of new learning management tools led the way to asynchronous learning in which participation in a classroom was not live or did not use mail correspondence, but a written communication and interaction between students and faculty or between students and students (Mullins, 2007) This innovative teaching style allowed students to earn a degree or certificat e in a flexible environment conducive to their lifestyle. In 1971, colleagues of Wedemeyer, Wiltshire, and James took the AIM concept and developed the first publicly funded open teaching university, the United Kingdom Open

PAGE 32

32 University (UKOU) (Daniel, Macki ntosh, & Diehl, 2007). This institution was built on the premise that courses could be developed and implemented with course teams through distance education technology (Daniel et al., 2007, p. 612) Moore and Kearsley (2005) defined open universities as universities that divided up the labor of teaching by creating teams of faculty and staff who worked t ogether to develop and deliver courses with many of the components that Wedemeyer and Najem (1969) used when AIM was created. The fundamental difference between an open university and a traditional university was that the institution was the teacher and not the faculty member (Keegan, 1980) Moore and Kearsley (2005) were among the pioneers of the first online university that offered degree granting programs using distance education delivery systems. This model broke the mold of traditional student/faculty/lecture learning models. Teaching was separated into di fferent roles and responsibilities were carried out by faculty and/or staff of the institution. This model became effective and scalable in reaching a broader bandwidth of students. The model was a phenomenon that became widely accepted and was differen t from the traditional model of faculty working in isolation to design and deliver their own courses (Daniel et al., 2007) The open university concept became a success. Mega U niversities By 1999, 11 open univer sities around the world were established. During this time more than 3 million students enrolled in these 11 mega universities, a term associated with open universities enrolling more than 100,000 students. In 2007, these institutions accounted for mor e than 6 million college students (Black, 2007; Daniel et al., 2007) Daniel et al. (2007) stated that for institutions to be considered successful, they must pass the test on three specific benchmarks defined as the Eternal Triangle These tests measured quality and efficiency in widening access, improving quality, and lowering costs (p. 613)

PAGE 33

33 The leadership of mega universities developed methods to deliver higher education programs by dividing up the labor and delivering instruction, using course teams via web based delivery systems. This model of course delivery was successful for several reasons. First, it was an economic success. It took the cost of delivering instruction and spread it to millions of students without transferring the costs to the students (Daniel et al., 2007) For example, to serve 6 million students at traditional universities, it would take 200 large ground campuses to meet this enrollment demand. Also, without the brick and mortar expenses, these institutions were at a definite adv antage to offer cost savings and more services to students. The cost of this type of a delivery model was not cheap (Daniel et al., 2007) Web based distance education was a costly venture. Secondly, these unive rsities provided a college opportunity to students worldwide who did not have an opportunity to attend college through a traditional route (Daniel et al., 2007) Another success element of open universities was t heir offerings of student support services that targeted individualized assistance in tutoring or administrative needs over and above the teaching (Daniel et al., 2007, p. 613) While mega uni versities served masses of students from a distance, the individualized support services created more connect ivity for the student with the university. Finally, mega universities were successful in carrying out a business model that fused academics with b usiness. Daniel et al. (2007) stated, Visitors from conventional universities are astounded by the magnitude and efficiency required of logistics and administration in the mega university context (p. 613). By 2007, more than 300 distance education universities were in operation. Though the majority of these did not serve enrollments of more than 100,000 similar mega universities, they still served student populations all over the world. They were able to serve students across all

PAGE 34

34 global boundaries, which was another noted success of an institution model adapted from the U nited Kingdom Open University model (Daniel et al., 2007) Un ited Kingdom Open Universi ty The United Kingdom Open University (UKOU) was the first to implement the course team method, and its goal was to create a more systemic quality of instruction in both teaching and learning. While its delivery system focused o n academics and pedagogy, it still held true to the traditional institution value that research was an important component of the institutional system. According to Daniel et al. (2007) UKOU was rated in the top third of all United Kingdom universities in research and was rated in the top 10% of all U.K. universities for its teaching programs. The success of distance education programs, according to Daniel et al. (2007) was to ensure that costs, access, and quality were achieved. All three of these evaluative measures of the Eternal Triangle had to work in tandem. To hold onto credibility and success, policymakers in higher education had to ensure that these three areas were part of a unified strategy and managed effectively. What was also important to the success was not necessarily the focus on the medium used for delivery but how that medium was used (Rahman, 2001) Rahman emphasized that the success of online education relied on the support of faculty and administrative leadership and the active buy in and participation of faculty as a whole. Open universities had an advantage over the deployment of distance education compared to traditional universities. Due to their infrastructures being set up as total online systems, administrators and faculty accepted, participated in, and supported this type of teaching and learning environment. While mega universities received recognition for their delivery systems from a large number of students, these types of institutions were criticized. One criticism focused on the mass production model as not being individualistic. Some critics argued that this type of

PAGE 35

35 education, through virtual media, was ineffective due to the loss of the face to face communication (Rahman, 2001) Interestingly, the voice of these critics came from tra ditional faculty. Some distance education universities were also called second rate institutions due to their lack of social context and nontraditional academic and pedagogical environment (Daniel et al., 2007) While some open universities had received recognition for their quality programs and business models, other institutions inherited disapproval for their copycat schemes to mass produce the concept without the attention to academic rigor or acquiring grant degree type program approval. This type of scrutiny created the socalled diploma mills. Diploma Mills Diploma mills gave quality distance education universities a bad name. Scrupulous businesses took the concept of online universities and created fictitious online degree programs that offered diplomas on their website. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) defined diploma mills as dubious providers of educational offerings or operations that offered certificates and degrees consi dered bogus (Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2009, p. 1) Some diploma mills also misled students and the general public into thinking the institutions they represented were accredited and quality institutions. Students who put money and time into these diploma mill institutions found their investments worthless. Accreditation policies required that any certificate or degree from a diploma mill could not be used to transfer or enter graduate school or be used to get tuition assistance approvals (Council for Higher Education Accreditation 2009) For Profit Instit utions By 2010, for profit colleges and universities had grown to almost 3,000 in the United States and were offering 8% of the higher education degrees (Hentschke, Lechuga, & Tierney, 2010). Enrollments had also grown to 1.8 million, posing a threat to t he enrollment market of

PAGE 36

36 traditional institutions. It was reported in 2009 that for profit institutions had received over $20 billion in federal loans and over $4 billion in Pell Grants (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010). A federal investigation of fifteen forprofit institutions found four institutions fraudulent in deceptive practices (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010). In 2010, new federal regulations on financial aid were put in place (Allen & Seaman, 2010; U.S. Government Accounta bility Office, 2010). The majority of for profit institutions have focused on nontraditional students and global markets. They have been leaders in online development innovations. Best practices for profit institutions have been models for traditional in stitutions to replicate (Hentschke et al., 2010). Distance Education Accreditation Unlike the United Kingdom and other countries that had rigorous and comprehensive state regulated assessment systems for their higher education institutions, universities and colleges in the United States were not regulated by the federal government (Daniel et al., 2007; Feasley & Bunker, 2007; Lezberg, 2007) Reasons for deregulation came from the fact that most funding for universities and colleges in the United States did not come from the federal government. Most funding contributed by the federal government was connected to private accrediting agencies supported and recognized by the federal government (Feasley & Bunker, 2007) To be considered a legally operated institution, colleges and universities had to be licensed with their state and had to abide by state regulated rules (Lezberg, 2007) Six regional associations were recognized by the federal government. Colleges and universities whether public, private, for profit, or not forprofit had to apply for approval as an accredited institution by one of the accrediting bodies: 1) Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 2) New England Association of Schools and Colleges, 3) North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, 4) Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, 5)

PAGE 37

37 Southern Association of Schools and Colleges, and 6) Western Association of Schools and Colleges. To be recognized as an accredited institution and continually be renewed for accreditation status, institutions had to pass rigorous perform ance standards established by the accrediting agencies (Lezberg, 2007) By 2007, more than 3,500 associate level to graduate level degree offering institutions in the United States were accredited with one of the six accreditation agencies (Lezberg, 2007) Historically, accredited institutions demonstrated to students, families, state governments, and employers that they offered quality degree granting programs and held high standards of accountability (Lezberg, 2007) Consequently, institutions not accredited could not qualify for grants and were denied access to federal funding (Karlen, 2007; Lezberg, 2007) As distance education emerged and became more prevalent in the 1950s, the idea that knowledge and education were being transmitted across state and regi onal borders became a concern. It became critical to look at distance education standards beyond the six accrediting bodies. This concern about transmission across borders was addressed by three groups: the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), t he American Council on Education (ACE), and the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). In 1955, the Distance Education and Training Council established the first standards. The American Council on Education took over in the 1970s to monitor and support the standards. By the late 1990s, the American Council on Education determined that the agencies had to provide guidelines for distance education. Though this initiative started within individual agencies, the guidelines became requir ements across the accrediting bodies. In March 1997, the Guidelines for Distance Learning Programs was published by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education ( MSCHE, 2002) The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) took the

PAGE 38

38 lead in addressing distance education standards and guidelines. The members of WICHE were selected individuals from institutions accredited by one of the six regional accrediting agencies (Lezberg, 2007) The new policies were accepted and were called NEASCs Policy on the Accreditation of Academic Degrees and Certificate Programs O ffered through Distance Education. In August 2000, the guidelines were rewritten to become a set of rules for all the regional associations. The Policy on the Accreditation of Academic Degrees and Certificate Programs Offered through Distance Education was changed to The Statement of Commi tment by the Regional Accrediting Commissions for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education adopted and approved The Statement of Commitment in March 2001 ( MSCHE, 2002) This statement adoption placed more accountability on institutions delivering online education by replacing guidelines for a set of rules. This accountabi lity procedure held for not only degree granting institutions which were fully online institutions but for any degree granting accredited institution that delivered online learning (Lezberg, 2007) Focus on Quality Practices In 2001, another move was instituted to place a higher expec tation on distance education quality called the best practice statement. It identified five quality areas of assessment to evaluate online distance education (Commission on Higher Education, 2001; Middle States Commission on Higher Education 2002) : 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support 4) student support and 5) evaluation and assessment. All these assurances were put in place to ensure high quality distance education. In March 2001, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions endorsed The Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs to be used as a tool and

PAGE 39

39 guide to help post secondary institutions to prepare, implement, and assess distance learning courses to ensure quality and provide essentials to inform and facilitate policies related to distance education (Clark, 2007; Commission on Higher Education, 2001) This tool was used for internal and external evaluators to assess the quality of the distance education programs for each i nstitution reviewed. The Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs prescribed specific protocols and asked questions related to each protocol area. 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act In August 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) was passed by Congress ( Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008; Instructional Technology Council, 2008) The intent of this act was to increase accountability measures across all higher education institutions, including institutions that participated in the delivery of online instruction and delivery systems. The five specific points associated with distance education included: 1. The definition of distance education replaced the definition of t elecommunications. The new definition stated, The use of one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor, either s ynchronously or asynchronously (Instructional Technology Council, 2008, p. 1) 2. The Secretary of Education prepared an annual report, discussing its distance learning demonstration projects (Instructional Technology Council, 2008) 3. National accrediting agencies put into effect the following requirements to increase accountability: Demonstrate effective standards for evaluating program quality; create review teams that are well trained and knowledgeable with respect to their res ponsibilities regarding distance education; and monitor significant growth in distance education enrollments. A review was required if distance education enrollment increased 50% in one institutional fiscal year (Instructional Technology Council, 2008, p. 1) 4. A study was asked of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council to look at the quality of distance education courses with campus based courses. 5. All accredited colleges had to validate processes that were in place to establish that the student who registered in a distance education course or program was the same student who participate d in and completed the program and received the academic credit (Instructional Technology Council, 2008, p. 1)

PAGE 40

40 The most significant contribution of the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act was to make distance education institutions responsible for ensuring that no fraudulent activity occurred in their online courses (Instructional Technology Council, 2008) This heightened awareness of student authentication resulted in the regional accrediting agencies being asked to revise guidelines for distance education programs (Instructional Technology Council, 2008) According to the Instructional Technology C ouncil, no definitive data supported fraudulent acts; however, programs were asked to be vigilant in monitoring dishonest acts and fraudulent practices. Programs in 2009 put standard operating procedures in place to ensure they could document course and p rogram integrity (Instructional Technology Council, 2008, p. 1) Quality of Distance Education Programs The q uality of distance education programs was a recurring and rising concern even after the accountability and accreditation pol icies were put in place in the early 2000s and the best practice statement was formalized (Commission on Higher Education, 2001; Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002) Online institutions continued to be scrutinized over the five best practice areas, which included institutional context and commitment, curriculum and instruction, faculty and student support, and evaluation and assessment. It was difficult to validate and quantify a single online key element or best practice that yielded successful results in post secondary distance education learning. But research studies identified common practices, which successful institutions in the online education business had prioritized, as being critical to their quality implementation and achievement of desired goals. Institutional Context and Commitment A common practice found in quality distanc e education programs was strong leadership support. Leaders demonstrated that online education was important by being proactive in two measures. First, evidence included clear mission statements that kept focus on student learning

PAGE 41

41 with technology as a suc cessful delivery of instruction (Abel, 2005b) Second, quality institutions also developed innovative programs or processes to fund centralized support resources. Examples included building internal and external support systems of online learning through consorti a (Abel, 2005b) Faculty Support A stronger commitment to faculty was shown by including them in planning and implementation strategies and processes (Abel, 2005b; Allen & Seaman, 2008; Allen & Seaman, 2010; Rovai & Downey, 2010) As a result, faculty demonstrated a higher commitment to the practices of online teaching and learning Faculty members ea rned stipends for their participation in online courses and designing courses. Clear messages were established about what rights faculty had in regard to intellectual property. Incentives of support included paid conference fees for annual online conferences, teaching in a scholar academy, or designing and developing online courses (Abel, 2005b; Abel, 2005e; Amason, 2007) Online faculty development practices strengthened the quality of the online courses and programs. These initiatives included orientations for new faculty, professional development related to student learning in an online environment, technical training, full time helpdesk, learning techniques in designing online courses using nontraditional delivery strategies, academic integrity strategies, and including faculty as mentors to help others, thus enriching the collaborative environment of working in teams (Allen & Seaman, 2009; Allen & Seaman, 2010; Rowai & Downey, 2010; Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2009b). Student Support Resources were readily available to help online students, and support service personnel were able to assist stud ent needs in an efficient and effective way. Some of these services included program advising, helpdesk and technical support, enrolling and paying tuition,

PAGE 42

42 academic integrity information, faculty assistance in retention efforts, and dedicated administrative staff supporting distance learners (Abel, 2005b; Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2009a; Western Interstate Commission for higher Education, 2009b) Evaluation and Assessment Institutions spent time refining online assessments of student success and developing indic ators for monitoring student learning growth and learner outcome competencies. Student anecdotal feedback was valued and important in determining what improvements were needed to ensure student learning success (Abel, 2005b) Community Colleges Become Leaders in Online Education Community colleges became the post secondary frontrunners in accepting distance education as an alternate delivery system (Mullins, 2007) Many community colleges turned to distance learning to address their changing demographics, to make education more accessible, and to make post secondary education more cost efficient for the institution and more affordable for its students. Adopting distance education reduced barriers they faced with economic shortfalls, budget cuts, and meeting openaccess requirements. Distance learning also addressed the challenge of addressi ng rising enrollments without increasing physical space (M ullins, 2007) According to the 2002 National Center for Education Statistics, the demographics of a community college student was not the same profile as it was in past (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002) The distance learning student was likely to be older than age 24, worked full time, was responsible for his own financial welfare, supported dependent children, and attended college part time (National Center for Education Statistics 2002) In similar data collected by Phillippe and Pat ton in 2005 (as cited in Mullins, 2007), the numbers were similar. They reported the average age of a community college student was 29. They also found women

PAGE 43

43 outnumbered attending men by 58%, and that 43% of the students had full time jobs. In their resea rch, they found that 62% went to college part time and single parents consisted of 16% of the community college student population. Community colleges revisited how to do business differently and addressed the changing student profile and demographics. The y offered nontraditional approaches to learning to meet the needs of their students and provide broader access and flexibility. Mullins (2007) illustrated that without the movement to offer more distance education opportunities, a college education would not have been achievable for many stude nts. For example, students who worked full time or took on two jobs could not afford to miss work to attend school. Single mothers who cared for young children could not make arrangements to attend class or could not afford childcare to take off and trav el to school. High school students were also affected. They needed to take advanced placement courses at the community college while finishing up their high school degrees. Military personnel, challenged with not being accessible to their local institutions, needed an experience that would allow them to study abroad and keep their military commitment (Mullins, 2007) Students with physical and/or mental challenges or students who were homebound faced similar challenges of not having the capabilities to attend ground school campuses. Community colleges also h ad an allegiance to career education and to provide workforce educational opportunities with community, business, and industry partners. By expanding technical and vocational training to online environments, they better served the needs of their community and contributed to the critical shortage needs affecting areas outside the community (Mullins, 2007) These reasons and many more jumpstarted the community college communities to think diffe rently about their offerings to students. If they

PAGE 44

44 were to hold true to their mission of openaccess, then targeting distance education was a solution to standing behind their mission. Distance Education Growth in Community Colleges The surge of distance education offerings in community colleges in the early 2000s resulted in increased growth in enrollments. In 2003, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that community colleges led public and private four year institutions in the percenta ge of enrollments of students in distance education courses (Mullins, 2007) The report identified that out of 3 million post secondary students nationwide, 48% were enrolled in community college distance education courses, 31% were enrolled in public four year institution distance education courses, and 19% were enrolled in private four year institution distance education courses (Mullins, 2007) In the 2008 Distance Education Survey Results community college respondents reported that their online course enrollments had grown from the previous year by 11.3%, compared to only 2% of their ground campus enrollments (Instructional Technology Council, 2008) This data mirrored the same percentages Allen and Seaman (2008) reported in Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States 2008. The Sloan Consortium Report also concluded that in 2007, almost 4 million higher education students enrolled in online courses. Of that 4 million, more than 20% took more than one online class (Allen & Seaman, 2008) Challenges of Distance Education in Community Colleges While the online education industry grew in community colleges in the mid2000s, so did concerns of quality in their programs and policies (Allen & Seaman, 2006b, 2008; Instructional Technology Council, 2007, 2008; Middle States Commission on Higher Education 2002; Moore & Kearsley, 2005; Mullins, 2007) Many of these issues were addressed in research and literature.

PAGE 45

45 As community colleges became leaders in offering many online courses and programs to students, public concerns grew as to whether or not they were more focused on delivering quantity versus quality offerings. Research studies and s urveys were conducted to identify the challenges, as well as quality practices of community college online education processes and programs. The Instructional Technology Council (ITC), an affiliated council of the American Association of Community College s (AACC), surveyed community colleges in 2005. The annual survey was circulated to approximately 500 institutions. The purpose of the survey was to track longitudinal data and to record trends nationally on e learning challenges of twoyear and technical institutions. The survey summaries were usually completed by the institutions distance education administrator. The questions were categorized in four areas and included these topics: general information, administration, faculty, and students (Instruc tional Technology Council, 2008) During the last four surveys, five themes, which challenged community colleges in regard to their distance education delivery systems, emerged: 1. Recruiting and training of faculty in designing, developing, and facilit ating online courses 2. Providing support staff to assist in training and technical assistance 3. Ensuring that student services were in place and efficient to help distance education students, that is, financial aid, scheduling of courses, technical trouble sh ooting support 4. Supporting technical and resource budgets to a) run the systems and support costs of technology that can improve the delivery of instruction, and b) supporting personnel resources to keep pace with the most upto date technologies to continue offering the best delivery of online content 5. Offering courses that required more sophisticated designs to allow interactivity between students or to address specific learning strategies that embraced hands on or face to face simulations or lab simulatio n environments or that met the challenge of difficult content to put on line, such as languages, speech, mathematics (Instructional Technology Council, 2006, 2007, 2008; Mullins, 2007)

PAGE 46

46 In 2008, a specific ITC survey mirrored the previous listed themes. The data highlighted the following findings: Workload issues continued to be the greatest challenge for faculty. The number one challenge for administrators was to budget or find appropriate support staff to offer technical and training assistance. Distance lear ning enrollments continued to rise with an average of 11.3% increase. This enrollment increase compared to an average of only 2% increase in overall campus enrollments. The student demand exceeded the current distance learning offerings, according to 70% of the respondents. A rise of blended or hybrid courses occurred among community college campuses and/or web enhanced or web assisted courses. With the new accreditation rules in place, established by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, most colleges reported that they had expanded their student services and technology support services to sustain distance education students. Of the campuses surveyed, 37% were deciding whether or not to change their software management system from Blackboard an d WebCT to another management system. The merger of Blackboard and WebCT has prompted a number of campuses to review their learning management system commitments (Instructional Technology Council, 2008, p. 3) Assessing student learning and perf ormance in an online environment was the greatest challenge for students in 2008 (Instructional Technology Council, 2008) Addressing Faculty Support in Community Colleges Faculty support, as defined in this research study is the provision of ongoing resources for online faculty in the areas of technical, design, production support, and pedagogical training and assistance (Commission on Higher Educa tion, 2001) As research studies and surveys were conducted and data were analyzed, increased concern grew over the disparity between online program offerings and the lack of faculty support in community colleges. With the increased enrollment in dista nce education courses and programs, as well as the regulatory and community ske pticism that existed around quality of online content and delivery, the faculty support gap

PAGE 47

47 became even more transparent as a significant problem (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Allen & Seaman, 2009; Allen & Seaman, 2010; Instructional Technology Council, 2008; Instructional Technology Council, 2009) Institutions continued to be earmarked for putting in place inefficient policies and resources to support faculty in training, coaching, resources, technical assistance, design assistance, recognitions, and incentives (Instructional Technology Council, 2008; Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2010) This practice led to resistance of faculty to teach online, and th e quality of the instruction was criticized. In a 2010 Managing Online Education (MOE) Survey to over 180 community colleges and four year institutions, nearly threequarters of the participants reported faculty resisted teaching online courses primarily d ue to lack of resources (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2010). Karlen (2007) pointed out that when regional accreditation associations evaluated online systems in community colleges, they found that faculty roles and responsibilities were significantly impacted, and faculty resistance in teaching online became evident. Some examples of online processes that created barriers for faculty included: Materials were used repeatedly without permission from faculty members who designed them. Classes and office hours were scheduled quite differently and took on venues such as instant messaging (IM) chats, email communication, and synchronous and asynchronous discussions. Training was more challenging and outside faculty comfort zones or experti se, that is, teaching with alternative delivery multimedia methods and facilitating instruction in online environments. Training required ongoing support services to coach and mentor faculty in implementing best practices that promoted student engagement. Consideration of hardware and software updates impacted full time, adjunct, and remote faculty.

PAGE 48

48 Policies needed to be restructured to include specific concerns that addressed contact hours, class sizes, and time to prepare for online courses. Considerati on had to be given to revising faculty evaluations to be conducive to an online teaching environment and expectations. In 2001, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions endorsed The Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Pr ograms This manual was to be used as a tool and guide to help post secondary institutions to prepare, implement, and assess distance learning courses to ensure quality and provide essentials to inform and facilitate policies related to distance education (Clark, 2007; Commission on Higher Education, 2001) One of the documented areas of focus was faculty support. After a decade of dissemination of this protocol and the heightened requirement for institutions to put into place standards and practices that conform to best practices, faculty support continued to be identified as an area of needed improvement (Commission on Higher Education, 2001; Instructional Technology Council, 2010; Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002; Western Interstate Commission for Higher Educat ion, 2009a) Key Studies Identify Faculty Support Best Practices and Priorities S everal studies and surveys were conducted to assess online education in community colleges and universities. The goals of these studies determined: 1) the success factors common among higher education institutions that were delivering quality online programs, 2) the challenges they faced, and 3) the priorities to be targeted. Specific to faculty support, key factors emerged as common themes in the literature. Alliance fo r Higher Education Competitiveness Study The Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC) is a nonprofit organization that has conducted research on change in higher education and assessed quality initiatives and positive innovations that demonst rated success (Abel, 2005c) Abel (2005c) conducted a

PAGE 49

49 qualitative study in 2005 with administrators from 21 community colleges and universities who perceived they had quality e learning programs. The intent was to draw information from the resource person closest to the direct impact of distance education in his respective institution, and understand his perceptions as they related to students, faculty, and administration. This research study consisted of three parts: 1) a questionnaire first submitted via the web, 2) a phone interview, an d 3) another websurvey submitted that asked respondents to rank specific criteria compiled from the first two steps of the research project (Abel, 2005c) Abel's (2005c) overall findings in the study revealed that 42% of the respondents indicated the most important and successful attribut es were faculty online learning materials and the environment from which they were produced. Abel (2005c) commented that though faculty support was considered a priority opportunity, it was also a high risk factor that impeded positive change if not considered when creating a more positive experience. Participants were asked to rank their highest priorities for the coming year. Of the top nine priorities, the biggest challenge was convincing the traditional faculty to support online learning and be trained in online facilitation skills. The highest ranked best practices to target were course quality and stu dent support services. Strengthening how to assess learning outcomes in an online environment was a definite common priority theme. Marketing also was ranked high as a priority, possibl y due to the fact that many students perceived online learning as eas y, less work, and required less demands in turning work in at certain times (Abel, 2005c). The order of the results was as follows (Abel, 2005a, p. 40): 42% new technologies or processes to increase quality 37% better support for online students 37% improving marketing 26% convincing the traditional faculty 26% keeping an eye on quality 26% prioritizing scarce resources

PAGE 50

50 21% getting enough courses built 16% training more faculty 16% convincing administrators Respondents also identified their top priorities during the next three years from a list of 25 items. Faculty support again rose to the top (42%), along with program marketing and recruiting (26%) and new content development and technology deliveries (26% ). Specific to faculty support priorities during the next three years, the topranked items included (Abel, 2005a, p. 42): 26% establishing course quality standards 26% faculty support website for technical support 21% one on one instructional desig n consultations 21% required comprehensive training before teaching online 21% additional fees paid to teach an online course 21% course development support center staff 21% help from unbiased experts to assess the course quality and effectiveness 21% process and support to improve the course or program each term it was offered Institutions were also asked to rank the items they planned to emphasize. Six items ranked to the top of this list (Abel, 2005a, p. 42): 53% one on one instructional design consultations 53% specific support resources for adjunct faculty 47% course to develop the online course 47% program website to support faculty sharing of best practices 47% course management or other technical training classes 47% learning object repositories to aid program or course development In Abel's (2005a) study, he found overall that of the institutions surveyed, faculty support services needed to be more widely implemented. The major and most prevalent services implemented with w ide use (by at least 65% of the respondents) are listed below (Abel, 2005a, p. 28): 90% faculty web/email helpdesk 86% course management or other technical training classes 85% faculty phone helpdesk

PAGE 51

51 85% course development support from support c enter staff 81% one on one instructional design consultations 81% clear and effective policies for ownership of online materials 67% additional fees paid to develop an online course Other faculty support services, which were implemented with succes s by more than 33% of the institutions, were compared to institutions that did not put them into practice (greater than 15%). These services are listed below. The data collected would be considered valuable for future institutions considering moving to online platforms and systems (Abel, 2005a, p. 29) : 58% vs. 29% faculty support website for technical support 53% vs. 33% faculty full time helpdesk 67% vs. 24% additional fees paid to develop an online course 48% vs. 29% additional fees paid to teach an online course 43% vs. 29% formation of faculty team to redesign courses or programs 33% vs. 38% specific support resources for adjunct faculty 52% vs. 24% grant or other funding to put courses or programs online 43% vs. 19% faculty sessions to profile student needs and select appropriate online pedagogy 33% vs. 38% course testing support prior to deployment 48% vs. 19% support for use of publisher content The highest risk faculty support services were also identified. These support services were considered the most challenging when put into practice and they had high failure rates. The nine high risk faculty support services were identified as follows (Abel, 2005a, p. 29): program website to support faculty sharing of best practices formation of faculty team to r edesign courses or programs specific support resources for adjunct faculty faculty sessions to profile student needs and select appropriate online pedagogy learning object repositories to aid program or course development help from unbiased experts to acce ss the course quality and effectiveness process and support to improve the course or program each term it is offered support for use of publisher content course testing support prior to deployment

PAGE 52

52 Impact of Policy: Building on Two Dissertation Studies and a National Survey Two previous dissertation studies looked at the impact of distance education policies on the quality of distance education programs in community colleges. The correlation between faculty support quality and those institutions with dist ance education policies in place was significant in both research studies (Amason, 2007a; Hodge, 2000) Hodge (2000) and Amason (2007a) identified online faculty support as a challenge that needed further investigation. In their f indings, they reinforced that this area was critical to ensuring quality in distance education courses, programs, and student engagement. Hodge (2000) conducted a quantitative study to address the broad issues of distance education in community colleges. Specifically, her study examined the differences in states that had distance education policies and those states that did not have distance education. The purpose of her study was to look at the consistencies, similarities, and differences of state poli cies to find effective and efficient policy benchmarks for each state that could be used to develop model distance education programs (Hodge, 2000) She found a discrepancy in practices with those states that had distance education policies compared to those states that did not have such policies. She also identified three areas that had significant impact on the quality of distance education prog rams: infrastructure, program development, and faculty and student support (Hodge, 2000, p. vii) Amason (2007a) looked at diffusion gaps of community college distance education policies at the institution, state, and consortia levels (p. 15) He sought to triangulate state, consortia, and institutional policies with policy analysis frameworks, regional accreditation policies, and best practices (Amason, 2007a, p. 17) The problems that influenced Amasons (2007a) study were centered on: 1) skepticism of online education and it s role in the community college; 2) the limited research conducted on

PAGE 53

53 distance education policies; and 3) pressures being put on universities and colleges to deliver more online courses due to increased demand, lower costs associated with it, and new technology delivery systems to make it more accessible. The goal of his study was to understand the impact of policy diffusion on student proximity and recommend policy guidelines for community college distance education program models at the state level. He fo und that diffusion increased the closer that policy guidelines were to the students. States therefore had lower distance education policy diffusion, and institutions had the greatest policy diffusion (Amason, 2007a) In relation to faculty factors, Amason (2007a) concluded that overall low policy diffusion occurred and the most ignored factor was f aculty rewards. Amason (2007a) recommended more attention be given to this area at the institution and state levels to avoid faculty resistance against distance education deployment. Hodges Study Hodges (2000) study focused on the consistencies, similarities, and differences in states that had distance education policies. After collecting data from 43% of the returned surveys sent to 53 community college state directors in the United States, he found that consistencies were evident in the states that had distance education policies and supported the Principles of Good Practice. Findings also indicated differences in states with and without distance education policies. Hodge reported a discrepancy in practices from those institutions that had state distance education policies compared to those institutions that did not have a di screpancy in practices. An interesting finding was that 100% of the surveyed respondents ranked partnerships and business/industry collaborations as the most important initiatives to influence the development of distance education policy. Her study also found three specific policy areas that were affected the most in guaranteeing quality and equitability in distance education programs: program development, infrastructure, and faculty and student support.

PAGE 54

54 Surveyed respondents indicated that for distance education programs to be of quality, institutions needed to invest in faculty training and development. Hodge (2000) recommended several practices to be incorporated in state and institutional level policies to increase faculty support in distance education: The program or course provides faculty support services specifically related to teaching via an electronic system (p. 128) The institution must ensure appropriate training for faculty who teach using technology (p. 128) The program or course pr ovide faculty with adequate equipment, software, and communications for interaction with students, institutions, and other faculty (p. 128) Policies for faculty evaluation included appropriate recognition of teaching and scholarly activities related to programs or courses offered electronically (p. 128) The institution demonstrates a commitment to ongoing support, both financial and technical, and through continuation of the program or course for a period sufficient for students to complete a degree or certificate (p. 129) In her research, Hodge (2000) identified Mississippi and Virginia as two exemplary state models for distance education faculty training and support. These states provided comprehensive expectations for training distance education faculty. Specific expectations in these state programs included (Hodge, 2000, p. 140) : faculty expectations and responsi bilities faculty compensation for course development faculty load assignment, planning for faculty training organizing faculty development activities new faculty activities activities for continuing faculty using technology in faculty development encouragi ng research in teaching and learning in online environments Hodges (2000) research methods included: 1) a quantitative study, surveying 53 community college state directors to find consistencies, similarities and differences in state distance educatio n policies; and 2) a qualitative follow up study to find the key issues of the nine

PAGE 55

55 states that had distance education policies. She used multiple one way analyses of variance to analyze the four follow up research questions independently. The dependent variables that were studied were infrastructure, program development, and faculty and student support. Hodge wanted to determine if systemic differences or effects occurred among these three dependent variables. Amasons Study Amasons (2007a) study was a mixed methods attempt at narrowing the inquiry focus to faculty support in di stance education environments in community colleges. The study employed document review, content analysis, and survey interviews. He hoped to ascertain if differences in distance education policies existed on the levels of states, institutions, consortia, or regional accrediting associations, and then inform decisionmakers of his findings. Amason (2007a) specifically looked at policy analysis frameworks, regional accreditation policies, and best practices. He also wanted to know to what extent diffusion for distance education policy had on the impact of quality and efficiency of community college online programs. He found that of the four different levels, state policies and guidelines were farthest from the students and had the lowest policy diffusion, thus less impact on their distance education experience. Institution policy and guidelines, however, had a more direct impact on students distance education experience, thus greater diffusion. The closer the policy guidelines were to the students and faculty, the greater chance they impacted the effectiveness of the distance education programs and spread to the stakeholders who could make the most impact on change. Amasons (2007a) findings suggested a higher diffusion rate correlated to a greater impact of change. The lower the diffusion or dispersion, the less chance the policy would spread to faculty and students. For example, Amason (2007a) noted that accrediting bodies had coherent policies on distance education for community colleges, but because a ccreditation associations held institutions

PAGE 56

56 accountable for standards, they not only were considered in proximity but also had high policy diffusion. Institutions, which did not have policies on distance education programs, relied on standards put forth by the regional accreditation bodies These institutions were therefore at risk for a greater chance of low impact on students and faculty as well. In regard to faculty, Amason (2007a) found that policy regarding faculty rewards had the lowest diffusion when analyzing faculty factors in policy. He suggested that institutions needed to pay close attention to this gap, especially if faculty resistance was negative or not well received on distance education teaching and learning (Amason, 2007a) Amasons (2007a) qualitative research methods consisted of a normative analysis of these policies and practic es and were grounded in constructivism. He used document review and content analysis studies to compare program design with actual practices and expected practices. Amason (2007a) developed a protocol to differentiate between the researched data and the operational norms (King, Nugent, Russell, Eich, & Lacy, 2000) The Policy Analysis Framework (PAF) ( Figure 2.1) was the foundation for developing the content analysis in correlating the Interregional Guidelines for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs ( Middle States Commission on Higher Education 2002) Amason (2007a) referred to this type of ethnographic analysis as the qualitative content analysis (ACQ). His goal was to compare and contrast existing policy with desired policy and look for patterns and trends. Amasons PAF was constructed in the following format ( Fig ure 2.2): His sample consisted of 37 community college distance education programs from 15 states, with five regional accreditation bodies associated with this sample. Each of the community colleges was a part of the League for Innovation in the Community Colleges. Most of the policies for the 37 community colleges were available through the internet and could be accessed

PAGE 57

57 through the League for Innovation website. Amason (2007a) also found most of the state consortia documents on the web. These included s tatutes, administrative code, departmental directives, and strategy and financial documents (Amason, 2007a, p. 69) Amasons (2007a) policy diffusion research PAF conclusions were charted to demonstrate his findings on diffusion rates at each of the three levels and their comparisons with selected factors. In summary, his research showed reasonable diffusion of policy for online distance education in community colleges ( Figure 2 2 ) King s et al. Policy Analysis Framework was used to identify the factor elements in Amasons (2007a) study. The specific factors relative to faculty support are included in Table 21. Some conclusions determined from this study, e specially centered around faculty and curriculum, included (Amason, 2007b) : Consistent themes arose of access, student success, and educational quality and infrastructure viability at the state and institutional levels. A possible relationship occurred between accreditation standards and institutional curriculum/courses policies. Institutions are sensitive to accreditation standards. Patterns were identified in faculty support (training and preparation) at the consortium and institutional levels, which suggests high policy diffusion in faculty training at these two levels. Faculty asked for training on student engagement and technical assistance. Administrators shared a concern about the quality of online courses. No data were found to support faculty release time for professional development to learn how to design or teach online course. Little mention at any level was given to faculty rewards. Factors analyzed included: stipends, promotion and tenure, merit increases and release time (p. 108) A lack of information existed regarding intellectual property factors. This researcher noted that faculty members were critical of online achievements. They held copyright and intellectual property ri ghts in high importance and incentives were essential

PAGE 58

58 to accepting and being involved in online development and delivery (Amason, 2007b) Amason (2007a) recommended future research in investigating exemplary facul ty and preparation training programs. In his document review, he recognized specific examples of excellent training programs and mentorship programs for new faculty. Document Review A document review was conducted on faculty support factors and attributes identified in the Sloan Consortium reports, Instructional Technology Councils reports, the A HEC reports, and the Middle States Commission on Higher Educations Interregional Guidelines for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs and Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs ( Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education 2001) A comparison chart was constructed to analyze these past studies. The goal was to use the chart as an analysis tool to see if the same indicators of faculty support success appeared in the results of this study ( Figure 2 3) A comparison of priority faculty support attributes as defined by Abels, ITCs, and SloanCs study results). An initial analysis was also conducted using Hodges (2000) and Amasons (2007a) study findings, as well as conducting a document review on best practices and challenges reported in three major studies: A HEC 2005 Study, ITC 2009 Study, and SloanConsortium 2009 Study. The analysis of these three studies resulted in the following collection of indicators: m otivation to support online learning; policies and guidelines; increase for demand; financial need; competition and demand; staff support training and technical assistance; leadership support; faculty recruitment; faculty acceptance and participation; facu lty support; faculty training in design, development, and pedagogy; faculty incentives and rewards; strategic planning and assessment; and student support.

PAGE 59

59 Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC) National Study Based on referrals from the All iance for Higher Educatio n Competitiveness (A HEC)s national study and other sponsors, the 21 nationwide participating institutions were invited to take part, based on their own perceptions that their distance education programs were successful. These selection criteria were noted by Abel (2005b) as being a subjective indicator ( p. 2). The institution responders were categorized as follows: 2 nonprofit public baccalaureate/masters, 4 community colleges, 1 community college consortium, 1 national for profit college, 4 nonprofit private baccalaureate/masters, 8 non profit public research doctoral and 1 nonprofit private research doctoral institutions ( Abel, 2005a, p. 10). The result of the 2005 A HEC study identified six factors for any institution to set as a standard to determine if the institution was successful in online learning (Abel, 2009c, p. 6): 1) compelling motivation, 2) commitment and prioritization, 3) programmatic approach, 4) faculty support, 5) student services, and 6) goals and measur ements. The analysis of Abels (2005c) study resulted in finding online best practices and possible indicators for success. He constructed a framework that identified the indicators that were the most successful and those that were not successful. Facult y Support ranked as one of the top six indicators of success. Abels (2005a) initial study found six factors that were benchmarks for success. According to Abel (2005a), they were derived from analyzing more than 110 factors from the original survey to th e 21 institutions. Abel (2005c) constructed the conceptual framework to highlight the six factors. Framework Development After completing the document review and analyzing past research and national studies on distance education programs at community coll eges and universities, a Level s of Support

PAGE 60

60 Analysis Framework was developed to compare the similarities and differences of the two year and four year institutions in the study ( Table 2 2). A similar tool was used by Amason called the Policy Analysis Framework (PAF) ( Figure 22) Amasons framework was adopted from King s et al. (2000) conceptual framework research. The Levels of Support Analysis Framework was designed to take selected key attributes and factors from the studys survey instrument and use them as a baseline for comparing responses from follow up interviews from sample institutions. The analysis grid would assist in documenting how the two year institutions distance education factors and faculty support indicators were similar or diffe rent. Community College to Baccalaureate Status Since 2001, Florida community colleges are becoming four year, degreegranting institutions. The purpose of this movement was to meet the demand of offering baccalaureate degrees in areas that addressed local workforce demands, provided more four year school choices for students, and offered geographical flexibility in attending institutions in proximity to local areas (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 2005) According to the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability Report in 2005, Florida ranked last in having the fewest public four year institutions per capita. In 2000, Florida Statute 1004.73 approved the first baccalaureate degree granting institution, St. Petersburg College. This statute authorized St. Petersburg College to offer four year programs in nursing, education, and applied science with the authority to provide programs meeting local needs beginning in 2005. In 2001, the Florida Legislatur e created Florida Statute 1007.33, which provided authorization for all community colleges in Florida to apply for baccalaureate status. By the 20032004 academic year, Florida had four approved programs: St. Petersburg College, Miami Dade College, Okaloo sa Walton College, and Chipola College (Office of Program Policy

PAGE 61

61 Analysis and Government Accountability 2005). The Florida College System provided more than $7 million to support the community college baccalaureate programs in the 20032004 academic year (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 2005 ). Florida Mandate to Increase Online Degree Programs In 2009, a formal mandate was written in the Florida Long Term Strategic plan from 2009 to 2014 for all baccalaureate institutions and community colleges to expand access of online degrees (Florida Department of Education, 2009). The plan reported that the Board of Governors Distance Education Consortium would appoint an advisory board to meet specific distance education goals. One of the goals was to provide professional development in online learning for faculty ( Florida Department of Education, 2009). W ith the surging need to increase the number of four year institutions and at the same time increase distance education opportunities for students, the findings and recommendations from this study were designed to contribute to better quality online experie nces, especially in the area of faculty support. Based on the data from Allen and Seamans 2009 Learning on Demand report, an increased percentage of community colleges did not value or accept online education, based on the perception of the respondent completing the surveys. The authors questioned whether or not the recent drop in acceptance was due to more faculty b eing forced to teach online, and this was an indicator of push back (Allen & Seaman, 2009, p. 12). Future research studies could be considered in looking at the relationship of perceived faculty acceptance to the rate of growth of online offerings at an institution (Allen & Seaman, 2009, p. 12). Summary Chapter 2 began with an explanation of the history of distance education in post secondary education and addressed challenges that institutions faced in working through a paradigm shift of using this nontraditional delivery system in the 21st century. Open universities and mega -

PAGE 62

62 universities were also discussed, as well as their role in developing infrastructures that were more team centered models versus faculty centered models. The literature suggested that this nontraditional delivery system was cost efficient, met the demands of the students, and provided a flexible way to attend college using 21st century technology resources. But the literature also pointed out specific gaps in the roll out of the delivery system over the years that raised skepticism about its quality. Specific gaps of online delivery systems were identified, and information regarding the role of accrediting agencies to address these gaps was described. Critics continued to addres s whether or not too much attention had been given to quantity versus quality of online instruction in post secondary institutions. Accrediting agencies put in place best practices and guidelines for post secondary institutions to deal with the shortfalls of distance education instruction. It was important to create guidelines due to the fact that online offerings crossed regional borders. But it later became critical to put more accountability measures in place to enforce standards and best practices at the institution levels. These commitments were adopted in 2002 and the following became accreditation policies and standards: In terregional Guidelines for Elec tronically Offered Degree and Certificate P rograms The Best Practices for Electronically Offe red Degree and Certificate P rograms and the Statement of Commitment by the Regional Accrediting Commissions for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate P rogram s ( Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002) Five specific elements were highlighted as key quality measures: 1) institutional context and commitment, 2) curriculum and instruction, 3) faculty support, 4) student support, and 5) evaluation and assessment. Special attention was given to community colleges and their role in delivering distance education. As the post secondary frontrunner in accepting distance education as an alternate

PAGE 63

63 delivery system, many community colleges turned to distance learning to address their changing demographics and to make post secondary education more cost efficient for their institutions and more affordable for their students. They saw distance education as an opportunity to reduce barriers they faced with economic shortfalls, budget cuts, and meeting open access requirements. Distance education was also a solution to addressing rising enrollments without increasing physical space (Mullins, 2007) The literature continued to address faculty support as a major gap. Institutions did not put in place adequate policies and resources to support faculty in training, coaching, resources, technical assistance, design assistance, recognition, and incentives. This lack of support led to resistance of faculty to teach online, and the quality of the instruction was criticized. Two dissertation studies were described in Chapter 2 that focused on community college distance education policies and the differences, similarities, and consistencies of these policies. Policy diffusion was compared at the state, consortia, and institutional levels. In their findings and recommendations, Hodge (2000) and Amason (2007a) built a case for stating that more research was needed in the area of faculty support so d ecision makers could have specific and practical tools to implement on a continual basis. A national study was also discussed that provided insight into the perceptions that community colleges and universities had successful online learning programs (Abe l, 2005a). The characteristics were identified and the challenges set the stage for the current study in targeting effective practices for faculty who teach online courses and/or who are involved in the development. The literature was fairly consistent i n identifying strengths and weaknesses of online delivery systems in post secondary institutions. But the concern continued to be at the forefront

PAGE 64

64 of the inconsistencies among the institutions in how they provided accountability measures and a self assessm ent framework to assess their own policies and processes. The literature review in Chapter 2 set the stage for this dissertation study. Unless faculty support was addressed as a major system wide commitment and continually assessed to ensure quality wa s enhanced, online courses would continue to be scrutinized in this area. The faculty are the closest individuals to the students whether in an online environment or in a traditional classroom. Resources need to be in place to send the message that this is a critical and important factor needing attention. This study was built on Hodge (2000) and Amasons (2007a) studies to specifically address faculty support and compare specific factors and attributes of Florida state baccalaureate institutions and com munity colleges to determine if a relationship existed.

PAGE 65

65 Figure 2 1. King s et al threetiered policy analysis f ramework (King s et al., 2000) Figure 2 2. Amasons policy analysis f ramework: Policy diffusion conclusions based on document review ( Amason, 2007b)

PAGE 66

66 Figure 2 3. A comparison of priority faculty support attributes as defined by Abels, ITCs, and Sloan Cs study results. (Abel, 2005; Instructional Technology Council, 2009, Allen & Seaman, 2009) Figure 2 4. Abels priority rankings for effective distance education programming based on the 21 institutions in the initial research sample. (Abel, 2005b)

PAGE 67

67 Table 2 1. King s et al. Policy Analysis Framework r elated to f aculty s upport PAF Factor (King et al. 2000) Attribute Rewards: Stipends The institution and its participating faculty have considered issues of workload and compensation. Rewards: Promotion and Tenure The institution and its participating faculty have considered issues of workload and compensation. Support: Student Help Provides orientation and training, including strategies for effective interaction. Support: Technical Assistance Technical support services, including helpdesk services. Support: Training Ongoing program of appropriate technical, design, and production support for participating faculty members; provides training and support. Opportunities to learn about technology and new applications: Release Time Institution and its participating faculty have considered issues of workload, compensation, ownership of intellectual property. Opportunities to learn about technology and new applications: Training Provides to those responsible for program development orientation and training. Intellectual property: Copyright Copyright law; institution and its participating faculty have considered issues of intellectual property. Table 2 2. Levels of support analysis framework (Appendices C and D; follow up interview transcripts) Follow up interview feedback analysis using the eight parts from the internet supported learning survey. Levels of Support 2 year institutions in Sample Low = only found in 1 out of 4 institutions Medium = found in 2 out of 4 institutions High = found in 3 or 4 institutions Levels of Support 4 year institutions in Sample Low = only found in 1 out of 4 institutions Medium = found in 2 out of 4 institutions High = found in 3 or 4 institutions Part 1 Motivation Part 2 Commitment/Leadership Part 3 Program Level Support Part 4 Faculty Support Part 5 Student Support Part 8 Goals = not enough information to code

PAGE 68

68 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify if differences existed in distance education faculty support practices and policies in Floridas baccalaureate degree granting institutions and Floridas community colleges with a two year mission. This study also sought to find common attributes of qualit y faculty support programs and/or policies, and discriminate which practices and policies were more successful than others. The study also examined discrepancies in faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding these practices and policies. I n other words, did a relationship exist between what the faculty thought were important support attributes and what the administration offered in pedagogy, technical, or incentive support? Analysis of the data could result in a best practice model to be used by faculty and administrators to improve their online distance learning programs. In order to address the purpose of the study, four research questions were developed: What similarities and differences exist in distance education faculty support pr ograms in community colleges and baccalaureate state institutions? What is the relationship between distance education faculty support practices and policies in community colleges and state colleges? Does a discrepancy occur between faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding practices and policies? What are recommended attributes for institutions to consider in developing a distance education faculty support program model? This chapter describes the research methodology used to analyze the differences between four year baccalaureate, degree granting state colleges and two year community colleges. It includes foundational supporting information on two dissertation studies a description of the Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC) research methodology replicated in

PAGE 69

69 this study, research questions used, selection of population samples, instrumentation/framework for analysis, and data collection and analysis methods. Design Considerations This study was founded on two previous dissertation studies and a national survey. The study was replicated using the 2005 Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC) but with a different population sample. In Amasons (2007a) and Hodges (2000) dissertations, they looked at distance education policies and practices of community colleges at a national level. Findings of these studies resulted in a need to look more closely at faculty support and incentives to improve the overall faculty/student experience (Amason, 2007a; Hodge, 2000). Hodge (2000) conducted a quantitative study addressing the broad issues of distance education in post secondary settings. Her study found three specific policy areas that were most affected in guaranteeing quality and equitability in distance education programs. The identified areas were: program development infrastructure and faculty and student support Amason (2007a) conducted a qualitative, normative, and mixed review study comparing distance education poli cies at the state, consortia, and institutional levels. By identifying the similarities and differences in these policies, his goal was to propose guidelines for community college online distance education programs. In his findings, Amason reported that faculty rewards were almost non existent on all three levels. Amason (2007a) recommended that institutions and states consider engaging their faculty more in online teaching by offering more faculty incentives and avoid faculty resistance against distance education deployment The recommendations of Hodge and Amason provided the foundation for continued data collection in this area. The correlation between faculty support quality and those institutions with distance education policies in place was signif icant in both of these research studies ( Amason, 2007a; Hodge, 2000) The authors also identified online faculty s upport as a challenge

PAGE 70

70 that needed further investigation. The findings of researchers reinforced the idea that this area of online faculty support is critical. Rob Abel, president and founder of the Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, (A HEC), conducted a nationwide survey with follow up interviews in 2005 with 21 universities and community colleges that regarded their institutions online education p rograms as being successful. The intent was to draw information from the resource persons closest to the direct impact of distance education in their respective institutions, and understand their perceptions as they related to students, faculty, and admini stration. The research study consisted of three parts: 1) a survey questionnaire first submitted via the web 2) a phone interview, and 3) another web survey submitted that asked respondents to rank specific criteria compiled from the first two steps of the research project (Abel, 2005c) B ased on the perspective of each institution, Abel (2005c) sought to find key factors that would determine success in online higher education programs Findings from this report revealed that executive leadership, support faculty, and academic leadership commitment were the top three criteria for higher education distance education success (Abel, 2005b). In regard to specificity about faculty support, his data showed that faculty online support was more successful in community colleges. He found that these institutions did a good job in nurturing grass roots efforts of faculty ( Abel, 2005c, p. 23). This support finding was noted as a key factor in promoting faculty to accept and take ownership of improving distance education efforts. Participants The state of Florida provides public support for three tiers of higher education institutions. As of January 2011, e leven comprehensive institutions awarded both undergraduate and graduate degrees, 19 institutions award ed an associate and undergraduate degree, a nd 9 institutions award ed only the associate degree (Florida Department of Education, 2010b). In

PAGE 71

71 2000, Florida Statute 1004.73 approved the first baccalaureate, degree granting institution to be St. Petersburg College (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, 2005). Beginning in 2005, Florida Statute 1004.73 authorized St. Petersburg College to offer four year programs in nursing, education, and applied science with the authority to provide programs meeting local needs. In 2001, the Florida Legislature created Florida Statute 1007.33, which provided authorization for all community colleges in Florida to apply for baccalaureate status (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, 2005). By the beginning of the academic year 2003 2004, Florida had four approved programs Florida community colleges soon began applying for approval to become state baccalaureate, degree granting schools. By January 2011, 19 institutions in Florida ha d made this transition. For this s tudy, 4 of the 1 9 Florida baccalaureate, degree granting institutions were purposeful selected based on their longevity in the Florida College System. Broward College was excluded from the sample because it had been a past participant in Abels (2005c) study (at the time it was still designated as a two year community college). These baccalaureate schools in the study remained anonymous and were identified as Baccalaureate 1(B 1) Baccalaureate 2 (B 2) Baccalaureate 3 (B 3) and Baccalaureate 4 (B 4) In a ddition, 4 of the 9 two year institutions were purposeful selected for inclusion in the study. This study limited its research to community colleges that were not applying for baccalaureate status in 2010 or 2011. The identity of these schools also remain ed anonymous and identified as Community College 1 (CC 1) Community College 2 (CC 2) Community College 3 (CC 3) and Community College 4 (CC 4) Table 31 shows the demographic enrollment comparisons and percent ages among the two and four year institutions along with the totals for the Florida College System. Not unexpectedly the average size of the four year institution was approximately 30% larger than the

PAGE 72

72 two year community college. In terms of demographics th e two samples roughly match ed the s ystem percentages, but the inclusion of one baccalaureate school in the four year sample appear ed to over represent the percentage of Hispanic students for that group of institutions. Primary contacts were made to each in stitution, and the primary contacts recommended the appropriate respondent for the research study. The respondent varied from a dean of the institution to the manager or director most involved with online programming. Invitations and phone calls were made to the respondents to inquire and ask permission to include them in the study. Formal permissions followed with signatures obtained prior to the start of the study. If the respondent did not want to participate, the primary contact of the institution was contacted again, and this person selected another individual. If the institution did not want to participate, another institution was purposeful selected. Instruments Instruments used in this study replicated the instruments used in the 2005 A HEC study. They included a self study survey and a follow up list of interview questions. A HEC q uestionnaire: The internet supported survey with 109 responses was distributed to a designated respondent of each institution. A five point Likert scale measured specif ic areas related to the six factors mentioned in Abels (2005c) study: 1) compelling motivation, 2) commitment and prioritization, 3) programmatic approach, 4) faculty support, 5) student services, and 6) goals and measurements. The survey for this study was modified slightly with goals, priorities, and measurements divided into separate parts to make the survey easier to complete by respondents. The items on the survey were not changed. While the survey has been used extensively no psychometric character istics appeared on it primarily because the unit of analysis is at the institution level, and not enough data compute d the reliability and validity coefficients for the instrument.

PAGE 73

73 A HEC follow up interview q uestions: After respondents completed the Inter net based surveys and a formative analysis was conducted on the responses, each initial respondent was contacted for a phone interview. Follow up questions were developed based on the results of the survey data. Each respondent answered the same questions Transcripts were created for all follow up interviews. Follow up interview questions are located in Appendix B. Pro cedure This study was conducted using quantitative methodology and based primarily on survey interviews and content analysis. It was a replication of a national survey conducted in 2005 by Abel and the Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC). In May 2010, Dr. Abel granted permission to replicate his study. It was also structured using the research study background of two previous dissertation studies of Amason (2007a) and Hodge (2000) The goal was to refine these earlier studies and draw on their research and other studies to determine if a relationship existed between key factors and attributes of faculty support and practices conducted between traditional community colleges and baccalaureate schools in Florida. Research was conducted in two steps with eight respondents: four from Florida community colleges and four from Florida baccalaureate schools. First, one respondent from each institution completed an internet based 109item survey. The respondents were allowed to answer the items based on their own perceptions and on the perceptions of faculty, students, and administrators from the respective schools. Abe l (2005a) remarked, While this introduces the possibility of bias by the respondent, this was considered acceptable because the purpose of the study was to understand the perceptions from the most knowledgeable contact, as opposed to trying to ground tru th those perceptions (p. 10). The second step consisted of a phone interview with the initial respondents to gain more information about the online experience of each institution. Abels (2005a) original study

PAGE 74

74 included a third step of sending out a fol low up self study survey via the web after the interviews with the initial respondents. This survey with ranked and openresponse items was used in the A HECs self audit study. For the purpose of this study, Abels (2007a) latter self study survey was us ed as the initial questionnaire since it was considered an improved survey, and it also asked respondents to consider future implications and trends ( Abel, 2005a ). Research Questions The primary research question of the study was: Does a difference exis t between online faculty support practices and policies in Floridas baccalaureate, degree granting institutions and Floridas community colleges with a two year mission ? Other questions that supported the primary question were as follows: What similarities and differences exist in distance education faculty support programs in community colleges and baccalaureate institutions? What is the relationship between distance education faculty support practices and policies in community colleges and state college s? For example, do some strategies work better in larger schools with more resources? Or do some strategies work better in the schools that have been baccalaureate the longest? Also, can the effectiveness of the attributes be determined? Does a discrepancy occur between faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding practices and policies? What are recommended attributes for institutions to include in developing a distance education faculty support program model? Data Analysis The survey questionnaire was analyzed using SPSS software and descriptive statistics were conducted on both the individual items and the composite subscores. Tables were generated to represent the overall results of the online survey and were presented for each of the eight parts of the survey. Another set of tables were generated to the show the survey results by institution type (two year versus four year). Summaries were generated to report the analysis of the similarities

PAGE 75

75 and differences of the overal l results and the similarities and differences between the two year institution results and the four year institution results for each of the eight parts of the survey. The interview data were coded, analyzed, and reported Tables generated from the follo w up interviews summarized comparisons between the participant responses at the two year institutions based on the eight parts of the survey and research questions. Comparisons were also made between the highest ranked items of Abels national study and t he highest ranked items from this research studys participants.

PAGE 76

76 Table 31. Demographic enrollment information on the two samples c ompared with the Florida c ollege system totals (20092010) Two Year Community College Sample Four Year College Sample System Total Characteristic N % N % N % Male 33,862 42.1 39,181 39.9 182,494 40.6 Female 46,575 57.9 59,118 60.1 266,975 59.4 White 38,428 47.8 33,216 33.8 228,737 50.9 Black 13,134 16.3 14,396 14.6 78,344 17.4 American Indian Alaska Native 336 0.4 246 0.3 2,062 0.5 Asian or Pacific Islander 3,248 4.1 1,618 1.6 13,106 2.9 Hispanic 17,858 22.2 42,906 43.6 97,747 21.7 Unknown Ethnicity 5,640 7.0 3,869 3.9 21,425 4.8 Non Resident Alien 1,787 2.2 1764 1.8 8,048 1.8 Source: FL Department of Education 2010 Fact Book (Florida Department of Education, 2010a)

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSI ON The purpose of this study was to identify the differences in distance education faculty support practices and policies in Florid as baccalaureate, degree granting institutions and Floridas community colleges with a two year mission. This study also sought to find common attributes of quality faculty support programs and/or policies, and discriminate which practices and policies w ere more successful than others. The study also examined discrepancies in faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding these practices and policies. In other words, did a relationship exist between what the faculty thought were important support attributes and what the administration offered in pedagogy, technical, or incentive support? The findings of this research focused on practices that were the most effective for both faculty and administration. In order to address the purpose of the study, four research questions were developed. What similarities and differences exist in distance education faculty support programs in community colleges and baccalaureate state institutions? What is the relationship between distance education faculty support practices and policies in community colleges and state colleges? Does a discrepancy occur between faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding practices and policies? What are recommended attributes for institutions to consider in developing a distance education faculty support program model? This chapter reports the results and discussions of the data collected to address the four research questions. As described in Chapter 3, data collection took place in two phases, reflecting the mixed methods design of this study. In the first phase of data collection respondents completed an eight part internet administered survey. In the second phase of data

PAGE 78

78 collection, respondents pa rticipated in a 30 to 45minute follow up phone interview that focused on the particular online learning practices of the institution. The results are presented in three sections. In S ection 1, the overall results of the online survey are presented for each of the eight parts. In S ection 2, the survey results are shown by the type of institution with which the respondent was affiliated (two year versus fouryear). S ection 3 reports the qualitative results from the follow up interviews. For the first two sections, the mean was calculated for each item response. A n index score was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the questions in each of the eight parts. A brief summary of the descriptive statistics is discussed in these sections, a nd the data are represented in tables located at the end of th is chapter. In S ection 2, t he descriptive information from the twoand four year institutions was reported to analyze the similarities and differences between the two institution types. No attempt was made to get statistical data on the differences between the institutional types due to the small sample size; however, six separate independent t tests were run to test if the means for the index scores were the same across institutional classi fications. Table 4 31 shows the results of this analysis. The t test values showed no significant differences. It should be noted that the test was run with very few degrees of freedom. All data reports for this section are located at the end of this ch apter. In S ection 3, the results of follow up interviews are discussed as a further attempt to ans wer the four research questions. This qualitative data helped to explain any differences found and also to highlight possible trends of the twoand four yea r institutions in the sample. Further descriptive analyses are reported in Appendix C: Two Year Institutions Faculty Support

PAGE 79

79 Feedback from Follow up Interviews and Appendix D: Florida Baccalaureate Faculty Support Analysis Feedback from Follow up Interview s. Section 1: Survey Results A summary of the overall collected item response data and descriptive statistics data for each of the survey instruments eight parts are briefly discussed in this section Tables for each section are located at the end of th i s chapter. The surveys introductory question solicited respondents to self assess their degree of personal knowledge, experience, and background with internet supported learning. The scale for response runs from 1 (Little or No Experience) to 5 (Expe rt Level). Table 4 1 shows the descriptive information of this question. The sample mean was M = 4.25 with SD = 0.71. Participants rated themselves as being relatively knowledgeable about the topic. Part 1 of the survey addressed the institutions compelling reasons to support online learning. Eleven questions targeted why an institution might support online learning. Responses ran from (Strongly Disagree) to (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the motivation section of the survey are given in Table 42. The highest rated item focused on student service with M = 4.63 and SD = .52. T he lowest rated i tems were on personalized learning and competition from other institutions with M = 3.63 and SD = 0.92. An index score was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the 11 questions from Part 1. The results of this calculation are given in Table 4 3. The sample mean was M = 4.16 and SD = 0.59, which suggested a high level of motivation. Part 2 of the survey consider ed the role of leadership in the institutions online education initiatives, priorities, and commitments. Responses ran from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the eight questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 4 4. The highest rated item centered on the clarity of selection criteria

PAGE 80

80 for faculty who teach online courses with M = 4.30 and SD = 0.46. The lowest rated item pertained to the effectiveness of review processes with M = 3.2 and SD = 0.89. An index score (Commitment/Leadership), similar to that generated for Part 1 of the survey, was formulated by calculating the mean of the responses from t he eight questions from Part 2. The results of this calculation are given in Table 4 5. The mean for the Commitment/Leadership dimension was M = 3.80 and SD = 0.63, which suggested a moderate level of Commitment/Leadership. Part 3 of the survey consider e d how the institution created a more effective learning experience at the program level. Responses ran from (Strongly Disagree) to (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the 11 questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Ta ble 4 6. The highest rated item highlighted the enhancement of courses through internet supported learning with M = 4.30 and SD = 0.46. The lowest rated item referred to the involvement of enrollment management and/or marketing with M = 2.88 and SD = 1.13. An index score for Program Level Support was formed by calculating the mean of the responses from the 11 questions from Part 3. The results of this calculation are reported in Table 4 7. The mean for the Program Level Support dimension was M = 3.72 and SD = 0.47, which suggested a moderate level of Program Level Support. Part 4 of the survey consider ed how the institution support ed faculty working together to create a better student experience and how the administration support ed faculty in i mproving the online experience. Responses ran from (Strongly Disagree) to (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the 16 questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 48. The highest rated item emphasized the effectiven ess of one onone instructional design consultation with M = 4.63 and SD = 0.52. The lowest rated item addressed the creation of an effective full time web or email helpdesk for faculty with M = 2.75 and SD = 1.67. An index

PAGE 81

81 score for Faculty Support was formed by calculating the mean of the responses from Part 4s 16 questions. The results of this calculation are reported in Table 4 9. The mean for the Faculty Support dimension was M = 3.75 and SD = 0.66, which suggested a moderate level of Faculty Support. Part 5 of the survey consider ed how the institution support ed the online student experience. Responses ran from (Strongly Disagree) to (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the 13 questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 410. The highest rated item addressed the priority of student learning with M = 4.63 and SD = 0.74. The lowest rated item addressed the creation of an effective full time technical helpdesk for students with M = 2.75 and SD = 1.58. An index score for Student Support was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the 13 questions from Part 5. The results of this calculation are reported in Table 4 11. The mean for the Student Support dimension was M = 3.71 and SD = 0.57, which suggested a modera te level of Student Support. Part 6 of the survey consider ed the measures of success the institution use d to benchmark its success. Responses ran from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the nine questions in thi s section of the survey are summarized in Table 4 11. The highest rated item underscored the clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet supported course with M = 4.25 and SD = 0.46. The lowest rated item pertained to the setting of enrollment targets for internet supported learning initiatives with M = 2.75 and SD = 0.71. An index score for Measurement was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the nine questions from Part 6. The results of this calculation are given in Table 413. The mean for the Measurement dimension was M = 3.57 and SD = 0.41, which suggested a moderate level of Measurement.

PAGE 82

82 Part 7 of the survey asked the respondent to rank order items related to improving the Internet supported learning efforts of the institution. The actual items and their ranks are listed in Table 4 14. Overall respondents ranked improving course quality as the most important action they could take followed by a dding richer media/interactivity to the online experience and improving student retention. Part 8, the final section of the survey, asked respondents to rate 20 possible goals with respect to their expectation of whether or not these goals would be major factor s in their institutions internet support ed learning initiatives during the next three years. Responses ran from (Definitely Not a Factor) to (One of a Few Top Influential Factors). The descriptive statistics for the 20 questions in this sec tion of the survey are summarized in Table 415. Items that were highly rated included developing a new breed of faculty who were comfortable with internet and computer technology ( M = 4.38, SD = 0.52), increasing student demand for internet supported lea rning ( M = 4.25, SD = 0. 89), proliferation of consumer electronics ( M = 4.00, SD = 0.76), and the availability of digital content from publishers ( M = 4.00, SD = 1.07). Section 2: Survey Results by Institution Type In S ection 2, the survey results are shown by the type of institution with which the respondent was affiliated (two year versus four year). The tables located at the end of this chapter, show the breakdown of responses by institutional classification: two year or fo ur year c olleges. The surveys introductory question solicited respondent s to self assess their degree of personal knowledge, experience, and background with internet supported learning. The scale for response s ran from (Little or No Experience) to 5 (Expert Level). Table 4 16 shows the descriptive information of this question by institutional classification. In the sample, individuals from both twoyear and four year institutions reported the same level of personal knowledge,

PAGE 83

83 experience, and backg round in filling out the survey. On the 1 to 5 scale, the means of 4.25 indicated a relatively high level of knowledge and experience by the survey respondents. Part 1 of the survey addresse d the institutions compelling reasons to support online learn ing. Eleven questions addressed why an institution might support online learning. Responses ran from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the motivation section of the survey, split by institutional type, are given in Table 417. Respondents from the twoyear sample rated growing student enrollments as their highest factor related to motivation ( M = 4.50, SD = 0.58) while respondents from the fouryear sample were more concerned about student service ( M = 5.00, SD = 0.00) An index score was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the 11 questions from Part 1. The results of this calculation are given in Table 4 18 by institutional classification (two year versus four year) In the sample, the four year institutions reported relatively higher levels of motivation ( M = 4.43, SD 0.35) for pursuing online learning than twoyear institutions (M = 3.89, SD = 0.71) The ranges on the individual questions were higher for twoyear institutions, suggesti ng more variability in that group regarding the reasons they might pursue online or distance learning opportunities. Part 2 of the survey consider ed the role of leadership in the online education initiatives, priorities, and commitments of the institution Responses ran from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the eight questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 4 19 by institutional classification. Respondents from the twoyear sample rated their highest concerns regarding the clarity of criteria for selection of faculty who can teach an online course ( M = 4.25, SD = 0.50) Respondents from the four year sample were more pre occupied with the evidence surrounding the ir ins titution s commitmen t to

PAGE 84

84 achieving success in internet supported learning ( M = 4.50, SD = 0.58). An index score for Commitment/Leadership was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the eight questions from Part 2. The results of this calculation are given in Table 4 20 by institutional classification. In the sample, the four year institutions reported relatively higher levels of Commitment/Leadership ( M = 4.13, SD = 0.46) with regard to their actions with online learning than twoyear institutions ( M = 3.47, SD = 0.66) As was true with the section on Motivation, the ranges on the individual questions were higher for twoyear institutions, suggesting more variability in that group regarding the commitment of the institutions leadership in pursuing di stance learning. Part 3 of the survey consider ed how the institution creat ed a more effective learning experience at the program level. Responses ran from (Strongly Disagree) to (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the 11 questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 4 21 by institutional classification. Respondents from the twoyear sample had their highest ratings on course enhancements ( M = 4.25, SD = 0.50) and program ( M = 4.25, SD = 0.50) through the process of incorporating internet supported learning Respondents from the four year sample rated the same course enhancements ( M = 4. 25, SD = 0. 96) and the formulation of complete academic programs with internet supported learning equally ( M = 4.25, SD = 0.50) An index score for Program Level Support was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the 11 questions from Part 3. The results of this calculation are given in Table 4 22 by institutional classification. The sample profiles for Program Support were similar across the institutional types. Part 4 of the survey consider ed how the institution support ed faculty working together to create a better student experience, and how the administration supports faculty in improving the

PAGE 85

85 online experience. Responses ran from (Strongly Disagree) to (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the 16 questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 423 by institutional classification. Respondents from the twoyear sample gave two items their highest ratings: the provision of instructional design consultation for faculty who desired it ( M = 4.75, SD = 0.50) and the implementation of clear and effective policies for the ownership of online materials ( M = 4.75, SD = 0 .50) Respondents from the four year sample were most concerned with the implementation of an effective helpdesk for use by faculty involved in internet supported learning ( M = 4.50, SD = 0.58). An index s core for Faculty Support was generated by calculati ng the mean of the responses from the 16 questions from Part 4. The results of this calculation are given in Table 4 24 by institutional classification. The sample profiles for Faculty Support were also similar across the institutional types (two year : M = 3.7, SD = 0.95 versus four year : M = 3.80, SD = 0.35) Part 5 of the survey consider ed how the institution support ed the online student ex perience. Responses ran from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the 13 questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 425 by institutional classification. Respondents from the twoyear sample gave two items their highest ratings: a concern about downtime of the online course management system ( M = 4.75, SD = 0.58) and the emphasis of student learning outcomes ( M = 4.75, SD = 1.00) Respondents from t he four year sample also centered their concerns on student learning outcomes ( M = 4. 75, SD = 0.50). An index score for Student Support was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the 13 questions from Part 5. The results of this calculation are given in Table 426 by institutional classification. The sample profiles for Student Support were only slightly higher in the sample for the f our year institutions ( M = 3.90, SD = 0.50 versus M = 3.52, SD =

PAGE 86

86 0.64) With minor exceptions, both groups reported having a number of mechanisms in place to support student learning efforts through online learning. Part 6 of the survey consider ed the mea sures of success the institution used to benchmark its success. Responses ran from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The descriptive statistics for the nine questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 427 by institutiona l classification. Respondents from the twoyear sample gave two items their highest ratings: a clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet support ed course ( M = 4.25, SD = 0.50) and program ( M = 4.25, SD = 0.50). R espondents from t he four year sample also highly rated the components of a quality internet supported course ( M = 4.25, SD = 0.50). An index score for Measurement was generated by calculating the mean of the responses from the nine questions from Part 6. The results of this calculation are given in Table 4 28 by institutional classification. The sample profiles for Measurement were only slightly higher in the sample for the four year institutions ( M = 3.78, SD = 0.28 versus M = 3.36, SD = 0.45) With minor exceptions, both groups reported having a wide array of benchmarks to provide feedback on student success in this area. Part 7 of the survey asked the respondent to rank order related to improving the institutions internet supported learning efforts The actual items and their ranks are listed in Table 4 29 by institutional classification. The rankings were similar for both groups with improving course quality taking the top spot for the twoand four year institutions. Part 8, the final section of the survey, ask ed respondents to rate 20 possible goals with respect to their expectation of whether or not they would be major factors in their institutions internet support ed learning initiatives during the next three years. Responses ran from 1

PAGE 87

87 (D efinitely Not a Factor) to (One of a Few Top Influential Factors). The descriptive statistics for the 20 questions in this section of the survey are summarized in Table 4 30 by institutional classification. Based on the sample information, both groups endorsed four similar items: 1) recruiting and hiring faculty fam iliar with the newer technology 2) looking at different ways of packaging digital information, 3) increasing student demand for internet supported learning, and 4) increasing the proliferation of mobil e learning devices Summary of Survey Results Though the survey results were not statistically significant due to the small samp le size, four year institutions, in the sample, provided a pattern of rankings for the eight parts of the survey that were slightly higher than two year institutions in the sample Four year institutions rated the questions higher in the following survey parts: M otivation, Student Support, Faculty Support, and Commitment/Leadership. Results were similar for two year and four year institutions for the following survey parts: Motivation, Faculty Support, Program Support, and Student Support. The rankings of index scores by means are summarized in Table 4 32 and 4 33 by two and four yea r type institutions. To further analyze the similarities and differences of the two and four year institutions in the sample, a comparison was made between Abels highest rated factors of success indicators from the 21 initial community college and unive rsity respondents and the highest rated items from the institution groups in this study. Again, a similar pattern emerged with the four year institutions in the sample selecting many of the same highest ranked items as Abels participants. The two year i nstitutions selected more different items for their highest ranked. Table 434 itemizes each of the highest ranked items on the survey for Abels group, the twoyear sample group, and the four year sample group. A summary of the results is located in Tabl e 4 35.

PAGE 88

88 Section 3: Follow u p Interview Analysis In addition to collecting and examining the quantitative data using the survey tool, more information was collected to enrich the study and answer the studys four research questions. Based on the results o f the survey data, follow up questions were generated and phone call interviews were conducted with each survey respondent ( Appendix B). The purpose of this section is to describe the findings from the follow up interviews and present an analysis of the da ta in an attempt to answer the studys research questions. To preserve confidentiality, the two year community college respondents purposeful selected from the Florida College System were identified and cited as CC 1, CC 2, CC 3, and CC 4. The four year ba ccalaureate school respondents purposeful selected from the Florida College System were identified and cited as B 1, B 2, B 3, and B 4. Citations for respondents include dates that the interviews were conducted. In the first part of the follow up phone i nterview, respondents were asked to share how long their institution had provided online course and/or programs for students. The average time for two year institutions was 11.6 years and the average time for four year institutions was 12.5 years. Accordi ng to the participants responses in the sample both twoyear and four year institutions had provided online learning for more than a decade, with the baccalaureates average number of years slightly higher than the community colleges. The results of the follow up phone interviews illustrate d some of the trends previously noted. An analysis of t his studys results attempted to understand the perception each institution held of its online programs, identify best practices of that institution, look for important patterns or nuances, and answer the studys research questions. Research Question 1 What similarities and differences exist in distance education faculty support programs in community colleges and baccalaureate state institutions?

PAGE 89

89 Analysis : Research Question 1 To address this question, interviews were conducted with the same respondents who completed the survey and the following similarities and differences were reported ( Appendi ces C and D for a more descriptive analysis) Interview quest ions explored the similarities and differences between the online support programs at two and four year institutions. Similarities Similarity #1 : Online Policies and/or Procedures The majority of the respondents spoke favorably of their policies and guide lines in place at their respective institutions. One difference that stood out in the interviews was from one four year institution respondent who remarked that the policy guide was a part of the faculty contract. She stated: B 2: We have no separate online policy guide. We are unionized, and there is an appendix in the contract that deals with distance education. Everything is laid out in the contract. The [distance education] appendix has been in effect for six years (1/28/11). Another respondent mentioned that recent negotiations with faculty were a positive move in supporting online faculty: CC4: W e are on the same page only because we have recently negotiated these. Two of the twoyear institutions in the sample stated they were not unionized. These two institutions were small schools (1/28/11) A respondent from one of these two schools shared this advantage: CC4: We have mandated faculty professional development and a mandated course approval process. We had no quality assurance or a defined proc ess for course creation or faculty getting paid for course creation or no focus on best practices. Most recently, the administration approved a handbook detailing many of the criteria in the survey (procedures, goals, best practices, mandatory training). W e are not unionizedit is easier to do this. Other colleges who are unionized have more of a challenge to do this ( 1/28/11)

PAGE 90

90 Similarity #2 : Faculty Perceptions of Administrative Support Respondents from t wo of the four community colleges stated that a di screpancy existed between faculty and administrative perceptions and offerings Respondents from two of the four baccalaureate schools also stated that a discrepancy existed in what faculty perceived as online support and what the administration delivered in the way of support. Most respondents stated that online needs were not met due to budgetary constraints. Another theme also emerged suggesting faculty acknowledged that leadership wanted to provide more support but could not do so due to these financial impacts. One respondent stated: CC1: We would like to offer full time support. When we had shortcomings in the budget, this went off the block. Leadership would like thi s but cant do due to budget cuts (1/25/11) Another respondent commented: CC2: Faculty understands we would like to give more but realize it is a financial situation (1/25/11) Another respondent remarked: B 2: I think, in general, they [faculty] think there should be more support from [administration], but when they look at other places, they know they are getting support ( 1/28/11) Another respondent stated: B 3: There is a disconnect in this partly because of budget restrictions. I used to be faculty so I have a good pulse ( 1/26/11) Respondents from smaller schools state d they were impacted greatly by the budget and online support needs were strained. One respondent commented : C 4: We are small. The financials are not as robust. We have fewer technology tools. I have faculty who want to create podcasts, but we need a l ow cost solution for what they want to accomplish ( 1/28/2011)

PAGE 91

91 Similarity #3 : Professional Development All respondents in the sample prioritized professional development initiatives as one of their top support offerings for faculty T hey commented that fa culty would also perceive this initiative as a priority need. All institutions in the sample developed and delivered their own trainings. Similarity #4 : Monetary and Release Time Incentives Monetary incentives and release time for online faculty were of fered in two two year institutions and two four year institutions. Faculty were paid for developing content but not paid extra for teaching online classes. One two year institution respondent stated: CC2: One of the biggest motivators is money for releas e time for faculty developing online courses. We dont offer release time. They [faculty] get paid the same for teaching any other class, but they get paid for being a content expert. They provide the content, meet with an instructional designer, determi ne how to meet objectives in course, what content to use, and then our team puts it online. For ex ample, if their content is video/text that they use to meet objective in classroom, we will turn it into an appropriate online delivery method. ( 1/25/11) Another twoyear institution respondent said he gave faculty both release time and course development monetary incentives (CC 4, 1/28/11). Two of the four year institutions offered monetary incentives and both faculty members from these institutions perce ived monetary incentives as a top priority of support. One respondent from the sample stated: B 1: We will compensate faculty for overhauling their course ( 1/25/11) Another respondent commented: B 2: I n regards to academic freedom, facul ty can change the master course. Incentives are paid to full time faculty only. This is in accordance to the union contract. Every year I create a list of courses to develop online Full time faculty get to apply first to develop the courses and then adjunct. When you are a developer you get priority selection to teach the course. In some areas, like math, we have more full time faculty than we offer in sections. Math faculty love to teach online. We have a formalized process where the

PAGE 92

92 developers select first, and fa culty developers select by seniority, etc. It is an automated and formalized process ( 1/28/11) Differences Difference # 1: Survey Instrument Ratings In a follow up interview the respondents were asked to share their perceptions as to what factors could explain the survey data that suggested the four year institutions in the sample rated the questions higher than twoyear institutions in the sample. The intent of this follow up question was to explore w hy four year institution participants in the sample rated the internet Supported Learning Survey ratings higher overall than the twoyear institution participants Similar themes emerged from both the two year and four year participant responses. The fi rst theme centered on state reporting for baccalaureate schools. The second theme focused on more leadership attention drawn to baccalaureate online programs due to the newness of these programs. The third theme targeted economic factors of baccalaureate s chools meeting the demands of nontraditional and traditional students and keeping up with growing enrollment numbers. Supporting statements from both twoyear and four year respondents in the sample reinforce d these themes. Statements from participants at two year institution s suggest ed that baccalaureates were starting new onlin e courses with new initiatives at higher levels, and state baccalaureate approval regulations were giving more attention to online programs. One two year respondent gave this ratio nale: CC4: With all of the state regulations for baccalaureate approved status, baccalaureate leadership is investing support in distance education. Leadership in our school financially supports us, but I dont get folks coming bac k saying what else do you need ( 1/28/11) Other statements heard from two year institutions reflected on their own issues of still facing tough economic times of staffing and addressing online course quality.

PAGE 93

93 For example, one twoyear institution respondent stated: CC2: We ve been doing it forever and may be burned out on it ( 1/25/11) Another twoyear institution respondent in the sample shared: CC4: Those that have moved to baccalaureate may have felt more academic leadership participation and more focus on mission and goals. Community colleges have continued to do what weve done but continuing to do better. M aybe baccalaureate schools are asking more questions about what they do rather than continue to do things the same way ( 1/28/11) While two year in stitutions indicated such reasons, four year institutions in the sample also suggest ed that state reporting could be a factor, as well as more of a focus on higher division online learning and increased enrollment of students. One respondent stated: B 1: Once we started in the baccalaureate programs there was more of a presence of higher division in online learning. This past semester they [online courses] have grown over 20% of their enrollment (lower than total college) but growing at a tremendous rate a nd some programs are fully online. We are at a point of refreshing. ( 1/25/11) A nother respondent shared: B 2: Only because it is more recent and people ar e paying more attention to it. B accalaureate programs are going through a process and programs are be ing scrutinized by the state ( 1/28/11) One four year institution respondent pointed out that baccalaureate schools did not get additional funding from the state to offer higher level programs: B 3: The i nnovation of baccalaureate is carrying into online There is no more money to support baccalaureate but more reporting has to be done for baccalaureate ( 1/26/11) The enrollment driver and reporting piece was also echoed in this statement: B 4: The difference I see is garnering enrollment, and one reason could be that the baccalaureate degree program itself is about process the state reporting piece. There is more focus on what is happening and how the state is reporting results. (2/3/11) Difference #2: Policies and Unionization In the sample, all four of the twoyear institutions reported they did not have approved policies for distance education for staff or

PAGE 94

94 faculty. However, two reported they had guides and procedures they followed. These institutions also reported they were not unionized. One two year institution respondent stated it was easier to put procedures in place than to write procedures into policies : CC3: We dont have a policy. There is a difference between policy and procedures. I can write procedures easier th an policy and include procedural things in policy. For example, for office hours, weve rewritten procedures under the policy to bring in more flexibility of online faculty and office hours. ( 1/25/11) Of the four year institutions in the sample, three of the four institutions reported having approved online policies. One institution reported that online procedures for staff and faculty were left up to the departments to implement. Of the five institutions in the sample that had procedures and policies in place, only two reported they involved faculty in developing them. Difference #3: Leadership For the four year institutions, a different theme emerged in contrast to the two year institutions. Three of the four baccalaureate schools in the sample remarked that past leadership was a hindrance in providing online support but that recent changes in leadership were healing the disconnect For instance, one respondent stated: B 3: We have had a shift in new administrationlast administration opposed pr ograms online ( 1/26/11) Another respondent shared: B 4: It was tough for a while convincing administrators where online was going. Interim President knows academics and is a strong component of online learning. Past President was supportive in some ways but then in other ways he didnt understand. Then, walls were bulging due to increased enrollments, and he knew he had to do something and started buying in because of logistics. (2/3/11) Difference #4: Faculty Helpdesk One major differentiator between the two year and four year institutions in the sample was the offerings of full time f aculty helpdesk s. No two year

PAGE 95

95 institutions offered this support but three out of the four four year institutions did. Supporting comment s about this service were positive and perceived as a high priority support for faculty. One respondent s aid : B 1: If a faculty gets locked out of the network, there is a helpdesk to offer help ( 1/25/11) Another institution res pondent has a full time sup port ticketing system: B 2: A student [or faculty] can send an email, and it becomes a ticket in the system or they can fill out a form online or email us. I can track all tickets and look at how many log in issues and can categorize all of this. I can be proactive and see where students [or faculty] are having problems. ( 1/28/11) One respondent shared the expectation of his full time support helpdesk to provide faculty with the hope that support requests are acknowledged within 24 business hours or quicker: B 3: Faculty know they can count on a response within 24 hours and most are solved within 24 hours ( 1/26/11) Difference # 5: Mandatory Faculty Training. Mandatory faculty training was required more in two year institutions than in four year institutions. Three of the four twoyear institutions required technical professional development for new faculty to learn the online system and two of the two year institutions required existing faculty to take professional development offerings. Two of the four year institutions required new faculty training. No four year institutions in the sample required professional development for existing full time or adjunct faculty. One factor for this anomaly could be that more twoyear institutions in the sample we re not unionized compared to four year institutions. Nonunion institutions could have had more latitude to enforce mandatory training for existing faculty. One two year respondent stated :

PAGE 96

96 CC4: We have mandated faculty professional development and a mandated course approval process. Most recently, the administration approved a handbook detailing many of the criteria in the survey (procedures, goals, best practices, mandatory training). We are not unionizedit is easier to do this. Other colleges who are u nionized have more of a challenge to do this. They [faculty] are trained on technical and pedagogical best practices. Faculty have to go through 40 hours of training and adjuncts have to go through 8 hours of online training. We pay our adjuncts to come but not full time faculty. Because we have invested so much in training, our helpdesk is not bombarded with calls ( 1/28/11) Another twoyear respondent commented : CC2: A major innovation or best practice implemented is certifying faculty to teach online and recertifying faculty to teach online. We have an online course for new faculty. Certification is only good for a year. Recertification courses are also offered some are stand alones or we offer faceto face trainings [for existing fulltime and adjunc t faculty]. ( 1/25/11) Another respondent remarked: C 4: We have mandated faculty professional development and a mandated course approval process ( 1/28/11) Another twoyear respondent shared: CC1: Training required is basic [platform] training, and once you complete the five modules, then you are able to get a course shell to begin teaching ( 1/25/11) Another factor for the mandatory training discrepancy could be that more four year institutions were driven by policy for online education requirements than twoyear institutions. Policy approvals require faculty negotiations and could impact faculty cont racts. Difference # 6: Instructional Designer Support One differentiator of content development support between twoand four year institutions was the availability of instructional design resources to help faculty develop courses. Only one two year institution had instructional designer support while three of the four four year institutions had instructional designers to assist in course development. The twoyear institution that offered instructional design services also had a centralized team to put the course online. One respondent stated:

PAGE 97

97 CC2: They [faculty] provide the content, meet with instructional designer, determine how to meet objectives in course, what content to use, and then our team puts it online ( 1/25/11) One four year institution resp ondent stated: B 3: The development process is supported by instructional designers ( 1/26/11) Another respondent stated: B 2: Instructional designers are coaches and mentors. We have a team of four instructional designers and one manager to support faculty ( 1/28/11) Another four year institution respondent remarked about their team approach with instructional designers: B 1: T he idea was to get a team of people together to develop class materials with a design instructor technologist ( 1/25/11) Research Question 2 What is the relationship between distance education faculty support practices and policies in community colleges and state colleges? Analysis : Research Question 2 To address this question, interviews were conducted with the same respondents who completed the survey and the following information was reported ( Appendi ces C and D for more detailed descriptions ). The q uestions explore d policies and practices that support faculty who develop and/or teach online An attempt was made to discern if policies or procedures helped support faculty needs and determine if a difference existed in support practices between the two year and four yea r institutions. Several themes emerged from asking the question if online policies or procedure guides were in place for online learning. In the sample, all four of the twoyear institutions reported they did not have approved policies for distance educat ion for staff or faculty. However, two reported they had guides and procedures they followed. These institutions also reported they were not unionized.

PAGE 98

98 One two year institution respondent stated it was easier to put procedures in place than to write proc edures into policies : CC3: We dont have a policy. There is a difference between policy and procedures. I can write procedures easier than policy and include procedural things in policy. For example, for office hours, weve rewritten procedures under the policy to bring in more flexibility of online faculty and office hours. ( 1/25/11) Of the four year institutions in the sample, three of the four institutions reported having approved online policies. One institution reported that online procedures for s taff and faculty were left up to the departments to put into place. Of the five institutions in the sample that had procedures and policies in place, only two reported they involved faculty in developing them. The majority of respondents reported favorab l y of their policies or guides in place at their institutions. One difference that stood out in the interviews was from one four year institution respondent who shared that the policy guide was a part of the faculty contract. She stated: B 2: We have n o separate online policy guide We are unionized and there is an appendix in the contract that deals with distance education Everything is laid out in the contract. The [distance education] appendix has been in effect for six years. ( 1/28/11) Another respondent mentioned that recent negotiations with faculty were a positive move in supporting online faculty : CC4: We are on the same page only because we have recently negotiated these ( 1/28/11) Two of the twoyear institutions in the sample stated they we re not unionized. These two institutions were small schools. A respondent from one of these two schools shared that this [this what?] was an advantage: CC4: We have mandated faculty professional development and a mandated course approval process. We had no quality assurance or a defined process for course creation or faculty getting paid for course creation or no focus on best practices. Most recently, the adm inistration approved a handbook detailing many of the criteria in the survey

PAGE 99

99 (procedures, goals, best practices, mandatory training). We are not unionizedit is easier to do this. Other colleges who are unionized have more of a challenge to do this. ( 1/28/11) Research Question 3 Does a discrepancy occur between faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding practices and policies? Analysis : Research Question 3 To address this question, interviews were conducted with the same respondents who c ompleted the survey and the following information was reported on the commitment of leadership in s upporting online faculty needs ( Appendi ces C and D for more descriptive information ). Several themes emerged from these questions. Most respondents stated that while leadership expressed commitment to online education, budgetary constraints kept the administration from meeting many of the facultys online education support needs. In regard to institutional developed policies for online education, three of the four fouryear institutions had approved policies, yet only two respondents mentioned that faculty participated in the development of these. None of the twoyear institutions reported having approved or adopted distance education policies, but they said they had institution guides and/or handbooks. Respondents were asked if a relationship existed between what the faculty believed were important attributes of support and what the administration offered in pedagogy, technical or incentive support ( Appendix B). T wo of the four community colleges stated a discrepancy existed between faculty and administrative perceptions and offerings T wo of the four baccalaureate schools stated a discrepancy also existed in what faculty perceived as online support and what administration delivered in the way of support. Most respondents stated that online needs were not met due to budgetary constraints. Additionally, another theme emerged which suggested faculty acknowledged that leadership wanted to provide more support but could not due to these financial impacts. Such statements support ed this theme

PAGE 100

100 One respondent stated: CC1: We would like to offer full time support. When we had shortcomings in the budget, this went off the block. Leadership would like thi s but cant due to budget cuts ( 1/25/11) A second respondent said: CC2: Faculty understand we would like to give more but realize it is a financial situation ( 1/25/11) A third respondent remarked: B 2: I think, in general, they [faculty] think there should be more support from [administration] but when they look at other places, the y know they are getting support ( 1/28/11). A fourth respondent shared: B 3: There is a disconnect in this partly because of budget restrictions. I used to be faculty so I have a good pulse ( 1/26/11) Smaller schools stated they were impacted greatly by the budget and online support needs were strained. One respondent commented: C 4: We are small. The financials are not as robust. We have fewer technology tools. I have faculty who want to create podcasts but we need a low cost solution for w hat they want to accomplish ( 1/28/2011) Respondents mentioned specific factors that influenced positive perceptions of the leadership commitment of faculty. For example, one two year institution interviewee stated that the recent negotiations of the faculty contract helped leadership and faculty get on the same page in regard to online learning support. One respondent commented : CC4: We are on the same page only because we ha ve recently negotiated these thing s w e need to relook at it in three years to see what is working and not working. T hey [faculty] may not totally agree but w e are at an even playing field. ( 1/28/11)

PAGE 101

101 If this study were replicated, this factor may be one to consider for future research. Another institution remarked that increasing internet bandwidth at the institution was helpful. She said : B 3: One of the things they [faculty] want is internet connectivity so it doesnt go down. The bandwidth improved, so t hey are happy about this ( 1/26/11) For the four year institutions, a different theme emerged in contrast to the two year institutions. Three of the four baccalaureate schools in the sample remarked that past leadership was a hindrance in providing online support but recent changes in leadership were healing the disconnect. For instance, one respondent stated: B 3: We have had a shift in new administration l ast administration opposed programs online ( 1/26/11) Another respondent remarked : B 4: It was tough for a while convincing administrators where online was going. Interim President knows academics and is a strong component of online learning. Past President was supportive in some ways but then in other ways he didnt understand. Then, walls were bulging due to increased enrollments and he knew he had to do something and started buyin g in because of logistics ( 2/3/11) Research Question 4. What are recommended attributes for institutions to include in developing a distance education faculty support program model? Analysis : Research Question 4 To address this question, interviews were conducted with the same respondents who completed the survey and the following information was reported ( Appendi ces C and D for more descriptive information ). P a rticipants were asked to consider how their institution supported faculty working together to create a better student experience and how the administration supported faculty in improving the experience. This analysis was an attempt to explore more deeply w hat practices the institutions perceived as effective practices for distance education

PAGE 102

102 faculty support programs It was also an attempt to explore if effective practices differentiated between two year and four year institutions. Several themes emerged from asking the following questions ( Appendix B). The two year institution respondents perceived that facultys greatest support innovations were : 1) internal professional development offerings ; 2) monetary or release time incentives for developing courses ; 3) formalized course quality review processes ; 4) technical support from learning management systems and 5) new faculty training, orientations, and certification processes. Additionally, three of the four twoyear institutions in the sample noted that the most significant accomplish of their institutions for all program level distance education initiatives were those focused on faculty support No two year institution in the sample reported the benefit of a full time faculty or s tu dent. Respondents of four year institutions from the sample selected the same online faculty initiatives. However, major differentiators were the additional support of a full time faculty help desk (technical and/or content development support), centralize d technical and content support centers, instructional designers to help in content development, and additional software packages and tools to support eLearning for faculty and students. Two theme s emerged from many of the respondents comments One was the involvement of faculty in helping develop these online support initiatives, giving feedback, or participating on committees or task forces where ideas were brought to the table for review and/or approval. For example, one respondent stated: CC4: Most of our things are faculty driven and [I] believe this is why we have such support. W e know when you ask someone their opinion then there is buy in. This has been key to our success early on in getting faculty approved documents Faculty were a part of the eLearning Commi ttee and writing the e Learning Book. They felt they had some ownership in writing the book ( 1/28/11) Another twoyear respondent from the sample shared:

PAGE 103

103 CC3: Faculty were involved in developing an internal course review process ( 1/25/11) A four year respondent also reinforced this theme and stated: B 1: [Sr. Management] got faculty involved from the ground up reviewing what was in our courses. Before, we just said, we know these are best practices. Now faculty tweak, improve and realize these ARE good ideas. This is how we have gotten buy i n i nvolving faculty in the standards and online course development process ( 1/25/11) The second theme that emerged from most respondents in the sample was the reference to strong relationshi ps between faculty and administration and a supportive culture. For example, one respondent stated: CC4: Administration listens to faculty and academic deans support faculty. Culture is very supportive ( 1/28/11) Faculty Support Best Practices Themes an d patterns emerged from respondents discussing their best practices of faculty support. Key findings of faculty support initiatives are next described with supporting quotes from respondents who participated in the sample. Some of the practices were report ed by both two and four year institutions, and some themes emerged just by institutional type. The following information was reported. Internal P rofessional D evelopment O fferings ( T wo and F our year Institutions ) All respondents in the sample prioritized professional development initiatives as one of their top support offerings for faculty and they commented that faculty would also perceive this initiative as a priority need. All institutions in the sample developed and delivered their own trainings. M andatory faculty training was required more in twoyear institutions than in four year institutions. Three of the four twoyear institutions required technical professional development for new faculty to learn the online system, and two of the twoyear ins titutions required existing faculty to take professional development offerings. Two of the four year institutions required

PAGE 104

104 new faculty training. No four year institutions in the sample required professional development for existing fulltime or adjunct f aculty. One factor for this anomaly could be that more twoyear institutions in the sample were not unionized compared to four year institutions. Nonunion institutions could have had more latitude to enforce mandatory training for existing faculty. One tw oyear respondent stated : CC4: We have mandated faculty professional development and a mandated course approval process. Most recently, the administration approved a handbook detailing many of the criteria in the survey (procedures, goals, best practices, mandatory training). We are not unionizedit is easier to do this. Other colleges who are unionized have more of a challenge to do this. They [faculty] are trained on technical and pedagogical best practices Faculty have to go through 40 hours of traini ng and adjunct s have to go through 8 hours of online training We pay our adjuncts to come but not full time faculty B ecause we have invested so much in training, our helpdesk is not bombarded with calls ( 1/28/11) Another twoyear respondent said : CC2: A major innovation or best practice implemented is certifying faculty to teach online and recertifying faculty to teach online. We have an online course for new faculty. C ertification is only good for a year Recertification courses are also offereds ome are stand alones or we offer faceto face trainings [for existing fulltime and adjunct faculty] ( 1/25/11) Another respondent remarked: CC1: We have mandated faculty professional development and a mandated course approval process. Another twoyear respondent shared, Training required is basic [platform] training and once you complete the five modules, then you are able to get a course shell to begin teaching .( 1/25/11) Another factor for the mandatory training discrepancy could be that more four year institutions were driven by policy for online education requirements than in two year institutions. Policy approvals require faculty negotiations and could impact faculty contracts. Innovative practices for professional development were evident in more four year institutions than in two year institutions. One two year institution stated that one of its goals was

PAGE 105

105 to offer coaching and mentoring for its faculty, but no money was allotted in the budget to do this. The respondents did of fer an unofficial mentoring system: CC4: W e have faculty leaders and many faculty are contacts for others T hey [faculty] share with their colleagues and have found their own mentors ( 1/28/11) Two of the four four year institutions in the sample offered curriculum support for faculty in the form of peer review processes One four year institution respondent commented faculty viewed peer reviews as a priority support and this was a popular incentive: BB 4: We have peer reviews for faculty O ther faculty critique online quality of their peers. They critique to help each other improve. We are trying coaching and mentoring strategies by trying one online faculty within each department to be a mentor and new faculty can go to this person for assistance ( 2/3/11) Two of the four year institutions offered online content development training and support for faculty designing courses. One respondent shared that the training at his institution is required for any faculty developing online courses: B 2: When faculty apply to develop a course and they are selected there is a 30hour training. By the time they are through the training, their first modules have been developed. This is jobembedded training ( 1 /28/11) Respondents from four year institution s also remarked that faculty perceive d one onone professional development meetings with their online support centers helpful, as well as online training videos, group training sessions, and regular and consistent professional development offerings. One fo ur year institution respondent stated the administration has sent faculty to online conferences (B 3, 1/26/11).

PAGE 106

106 Other professional development offerings from both twoyear and four year institutions included topics on video streaming, compressing PowerPoint, video and audio files, digital media, tutorials, course checklists, quality course matrices Another service included technical training in uploading courses to electronic platforms. Software packages and tools to support eLearning initiatives were not as prevalent in two year institutions as in four year institutions. For example, while one twoyear institution offered an internal version of Quality Matters program for course quality review, one of the four year institutions acquired a license for the published version. Other software packages mentioned by four year institutions included Elluminate, web conferencing software, Turn itin, Smart Thinking online tutorials, and Desire to Learn (DTL). New F aculty T rainings, O rientations, and O nline C ertif ication P rocesses ( T wo and F our year Institutions ) Three of the four two year institutions required technical professional development for new faculty and two of the four year institutions required new faculty training. Mandatory training requirements f or new faculty varied across campuses. For example, one respondent from a two year institution stated: CC1: W e have a new faculty support classroom and survival classroom in a sandbox environment The basic new faculty training is required. O nce you com plete the five modules then you are able to get a shell. There are minimum standards expected of new faculty. They can go through a self assessment checklist to ensure they have everything done and department chairs are working closely with faculty. Nothing else is required. If we see problems with existing faculty teaching online we will pull that instructor in and do one onone support. ( 1/25/11) Another twoyear respondent remarked: CC2: A major innova tion or best practice implemented is certifying faculty to teach online. We have an online course for new facult y c ertification is only good for a year ( 1/25/11) One four year institutions new faculty training focused on developing course materials and centered on a team approach:

PAGE 107

107 B 1: The idea was to get a team of people together from the four campuses to develop class materials together with a design instructor technologist Then, we would have a consistent look and quality ( 1/25/11) Another four ye ar institution required new faculty to gain knowledge of their learning management system processes through five levels of training: B 4: The firs t three [levels] allow faculty to teach partially online and then fully online. They have to pass these befo re accessing the [their course] online. This is required ( 2/3/11) Centralized S upport S ervices and L eader A dvocates ( T wo and F our year Institutions ) One similarity among all the institutions was centralized services and having advocates in leadership positions to support online learning. These services were also perceived as priority support initiatives of faculty based on the respondents comments from the sample. However, in comparing the services, the four year institutions had slightly more resou rces connected to their services. Three of the four year institutions had their own virtual college environments that managed all the online education programming. Most of the twoyear institutions in the sample, however, stated that their learning managem ent systems were a strong support. For example, one respondent shared: CC1: We have the L earning M anagement S ystem administrato r i f there is glitch in the system, then someone can go in the classroom to work with faculty ( 1/25/11) Another twoyear respo ndent shared: CC3: A person works exclusively with our Learning Management System ( 1/25/11) One two year institution offered a dedicated website for online faculty (CC 4, 1/28/11). For fouryear institutions, common themes that emerged as priority support initiatives for faculty were centralized support for course development, which consisted of resources, team approaches, instructional designers, and leader advocates. For example, one institution had a course refresh er project that was team driven:

PAGE 108

108 B 1: A team of people come together to develop class materials together with a design instructor technologist ( 1/25/11) Another respondent shared: B 2: Instructional designers are coaches and mentors. We have a team of four instructi onal designers and one manager for the [eLearning platform] to support faculty ( 1/28/11) One institution offered faculty support teams for both course delivery and course development: B 3: We are very centralized. We set the schedule, hire the adjuncts, we run the entire online program. We have a course delivery team. They [course development team] do the course copy and course prep and deal s with any questions [from faculty] who are teaching. This year, we split out the course delivery phase and development phase. The development process is supported by instructional designers. Currently, we have over 530 sections of courses T hey have a manager and a learning management system specialist. Course design works with those who are designing. There is a helpdesk number all faculty can call It [the helpdesk] is run by a manager, learning specialist, and three part time Learning Management System specialis ts. T ickets are developed and most of time tickets are accomplished ( 1/26/11) A centralized online faculty center offered at one of the four year institutions was perceived as a priority support of faculty: B 4: W e have experienced people to help faculty innovate and create in online classroom s. We have state of the art equipment, managers, and student workers. We h elp facul ty go through training s to put their own courses online We do not have instructional designers E ach department is responsible for their own content and put ting it online In the center we also offer classes for f aculty to improve online skills. The Pr esident set s aside money in the budget for t he online faculty center. ( 2/3/11) Another four year institution had an automated proctor testing scheduling system that allowed students to schedule or change their proctored exam dates and times. Faculty perce ived this as a priority support initiative because it reduced emails and calls from students who wanted to change their proctoring times. This institution respondent shared: B 3: We give really good support because we are so centralized ( 1/26/11) In term s of leader support, one four year institution respondent shared:

PAGE 109

109 B 3: We are positioned well within the institution. For example, I sit on the academic leadership council ( 1/26/11) Another four year institution respondent shared: B 4: The Dean [of distance education for the institution] has had the most impact on significant change regarding procedures and processes for online learning (2/3/11) Formalized C ourse R eview P rocesses ( T wo and F our year Institutions ) Formalized course review process es were evident in two of the four twoyear institutions and two of the four year institutions. For example, one respondent from a twoyear institution shared: CC3: We have home grown courses and instituted an internal review and proposal process to ensur e [course] quality. W e make them [faculty] have one unit of the course built to review. We ask them to think through and address certain criteria. Faculty were involved when we developed this review process. We r equire that the person has taught the cours e face to face first and is familiar with course content They must provide justification for doing it in a delivery method for online and share how they plan to accommodate for student/facul t y interactions, group projects, pacing, different learning styl es, students remaining on tasks, authentic tasks, student preparedness etc. They s hare a portion course and course outline/syllabus. They have to demonstrate how they are going to teach course in different format. If it were a brand new cours e i t would go to curriculum committee before submitting to the state. ( 1/25/11) A respondent from one two year institution stated that his institution requires all online courses through a review from a subject matter expert and two course reviewers for approval: CC4: W e have mandated a faculty course approval process. We have pieces to help us ensure quality in courses and help faculty understand process of online learning and help administrators move courses through the process. We took the Quality M atters rubric and revised it to meet our needs ( 1/28/11) A respondent from a four year institution from the sample discussed how the senior vice president was instrumental in getting faculty involved in developing and getting an internal course review process approve d: B 1: This is how we have gotten buy in involving faculty in the standards and online course development process ( 1/25/11)

PAGE 110

110 A respondent from a nother four year institution said that his institution created master courses as exemplars for faculty to use when developing their own courses: B 2: Training is required of faculty who apply to develop a course and those selected attend a 30hour training. By the time they are through the training, their first modules have been developed. This is jobembedded traini ng ( 1/28/11) Instructional D esigners to H elp in C ontent D evelopment ( T wo and F our year Institutions ) One differentiator of content development support between twoand four year institutions was the availability of instructional design resources to help faculty develop courses. Only one two year institution had instructional designer support while three of the four four year institutions had instructional designers to assist in course development. A res pondent from t he two year institution that offered instructional design services also had a centralized team to put the course online saying : CC2: They [faculty] provide the content, meet with instructional designer, determine how to meet objectives in course, what content to use, and then our team puts it online ( 1/25/11) One four year institution respondent stated: B 3: The development process is supported by instructional designers ( 1/26/11) Another respondent stated: B 2: Instructional designers are coaches and mentors. We have a team of four instructional designers and one manager to support faculty ( 1/28/11) Another four year institution respondent remarked about its team approach with instructional designers: B 1: The idea was to get a team of people together to develop class materials wit h a design instructor technologist ( 1/25/11)

PAGE 111

111 Monetary or R elease T ime I ncentives for D eveloping C ourses ( T wo and F our year Institutions ) Monetary incentives and release time for online faculty were offered in two two year institutions and two four year i nstitutions. Faculty were paid for developing content but not paid extra for teaching online classes. One two year institution respondent stated: CC2: One of the biggest motivators is money for release time for faculty developing online courses. We don t offer release time. T hey [faculty] get paid the same for teaching any other class, but they get paid for being a content expert. They provide the content, meet with an instructional designer, determine how to meet objectives in course, what content to use, and then our team puts it online. For example, if their content is video/text that they use to meet objective in classroom, we will turn it into an appropriate online delivery method. ( 1/25/11) Another twoyear institution responde nt stated that his in stitution gave faculty both release time and course development monetary incentives (CC 4, 1/28/11) Two of the four year institutions offered monetary incentives and the faculty from these institutions perceived this as a top priority of support. One respondent from the sample stated: B 1: We will compensate faculty for overhauling their course ( 1/25/11) Another participant commented: B 2: I n regards to academic freedom, facul ty can change the master course. Incentives are paid to full time faculty only. This is in accordance to the union contract. Every year I create a list of courses to develop online Full time faculty get to apply first to develop the courses and then adjunct. When you are a developer you get priority selection to teach the co urse. In some areas, like math, we have more full time faculty than we offer in sections. Math faculty love to teach online. We have a formalized process where the developers select first, and faculty developers select by seniority, etc. It is an automa ted and formalized process ( 1/28/11)

PAGE 112

112 Full time Faculty Help d esk: T echnical and/or C ontent D evelopment S upport ( F our year O nly Institution ) One large difference between the two year and four year institutions in the sample was the offerings of full time f aculty helpdesks. No twoyear institutions offered this support but three out of the four four year institutions did. Supporting comments about this service were positive and perceived as a high priority support for faculty. One respondent shared: B 1: If a faculty gets locked out of the network, there is a helpdesk to offer help ( 1/25/11) A respondent from a nother institution said his institution has a full time support ticketing system: B 2: A student [or faculty] can send an email, and it becomes a ticket in the system or they can fill out a form online or email us I can track all tickets and look at how many log in issues and can categorize all of this. I can be proactive and see where students [or faculty] are having problems ( 1/28/11) One res pondent shared that the expectation of his full time s upport helpdesk is to provide faculty with the expectation that support requests are acknowledged within 24 business hours or quicker: B 3: Faculty know they can count on a response within 24 hours and most are solved within 24 hours ( 1/26/11) Making Connections between the Qualitative and Quantitative Data Results The results of the twoyear institution group quantitative data analysis by mean index scores were more similar to the two year institution group qualitative data analysis reports than the four year institution group. There were very little differences between the two groups when analyzing these mean scores. The index scores were ranked by means for all eight institutions in the sample ( T able 4 32) and for each institutional type ( Table 4 33 ). The lowest scores by means for the two year institution in the sample were Measurement and

PAGE 113

113 Commitment/Leadership. The lowest scores by means for the four year institution s in the sample were Commitment/Leadership and Program Support. This analysis confirmed the need to conduct the follow up interviews to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences among the two institutional classifications. To draw connections between the surveys data results and the follow up interview results, several analyses were conducted. First, the Levels of Support Analysis Framework was developed ( Table 4 34 ). It was designed to take selected key attributes and factors from the eight parts of t he studys survey instruments and use them as a baseline for comparing the sample institutions responses from follow up interviews. The analysis grid helped document how the twoyear institutions distance education factors and faculty support indicators were similar or different among the two year institution group and four year institution group in the sample. The degree of support was evaluated by reviewing all of the follow up interview transcripts and coding them in the following way: Low = only found in one of the four institutions within each group; Medium = found in two of the four institutions; and, High = found in three or four of the four institutions. Table 4 34 shows the relationship between the levels of support for each group. This analys is suggested that the two year institution sample had lower levels of support than the four year institution sample in many of the surveys eight parts. Specifically, the two year institutions in the sample were lower in the areas of Commitment/Leadership (Part 2) and Program Level Support (Part 3). The sample four year institutions were higher in Motivation (Part 1), Commitment/Leadership (Part 2), and Program Level Support (Part 3) and Faculty Support (Part 4). These rankings were similar with Abels hi ghest indicators for success which were Leadership, Faculty Support, and Student Services ( Figure 2 4).

PAGE 114

114 A second analysis was conducted that compared the highest ranked success factor items of Abels (2005a) initial internet supported Learning survey stud y results with the highest ranked success factor items of this current surveys two and four year groups. By comparing the rankings additional similarities and differences were evaluated. The goal was to determine if a relationship existed in how the two and fouryear institutions in the sample perceived their highest ranked items for online success with Abels 21 institutions ranked highest items for online success Table 4 35 shows how close the two sample groups came to identifying the same highest ranked items as Abels group for each eight parts of the survey. The twoand four year ranked comparisons were defined as follows: Same = highest ranked item was identical to Abel s highest ranked study item; Similar = the two or four year institution group in the sample ranked Abels highest ranked item as their second highest ranked item; and, Different = the twoor four year institution group did not select Abels highest ranked item as their first or second choice. The results of this analysis showed that the four year institutions rated five of the highest ranked items the same and three similar. The two year institutions rated only two the same, one similar, and five diffe rent. A summary of the similarities and differences of the highest ranked survey items in the sample schools compared to the highest ranked items of Abels (2005a) study is in Table 4 36. The two year institution group in the sample showed more of a diff erence in their highest ranked items from the Abels 21 institution ratings in the following: 1) Commitment/Leadership (Part 2), 2) Program Level Support (Part 3), Faculty Support (Part 4), Student Support (Part 5), and Measurement (Part 6). One last pie ce of data analyzed was institution size. The initial research study did not take into consideration the institutions size as a factor for success for effective online programming.

PAGE 115

115 However, upon analyzing the data more closely, and studying the feedback a nalysis of the follow up interviews, size of the institution became a consideration to further investigate. Table 437 reports the size of the institutions that participated in the study. This table was compared to the feedback analysis reported in Append ices C and D. Three of the four smallest schools were two year institutions. Looking closer at the follow up interview reports, these schools reported they were not unionized and did not have distance education policies in place. Questions could be rais ed as to whether size of the institution has an impact on the effectiveness of the attributes for supporting online teaching and learning. Another consideration is do some strategies work better in the schools that have been baccalaureate schools the longe st?

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 1. Respondent self assessment of knowledge, experience, and background with internet supported learning Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation How would you gauge your personal knowledge, experience, and background with internet supported learning? 8 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .70711 Valid N (listwise) 8 Table 4 2. Descriptive statistics for P art 1 of the survey (motivation) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Student service is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 8 4.00 5.00 4.6250 .51755 Serving nontraditional students is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 8 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .70711 Providing greater access to learning is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 8 2.00 5.00 4.5000 1.06904 Providing superior teaching is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 8 3.00 5.00 4.5000 .75593 Providing access to our highly ranked programs is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 8 2.00 5.00 4.2500 1.03510 Providing personalized learning for each student is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 8 2.00 5.00 3.6250 .91613 Providing innovative learning environments is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 8 2.00 5.00 3.8750 1.12599 Growing student enrollments is an important objective. 8 4.00 5.00 4.3750 .51755 Serving more students with limited physical facilities is an important objective. 8 2.00 5.00 3.8750 .99103 Our program(s) are experiencing competition from other local institutions. 8 2.00 5.00 3.6250 .91613 Valid N (listwise) 8

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 3. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for motivation Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Motivation 8 3.00 4.82 4.1591 .59464 Valid N (listwise) 8 Table 4 4. Descriptive statistics for Part 2 of the survey (commitment/leadership) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation There is real (measurable) evidence that our institution is committed to achieving success in internet supported learning. 8 2.00 5.00 4.1250 .99103 There are frequent communications from the administration indicating that internet supported learning is important to our mission. 8 2.00 5.00 3.5000 1.06904 Financial support for what we need to succeed in internet supported learning is apparent. 8 1.00 5.00 3.5000 1.19523 Administration and academic leadership work together to prioritize our online focus. 8 2.00 5.00 3.8750 .83452 We have selected some of our most successful programs and courses to focus our online efforts. 8 2.00 5.00 3.8750 1.24642 We have implemented an effective review process for selecting the best course or program candidates to move online. 8 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .88641 The criteria for selection of faculty that can develop online courses are clear. 8 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .53452 The criteria for selection of faculty that can teach an online course are clear. 8 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .46291 Valid N (listwise) 8 Table 4 5. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for commitment/leadership Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Commitment/Leader ship 8 2.50 4.63 3.7969 .63365 Valid N (listwise) 8

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 6. Descriptive statistics for P art 3 of the survey (program level support) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We are focused on supporting complete academic programs with internet supported learning. 8 2.00 5.00 3.6250 1.18773 We have a team process to redesign a program so that it is effective in the online format. 8 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .70711 Technical and/or instructional design support staff have been assigned to support internet supported learning program teams and efforts. 8 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .75593 Our efforts to put course or program materials online always involve a project plan including schedule and milestones. 8 2.00 5.00 3.6250 .91613 Institutional leadership has played an active role in selecting the most impactful programs to focus our efforts. 8 2.00 4.00 3.0000 .75593 Academic leadership has played an active role in selecting the most impactful programs to focus our efforts. 8 2.00 5.00 3.6250 .91613 When putting a course or program online, special effort is invested to make sure that our institutions or departments unique teaching approach (pedagogy) is reflected. 8 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .53452 Enrollment management and/or marketing are involved as part of our team that launches online programs. 8 1.00 4.00 2.8750 1.12599 When putting a course or program online, we usually have some targets for what constitutes success. 8 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 Our courses are enhanced through the process of incorporating internet supported learning. 8 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .46291 Our programs are enhanced through the process of incorporating internet supported learning. 8 3.00 5.00 4.1250 .64087 Table 4 7. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for program level support Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Program Support 8 3.18 4.55 3.7159 .47222 Valid N (listwise) 8

PAGE 119

119 Table 48. Descriptive statistics for P art 4 of the survey (faculty support) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We have implemented an effective web or email helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internet supported learning. 8 2.00 5.00 4.1250 .99103 We have implemented an effective phone helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internet supported learning. 8 2.00 5.00 4.1250 1.12599 We have implemented an effective full time web or email helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internet supported learning. 8 1.00 5.00 2.7500 1.66905 We have implemented an effective full time phone helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internet supported learning. 8 1.00 5.00 2.5000 1.60357 We provide effective technical training courses or seminars for faculty who want to teach online. 8 4.00 5.00 4.3750 .51755 We require faculty to take a course in developing online materials and/or teaching online before they teach online. 8 1.00 5.00 4.0000 1.30931 We provide effective one on one instructional design consultation for those faculty who desire it. 8 4.00 5.00 4.6250 .51755 We provide effective instructional or academic technology support staff from a centralized organization. 8 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .75593 Instructional or academic technology support staff understands and help with academic discipline specific pedagogy issues. 8 2.00 5.00 3.8750 1.12599 We have implemented clear and effective policies for ownership of online materials. 7 4.00 5.00 4.5714 .53452 Additional fees are paid to faculty to develop online courses. 7 1.00 5.00 3.4286 1.27242 A significant percentage (> 25%) of our successful internet supported learning initiatives is grassroots faculty driven. 7 2.00 5.00 3.8571 1.06904 The scholarship of teaching is a priority in our department or institution as demonstrated by a viable program that nurtures and spreads best practices. 7 2.00 4.00 3.5714 .78680 Faculty receive effective and frequent communication from academic leaders regarding the importance of innovating in teaching and learning, including use of the internet where appropriate. 8 1.00 5.00 3.7500 1.28174 Faculty are, for the most part, highly committed to the success of our internet supported learning efforts. 7 2.00 4.00 3.1429 .69007 Most faculty involved in developing and teaching internet supported courses would agree that courses that are internet supported are of higher quality than the equivalent classroom course. 7 1.00 5.00 3.4286 1.27242 Valid N (listwise) 7 2.00 5.00 3.8571 1.06904

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 9. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for faculty support Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Faculty Support 8 2.69 4.81 3.7514 .66451 Valid N (listwise) 8 Table 4 10. Descriptive Statistics for Part 5 of the Survey (Student Support) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We provide effective student services specifically for online students. 8 1.00 5.00 3.8750 1.24642 We provide an effective technical phone helpdesk for students. 8 2.00 5.00 4.0000 1.06904 We provide an effective full time technical phone helpdesk for students. 8 1.00 5.00 2.7500 1.58114 We provide an effective technical web/email helpdesk for students. 8 3.00 5.00 4.3750 .74402 We provide an effective full time technical web/email helpdesk for students. 8 1.00 5.00 3.0000 1.77281 Downtime of our online course management system or other technology does not impact the effectiveness of our online courses or programs. 8 4.00 5.00 4.3750 .51755 We provide an effective online orientation for students taking internet supported courses. 8 1.00 5.00 3.5000 1.30931 We provide an effective program advisor or coordinator who acts as a single point of contact to make sure any student issues are resolved in a timely manner. 8 1.00 5.00 2.8750 1.45774 We have implemented effective feedback from students regarding our internet supported courses and/or programs using assessments given at least once per term. 8 2.00 4.00 3.7500 .70711 We provide easy to use phone based and web based registration for students. 8 2.00 5.00 4.0000 .92582 Students find the online experience to be easy and trouble free. 8 2.00 4.00 3.3750 .74402 Student learning is the most important priority. 8 3.00 5.00 4.6250 .74402 Our internet supported learning courses and programs help our students to use time more efficiently. 8 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .70711 Valid N (listwise) 8

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 11. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for student support Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Student Support 8 2.85 4.62 3.7115 .56936 Valid N (listwise) 8 Table 4 12. Descriptive statistics for P art 6 of the survey (measurement) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We have developed specific measurements of success that fit our needs. 8 2.00 4.00 3.5000 .75593 Our measurements of success are outlined for the next 2 3 years. 8 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .88641 We effectively measure student outcomes, and we use them as a key measure of success. 8 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .46291 We effectively measure student satisfaction and use it as a key measure of success. 8 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .46291 We compare graduation rates in internet supported programs with the graduation rates in equivalent classroom based programs to measure success. 8 2.00 5.00 3.5000 .92582 We have set enrollment targets for our internet supported learning initiatives for the next 23 years. 8 2.00 4.00 2.7500 .70711 Growth in our online courses and programs, for the most part, has not come at the expense of growth in our on campus courses and programs. 8 2.00 5.00 3.3750 1.18773 We have a clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet support ed learning course. 8 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .46291 We have a clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet supported program. 7 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .57735 Valid N (listwise) 7

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 13. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for measurement Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Measurement 8 2.89 4.13 3.5712 .41171 Valid N (listwise) 8 Table 4 14. Rank orders of importance of actions related to improving an institutions internet supported learning efforts ( n = 8) Item Rank Improving course quality 1 Implementing a learning objects repository 16 Getting more faculty involved in or committed to our internet supported learning initiatives 5.5 Improving student retention in internet supported learning courses or programs 3 Putting more programs online 7 Adding more rich media and interactivity to our online experience 2 Getting better use of our course management system 13 Convincing the administration that online is important 12 Getting better at measuring student outcomes 4 Getting better at determining what courses or programs should be the focus of our internet supported learning expenditures 8 Better reflecting our institutions unique pedagogy and culture in our internet supported learning courses and programs 11 Obtaining more resources and support staff to make progress feasible 5.5 Achieve more effective marketing of our internet supported learning courses and programs 14 Becoming more program focused as opposed to course focused 10 Achieving a more stable and reliable online learning technical environment 15 Improving student services for online students 9

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 15. Descriptive statistics for P art 8 of the survey (goals) Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Significantly increased online competition 8 1.00 5.00 3.0000 1.30931 Increasing faculty unionization 8 1.00 3.00 1.8750 .83452 Governmental enforcement of stricter accountability standards 8 2.00 5.00 3.6250 .91613 Parents and/or students wanting more data on graduation and job placement rates 8 1.00 3.00 2.2500 .70711 Increasing market share of for profit education providers 8 1.00 4.00 2.5000 1.06904 The need to work more with secondary schools to prepare and provide early start to college 8 1.00 4.00 2.7500 1.28174 Open source CMS, portal, or other learning software 8 1.00 4.00 2.6250 .91613 The rising costs of online marketing 8 1.00 4.00 2.3750 1.06066 More accessibility of higher bandwidth to the home through cable and DSL 8 2.00 5.00 3.6250 1.06066 Proliferation of iPods, cell phones, or other consumer electronics that may be capable of storing or accessing learning content 8 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .75593 Better self paced courses that do not require instructors 8 1.00 3.00 2.0000 .75593 Global competition in online education 8 2.00 5.00 3.0000 .92582 Higher education/corporate partnerships to provide corporate education 8 2.00 4.00 2.5000 .75593 Increasing student demand for internet supported learning 8 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .88641 Coursepaks, eBooks or other digital content from publishers 8 2.00 5.00 4.0000 1.06904 New leadership and attitudes in the academy 8 2.00 4.00 3.1250 .83452 Online libraries and search engines like Google 8 2.00 4.00 3.1250 .64087 Open source content/course repositories like Merlot, SAIL, and MIT Open Courseware 8 2.00 4.00 3.0000 .75593 Reusable learning objects 8 2.00 4.00 3.1250 .83452 A new breed of faculty more comfortable with the internet and computer technology 8 4.00 5.00 4.3750 .51755 V alid N (listwise) 8

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 16. Respondent self assessment of knowledge, experience, and background with internet supported learning by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation How would you gauge your personal knowledge, experience, and background with internet supported learning? 4 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .95743 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation How would you gauge your personal knowledge, experience, and background with internet supported learning? 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b. Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 125

125 Table 4 17. Descriptive statistics for P art 1 of the survey (motivation) by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Student service is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Serving nontraditional students is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Providing greater access to learning is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 2.00 5.00 4.0000 1.41421 Providing superior teaching is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Providing access to our highly ranked programs is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 Providing personalized learning for each student is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 Providing innovative learning environments is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 Growing student enrollments is an important objective. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 Serving more students with limited physical facilities is an important objective. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 Our program(s) are experiencing competition from other local institutions. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 We have a good understanding of the needs of our students. 4 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .50000 Valid N ( listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Student service is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 5.00 5.00 5.0000 .00000 Serving nontraditional students is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 Providing greater access to learning is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 5.00 5.00 5.0000 .00000 Providing superior teaching is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 5.00 5.00 5.0000 .00000 Providing access to our highly ranked programs is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 4.00 5.00 4.7500 .50000 Providing personalized learning for each student is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Providing innovative learning environments is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 1.15470 Growing student enrollments is an important objective. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Serving more students with limited physical facilities is an important objective. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Our program(s) are experiencing competition from other local institutions. 4 3.00 4.00 3.5000 .57735 We have a good understanding of the needs of our students. 4 4.00 5.00 4.7500 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College. b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 18. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for motivation by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Motivation 4 3.00 4.73 3.8864 .70954 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Motivation 4 4.09 4.82 4.4318 .35111 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 127

127 Table 4 19. Descriptive statistics for P art 2 of the survey (commitment/leadership) by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation There is real (measurable) evidence that our institution is committed to achieving success in internet supported learning. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 There are frequent communications from the administration indicating that internet supported learning is important to our mission. 4 2.00 4.00 2.7500 .95743 Financial support for what we need to succeed in internet supported learning is apparent. 4 1.00 4.00 2.7500 1.25831 Administration and academic leadership work together to prioritize our online focus. 4 2.00 4.00 3.5000 1.00000 We have selected some of our most successful programs and courses to focus our online efforts. 4 2.00 4.00 3.5000 1.00000 We have implemented an effective review process for selecting the best course or program candidates to move online. 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 The criteria for selection of faculty that can develop online courses are clear. 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 The criteria for selection of faculty that can teach an online course are clear. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation There is real (measurable) evidence that our institution is committed to achieving success in internet supported learning. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 There are frequent communications from the administration indicating that internet supported learning is important to our mission. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Financial support for what we need to succeed in internet supported learning is apparent. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Administration and academic leadership work together to prioritize our online focus. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 We have selected some of our most successful programs and courses to focus our online efforts. 4 2.00 5.00 4.2500 1.50000 We have implemented an effective review process for selecting the best course or program candidates to move online. 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 The criteria for selection of faculty that can develop online courses are clear. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 The criteria for selection of faculty that can teach an online course are clear. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College. b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 128

128 Table 4 20. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for commitment/leadership by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Commitment/Leader ship 4 2.50 4.00 3.4688 .66438 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Commitment/Leader ship 4 3.63 4.63 4.1250 .45644 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 129

129 Table 4 21. Descriptive statistics for P art 3 of the survey (program level support) by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We are focused on supporting complete academic programs with internet supported learning. 4 2.00 4.00 3.0000 1.15470 We have a team process to redesign a program so that it is effective in the online format. 4 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .50000 Technical and/or instructional design support staff have been assigned to support internet supported learning program teams and efforts. 4 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .50000 Our efforts to put course or program materials online always involve a project plan including schedule and milestones. 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 Institutional leadership has played an active role in selecting the most impactful programs to focus our efforts. 4 2.00 3.00 2.7500 .50000 Academic leadership has played an active role in selecting the most impactful programs to focus our efforts. 4 3.00 4.00 3.5000 .57735 When putting a course or program online, special effort is invested to make sure that our institutions or departments unique teaching approach (pedagogy) is reflected. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Enrollment management and/or marketing are involved as part of our team that launches online programs. 4 1.00 4.00 2.5000 1.29099 When putting a course or program online, we usually have some targets for what constitutes success. 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 Our courses are enhanced through the process of incorporating internet supported learning. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Our programs are enhanced through the process of incorporating internet supported learning. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Valid N ( listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College

PAGE 130

130 Table 4 21. Continued Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We are focused on supporting complete academic programs with internet supported learning. 4 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .95743 We have a team process to redesign a program so that it is effective in the online format. 4 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .95743 Technical and/or instructional design support staff have been assigned to support internet supported learning program teams and efforts. 4 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .95743 Our efforts to put course or program materials online always involve a project plan including schedule and milestones. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Institutional leadership has played an active role in selecting the most impactful programs to focus our efforts. 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 Academic leadership has played an active role in selecting the most impactful programs to focus our efforts. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 When putting a course or program online, special effort is invested to make sure that our institutions or departments unique teaching approach (pedagogy) is reflected. 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 Enrollment management and/or marketing are involved as part of our team that launches online programs. 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 When putting a course or program online, we usually have some targets for what constitutes success. 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 Our courses are enhanced through the process of incorporating internet supported learning. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Our programs are enhanced through the process of incorporating internet supported learning. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Valid N ( listwise) 4 b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 131

131 Table 4 22. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for program level support by institutional Classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Program Support 4 3.18 3.82 3.5455 .28748 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Program Support 4 3.18 4.55 3.8864 .60016 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b. Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 132

132 Table 4 23. Descriptive statistics for P art 4 of the survey (faculty support) by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We have implemented an effective web or email helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internet supported learning. 4 2.00 5.00 4.0000 1.41421 We have implemented an effective phone helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internetsupported learning. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.50000 We have implemented an effective full time web or email helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internetsupported learning. 4 1.00 5.00 3.0000 2.30940 We have implemented an effective full time phone helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internetsupported learning. 4 1.00 5.00 3.0000 2.30940 We provide effective technical training courses or seminars for faculty who want to teach online. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 We require faculty to take a course in developing online materials and/or teaching online before they teach online. 4 1.00 5.00 3.7500 1.89297 We provide effective one on one instructional design consultation for those faculty who desire it. 4 4.00 5.00 4.7500 .50000 We provide effective instructional or academic technology support staff from a centralized organization. 4 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .95743 Instructional or academic technology support staff understand and help with academic discipline specific pedagogy issues. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.50000 We have implemented clear and effective policies for ownership of online materials. 4 4.00 5.00 4.7500 .50000 Additional fees are paid to faculty to develop online courses. 4 1.00 5.00 3.0000 2.30940 A significant percentage (> 25%) of our successful internet supported learning initiatives is grassroots faculty driven. 4 1.00 5.00 3.2500 1.70783 The scholarship of teaching is a priority in our department or institution as demonstrated by a viable program that nurtures and spreads best practices. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 Faculty receive effective and frequent communication from academic leaders regarding the importance of innovating in teaching and learning, including use of the internet where appropriate. 4 2.00 4.00 3.5000 1.00000 Faculty are, for the most part, highly committed to the success of our internet supported learning efforts. 4 1.00 5.00 3.5000 1.73205 Most faculty involved in developing and teaching internet supported courses would agree that courses that are internetsupported are of higher quality than the equivalent classroom course. 4 2.00 3.00 2.7500 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College

PAGE 133

133 Table 4 23. Continued Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We have implemented an effective web or email helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internetsupported learning. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 We have implemented an effective phone helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internetsupported learning. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 We have implemented an effective full time web or email helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internetsupported learning. 4 2.00 4.00 2.5000 1.00000 We have implemented an effective full time phone helpdesk for use by the faculty involved in internetsupported learning. 4 2.00 2.00 2.0000 .00000 We provide effective technical training courses or seminars for faculty who want to teach online. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 We require faculty to take a course in developing online materials and/or teaching online before they teach online. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 We provide effective one on one instructional design consultation for those faculty who desire it. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 We provide effective instructional or academic technology support staff from a centralized organization. 4 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .50000 Instructional or academic technology support staff understand and help with academic discipline specific pedagogy issues. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 We have implemented clear and effective policies for ownership of online materials. 3 4.00 5.00 4.3333 .57735 Additional fees are paid to faculty to develop online courses. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 A significant percentage (> 25%) of our successful internet supported learning initiatives is grass roots faculty driven. 3 3.00 4.00 3.6667 .57735 The scholarship of teaching is a priority in our department or institution as demonstrated by a viable program that nurtures and spreads best practices. 3 3.00 5.00 4.0000 1.00000 Faculty receive effective and frequent communication from academic leaders regarding the importance of innovating in teaching and learning, including use of the internet where appropriate. 3 3.00 4.00 3.6667 .57735 Faculty are, for the most part, highly committed to the success of our internet supported learning efforts. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Most faculty involved in developing and teaching internet supported courses would agree that courses that are internetsupported are of higher quality than the equivalent classroom course. 3 3.00 4.00 3.6667 .57735 Valid N (listwise) 3 b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 134

134 Table 4 24. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for faculty support by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Faculty Support 4 2.69 4.81 3.7031 .94975 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Faculty Support 4 3.44 4.25 3.7997 .34943 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b. Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 135

135 Table 4 25. Descriptive statistics for P art 5 of the survey (student support) by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We provide effective student services specifically for online students. 4 1.00 4.00 3.2500 1.50000 We provide an effective technical phone helpdesk for students. 4 2.00 5.00 3.5000 1.29099 We provide an effective full time technical phone helpdesk for students. 4 1.00 5.00 3.0000 2.30940 We provide an effective technical web/email helpdesk for students. 4 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .95743 We provide an effective full time technical web/email helpdesk for students. 4 1.00 5.00 3.0000 2.30940 Downtime of our online course management system or other technology does not impact the effectiveness of our online courses or programs. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 We provide an effective online orientation for students taking internet supported courses. 4 1.00 4.00 2.7500 1.25831 We provide an effective program advisor or coordinator who acts as a single point of contact to make sure any student issues are resolved in a timely manner. 4 1.00 4.00 2.5000 1.73205 We have implemented effective feedback from students regarding our internet supported courses and/or programs using assessments given at least once per term. 4 2.00 4.00 3.5000 1.00000 We provide easy to use phone based and web based registration for students. 4 2.00 5.00 4.0000 1.41421 Students find the online experience to be easy and trouble free. 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 Student learning is the most important priority. 4 3.00 5.00 4.5000 1.00000 Our internet supported learning courses and programs help our students to use time more efficiently. 4 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College

PAGE 136

136 Table 4 25. Continued Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We provide effective student services specifically for online students. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 We provide an effective technical phone helpdesk for students. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 We provide an effective full time technical phone helpdesk for students. 4 2.00 3.00 2.5000 .57735 We provide an effective technical web/email helpdesk for students. 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 We provide an effective full time technical web/email helpdesk for students. 4 2.00 5.00 3.0000 1.41421 Downtime of our online course management system or other technology does not impact the effectiveness of our online courses or programs. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 We provide an effective online orientation for students taking internet supported courses. 4 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .95743 We provide an effective program advisor or coordinator who acts as a single point of contact to make sure any student issues are resolved in a timely manner. 4 2.00 5.00 3.2500 1.25831 We have implemented effective feedback from students regarding our internet supported courses and/or programs using assessments given at least once per term. 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 We provide easy to use phone based and web based registration for students. 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 Students find the online experience to be easy and trouble free. 4 3.00 4.00 3.5000 .57735 Student learning is the most important priority. 4 4.00 5.00 4.7500 .50000 Our internet supported learning courses and programs help our students to use time more efficiently. 4 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .95743 Valid N (listwise) 4 b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 137

137 Table 4 26. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for student support by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Student Support 4 2.85 4.38 3.5192 .63859 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Student Support 4 3.46 4.62 3.9038 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b. Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 138

138 Table 4 27. Descriptive statistics for P art 6 of the survey (measurement) by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We have developed specific measurements of success that fit our needs. 4 2.00 4.00 3.0000 .81650 Our measurements of success are outlined for the next 2 3 years. 4 2.00 4.00 2.7500 .95743 We effectively measure student outcomes, and we use them as a key measure of success. 4 3.00 4.00 3.5000 .57735 We effectively measure student satisfaction and use it as a key measure of success. 4 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .50000 We compare graduation rates in internet supported programs with the graduation rates in equivalent classroom based programs to measure success. 4 2.00 4.00 3.0000 .81650 We have set enrollment targets for our internet supported learning initiatives for the next 2 3 years. 4 2.00 4.00 2.7500 .95743 Growth in our online courses and programs, for the most part, has not come at the expense of growth in our on campus courses and programs. 4 2.00 4.00 3.0000 1.15470 We have a clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet support ed learning course. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 We have a clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet supported program. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation We have developed specific measurements of success that fit our needs. 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 Our measurements of success are outlined for the next 2 3 years. 4 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .50000 We effectively measure student outcomes, and we use them as a key measure of success. 4 4.00 4.00 4.0000 .00000 We effectively measure student satisfaction and use it as a key measure of success. 4 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .50000 We compare graduation rates in internet supported programs with the graduation rates in equivalent classroom based programs to measure success. 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 We have set enrollment targets for our internet supported learning initiatives for the next 2 3 years. 4 2.00 3.00 2.7500 .50000 Growth in our online courses and programs, for the most part, has not come at the expense of growth in our on campus courses and programs. 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 We have a clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet support ed learning course. 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 We have a clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet supported program. 3 3.00 4.00 3.6667 .57735 Valid N (listwise) 3 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 139

139 Table 4 28. Descriptive statistics associated with the index score for measurement by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Measurement 4 2.89 3.89 3.3611 .44790 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Measurement 4 3.56 4.13 3.7813 .27786 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b. Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 140

140 Table 4 29. Rank orders of importance of actions related to improving an institutions internet supported learning efforts Item Institution Classification = 2 Year College Rank Improving course quality 1.5 tie Implementing a learning objects repository 16 Getting more faculty involved in or committed to our internet supported learning initiatives 1.5 tie Improving student retention in internet supported learning courses or programs 5 Putting more programs online 9 Adding more rich media and interactivity to our online experience 4 Getting better use of our course management system 12.5 tie Convincing the administration that online is important 11 Getting better at measuring student outcomes 3 Getting better at determining what courses or programs should be the focus of our internet supported learning expenditures 7.5 tie Better reflecting our institutions unique pedagogy and culture in our internet supported learning courses and programs 10 Obtaining more resources and support staff to make progress feasible 6 Achieve more effective marketing of our internet supported learning courses and programs 14 Becoming more program focused as opposed to course focused 12.5 tie Achieving a more stable and reliable online learning technical environment 15 Improving student services for online students 7.5 tie Item Institution Classification = 4 Year College Rank Improving course quality 1 Implementing a learning objects repository 14 Getting more faculty involved in or committed to our internet supported learning initiatives 4 Improving student retention in internet supported learning courses or programs 2 Putting more programs online 7 Adding more rich media and interactivity to our online experience 3 Getting better use of our course management system 12 Convincing the administration that online is important 16 Getting better at measuring student outcomes 5 Getting better at determining what courses or programs should be the focus of our internet supported learning expenditures 9 Better reflecting our institutions unique pedagogy and culture in our internet supported learning courses and programs 13 Obtaining more resources and support staff to make progress feasible 6 Achieve more effective marketing of our internet supported learning courses and programs 11 tie Becoming more program focused as opposed to course focused 8 Achieving a more stable and reliable online learning technical environment 15 Improving student services for online students 11 tie

PAGE 141

141 Table 4 30. Descriptive statistics for P art 8 of the survey (goals) by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Significantly increased online competition 4 1.00 5.00 3.2500 1.70783 Increasing faculty unionization 4 1.00 3.00 1.7500 .95743 Governmental enforcement of stricter accountability standards 4 3.00 4.00 3.5000 .57735 Parents and/or students wanting more data on graduation and job placement rates. 4 1.00 2.00 1.7500 .50000 Increasing market share of for profit education providers 4 1.00 3.00 2.5000 1.00000 T he need to work more with secondary schools to prepare and provide early start to college 4 1.00 4.00 3.2500 1.50000 Open source CMS, portal, or other learning software 4 2.00 3.00 2.5000 .57735 The rising costs of online marketing 4 1.00 3.00 2.0000 .81650 More accessibility of higher bandwidth to the home through cable and DSL 4 2.00 5.00 4.0000 1.41421 Proliferation of iPods, cell phones, or other consumer electronics that may be capable of storing or accessing learning content 4 3.00 4.00 3.5000 .57735 Better self paced courses that do not require instructors 4 1.00 2.00 1.7500 .50000 Global competition in online education 4 3.00 5.00 3.5000 1.00000 Higher education/corporate partnerships to provide corporate education 4 2.00 3.00 2.2500 .50000 Increasing student demand for internet supported learning courses 4 3.00 5.00 4.5000 1.00000 Coursepaks, eBooks or other digital content from publishers 4 2.00 5.00 4.0000 1.41421 New leadership and attitudes in the academy 4 2.00 4.00 3.0000 .81650 Online libraries and search engines like Google 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 Open source content/course repositories like Merlot, SAIL, and MIT Open Courseware 4 2.00 4.00 3.0000 .81650 Reusable learning objects 4 2.00 4.00 2.7500 .95743 A new breed of faculty more comfortable with the internet and computer technology 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College

PAGE 142

142 Table 4 30. Continued Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Significantly increased online competition 4 2.00 4.00 2.7500 .95743 Increasing faculty unionization 4 1.00 3.00 2.0000 .81650 Governmental enforcement of stricter accountability standards 4 2.00 5.00 3.7500 1.25831 Parents and/or students wanting more data on graduation and job placement rates. 4 2.00 3.00 2.7500 .50000 Increasing market share of for profit education providers 4 1.00 4.00 2.5000 1.29099 The need to work more with secondary schools to prepare and provide early start to college 4 1.00 3.00 2.2500 .95743 Open source CMS, portal, or other learning software 4 1.00 4.00 2.7500 1.25831 The rising costs of online marketing 4 1.00 4.00 2.7500 1.25831 More accessibility of higher bandwidth to the home through cable and DSL 4 3.00 4.00 3.2500 .50000 Proliferation of iPods, cell phones, or other consumer electronics that may be capable of storing or accessing learning content 4 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .57735 Better self paced courses that do not require instructors 4 1.00 3.00 2.2500 .95743 Global competition in online education 4 2.00 3.00 2.5000 .57735 Higher education/corporate partnerships to provide corporate education 4 2.00 4.00 2.7500 .95743 Increasing student demand for internet supported learning courses 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 Coursepaks, eBooks or other digital content from publishers 4 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .81650 New leadership and attitudes in the academy 4 2.00 4.00 3.2500 .95743 Online libraries and search engines like Google 4 3.00 3.00 3.0000 .00000 Open source content/course repositories like Merlot, SAIL, and MIT Open Courseware 4 2.00 4.00 3.0000 .81650 Reusable learning objects 4 3.00 4.00 3.5000 .57735 A new breed of faculty more comfortable with the internet and computer technology 4 4.00 5.00 4.2500 .50000 Valid N (listwise) 4 b Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 143

143 Table 4 31. t test results by institutional classification (two year, four year; N = 8). Gro up Statistics Institutional Classification N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Motivation 2 Year College 4 3.8864 .70954 .35477 4 Year College 4 4.4318 .35111 .17556 Commit_Leader 2 Year College 4 3.4688 .66438 .33219 4 Year College 4 4.1250 .45644 .22822 Prog_Support 2 Year College 4 3.5455 .28748 .14374 4 Year College 4 3.8864 .60016 .30008 Fac_Support 2 Year College 4 3.7031 .94975 .47487 4 Year College 4 3.7997 .34943 .17472 Stu_Support 2 Year College 4 3.5192 .63859 .31929 4 Year College 4 3.9038 .50000 .25000 Measurement 2 Year College 4 3.3611 .44790 .22395 4 Year College 4 3.7813 .27786 .13893 Independent Samples Test t test for Equality of Means Sig. (2 tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Motivation Equal variances assumed .217 .54545 .39583 Equal variances not assumed .234 .54545 .39583 Commitment/Leadership Equal variances assumed .155 .65625 .40303 Equal variances not assumed .161 .65625 .40303 Program Support Equal variances assumed .345 .34091 .33273 Equal variances not assumed .360 .34091 .33273 Faculty Support Equal variances assumed .855 .09659 .50599 Equal variances not assumed .858 .09659 .50599 Student Support Equal variances assumed .380 .38462 .40552 Equal variances not assumed .382 .38462 .40552 Measurement Equal variances assumed .162 .42014 .26355 Equal variances not assumed .172 .42014 .26355

PAGE 144

144 Table 4 32. Ranking of index score by means Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Motivation 8 3.00 4.82 4.1591 .59464 Commitment/Leadership 8 2.50 4.63 3.7969 .63365 Faculty Support 8 2.69 4.81 3.7514 .66451 Student Support 8 2.85 4.62 3.7115 .56936 Program Support 8 3.18 4.55 3.7159 .47222 Measurement 8 2.89 4.13 3.5712 .41171 Valid N (listwise) 8 Table 4 33. Ranking of index scores by means by institutional classification Institution Classification = 2 Year College Descriptive Statistics a N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Motivation 4 3.00 4.73 3.8864 .70954 Faculty Support 4 2.69 4.81 3.7031 .94975 Program Support 4 3.18 3.82 3.5455 .28748 Student Support 4 2.85 4.38 3.5192 .63859 Commitment/Leader ship 4 2.50 4.00 3.4688 66438 Measurement 4 2.89 3.89 3.3611 .44790 Valid N (listwise) 4 Institution Classification = 4 Year College Descriptive Statistics b N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Motivation 4 4.09 4.82 4.4318 .35111 Student Support 4 3.46 4.62 3.9038 .50000 Faculty Support 4 3.44 4.25 3.7997 .34943 Commitment/Leader ship 4 3.63 4.63 4.1250 .45644 Program Support 4 3.18 4.55 3.8864 .60016 Measurement 4 3.56 4.13 3.7813 .27786 Valid N (listwise) 4 a. Institution Classification = 2 Year College b. Institution Classification = 4 Year College

PAGE 145

145 Table 4 34. Levels of support analysis framework (Appendices C and D; follow up interview transcripts) Follow up interview feedback analysis using the eight parts from the internet supported learning survey. Levels of Support 2 year institutions in Sample Low = only found in 1 out of 4 institutions Medium = found in 2 out of 4 institutions High = found in 3 or 4 institutions Levels of Support 4 year institutions in Sample Low = only found in 1 out of 4 institutions Medium = found in 2 out of 4 institutions High = found in 3 or 4 institutions Part 1 Motivation Medium High Part 2 Commitment/Leadership Overall: Low Overall: High budgets for online learning Medium Medium positive faculty perception of leadership support Low Medium online advocates in leadership Medium High state reporting: online initiatives Low High distance education policies Low High Part 3 Program Level Support learning management system centralized support full time HelpDesk for students & faculty mandatory new faculty training instructional designers Overall: Low Medium Low Low High Low Overall: High High High High Medium High Part 4 Faculty Support Overall: Medium Overall: High technical assistance Medium High design & production support Medium High pedagogical professional development Medium Medium monetary incentives and rewards Medium High policies or guidelines Medium Medium resources Medium High faculty bargaining unit Low High Part 5 Student Support Part 6 Measurement/Quality formalized course review process design & production support Overall: Medium Medium Low Overall: Medium Medium High Part 7 Priorities internal faculty professional development Improving course quality High High High High Part 8 Goals = not enough information to code

PAGE 146

146 Table 4 35. Internet s upported Learning (IsL) s urvey r esults: A c omparative a nalysis (Source: Abel, 2005a; Abel, 2005c) Abel IsL Survey Results Replicated IsL Study 2 yr institutions Replicated IsL Study 4 yr institutions Part 1: Motivation Original Study (Abel, 2005a) Similar Same Student service is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission Highest rated item 2 nd highest rated item Highest rated item (tied with #5) Growing student enrollments is an important objective Highest rated item Average rated item Providing superior teaching is one of the top priorities of our institutional mission. Highest rated item (tied with #1) P art 2: Commitment/Leadership Original Study (Abel, 2005a) Different Same There is real (measurable) evidence that our institution is committed to achieving success in internet supported learning. Highest rated item 3 rd highest rated item Highest rated item The criteria for selection of faculty that can develop online courses are clear. Highest rated item Ranked high but not the highest Part 3: Program Level Support Original Study (Abel, 2005a) Different Same We are focused on supporting complete academic programs with internet supported learning. Highest rated item Average rated item Highest rated item (tied with #31,24) Our courses are enhanced through the process of incorporating internet supported Learning Highest rated item Highest rated item (tied with # 24,22) Technical and/or instructional design support staff has been assigned to support internet supported learning program teams and efforts. Average rated item Highest rated item (tied with #22,31) Part 4: Faculty Support Original Study (Abel, 2005a) Different Similar We have implemented an effective web or email help desk for use by the faculty involved in internet supported learning. Highest rated item Rated high but not the highest Second highest rated item We provide effective one on one instructional design consultation for those faculty that desire it. Highest Rated item (tied with #42) Highest rated item (tied with #34) We have implemented clear and effective policies for ownership of online materials. Highest rated item (tied with #39) We have implemented an effective phone help desk for use by the faculty involved in internet supported learning. Highest rated ite m (tied with #39) Part 5: Student Support Original Study (Abel, 2005a) Different Same We provide effective student services specifically for online students. Highest rated item Average rated item Highest rated item (tied with #50 and #52) We provide an effective technical phone helpdesk for students. Highest rated item (tied with #49 and #52) We provide an effective technical phone helpdesk for students. Highest rated item (tied with #49 #50)

PAGE 147

147 Table 4 35. Continued Abel IlS Survey Results Replicated IlS Study 2 yr institutions Replicated IlS Study 4 yr institutions Downtime of our online course management system or other technology does not impact the effectiveness of our online courses or programs. Highest rated item (tied with #60) Student learning is the most important priority. Highest rating (tied with #54) Part 6: Measurement Original Study (Abel, 2005a) Different Similar We effectively measure student outcomes, and we use them as a key measure of success. Highest rated item Average rated item Second highest rating (tied with #62, #66, #69) We have developed specific measurements of success that fit our needs. Second highest rating (tied with #64, #66, #69) We compare graduation rates in internet supported programs with the graduation rates in equivalent classroom based programs to measure success. Second highest rating (tied with #64, #62, #69) We have a clear understanding, definition, or standard for what constitutes a quality internet supported course. Highest rated item Second highest rating (tied with #64, #62, #66) Part 7: Ranked Priorities for Improvement Online Learning over Next 12 Months (Peer Group Study (Abel, 2005c) Same Same Improving Course Quality Highest ranked item Highest ranking (tied with #76) Highest ranking Getting more faculty involved in or committed to our internet supported learning initiatives Improving student retention in internet supported learning courses or programs 2 nd highest ranking Part 8: Major Goals over the Next 3 years (Peer Group Study (Abel, 2005c) Same Similar Increasing student demand for internet supported learning Highest rated item Highest rated item (tied with #109) 2 nd highest rated item A new breed of faculty more comfortable with the internet and computer technology Highest rated item (tied with #103) Proliferation of iPods, cell phones, or other consumer electronics that may be capable of storing or accessing learning content Highest rated item

PAGE 148

148 Table 4 36. Summary of similarities and differences of highest ranked survey items in sample schools compared to highest ranked items of Abels 2005(a) study Internet supported Learning Self study Audit Factors of Success 2 year institutions in Sample 4 year institutions in Sample Part 1: Motivation Similar Same Part 2: Commitment/Leadership Different Same Part 3: Program Level Support Different Same Part 4: Faculty Support Different Similar Part 5: Student Support Different Same Part 6: Measurement Different Similar Part 7: Priorities next 12 months Same Same Part 8: Goals Next 3 years Same Similar Table 4 37. Fall 20092010 headcounts for participating institutions (FLDOE, 2010a) Institutional Classification Institution Code Headcount Florida Baccalaureate (approx. total headcount average = 28,000) B 2 59,120 B 3 7,556 B 4 17,356 B 1 29,282 Florida Community College (approx. total headcount average = 8,000) CC 4 2,902 CC 1 17,853 CC 3 1,251 CC 2 10,036

PAGE 149

149 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to identify if differences existed in distance education faculty support pr ograms and policies in Floridas baccalaureate, degree granting institutions and Floridas community colleges with a two year mission. This study also sought to find common attributes of quality faculty support programs and/or policies, as well as discriminate which practices and policies were more successful than others. The study also examined discrepancies in faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding these practices and policies. In other words, did a relationship exist between what the faculty thought were important support attributes and what the administration offered in pedagogy, technical, or incentive support? The findings of this research focused on practices that were the most effective for both faculty and administration. In order to address the purpose of the study, four research questions were developed: What similarities and differences exist in distance education faculty support programs in community colleges and baccalaureate state institutions? What is the relationship between distance education faculty support practices and policies in community colleges and state colleges? Does a discrepancy occur between faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding practices and policies? What are recommended att ributes for institutions to consider in developing a distance education faculty support program model? For this study, 4 of the 1 9 Florida associate dominate/ baccalaureate, degree granting institutions were selected based on their longevity in the Florida College System. In addition, 4 of the 9 Florida associate/ two year institutions were purposeful ly selected for inclusion in the study given the probability they would not seek baccalaureate program approval in 2010 or 2011. All eight institutions selected in the study remained anonymous. Research was conducted

PAGE 150

150 in two steps with the eight respondents. First, one respondent from each institution completed an internet based, eight part Internet supported Learning(IsL) survey. The instrument used in this stu dy was a replication of a national survey conducted in 2005 by Abel and the Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (Abel, 2005c). Respondents then participated in a 30 to 45minute follow up phone interview and were asked 15 questions, which were based on the research questions of this study and the results of the electronic survey. All respondents were asked the same questions. The respondents were allowed to answer the items based on their own perceptions and on the perceptions of faculty, stude nts, and administrators from their respective schools. Discussion of Findings The findings from the quantitative analysis indicated no significant differences between the Florida two and four year institutions in the sample in comparing the similarities a nd differences of distance education practices and policies However, the qualitative analysis of the data suggested that the baccalaureate schools in the sample were applying more effective practices and support than the community colleges in the sample w ith a two year missio n. Specifically, the follow up interview results inferred that similarities and differences existed between the groups and that the four year institutions perceived their levels of distance education support to be higher in co mmitment of leadership, program level support, and faculty support Finding 1: Commitment of Leadership In this study four year institutions considered their leadership as having a positive impact on their success. This perception was evidenced in the Levels of Support Analysis Framework and the comparative analysis table of highest ranked survey items from the twoand four year institutions in the sample and Abels (2005a) community colleges and universities in

PAGE 151

151 his study. Specifically, the four year institutions in the sample ranked as their highest item from the Commitment/Leadership: Part 2 survey that their higher administration leaders demonstrated measurable evidence of their commitment to the institutions online system and support of faculty. Contributing factors to support this analysis were found in four year institution leaders approving distance education policies, supporting baccalaureate new program needs including new online programs, and becoming invol ved in new program initiatives as part of the baccalaureate state approval process. In contrast, two year institutions in the sample did not have adopted policies in place for online learning, and their leadership was not involved in baccalaureate distanc e education initiatives. Also, faculty perceived leadership commitment as not being as strong as four year institutions in the sample, and a discrepancy appeared between what faculty believed w ere important in online education support and what the communit y college administration offered. Finding 2: Program L evel Support In this study four year institutions considered program level support as having a positive impact on their success. This perception was evidenced in the Levels of Support Analysis Framew ork ( Table 4 36) and the comparative analysis table of highest ranked survey items from both the twoand four year institutions in the sample, as well as Abels 21 institutions from his initial case study (Abel, 2005a). Specifically, the four year institutions in the sample ranked the focus on complete academic programs as their highest item under the Program Level Support: Part 3 of the Internet supported Learning survey. Four year institutions in the sample provided program level support through centra lized online services. Services included enhanced learning management systems, trained technical support, assistance from instructional designers, and full time helpdesks for students and faculty. Another program level support common to the four year inst itutions was academic administrators hired as advocates whose roles were to support faculty

PAGE 152

152 and deliver support services for online faculty. Many of these individuals were advocates for online faculty on decisionmaking committees, and they oversaw centralized services that supported faculty who designed and delivered online programs/courses. In contrast, twoyear institutions did not have the same level of support in their centralized support centers to provide professional development and training for f aculty. Budget restraints were shared as the primary reason not to have the resources they needed to provide instructional design help for faculty or provide a full time helpdesk to assist faculty and students. Finding 3: Faculty Support The findings for faculty support suggested that institutions, which did a better job of involving faculty from the bottom up and supporting faculty with multiple resources and incentives, perceived their online practices as being effective. The four year institutio ns in this sample shared evidence of their faculty taking more ownership in helping improve the distance education, planning, development and implementation practices for their respective institution The factors that contributed to effective faculty support were institutional mechanisms in place that provided: 1) a faculty voice in decisionmaking endeavors related to online learning; and 2) multiple resources to support enhanced learning management systems, design and production, technical and pedagogical professional development, and monetary incentives and rewards to faculty developing online courses. This pattern of support was consistent with the Levels of Support Analysis Framework and the comparative analysis of highest ranked items under the Faculty Support: Part 4 of the Internet supported Learning survey. The four year institutions ranked their implementation of a helpdesk to support faculty and one onone instructional design consultation efforts as their highest ranked items. These highest ranked items were also consistent with Abels highest ranked items from his 21 institutions in his national case study (Abel, 2005a).

PAGE 153

153 The practice of faculty decision making in online programming was stronger at the four year institutions in this study. Abels (2005a) case study agreed with this studys findings. In the first phase of his study, Abel (2005a) found that faculty online support was more successful in community colleges. He reported that these institutions did a good job in nurturing grass roots efforts of faculty (Abel, 2005c p. 26). In this study, the institutions that involved faculty from the ground up had increased motivation and engagement from faculty. Also, as indicated from the follow up interviews, distance education guides and pol icies were more readily approved due to the input of faculty. Personalized and customized resources to help faculty design courses appeared to be lacking in the two year institutions in the sample. Also lacking were the policies in place to advocate for more resources, incentives, as well as faculty being more involved in online decision making strategies, new initiatives, or professional development needs. Hodges (2000) analysis agreed with this current studys findings in that faculty support practices were needed to improve quality and equitability of distance education programs. In the current study, this researcher found that faculty support initiatives were ranked as one of the top three priority areas for both the twoand four year institutions in this study and faculty rewards and incentives were more evident and consistent among the four year institutions in the sample. In these institutions, faculty w ere paid for developing content but they were not paid extra for teaching online classes. One two year institution gave faculty both release time and course development monetary incentives. Two of the four year institutions offered monetary incentives, and faculty from these institutions perceived this monetary incentive as a top priority of suppo rt. In one sample school, incentives were paid to full time faculty due only to union contract regulations. No indication was apparent of faculty resistance from those schools that did not

PAGE 154

154 offer faculty incentives. In contrast to this studys findings, A masons (2005a) reported that faculty rewards and incentives were almost nonexistent at the institution, state, and consortium levels. According to Wolcott and Shattucks (2007) stud y a relationship existed between incentives and faculty being motivate d by the incentives. In their research, they noted that intrinsic motivators influenced faculty to participate more in online education. Intrinsic motivators included desires to teach online, to learn new technology, to improve ones skills, to achiev e p ersonal goals to be innovative and to seek new challenges. Extrinsic motivators were defined as teaching online because it was a requirement, receiving positive reinforcement from the university for teaching online, and being given monetary rewards (Wol cott & Shattuck, 2007). In summary, the current studys topranked critical factors for distance education success were similar to both Amason (2007a) and Abels (2005b) studies. The highest ranked overall critical factors for this study were Motivation (Part 1), Commitment/Leadership : Part 2 and Faculty Support (Part 4). Amason (2007a found that executive leadership, support faculty, and academic leadership commitment were the top three criteria for higher education distance education success (Abel, 2005b). Abel (2005a) ranked the highest ingredients of success factors as 1) executive leadership and support, 2) faculty and academic leadership commitment, and 3) student services. Of all three studies, leadership and faculty support were consistently rate d at the top. Conclusion of Findings The discussion of the findings was an attempt to provide insight into the factors that contributed to the higher level of support for the four year institutions in the sample and to identify the gaps in the policies and practices of the two year institution s The findings from the

PAGE 155

155 qualitative analysis in this study inferred that the greater the levels of support found in distance education practices and policies, the higher the institutions ranked themsel ves as having quality distance education programs. This researcher concluded from the study that the twoyear institutions in the sample were less supported than the four year institutions in the sample. Specifically, they had fewer centralized resources, fewer best practices, and less faculty support. Further explanations of these derived conclusions are next discussed. One of the research questions investigated was if discrepancies existed between faculty perception and administrative offerings regarding practices and policies. Patterns in the data analysis identified fewer discrepancies between the leadership and facultys perception of effective practices, policies, and offerings from the four year institutions in the sample. Based on the survey data analysis, the study participants in the four year institutions ranked higher their goal to develop complete academic programs online and not just focus on developing and offering online courses. The literature suggested that th e development of programs took cooperation and strategic planning from both the leadership and faculty to design and provide the resources needed to fully develop online academic programs (Abel, 2005c). In the Levels of Support Analysis Framework under the category of Commitment/L eadership, the two year institutions in the sample were coded with a low rating, but the four year institutions were coded with a high rating Th e need for increased budgets in online learning, better communication between faculty and higher education leaders, and having academic advocates for online learning were suggested ways to increase the support at the twoyear institutions, based on the practices and ratings of the four year institutions. The need for leadership commitment was evident in this study and consistent with Abels (2005a) study. In fact, Abel (2005c) concluded that when institutions designed and developed

PAGE 156

156 full academic programs online versus only putting courses online, those institutions perceived themselves achieving online educat ion success four times as much as those institutions that were focused only on single course development (Abel, 2005e). This commitment required a higher level of strategic planning and faculty buy in as well as the support of leadership to systemize the process throughout the entire institution. All of these factors shifted the focus to new approaches for learning, marketing differently to recruit and attract students, and meeting quality assurance benchmarks both at the student assessment level and program evaluation level (Rovai & Downey, 2010; Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2009a). The findings of this research also suggested that two year institutions had fewer resources and utilized fewer best practices The four year institutions in this study addressed the value of customizing best practices to meet specific institutional goals and the importance of including faculty to determine the best practices to meet those goals. Examples of specific benchmarks included more indepth resources that provided faculty assistance in developing courses, acquiring quality assurance tools and processes for evaluating online courses, and meeting the professional development needs of the faculty Abel (2005a) agreed with this practice and found that those institutions that created their own best practices around their program goals which addressed faculty, student, and staff needs were the most successful. In the current study, an effort was made to determine what resources and effective bes t practices were present in community colleges and baccalaureate schools in the sample. This study showed evidence that the four year institutions put more value on program quality and measurements of success. Abel (2005c) agreed with this research and reported stronger learner outcomes of students occurred when the focus of program quality was in place. The current research found that with more dedicated resources supporting online teaching and learning

PAGE 157

157 institutions could focus more on developing full academic programs. With regard to Hodges (2000) study, the findings of the current study were similar. In this study, all eight institutions reported using these practices. However, the degree to which they were present or practiced required deeper analy sis. Two tables were constructed annotating the feedback from each respondent for each participating institution. This information helped clarify the depth of practice reported by both institutional types ( Appendices C and D). For example, all institutions in the current studys sample reported the support of pedagogical and technical services and also training for faculty teaching online. The four year institutions seemed to offer more resources, such as full time technical support and centralized services with instructional designer help for content development. As an illustration, the use of learning management systems (LMSs) was widely employed by many institutions in the sample for faculty to post onli ne materials, resources, and course content. From the survey results, the offer of effective technical training and instructional design consultation were rated high. All eight institutions in the sample ranked the following item the highest: We provide e ffective one onone instructional design consultation for those faculty who desire it ( Appendix A). Three of the four twoyear institutions and two of the four four year institutions required mandatory training for course development. Findings also suggested that two year institutions had less faculty support than the four year institutions in the study. The creative and valueadded decision making of all major stakeholders in a collaborative environment was reported by the four year institutions as havi ng the greatest success. This studys best practice findings were consistent with faculty support best practices found in Abels (2005c) study. In looking at the relationship between distance education faculty support practices and policies in community colleges and state colleges, this

PAGE 158

158 study found that three of the four year institutions from this sample were unionized and had approved distance education policies. Among the twoyear institutions, all were non union institutions and did not have approved distance education policies. Three of the four twoyear institutions reported they had eLearning and/or guidelines in place ( Appendices C and D). It is necessary to look at whether or not having approved online policies improves effective online practices and faculty support at the community college level. Institutional distance education policies were evident in four year institutions and not two year institutions. Amason (2007a) found that when policies were closer in proximity to the institution and the student, distance education programs were stronger at community colleges and had the greatest policy diffusion. Amason also found that when policies were not in place, faculty factors were the most ignored, such as faculty rewards. In the current study, the respondents were asked the following additional question to understand the perceptions of faculty regarding motivating factors to work in distance education: Why do faculty like to teach online? In the sample, the responses for both institutional gr oups were similar. The most common responses were love for teaching online, playing with technology, interest in future aspects of technology in education, flexibility, and the convenience to work from home. The majority of the responses appeared to be int rinsic motives. Only one respondent gave monetary incentives as a reason to teach online. These findings support past research (Wolcott & Shattuck, 2007). However, discrepancies was found when respondents were asked a different question related to facult y support. Respondents were asked to identify the top priorities of support for faculty. Two of the four year institutions said monetary incentives were perceived by faculty as a

PAGE 159

159 top priority of support. Six of the eight institutions in the sample offered some type of monetary support to faculty for attending training or developing courses. Overall, based on the results of the study, the twoyear institutions may have been more effective if they had greater levels of support in centralized services, acade mic advocates in higher administration positions, a full time helpdesk, course management and technical support, clear policies, instructional designer services, and monetary incentives for faculty designing online work. Implications for Practice It is nec essary to look at the levels of support at the twoyear program level and determine why they are lower or why the four year institutions in the sample were doing a better job in providing leadership commitment, resources, and faculty support The demand and growth of online learning at community colleges has created a need to explore the critical factors to make online learning successful at these two year institutions. According to Allen and Seaman (2010), almost 30% of college students t ook one or more college courses online. Implications for Practice 1: More Leadership Support for Two year Institutions Future researchers should look at how higher education leaders can be more strategic in including distance education programming in their long term p lans and providing key resources to support faculty (Allen & Seaman, 2010; Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2010). Th e involvement and collaboration with faculty on these endeavors are critical factors. Leaders should consider involving faculty on meeting access plus the needs of the 21st century learner, and provide the flexibility that students demand. For example, in this study, the highest ranked index mean score of the survey for both the twoand four year institutions in this stu dy was Motivation: Part 1 a mean of 3.8864 for the twoyear institutions in the sample, and a mean of 4.4318 for the four year institutions in the survey. Participants selected reasons why

PAGE 160

160 their respective institution supported online learning. The mos t common motivation theme for providing online courses and programs from both groups was access and demand for students. This theme may be the common denominator for success, and the most important motive for both groups to improve their distance education programs. The focus on programs and not on courses is one leadership tactic to examine to accomplish this goal (Abel, 2005e; Allen & Seaman, 2010). This organizational change would also strengthen the perceptions of what faculty consider the administ ration is doing in regards to specific offerings because communication and involvement outreach would be more transparent (Rovai & Downey, 2010). Institutions in the sample reported that communication needed improvement. Communication was rated with an average mean on the survey. The item associated with this practice on the survey was: Faculty receive effective and frequent communication from acad emic leaders regarding the importance of innovating in teaching and learning, including use of the internet where appropriate ( Appendix A). The leadership, overall, supported distance education at the institutions. The respondents stated they would like to do more for online education at their institutions, but that budgetary constraints hampered the acquisition of additional resources. Some respondents reported that past leadership hindered the online learning growth at respected campuses, and these ins titutions were behind in where they needed to be in offering quality course offerings to online students. Implications for Practice 2: Providing More Quality Resources for Two year Institutions The q uality of distance education programs has been a recurri ng and rising concern even after accountability and accreditation policies were put in place in the early 2000s and the best practice statement was formalized ( Allen & Seaman, 2010; Commission on Higher Education, 2001; Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2002) Online institutions continued to

PAGE 161

161 be scrutinized over the five best practice areas which included institutional context and commitment, curriculum and instruction, faculty and student support, and evaluation and assessment. The research has continued to see the quality of distance education courses and programs as a major concern. In this study, the institutions rated improving course quality as their primary goal. According to Abels (2005a; 2005c) studies, improving course quality was also ranked as the number one goal of community colleges and universities. Faculty, instructional designers, and course developers need to look at quality matrices that focus on course quality, but more importantly on student centered and learningcentered program quality. Providing support resources for specific programs would generate teamwork and c ollaboration, promote project plans, prioritize resources, create faculty input and leadership, and involve other departments such as admissions (Abel, 2005e). The survey data analysis from the sample institutions suggested that priorities for the future need to be placed on 21st century learning tools, course quality, and electronic devices to store, access, and retrieve learning content. Further research in examining new technologies to support online teaching and learning should be co nsidered Also, c onsideration should be given in using distance education centralized services to help faculty integrate Web 2.0 tools, as compared to industry trends. The focus would not be on what but why these technologies would produce the best results and products For example, the IMS Global Learning Consortium, in its Learning Impact 2010 Report, examined the reasons why initiatives were implemented with the goal of looking at high level impact tools (IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2010, p. 1). Implication s for Practice 3 : Improving Faculty Support Initiatives at Twoyear Institutions The findings of the analysis also suggested that twoyear institutions did not provide as much faculty support as the four year institutions in the sample. The data analyzed did not

PAGE 162

162 indicate that two year institutions were not providing services and meeti ng faculty needs. The data suggested that those services were not at the same level of degree as the four year institutions. For example, two year institutions provided a helpdesk, but not a full time helpdesk. Two year institutions in the sample offere d professional development and technical assistance, but did not provide instructional designers or centralized services where faculty could go and work with technical assistants to develop and upload their courses. Resources appeared to be more prevalent at the four year institutions in regard to providing monetary incentives and rewards for faculty. Two year higher administration leaders could explore some of the distance education organizational planning at four year institutions for allocating funding f or key faculty support resources. According to the 2010 Managing Online Education (MOE) Survey results, almost 75% of the participants from 183 colleges and universities reported that a primary reason faculty were resistant to online teaching was due to th e lack of resources provided for them (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2010). Recommendations for Further Study Due to the results of this study and the analyses of previous studies, further research should be contemplated to explore the following considerations in an attempt to better understand key factors that impact effective faculty support for online learning in community colleges and baccalaureate schools: 1. Consider twoyear institutions modeling what four year institutions are doing to maintain and accelerate their distance education programs. Specific emphasis should be given to researching funding prospects to attain more resources, to explore ways to move distance education guidelines into policies, to provide more indepth centralized services with resources specific to the needs of the faculty, and to ensure faculty are included in decision making regarding effective online programming and course quality. 2. Consider looking closer to see if a relationship exists between faculty support and community colleges that are unionized. Questions to ask should include: Does faculty unionization have an impact on policies being approved and/or adopted? Does unionization play a role in whether or not institutions mandate training for faculty?

PAGE 163

163 3. Consider these questions: Does a relationship exist between effective faculty support for online learning and the size of the institutions? For example, do larger institutions provide more support than smaller institutions? 4. Consider looking dee per at institutions that have centralized services for offering distance education resources, products, and support. Also, conduct more indepth studies to focus on the impact of those centralized services at the department level or at the institution le vel. For example, those services, which are centralized at the department or school level, may create more of an environment in which faculty are more directly involved with decision making, and resources are closer to faculty versus services that are mor e centralized. There may also be negative factors as well related to centralized services. Questions to explore further could be: Does proximity of centralized services play a factor in the effectiveness of services provided for faculty? Do institutions with satellite campuses have greater challenges in meeting faculty support needs for online teaching and/or development? Are faculty support services diffused the farther away the services are located? Is centralizing a good or bad thing at the institutio nal or state levels? What relationships exist between centralized services and marketing policies, competition, and program control? 5. Consider the impact of budget on faculty support services that are centralized and/or decentralized. Questions to ask should include: Does the proximity of services impact quality faculty support? Does receiving more technical and/or instructional support at a university wide centralized service have greater impact due to pooling resources to meet the needs of all faculty? If centralized services are at the school or department level, does this create additional budget constraints? 6. Consider looking more closely at institutions where faculty are involved in major decisionmaking for online learning. Also, conduct research to see if faculty have leader advocates positioned to inform higher administration of faculty needs. Communication between faculty and administration could play a major factor in strengthening faculty support. Are faculty support budgets diffused the farther away the services are located? Which services or practices enhance technical assistance, design and production support, pedagogical support, or incentives and rewards? 7. Consider if state reporting is a factor for drawing more focus on distance education practices. Because of state regulations imposed on Florida state baccalaureate schools, leadership in these sample four year institutions seemed to be more invested in distance education initiatives than community college leaders. 8. Conduct more research on leadership dispositions and the role leadership plays in distance learning that is the most effective in supporting faculty. Two und erlying themes were found in this study. The first theme was that the administration was supporting the faculty in many ways, but that faculty members were unaware due to poor communicationon the administrations part in sharing knowledge about the resources available. The faculty may perceive that the administration is not listening to their needs. But the reality may be that what faculty see is important is actually being implemented in the institution. However, the administration may be doing a poor j ob in communicating that the support

PAGE 164

164 exists or the support may be isolated in specific departments, schools, or other satellite campuses. The second theme in this study was that those college presidents, who believed online learning was an effective delive rable system for providing student access, supported faculty more in online resources. A question to ask should be: Does a correlation exist between the dispositions of presidents who support online learning and the services and support that are actually delivered to and for the faculty? 9. Investigate the role of faculty as coaches and mentors for one another, as well as the role innovative collaboration experiences have on effective online faculty support. Faculty need the same support as students do, and innovative technologies such as Wikis, blogs, and other sophisticated social networking systems can enhance the collaboration and provide more contact opportunities for part time and fulltime faculty (Puzziferro & Shelton, 2010). 10. Remember that academic freedom and right of ownership were not discussed in this study two topics that could be researched in more detail in future studies. 11. Remember that the most common motivation theme for providing online courses and programs from both groups was access and demand for students. This access and demand for students theme was reported by three out of the four community colleges and four out of four baccalaureate schools in the sample. Meeting students needs and expectations may be the common denominator for succe ss and the most important motive for both groups to improve their distance education programs. This motivation theme is worth further exploration.

PAGE 165

165 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT

PAGE 166

166

PAGE 167

167

PAGE 168

168

PAGE 169

169

PAGE 170

170

PAGE 171

171

PAGE 172

172

PAGE 173

173

PAGE 174

174

PAGE 175

175

PAGE 176

176

PAGE 177

177

PAGE 178

178 APPENDIX B FOLLOW UP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. How many years have online courses been offered at your institution? 2. In reviewing the data from the survey, the sample size was small and the sample mean results were not statistically significant, but the trend suggested that 4year institutions rated the questions higher than the 2year institutions. What factors do you think could possibly explain this? 3. In an openended question on the survey, you stated that your most significant accomplishment with r espect to internet supported learning was ___________. Can you expand on this? (Best Practices) 4. In the survey, you stated that your most important motivation for your institution to provide online courses and/or programs was ______________. Can you expand on this? (Part 1: Motivation) 5. The results of the survey indicated commitment and leadership was not statistically significantly different but that the perceptions of leadership were higher at 4 year institutions. Is there a relationship between what the faculty believe are important support attributes and what the administration offers in pedagogy, technical, or incentive support? (Part 2: Commitment/Leadership) 6. Is there an online policy or procedure guide for online learning? (Part 3: Program Level Support) 7. In the data results of t he survey, there tended to not be much difference in levels of faculty support between baccalaureate and community colleges. The levels look approximately the same at 2 and 4 year institutions. Can you share what faculty say is working in terms of supp ort? (Part 4: Faculty Support) 8. What are top support offerings for faculty? (Part 4: Faculty Support) 9. Do faculty need more support in a particular area (s) ? (Part 4: Faculty Support) 10. Why do faculty like to teach online? (Part 4: Faculty Support) 11. The survey data suggested that full time support for faculty and students were rated low across both baccalaureate institutions and community colleges. Do you have a full time support for faculty or for students? If a faculty member has a problem with their cours e or course software, where would they go for help? How available is help? (Part 4: Faculty Support)

PAGE 179

179 12. In the data results of the survey, there was a modest difference in levels of student support between baccalaureate schools and community colleges. Sample profiles for student support were only slightly higher in the sample for 4year institutions. Can you share what students say is working in terms of support? Not working? (Part 5: Student Support) 13. In the survey, you responded that your institutions most important measurement of internet supported learning success is __________. Can you expand on this? (Part 6: Measurement) 14. Both 2year and 4 year colleges ranked improving course quality as the highest ranking with improving student retent ion as second. The 2year group rated their perceptions of understanding quality online lea rning and support higher than 4year institutions. Are you doing anything in conjunction with online learning to improve the quality of courses and improve student retention? (Part 6: Measurement/Part 7 Priorities) 15. Is there any other information that we have not covered that you might want to add?

PAGE 180

180 APPENDIX C TWO YEAR INSTITUTIONS FACULTY SUPPORT FEEDBACK F ROM FOLLOW UP INTERVIEWS CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 CC 4 *Student Headcount >15,000 >10,000 >1,000 >2,500 Faculty Bargaining Unit Yes Yes No No Written DE Guidelines for Faculty No DE Policy for Faculty no formal policy in place No DE Policy for Faculty Yes eLearning Guidelines were approved by President (faculty had input) No DE Policy for Faculty but have written procedures No DE Policy for Faculty Recently negotiated DE Guidelines with faculty/Have eLearning Handbook (involved faculty in decision making) Centralized DE Services Yes Learning Manageme nt System (LMS) Yes eLearning separate facility Service puts courses online for faculty & creates alternative delivery from F2F Yes Learning Management System (LMS) Offers dedicated website for online faculty Leadership Support Leadership is not giving pushback on distance learning initiatives Concerned with faculty still wanting to operate in traditional paradigm Online Learning Center has their own Provost program systems in place Leadership would like to support full time Help Desk but cann ot due to budget constraints Leadership would like to give more but cant faculty understand Leadership supportive of learning management system and internal PD President is pro distance education/makes financial commitments when he can/ listens to faculty supportive culture for online Rewards & Incentives Not mentioned $$ for only developing online courses (content expert stipends) No release time for course development Not mentioned $$ and release time for developing online courses/ Adjuncts paid to attend trainings but not FT faculty Mandatory Trainings Yes New Faculty Only Yes New Faculty Certification Yes Existing Faculty/Recertification Yes Course Development Training for faculty developing courses Not mentioned Yes (new and existing faculty) for technical, pedagogical, and course development process

PAGE 181

181 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 CC 4 Technical Professional Development Support & full time Helpdesk No full time Tech Support mandatory PD for new faculty complete 5 modules to get a course shell No full time Tech Support No weekend support for students or faculty No full time Tech Support No full time Tech Support but have a faculty helpdesk Pedagogical Profe ssional Development Support Developed & Delivered Own PD/High priority for Faculty Developed & Delivered Own PD/High priority for Faculty /Mandatory faculty PD (new faculty certification and recertification requirements for existing faculty Developed & Del ivered Own PD/High priority for Faculty Developed & Delivered Own PD/High priority for Faculty / Mandated faculty PD/Adjuncts Paid but not FT faculty Design and Course Quality Production Support No Instructional Designers Mandated Course Approval Process (five modules) Yes Instructional Designers Formal Course Review Process for Course Quality Control Created master courses as exemplars for faculty to use when developing their own courses Training required for faculty developing courses No Instructional Designers Course Review Process (faculty involvement and buy in) Formal Course Proposal Approval System require F2F teaching of course & Proposal Plan for teaching online prior to getting a DE course (faculty involvement and buy in) No Instructional Designers Mandated Course Approval Process formal review with a subject matter expert and two course reviewers for quality control/revised Quality Matters rubric used Online Resources Not mentioned need course quality resources Not mentioned Fewer Technology Tools use low cost solutions for online deliverables; revised Quality Matters rubric to meet own needs Economic Drivers Budget Constraints Budget Constraints Staffing constraints and need of course quality resources Extreme Financial Constraints Extreme Financial Constraints Fall 20092010 Headcounts for Participating Institutions (Source: FLDOE, 2010a)

PAGE 182

182 APPENDIX D FLORIDA BACCALAUREAT E FACULTY SUPPORT ANALYSIS FEEDBACK FROM FOLLOW UP INTERVIEWS B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 *Student Headcount >25,000 >55,000 >7,000 >15,000 Faculty Bargaining Unit Yes Yes Yes No Written DE Guidelines for Faculty Yes/DE Policy Yes DE Policy in faculty contract addendum Yes/DE Policy No DE Policy for Faculty/ Guidelines left up to departments Centralized DE Services Yes Team Approach with faculty and design instructor technologists Yes 4 Instructional Designers and Manager/ISDs coach and mentor DE faculty Yes Set online schedule, hire online adjuncts, and run online programming/course delivery team does course copy, course prep, and responds to faculty questions Automated proctor testing scheduling system for students to schedule their proctor exams Yes Faculty Online Center Leadership Support More presence when Baccalaureate programs started/State Reporting Focus Sr. VP involved faculty in approving an internal course review process President is pushing the one college concept to be more cohesive his message is sharing, consistency, and improvement Relatively strong relationship with faculty and administration Difficult time this year due to starting contract negotiations Faculty would like to see more support but understand budgetary constraints New President is Supportive Past President was not Faculty would like to see more support but understand budgetary restrictions Online administrator sits on the academic leadership council More presence when Baccalaureate programs started/State Reporting Focus/Past President Not as Supportive but Bought in due to space issues Faculty Online Center supported by Presidents budget Dean responsible for DE has leadership impact on positive changes Enrollments driving Leadership to be more supportive of DE; recent negotiations helped; past

PAGE 183

183 B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 president could have been more supportive ; Interim President is supportive Rewards & Incentives $$ for overhauling courses $$ paid to full time faculty only (in union contract) Only pays faculty to develop courses if faculty are asked to develop or give release time Mandatory Trainings Yes New Faculty Team approach to putting courses online & Learning Management System (LMS) Yes for faculty course developers Yes for new faculty 12 hours initial LMS training/8 additional hours for certification Yes new Faculty to learn Learning Management System (LMS) Technical Professional Development Support & full time Helpdesk Yes full time Tech Help Learning Management System required for new faculty Yes full time Tech Help Institution wide ticketing system for both students and faculty Yes full time Tech Help Centralized service provides learning management system (LMS) specialists for faculty and one manager No full time Tech Help Learning Management System required for new faculty Online Resources Certified Quality Matters Rubric Process for Course Reviews Need to do a better job of supporting web enhanced courses no instructional help for these courses Increased bandwidth helped internet connectivity Faculty Online Center has state of the art e quipment, managers, and student workers to support online faculty Pedagogical Professional Development Support Developed & Delivered Own PD/High priority for Faculty Developed & Delivered Own PD/High priority for Faculty Developed & Delivered Own PD/Hi gh priority for Faculty Administration says this is a high need for faculty eLearning staff meets one on one with faculty Developed & Delivered Own PD/High priority for Faculty Peer Reviews are priority for Faculty moving to faculty mentoring Design and Course Quality Production & Review Support Yes Instructional Designers Course Review/Refresh Yes Instructional Designers Need more quality in courses Yes Instructional Designers Centralized service supports course No Instructional Designers Faculty Online Center provides

PAGE 184

184 B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 Process (faculty involvement and buy in) Sr. VP involved faculty in approving the internal course review process Team approach with design instructor technologist Formalized process using the certified version of Quality Matters FT faculty developing get priority selection of courses to teach/30 hour job embedded modules Team of 4 instructional designers and one manager support online faculty development with instructional and course designers assistant to faculty developing courses. Faculty put their own courses online. Online Faculty Center provides training for faculty to put courses in the online platform Economic Drivers Budgetary Constraints Budgetary Constraints Budgetary Constraints Budgetary Constraints Fall 20092010 Headcounts for Participating Institutions (Source: FLDOE, 2010a )

PAGE 185

185 APPENDIX E INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB ) APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL AND CONS ENT LETTER

PAGE 186

186

PAGE 187

187

PAGE 188

188 LIST OF REFERENCES Abel, R. (2005a). Achieving success in internet supported learning in higher education: Case studies illuminate success factors, challenges, and future directions. Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC) Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www.a hec.org/ Abel, R. (2005b). Conducting a self audit of your institution's online learning activities: Lessons from the recently completed study: Achieving success in Internet supported learning in higher education. Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC). March 2 005. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.a hec.org/e learning_study/html Abel, R. (2005c). Internet supported learning self study (IsL) Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC). Retrieved May 23, 2010, from http://www.a hec.org/research/ study_reports/IsL0205/measures.html Abel, R. (2005d). Internet supported learning self study ( IsL ) Self audit framework Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness (A HEC). Retrieved June 11, 2010, from http://www.a hec.org/research/study_reports/IsL1105/self audit_framework.html Abel, R. (2005e). Implementing best practices in online learning: A recent study reveals common denominators for success in Internet supported learning. Educause Quarterly, 28(3). Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.educause.edu/ Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006a). Making the grade. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://www.sloan c.org/publications/survey/survey06.asp Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006b). Growing by degrees. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved Apri l 14, 2009, from http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/making_the_grade.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in US, 2008. Sloan Consortium 128. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/ publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Sloan Consortium, 123. Retrieved May 21, 2010, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved February 22, 2011, from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences and http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/class_differences.pdf

PAGE 189

189 Amason, R. F. (2007a). Normative analysis of Internet mediated distance education policies in selected large community colleges and their related state systems. Unpublished dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Amason, R. F. (2007b). Normative analysis of internet mediated distance education policies in selected large community colleges and their res pective state systems Paper presented at the Dissertation Defense on October 30, 2009. University of Florida, Gainesville. Black, L. M. (2007). A history of scholarship. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), The handbook of distance education ( 2nd ed. ) (pp. 314). Mahwa h, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010). Classification description: Undergraduate instructional program classification. Stanford, CA. Retrieved April 13, 2011, from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/ugrad_program.php Clark, T. (2007). Virtual and distance education in North American schools. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), The handbook of distance education ( 2nd ed. ) (pp. 473490). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Commission on Higher Education. (2001). Best practices for electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF 8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS354US355&q=best+practices+for+electronically+offered+degre e+and+certificate+programs Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2009). Important questions about ac creditation, degree mills and accreditation mills. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://w ww.chea.org/degreemills/default.htm Daniel, J., Mackintosh, W., & Diehl, W. C. (2007). The mega university response to the moral challenge of our age. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (2nd ed.) (pp. 609620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlba um Associates, Inc. Ellis, A., & Phelps, R. (1999). Staff development for online delivery: A collaborative team based action learning [Electronic version]. Australian Journal of Educational Technology Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences /brisbane99/papers/ellisphelps.pdf Evans, T., & Nation, D. (2007). Globalization and emerging technologies. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.) (pp. 649660). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Feasley, C., & Bunker, E. L. (2007). A history of national and regional organizations and the ICDE. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance e ducation (2nd ed.) (pp. 1530). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

PAGE 190

190 Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) (2009). Long range program plan FY 200910FY 201314. R etrieved December 10, 2010, from http://www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/fb2010.pdf Florida Department of Education (FLDOE). (2010a). The fact book: Report for the Florida college system. FLDOE Division of Accountability, Research, and Measurement. Tallahassee, FL. Florida Department of Education (FLDOE). (2010b). Florida C ollege Sy stem approved bachelor's degree programs. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from http://www.fldoe.org/cc/students/bach_degree.asp Gerson, S.M. (2000). E CLASS: Creating a guide to online course development for distance learning faculty [Electronic version]. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(4), 1 11. State University of West Georgia, Distance & Distributed Education Center. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://www.elml.ch/website/en/download/publications/eclass_gerson.pdf Graff, R. (2008). Faculty percep tions of readiness to teach online Unpublished dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Gualtieri, L. N. (2008). Predictions for 2009. eLearn Magazine Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article =72 1 Hanna, D. E. (2007). Organizational change in higher distance education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance e ducation ( 2nd ed.) (pp. 501514) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hentschke, G.C., Lechuga, V.M., & Tierney, W.G. (2010). For profit colleges and universities: Their markets, regulation, performance, and place in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110 315, 3078). Retrieved January 12, 2009, at http: //frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ315.110.pdf Hodge, E. M. (2000). A study of the development of community college distance education policies. Unpublished dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. IMS Global Learning Consortium. ( 2010). The learning impact 2010 report: High value projects that leading institutions, schools, and governments are implementing to improve access and affordabi lity to high quality educational experiences. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. February, 2010. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.imsglobal.org/articles/feb2010LearningImpact.cfm

PAGE 191

191 Instructional Technology Council (ITC). (2006). Third annual surv ey on distance education. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.itcnetwork.org/mod/resource/view.php?inpopup=true&id=77 Instructional Technology Council (ITC). (2007). Trends in e learning: Tracking the impact of e learning in higher education: 2006 distance education survey results. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://4.79.18.250/file.php?file=/1/ITCAnnualSurveyMarch2008.pdf Instructional Technology Council (ITC). (2008). Distance education survey results: Tracking the impact of elearning at community colleges Retrieved June 5, 2010, from http;//www.itcnetwork.org/file.php?file=%2F1%2FITCAnnualSurveyMarch2009Final. pdf Instructional Technology Council (ITC). (2010). The CDW G 2010 annual surveys: CIOs and faculty differ on education technology. eLiterate, December 6, 2010. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://www.itcnetwork.org/resources/articles abstracts and research/244 the cdw g2010annual surveys cios and faculty differon educationtechnology.html?catid=48%3Alibrary articles abstracts research Karlen, J. M. (2007). Accreditation and assessment in distance learning [Electronic version]. Academic Leadership Online Journal, 1(4). Retrieved August 6, 2008, from http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/ACCREDITATION_AND_ASSE S SMENT_IN_DISTANCE_LEARNING.html Keegan, D. (1980). On defining distance education. Distance Education, 1 (1), 1336. King, J. W., Nugent, G. C., Russell, E. B., Eich, J., & Lacy, D. D. (2000). Policy frameworks for distance education: Implications for dec ision makers [Electronic version]. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2). Retrieved May 27, 2009, from http://www.westga.edu/>distance/king32.html Koehler, M. J., Punyashloke, M., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help fr om your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design [Electronic version]. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://www.questia.com Lezberg, A. K. (2007). Accreditation: Quality contr ol in higher distance education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance e ducation (2nd ed.) (pp. 403418). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Maguire, L. L. (2005). Literature Review: Faculty participation in online distance education: Barr iers and motivators [Electronic version]. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 8(1). Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/maguire81.htm

PAGE 192

192 Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). (2002). Distance learning programs: Interregional guidelines for electronically offered degree and certificate programs [Electronic version]. MSCHE Publication. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from http://www. msche.org/publications/distguide02050208135713.pdf Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mullins, C. (2007). Community colleges. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance e ducation (2n d ed.) (pp. 491500). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002). A profile of participation in distance education: 19992000. Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPP AGA). (2005). Authorizing community colleges to award baccalaureate degrees is one of several options to expand access to higher education, No. 0520. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0726rpt.pdf Pappas Consulting Group Inc. (2007). Proposing a blueprint for higher education in Florida: Outlining the way to a longterm master plan for higher education in Florida: Summary Report Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.flbog.org/about/_doc/fbd/StructureReport.pdf Puzziferro, M., & Shelton, K. (2010). Seven updated principles for supporting online faculty. Distance Education Report, 14(4), 3 6. Rahman, M. (2001). Faculty recruitment strategies for online programs [Electronic version]. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(4). Retrieved February 8, 2009, from http://www.westga.edu/~distan ce/ojdla/winter44/rahman44.html Schlosse r, L. A., & Simonson, M. (2006). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Simonson, M. (2007). Institutional policy issues for distance education In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of dis tance education (2nd ed.) (pp. 355362). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. United States Government Accountability Office GAO). (2010). For profit colleges: Undercover testing finds colleges encouraged fraud and engaged in deceptive and quest ionable marketing practices. GAO 10948T, August 4, 2010 Report. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO 10 948T Wedemeyer, C. A., & Najem, R. E. (1969). AIM From concept to reality: The articulated instructional media program at Wisconsin. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Publicatio ns in Continuing Education.

PAGE 193

193 Weiner, W. F., McVeigh, P., Clever, K., Brasington, D., & King, M. J. (1997). Reinventing the community college for the 21st century [Electronic version]. Inquiry, 1(1), 2030. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from http://www.vccaedu.org/ Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education: Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WICHE WCET). (2009a). Online education programs marked by rising enrollments, unsure profits, organizational transitions, higher fees, and tech training for faculty. Managing Online Education: The Campus Computing Project. October, 2009. Retrieved February 5, 2011, at http://w cet.wiche.edu/wcet/docs/moe/ManagingOnlineEd2009ExecSummary.pdf Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education: Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WICHE WCET), UT TeleCampus, & Instructional Technology Council. (2009b). Best practice strateg ies to promote academic integrity in online education, version 2.0. Retrieved January 5, 2011, at http://wcet.wiche.edu/wcet/docs/cigs/studentauthentication/BestPractices.pdf Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education: Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WICHE WCET). (2010). Faculty training is a major investment for online education programs: ADA compliance remains a major vulnerability. Managing Online Education: The Campus Computing Project. November 2010. Retrieved February 5, 2011, at http://wcet.wiche.edu/wcet/docs/moe/ManagingOnlineEd2010ExecSummaryGraphics.pdf Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). (2001). Best practices for electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.ncahlc.org/download/Best_Pract_DEd.pdf Wolcott, L. L., & Shat tuck, K. (2007). Faculty participation: Motivations, incentives, and rewards In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.) (pp. 377390). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

PAGE 194

194 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Becky L. Shermis w as born in 1958 in San Bernardino, California. The oldest of five children, she lived in California, Utah, Oklahoma, and settled in Texas where she graduated from North Garland High School near Dallas. She attended Texas Christian University for 3.5 years and graduated from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education, Music Education K 12, and Piano Pedagogy, and then pursued a teaching career for 10 years in Austin, Texas, working mainly wi th gifted K 5 students. She continued her academic studies at the University of Texas at Austin, earning a Master of Science degree in Special Education and Gifted Education, later achieving an endorsement in Gifted Education. She then moved to Indianapoli s, taught gifted education for one year, pursued a principals license, and became an assistant principal and principal while in Indiana. Her husbands career moved her to Florida where she became an executive director for a large school district in south Florida. She then accepted a position as dean of the graduate school of education for Kaplan University. After four years, she became a director of product design and development for the education domain with Laureate, Education, Inc. She and her family, husband Mark and son Ryan, moved to Gainesville, Florida, where she began her doctorate studies. She completed her Doctor of Education degree in Higher Education Administration in May 2011.