work activities of professionals who occupy the role of faculty
TRANSCRIPT
WORK ACTIVITIES OF PROFESSIONALS WHO OCCUPY THE ROLE
OF FACULTY SUPPORT STAFF IN ONLINE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
BY
CAROLYN J. SICCAMA B.S. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT (1992)
M.Ed. FRAMINGHAM STATE COLLEGE (1998)
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
IN LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOLING UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL
Signature of Author: __________________________________________Date:_________________ Signature of Dissertation/Director: _________________________________________ Signatures of Other Dissertation Committee Members: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________
WORK ACTIVITIES OF PROFESSIONALS WHO OCCUPY THE ROLE OF FACULTY SUPPORT STAFF IN ONLINE EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
BY
CAROLYN J. SICCAMA
ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOLING
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL 2006
Dissertation Supervisor: Judith Davidson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Education
ii
Abstract
To keep up with the growth of online education programs in higher education,
appropriate support staff are necessary to provide support to faculty who develop and
teach online courses. However, online education is not always embraced by faculty.
Some common concerns that may inhibit faculty from teaching online include a lack of
technical, administrative and institutional support. Responding to such concerns,
institutions are creating staff positions to support distance education programs. Such
positions are considered new and emerging in higher education.
This instrumental and collective case study used qualitative research methods to
answer the question: What are the work activities of the professionals who occupy the
role of faculty support staff in online education programs? This is a different
methodological approach from existing studies in this area, which have primarily
explored work activities through surveys, questionnaires, the Delphi technique, and
analysis of job announcements.
As a result of a purposeful sampling procedure, 4 participants from four different
institutions participated in this study. Each participant works full time, with a minimum
of twelve months experience conducting faculty support, and holds a staff position, not
faculty position at their respective institutions. All 4 participants were female. Data was
collected from each participant, within a four month period, in the form of one
demographic questionnaire, two interviews, two site observations, twelve photographs
and two Week in Review Activity Logs. Important to the structure and integration of the
data collection, management and analysis was the use of QSR NVIVO®, qualitative data
analysis software.
iii
The analysis of the data revealed that the work activities of the participants
include the management of the online course development and online course evaluation
processes, initiation and facilitation of discussions with faculty about teaching online,
building professional relationships with faculty and promotion and creation of
networking opportunities among faculty who teach online.
The findings of this study suggest the work activities of the faculty support staff
in online education programs have implications for practice, policy and research in areas
of confidentiality, emerging technologies, ethical and moral decision making, course
access and permissions, and professional development.
iv
Acknowledgements
My heartfelt thanks and appreciation go out to all of the individuals who were part
of my life during my journey through this dissertation process. Having the constant
support and encouragement from each of you has allowed me to enjoy the dissertation
process, and has made it so that it was not a solitary and isolating process, as it easily
could have been.
My sincere thanks go to my dissertation committee members. Thanks to Professor
Judith Davidson, my advisor and committee chair, for her time and tireless energy in
reading drafts and providing necessary guidance and feedback. To Professor Michaela
Colombo for quietly providing expert advice and suggestions. To Dean Jacqueline
Moloney for her ongoing support throughout this process, and especially for her
assistance early in my study in helping me to narrow my topic.
Words cannot express the deep appreciation I have for my family who supported
me during this process. To my best friend and husband, Chris Trapeni, for providing me
with focus and balance and helping me keep things in perspective. Thank you, Chris, for
always reminding me that there is always time for us get outside to bike, ski and hike. To
my beautiful daughter, Carly, who reminded me there is always time to laugh and play.
To my parents, Tom and Judy Siccama, for your never ending support and
encouragement regardless of the paths I choose in life. Mom, thank you so much for your
frequent visits from Connecticut to babysit Carly so that I could conduct my interviews
and write. Thanks to my mother-in-law, Marilyn Trapeni, for frequently asking about and
expressing interest in my research. That meant a lot to me.
v
I would also like to thank the University of Massachusetts Lowell Graduate
School of Education for providing me with this amazing opportunity, especially the
Super Wednesday seminar series, I will never forget. I need to give special thanks to
Professor Judith Davidson for creating the concept of Super Wednesday, and to the
colleagues and friends I have made as a result. Super Wednesday colleagues, you gave
me the confidence to not only set, but meet, the lofty goals I set each semester, and to this
I am grateful. To my good friend and colleague, Charmaine Hickey, for your sense of
humor and always making me laugh. Charmaine, since you were always one step ahead
of me in the process, thank you for your willingness to share your lessons learned and
helpful hints along the way.
Special thanks go to my colleagues in the online program and Continuing Studies
at the University of Massachusetts Lowell for their patience with me. In particular, I
would like to thank Alena Woods for her graphic design expertise. Special thanks go to
my friend and colleague, Professor Steven Tello, for your support and always sharing
your insights and experience with me about the dissertation process.
Professor Patricia Luoto, of Framingham State College, deserves thanks for
introducing me to the world of online education by allowing me to assist her, as a
graduate student, in the development of my first online course. Without this early
experience in online education I would not be here today.
Finally, special thanks go to all four of my study participants for sharing their
time and experiences with me. Without their commitment to and personal interest in my
research, this study would not be possible.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS............................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .......................................................... 1
Research Question .............................................................................................................. 4
Background of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Background of the Study ................................................................................. 6 Work Activity and Role ...............................................................................................................................6 Faculty Support ..........................................................................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 9
Overview of Methodology................................................................................................ 10
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 11
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................... 18
Activities and Roles .......................................................................................................... 19 Relationship between Work Activity and Role ..........................................................................................19 Roles of faculty support staff in online education programs ....................................................................23 Emerging roles across professions...........................................................................................................26
Faculty support in online education.................................................................................. 29 Models of faculty support in online education programs .........................................................................29 Types of faculty support............................................................................................................................32
Overt ....................................................................................................................................................33 Covert ..................................................................................................................................................34
Discussion......................................................................................................................... 35
What do faculty support staff do at work?........................................................................ 36 What we want ...........................................................................................................................................36 What we think we have .............................................................................................................................37 What we have done...................................................................................................................................38
vii
What do faculty support staff do?.............................................................................................................39
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 41
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 43
Research Design................................................................................................................ 43 Instrumental and Collective Case Study...................................................................................................43 Rationale ..................................................................................................................................................44
Research Question ............................................................................................................ 47
Participants........................................................................................................................ 47 Selection Criteria......................................................................................................................................47
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 48 Informed consent and protection of human subjects ................................................................................49 Gaining Access .........................................................................................................................................49 Privacy and Confidentiality......................................................................................................................53
Data Collection Methods .................................................................................................. 53 Overview of Data Collection ....................................................................................................................54 Demographic Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................55 Observations.............................................................................................................................................56 Interviews .................................................................................................................................................57 Visual Data...............................................................................................................................................60 Week in Review Activity Log ....................................................................................................................64
Data Management and Analysis with NVivo® ................................................................. 66 Organizing and Managing Data...............................................................................................................67 Memos ......................................................................................................................................................69
Artifact memos. ...................................................................................................................................70 Observation memos. ............................................................................................................................71 NVIVO methodology unfolding memos..............................................................................................71 Transcription memos. ..........................................................................................................................72 Chapter update memos.........................................................................................................................72 Theme memos......................................................................................................................................73
Coding at Nodes .......................................................................................................................................74
Subjectivity ....................................................................................................................... 78
Validity ............................................................................................................................. 79 Enhancing validity by using NVIVO.........................................................................................................82
Maintenance of Audit and Log Trails. .................................................................................................82 Interrogate Interpretations....................................................................................................................82
viii
Scope Data. ..........................................................................................................................................83 Establish saturation. .............................................................................................................................84
Representation and Presentation ....................................................................................... 85
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 86
Chapter IV: FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 88
Background of Participants’ and their Online Programs .................................................. 89 Background of the Participants’ Online Programs..................................................................................89 Types of Support available at each Institution .........................................................................................93 Background Information of Participants’.................................................................................................94 Details of Participants Work Activities ....................................................................................................96
Critical Themes............................................................................................................... 100 Managing the Process of Online Course Development..........................................................................100
Timelines and Checklists. ..................................................................................................................104 Meetings. ...........................................................................................................................................106 Challenges..........................................................................................................................................107 Work Activities behind the Scenes. ...................................................................................................108
Managing Course Evaluation Processes................................................................................................109 Online Course Evaluations. ...............................................................................................................110 Training Course Evaluations..............................................................................................................112
Initiating and Facilitating Discussions about Teaching Online.............................................................113 Initiating the discussions: How do you teach in the classroom?........................................................115 Facilitating the discussions: How will it work online? ......................................................................117
Building Professional Relationships with Faculty..................................................................................119 Making Faculty Feel Comfortable. ....................................................................................................122 Listening. ...........................................................................................................................................123 Meeting Faculty Needs. .....................................................................................................................124 Patience..............................................................................................................................................124 Follow Through. ................................................................................................................................125
Connecting Faculty to other Faculty ......................................................................................................127 Asynchronously. ................................................................................................................................127 Synchronously. ..................................................................................................................................128
Discussion....................................................................................................................... 129
Faculty Support Staff provide Customized Support to Faculty ...................................... 130
Faculty Support Staff Focus on Promoting Quality in Online Education ...................... 133 Learning Effectiveness............................................................................................................................134 Access .....................................................................................................................................................135 Faculty Satisfaction ................................................................................................................................136
The Nature of Faculty Support Staff Work is Cyclical................................................... 137
ix
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 140
CHAPTER V: IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................... 142
Managing the Process of Online Course Development .................................................. 143 Implications for Practice and Policy ......................................................................................................143
Timelines and checklists ....................................................................................................................143 Meetings ............................................................................................................................................144 Copyright clearance ...........................................................................................................................145 Are the Findings Considered Best Practices? ....................................................................................146
Managing Online Course Evaluation Processes ............................................................. 147 Implications for Practice and Policy ......................................................................................................147
Handling confidential information.....................................................................................................147
Initiating and Facilitating Discussions about Teaching Online ...................................... 149 Implications for Practice and Policy ......................................................................................................149
How does experience inform practice?..............................................................................................149 Knowledge of emerging technologies................................................................................................150
Building Professional Relationships with Faculty.......................................................... 151 Implications for Practice and Policy ......................................................................................................152
Understanding Faculty Needs ............................................................................................................152 Ethical and Moral Decision Making ..................................................................................................152
Connecting Faculty to Other Faculty.............................................................................. 153 Implications for Practice and Policy ......................................................................................................153
Gaining Permission and Access to Courses.......................................................................................153
Evolution of Work Activities.......................................................................................... 154
Implications for Research ............................................................................................... 155
Research Implications identified while Gaining Access ................................................ 155 Faculty Conducting Faculty Support......................................................................................................155 Gender and Faculty Support ..................................................................................................................156
Research implications identified from Findings ............................................................. 156 How do Work Activities Change Over Time?.........................................................................................156 Expanding the Definition of Faculty Support .........................................................................................157 Professional Development......................................................................................................................157 Is it Time to Create a Professional Body?..............................................................................................159
Significance of Implications ........................................................................................... 160 Administrators ........................................................................................................................................160 Faculty....................................................................................................................................................160
x
Faculty support staff...............................................................................................................................161 Online Students.......................................................................................................................................162
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 163
References....................................................................................................................... 164
Appendix A..................................................................................................................... 179
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 180
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 182
Appendix D..................................................................................................................... 183
Appendix E ..................................................................................................................... 185
Appendix F...................................................................................................................... 186
Appendix G..................................................................................................................... 191
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AUTHOR .................................................................. 192
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. NVIVO integration into research study............................................................. 54
Table 3. Overview of Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................ 55
Table 4. Study Component Management Chart................................................................ 68
Figure 2. Unfolding of a theme......................................................................................... 73
Table 1. Background information related to online programs.......................................... 90
Table 2. Institutional approach to course development and training ................................ 91
Table 5. Emails, Phone Calls, Meetings and Working Hours .......................................... 97
Figure 3. Showing documents coded at a Node.............................................................. 101
Figure 4. Passages coded at Managing the Process of Online Course Development ..... 102
Figure 5. Passages coded at Managing Course Evaluation Process ............................... 110
Figure 6. Passages Coded at Initiating Discussions about Teaching Online .................. 113
Figure 7. Passages coded at Building Relationships with Faculty.................................. 120
Figure 8. Number of passages coded at Building Relationships with Faculty node....... 122
Figure 9. Passages Coded at Connecting Faculty to Other Faculty................................ 127
Figure 10. Space within which Faculty Support Staff conduct their Work Activities ... 138
xii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Photo 1. Lynn’s Office...................................................................................................... 96
Photo 2. Lisa’s Desk ......................................................................................................... 98
Photo 3. Lisa’s Hallway.................................................................................................... 99
Photo 4. Lisa’s Grant Document..................................................................................... 104
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
In the traditional model of classroom based instruction in higher education, the
responsibility for the design, development and delivery of courses has remained solely
with one person, the faculty member (Boettcher & Conrad, 1999). Once faculty enter the
realm of online instruction, they quickly realize that they can no longer design and
develop their courses alone. Courses that are delivered in online environments require
different types of design and development support than do traditional face-to-face courses
and it is highly recommended that faculty obtain expert help in the online course
development process (Boettcher & Conrad, 1999). It takes a host of professionals with
both teaching and technical knowledge who can help orchestrate learning in ways that are
quite different from the traditional notions of education (Hanly, 1998).
Institutions of higher education that have embraced online education have had to
make significant efforts to create faculty development programs and associated support
structures focusing specifically on online course design, development and delivery. Such
programs need to be designed to support faculty given the options and constraints of a
new learning environment (Shea, William, Fredericksen, & Pickett, 2002).
2
The focus of this research was to describe the work activities performed by
professionals who occupy roles of faculty support staff in online education programs. The
research question guiding this study was: What are the work activities of the
professionals who occupy the roles of faculty support staff in online education programs?
Faculty support programs serve as a critical foundation for successful online
programs as online education continues to grow and increase in demand by students.
Between 1998-2001, there was a 100% increase in the number of online courses offered
by two and four year degree granting institutions (Lewis, Snow, Farris, & Levin, 1999;
Waits & Lewis, 2003). In 2003, Allen & Seaman predicted a 24.8% growth in online
enrollments from Fall 2003 to Fall 2004, for an expected total of over 2.6 million
students learning online. More recently, the Sloan Consortium predicts there will be a
tenfold increase in online learning in the next ten years (Mayadas, Bourne, & Moore,
2005).
To keep up with such growth, appropriate support staff are necessary to provide
adequate resources, training and support for faculty who develop and teach online
courses. Higher education institutions are now challenged to define the work activities
and create the roles for such individuals. However, this cannot be accomplished until we
can articulate the types of activities faculty support staff perform in their day-to-day
work. For purposes of this study, work activities are defined as the activities, duties or
behaviors that are performed by the professionals who occupy the role of faculty support
staff in an online education program (Foster, 2003). Not until we know about the work
activities, or work content, of the professionals who occupy roles of faculty support staff
can we begin to speculate about roles (Mintzberg, 1973). Role is defined as “an organized
3
set of behaviors belonging to an identifiable office or position” (Sarbin & Allen as cited
in Mintzberg, 1973, p. 54). Inclusive in the definitions of role are four key components
which include behavior, person, context and characteristics (Biddle, 1979).
The roles of faculty support staff in online programs are considered to be new and
emerging in higher education (Davidson, 2003; Gornall, 1999). Gornall (1999) describes
an emergent group of new professionals in higher education clustered around changing
forms of support for teaching and learning. These professional staff are defined by
Gornall as neither lecturers, nor technical staff, nor support staff. In a K-12 setting,
Davidson (2003) describes the Educational Technologist as a new role that is “distinct
from classroom teachers, computer lab teachers, computer technicians, curriculum
specialists. The educational technologist in K-12 settings combines parts of all of these
roles, if not several more as well” (p. 730). In a small study of one instructional designer,
Pan, Deets, Phillips & Cornell (2003) describe the instructional designers role as “neither
clearly leading nor supporting” (p 289), is often a “leader and subordinate at the same
time (p. 289) and is “unique and evolving” (p. 290). As with any new role, the challenge
resides in creating a definition because they are so complex and varied.
This study did not look at individuals who hold particular job descriptions or have
specific titles. Titles may not accurately represent the work activities that are conducted
by faculty support staff. Similar to the methodology of Davidson (2003), Hernon, Powell
& Young (2004) and Mintzberg (1973), this study explored the work activities of
professionals who have direct contact with faculty members who are in any stage of
planning, developing, and/or teaching asynchronous courses online via the internet.
4
Defining the work activities present in online education in higher education varies
depending on the institutional environment, particularly related to the distance education
model being implemented (Clay, 1999; Smith, 2004; Williams, 2003). For purposes of
this study, participants were selected from institutions which offer asynchronous online
courses, for credit, that can be applied toward a degree or certificate, as opposed to
offering courses that do not lead to a degree, certificate or other credential. Allen and
Seamans (2003) definition of online course will be used. Online courses are when most,
80% or more, or all of the course content is delivered online and typically has no face-to-
face meetings.
Research Question
This study was designed to describe the work activities performed by
professionals in their role as faculty support staff in online education programs. The
research question shaping this study was: What are the work activities of the
professionals who occupy the role of faculty support staff in online education programs?
Background of the Study
Faculty members play key roles in all aspects of successful implementation of
online education programs in higher education (Betts, 1998; Rockwell, Schauer, Fritz, &
Marx, 2000). Given the faculty role in online education and the projected rates of growth
in online enrollments, there is increased need for institutions to understand and monitor
faculty concerns and perceptions toward online education (Rockwell et al., 2000).
Knowledge about faculty perceptions toward online education allows institutions and
online program administrators to work with faculty to create appropriate support
structures to help address faculty concerns.
5
Some common concerns that may inhibit faculty from teaching online include a
lack of technical, administrative and institutional support (Clay, 1999; Moore &
Thompson, 1997). According to a recent survey conducted by the National Education
Association, the level of technical support provided by the institution is the most
important determinant of overall feelings toward distance learning ([NEA]National
Education Association, 2000). Faculty report that it is very important to obtain support
for developing online interaction, developing instructional materials and applying web-
based delivery strategies (Rockwell et al., 2000). In a survey of more than 500 faculty
who do not currently participate in online teaching report that they have not become
involved in online teaching due to their concern about lack of technical and
administrative support and their personal lack of skills needed to participate in online
teaching (Betts, 1998).
Institutional support and personal experience of faculty are the strongest
predictors of faculty attitudes toward distance education (Moore & Thompson, 1997).
Interested and enthused faculty remain committed to online teaching if their personal
satisfaction outweighs the time management and technological demands in course design,
development, implementation and maintenance (Lee & Dziuban, 2002). As Clay (1999)
reports, “well-planned, proactive distance training and support programs result in
distance education instructors feeling confident and hopeful of the new possibilities for
teaching and learning” (p. 1).
In planning for faculty support programs, the existing “faculty training and
support needs both need to be analyzed and perhaps changed in order to successfully
implement online programs” (Levy, 2003, p. 2). It is often recommended that faculty
6
“consult with instructional designers, web masters, graphic artists, and computer
specialists to establish realistic course development expectations and to develop key
support personnel contacts” (Lee & Dziuban, 2002, p. 76). Such personnel (staff) have
been referred to as the key ingredient and the fulcrum in online programs, however, little
is known about the specific work activities and the role of these individuals within the
context of online education programs (Crang, 2000; Fredericksen, Pickett, Shea, Pelz, &
Swan, 1999).
As a result of responding to faculty concerns toward online education, especially
the concerns around lack of support, institutions are finding themselves in the situation to
create new positions to support distance education programs (Williams, 2003). The
challenge then resides in defining or describing the content of these new roles because
they are so complex and varied.
Theoretical Background of the Study
The concept of work activity and role are used to help situate this study within the
literature. The literature on faculty support and online education also serve to provide
theoretical foundation to the study. An introduction to each area of literature is provided
here and a more extensive discussion of the literature is provided in Chapter Two.
Work Activity and Role
In the literature, the concepts of work activities and roles are closely woven and
often the terms are often used interchangeably. In the context of this study, the role being
studied is that of the faculty support staff. Since this role is considered to be new and
emerging in higher education, the aim of this study was to describe the work activities
that correspond to this role. There are two ways to look at work activity which include
7
the content and the characteristics (Mintzberg, 1973). Work content explores what the
professionals do, including what activities they carry out and why. Characteristics of their
work include gathering details such as where they work, with whom, how long they work
and what media they use, such as email or telephone. It is the categorization of work
content and purpose that can lead to statements of roles (Mintzberg, 1973). Not until we
know about the work activities, or work content, of the professionals who occupy roles of
faculty support staff can we begin to speculate about roles (Mintzberg, 1973).
In the role studies reviewed, the term role is commonly viewed in one of two
ways. The influence of an individual on an audience is either considered (Goffman, 1959;
Sredl & Rothwell, 1987) or not considered (Mintzberg, 1973; Thach, 1994). Notions of
role include four key components which include behavior, person, context and
characteristics (Biddle, 1979). Biddle’s (1979) definition of behavior acknowledges that
“behavioral events may be related to two different persons – the person who exhibits the
behavior and the other upon whom it impinges” ( p. 34), however, in the definition of
behavior, only the first is provided for. For purposes of this study, role is defined as “an
organized set of behaviors belonging to an identifiable office or position” (Sarbin &
Allen as cited in Mintzberg, 1973, p. 54). This study describes the work activities
performed by the study participants in their role as faculty support staff in their respective
online education programs. This study did not examine the influence the study
participants have on their audience.
Faculty Support
When working in collaboration with faculty in higher education institutions, a
frequently used term is faculty development. Faculty development is broad based and
8
multifaceted. The Professional and Organizational Network in Higher Education
considers the arena of faculty development to include three major areas: faculty
development, instructional development and organizational development (Professional
and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 2005).
In this study, the term faculty support, not faculty development, is being used. In
the emerging field of online education, “it is untenable to assume we can move from an
undeveloped state to a more developed one that is known in advance since we don’t
know what a more developed state is given the ever changing nature of the field”
(Hanrahan, Ryan, & Duncan, 2001, p. 134). As Shephard (2004) describes in his study of
educational technologists, “it is clearly difficult to separate their roles as professional
developers from their more direct support roles” (p. 74). A similar situation exists with
faculty support staff in online programs, their work runs on a continuum between faculty
support and faculty development that includes multitudes of activities and can take on
different meanings depending on its context. Shephard (2004) attempts to clarify direct
support versus professional development. He defines direct support as “helping staff to
teach using technology” (p. 1) and professional development as “helping staff to develop
their skills”(p. 1).
The reason I’ve chosen to use the term faculty support is because the literature
uses the term faculty support, versus faculty development, when discussed in the context
of online programs (Clay, 1999; Fetzner, 2003; Hanrahan et al., 2001; Rockwell et al.,
2000; Truman, 2004; Truman-Davis, Futch, Thompson, & Yonekura, 2000). It is
interesting to note that the terminology used by the University of Central Florida (UCF),
home to a very extensive faculty support system, to describe their support programs has
9
changed over the past four years. In 2000, the terminology they used when referring to
their program was faculty development (Truman-Davis et al., 2000). In 2004, UCF is now
using the term faculty support and describing how they have institutionalized a faculty
support ecosystem (Truman, 2004).
Faculty support falls under a broader category of institutional support that occurs
when institutions support the development and growth of online programs. Institutional
support includes technical, moral and policy support (Thompson, 2003). Technical
support encompasses robust and reliable infrastructure, support in designing, developing
or delivering courses, ongoing technical support for faculty and students. Moral support
is the “support that involves respect, approval and/or sympathy without action”
(Thompson, 2003). Policy support encompasses more administrative issues such as
workload, compensation, and institutional rewards and advancement, intellectual
property, governance and control of academic quality, professional recognition, personal
rewards and management of institutional change.
Each institution and online program are unique and provide various levels, if any,
of support. The types of support will vary based upon the institution, courses, faculty
needs and available resources. Faculty support, for purposes of this study, is defined as
the direct assistance that support staff provide to faculty during all phases of online
courses including training, planning, design, development, and delivery.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to describe the work activities performed by
individuals who occupy roles as faculty support staff in online education programs. This
study documents what faculty support staff do in their professional roles as faculty
10
support staff in online programs, thus, documenting a new and emerging role in higher
education. Little seems to be known about the specific work activities of faculty support
staff in online programs.
Overview of Methodology
A qualitative collective case study approach was used as the research method to
document the work activities of individuals who occupy the role of faculty support staff
in online education programs. The unit of analysis is the content, or work activities, of the
individual faculty support professional. Four professionals who occupy the roles of the
faculty support staff within four different online education programs were studied. The 4
participants of this study work at two or four-year postsecondary institutions in the
northeastern region of the United States that offer asynchronous online courses (graduate
or undergraduate) over the internet. Participants of the study were from institutions where
the faculty members conduct their own course development, with the assistance of the
faculty support staff, and there is an existence of a structured faculty support and training
program for faculty who teach online.
The faculty support professionals who participated in this study work directly
with faculty members in any or all aspects of online course planning, design,
development and delivery. In selecting participants, priority was given to faculty support
staff who had the most direct contact with faculty in such roles as training, technical
support, conducting workshops and face-to-face meetings. Three additional criteria used
to select participants included those who work full-time, have a minimum of twelve
months experience in their role conducting faculty support (Inglis, 1996) and, work in a
support/service position versus a faculty position (Shephard, 2004).
11
By employing a collective case study approach (Stake, 1995, 2003) to this
research design, I collected five types of data: 1) demographic questionnaire, 2)
interviews, 3) site observations, 4) visual data, and 5) Week in Review Activity Logs.
The first type of data collected was in the form of a demographic questionnaire. The data
gathered from the interviews allowed me to begin to create categories of their work
activities. Site observations were conducted simultaneously with the interviews. The
fourth type of data collected was visual data in the form of still photographs. Each
participant was provided with a disposable camera and was asked to take twelve
photographs that depict what they do in their work. To further help to elaborate, describe
and define the work activities, each participant completed Week in Review Activity Logs
at two specific points over the course of the study. The Activity Log was a reflective log
where participants documented the work activities they engaged in during a specific
week. Such variety of data collection techniques allowed me insight into their
professional daily lives to aid in describing their work activities within their respective
online education programs.
Significance of the Study
In 2000, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (Phipps & Merisotis) released a
report identifying benchmarks considered essential to ensuring excellence in online
education programs. Four of the twenty-four benchmarks focus on faculty support and,
indirectly, the support staff necessary to ensure successful online education initiatives.
The faculty support benchmarks include the following: 1) technical assistance in course
development, 2) assistance in the transition from classroom teaching to online instruction
and assessment during the process, 3) training and assistance throughout the progression
12
of the online course and, 4) written resources to assist faculty in handling issues arising
from student use of electronically-accessed data. Similarly, Moore (2002) identifies five
principles of effective online education. One of the five principles states, “the institution
provides faculty support services and training specifically related to teaching online” (p.
58). National accreditation agencies are now making significant changes in their
standards, policies and procedures to account for institutions who offer distance learning
programs. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2002) has identified seven
distinct areas that are of greatest significance to assuring quality in distance learning and
faculty support is one of these distinct areas of focus.
Results from the 2003 Sloan Survey of Online Learning showed that 994 public
and private higher education institutions in the United States agree or are neutral to the
statement that online learning is critical to their long-term institutional strategies (Allen &
Seaman, 2003). Such strategic plans will be strengthened if institutions identify and
understand distance education trends for faculty support, student enrollments, and larger
academic, technological and economic issues (Howell, Williams, & Lindsay, Fall 2003).
This indicates that administrators and program directors at public and private institutions
are or will be faced with the challenge of building new online programs at some point in
the future. Currently, such administrators have few places to look for empirical research
that exists on the work activities and roles of faculty support staff in online programs.
Stein, Smith and Silver (1999) speculated that there is a lack of research on such
professionals because they are too busy in their daily work to conduct research on what
they are doing.
13
As Gornall (1999) identified in her research on new professionals in higher
education, the roles can be regarded as marginal, yet powerful, in they can be associated
with institutional change and long term institutional strategy. This research will provide
program administrators with some insights and some understanding of the complexities
of the faculty support roles necessary to implement successful online programs.
In 1992, Dillon and Walsh reviewed the existing literature on distance education
and reported that the dominant theme of distance education literature was the learner,
focusing primarily upon “learning outcomes, learner characteristics, and learner
attitudes” (p. 5) and they considered faculty the neglected resource in distance education.
Recently, attention has been brought to the needs and concerns of faculty. In 2004,
Howell, Saba, Lindsay & Williams reviewed the distance education literature, focusing
on current trends affecting faculty, and identified seven strategies for enabling faculty
success in distance education. One strategy, especially relevant to this study, is to
“improve training and instructional support for distance education faculty” (p.39). Once
again, there are underlying assumptions about the staffing necessary to make such a
strategy possible. In their article, statements such as “distance learning staff should” and
“having local staff available for follow up” and “in assigning distance education
personnel to train faculty…they need to cover such issues as…” (p. 43). What is missing
is any information on what these “distance learning staff” and “distance education
personnel” do in their daily work activities.
One of the challenges administrators face in building distance learning teams, or
hiring new professionals to staff such a team, is that there are very limited numbers of
people with experience in the field (Hill, 1998). Those professionals who do have
14
experience in the field come from a variety of backgrounds including traditional and non-
traditional academic and support positions (Gornall, 1999). Given the variety of
backgrounds and experiences, such professionals do not yet see themselves as “a group,
as a new group or as a professional grouping” (p. 45) and it is not clear, yet, what
professional journal they may read (Gornall, 1999). This case study documents the work
activities of faculty support staff in online education programs who currently have no
documented precedents or models in higher education (Cook-Sather, 2001).
In my current role as a member of a faculty support team I have received phone
calls from administrators, new to online program administration, who ask: “I want to hire
someone who does what you do”. When approached with this statement, I am then
expected to describe all that I do. This says that administrators acknowledge the
importance of having individuals in such support roles but do not know what they do and
what their various roles entail. In addition to informing administrators, this research
serves to inform faculty about the work activities and roles of new individuals within
higher education and within online education programs.
Lastly, this research is significant because it was a qualitative study, thus
providing an in-depth and naturalistic look at the work activities of faculty support staff
in online education programs. This is a different methodological approach from existing
studies in this area, which have primarily explored work activities and roles through
surveys (Foster, 2003; Thach, 1994), questionnaires (Beetham, Conole, & Gornall, 2001),
the Delphi technique (Williams, 2003), and analysis of job announcements (Surry &
Robinson, 2001; Wright & Miller, 2000). There is also much anecdotal evidence on
staffing and support issues. For example, Brown (2003) dedicates an entire chapter to
15
“staffing and support strategies”, however, it contains only anecdotal essays and
descriptions of model programs. Another example is given by Sener (2005) when he
describes how one faculty member went from skeptic to believer in online education due
to a unique mentoring relationship with the director of elearning at her college.
What we are seeing from these national organizations, existing research studies
and even the anecdotal evidence, are unstated expectations and a recognition that some
type of expert who understands the nature of online education pedagogy and technology
is necessary for providing assistance and support to faculty who are in various stages of
planning, developing or delivering online courses. There is an indirect acknowledgement
of the importance of “key support personnel” and “support staff” in online programs.
Given these expectations for ensuring excellence in online programs, this study describes
the work activities of individuals who occupy the role of faculty support staff in online
education programs.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations acknowledged and described below are known parameters of
qualitative research. One limitation to this study is the fact that the research is being
conducted only at four sites each using similar approaches to their delivery of online
education. It is recognized that the results may not be generalizeable to institutions with
different approaches, or models, of online programs. However, it meets Williams’ (2003)
recommendation that more studies are needed to identify roles in different instructional
delivery models.
A second limitation relates to the small number of participants in the study and
that it may not be representative of all faculty support staff. This descriptive case study is
16
useful in presenting basic information where little research has been conducted (Merriam,
1991). Such descriptions require the study of a limited number of cases in depth (Johnson
& Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that faculty who are in the process of
developing online courses may seek out and obtain various types of support from
professionals who are not affiliated with the online education program (Shephard, 2004).
Faculty often have colleagues or other trusted professionals within the institution with
whom they have established working relationships and they may turn to these
professionals for assistance with their online courses. Such individuals may be in their
department or in support roles throughout the university and may or may not be directly
affiliated with the online education program. For example, if an institution has a media
services department, the media specialists may serve an important role in assisting faculty
with multimedia components of their online course, even though these media specialists
may not work as designated faculty support staff within the online program. This is
important to acknowledge because this research study only explored the work activities
of the individuals who provide faculty support as full time professionals hired to work for
the online education program at each respective institution.
Conclusion
The faculty support staff who work within online programs have new and
emerging roles in higher education. National organizations such as the Sloan Consortium
(Moore, 2002), Council for Higher Education Accreditation (Council for Higher
Education Accreditation, 2002) and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (Phipps &
Merisotis, 2000) have identified principles for excellence and quality in online education
17
that indirectly address the importance of support staff necessary to provide various duties
to assist faculty in the successful transition from teaching in a traditional face-to-face
classroom environment to an online teaching environment. Recommendations and
guiding principles are suggested, however, we are still left with a void as to what
individuals in faculty support roles do at work. Knowing about the work activities and
roles of such individuals will help all institutions embarking on the development and
growth of online programs. Such information will be especially critical for new and
growing online programs and/or programs which are currently under development.
18
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The goal of this chapter is to provide a theoretical framework for this study which
focused on the work activities of professionals who occupy the role of faculty support
staff in online education programs. The theoretical framework is based on literature from
the areas of activity theory, role theory, and faculty support in online education. These
areas of inquiry serve as the organizing points for this chapter. This chapter is organized
into two strands of inquiry followed by a discussion. The first strand of inquiry weaves
together the concepts of activity and role and how the concepts have been studied within
online education and across various other professions. The subsequent strands of inquiry
explore faculty support in online education. The chapter concludes with a discussion of
the cross-cutting themes that emerged as a result of the literature review.
To identify the relevant themes and key concepts pertinent to the work activities
of faculty support staff in online programs an intensive literature search was conducted.
The literature came from a variety of sources including primary and secondary sources,
books, journal articles and dissertations. My association with the Professional and
Organizational Development (Professional and Organizational Development Network in
19
Higher Education) Network was helpful to ascertain information, resources and
references from experts and authors in the field.
Activities and Roles
The aim of this study was to describe the work activities of individuals who
occupy a specific role. The relationship between work activities and roles were examined
since both concepts serve to support the foundation of this study. Three major patterns
emerged when the literature on activity and role were investigated. First, the relationship
between these two concepts is often blurred so it is appropriate to provide a context for
purposes of this study. Second, there is limited research on work activities and roles in
online education programs, so I looked to an emerging body of literature on work
activities and roles in professions other than online education.
Relationship between Work Activity and Role
The concepts of work activities and roles are closely woven and often the terms
are often used interchangeably. In the context of this study, the role being studied was
that of the faculty support staff. Since this role is considered to be new and emerging in
higher education, the aim of this study was to describe the work activities that correspond
to this role. Not until we know about the work activities, or work content, of the
professionals who occupy roles of faculty support staff we cannot begin to speculate
about their roles (Mintzberg, 1973). The following section describes how the relationship
between work activities and roles has emerged in the literature and why these concepts
are appropriate to serve as a framework for this research study.
The concept of activity theory was appropriate to frame this study because it
focuses on practice and on the understanding of everyday practice in the real world
20
(Nardi, 1996a). As Nardi (1996a) states “practice …is doing and activity” (p. 14). For
purposes of this study, work activities are the activities, duties or behaviors that are
performed by the professionals who occupy the role of faculty support staff in online
education programs (Foster, 2003).
There are multiple elements that make up an activity and they include the subject
(or person), object, meditating artifact, rules, community and division of labor (Cole &
Engestrom, 1993). These elements influence one another to form complex and
multidimensional relationships. The subject is the person conducting the activity.
According to Kuutti (1996), an object can be a material thing, or it can be tangible or
intangible as long as it can be “shared for manipulation and transformation by the
participants of the activity” (p. 27). In this study, relevant objects that may be present as
part of the participants work activities may be online course content and written
materials, learning management systems (such as WebCT, Intralearn, Blackboard), ideas,
teaching strategies, and best practices. The relationship between a study participant and
an object of an activity is mediated by an artifact. Examples of mediating artifacts used in
educational settings may include computers, language, pen and paper, television, radio,
telephone and chalkboards (Bellamy, 1996). Individuals do not conduct activities in
isolation but as part of a community, which is mediated by rules of that community and a
division of labor (Cole & Engestrom as cited in Bellamy, 1996). The community within
which faculty support staff work involves a community consisting of faculty,
administrators, students and staff colleagues. Explicit and implicit rules guide and govern
the individuals and the division of labor reflects the different roles each individual plays
within the community (Bellamy, 1996).
21
Bellamy (1996) describes two examples of computer simulations based in K-12
educational environments and derived from activity theory. Unique to these computer
simulations are the integration and support of authentic activities, construction and
collaboration for both student projects and teacher training (Vygotsky as cited in
Bellamy, 1996). In developing and conducting the teacher training for integrating such
technology into the classroom, special consideration was given to the psychological
factors of implementing new technology including technical support, access to
technology, seeing technology as an opportunity not a threat, and collegial and
institutional support (Ringstaff, Kelley & Dwyer as cited in Bellamy, 1996).
The concepts of work activity and role frequently intersect in the literature. It is
common to find an identification of work activities of individuals and then a
classification of such activities into categories (Beetham et al., 2001; Hernon et al., 2004;
Mintzberg, 1973). Three studies have clearly delineated between the concepts of work
activities and roles. Mintzberg (1973) identified work activities of managers then
proceeded to characterize ten common roles based on the types of activities he found.
Hernon, Powell and Young (2004) analyzed the work activities related to the official role
of academic library directors. Beetham, Conole & Gornall (2001) surveyed learning
technologists in the United Kingdom and concluded that the learning technologists
engage in a range of activities which were then categorized into ten areas. In comparison,
it is interesting to note a different approach to role identification. Thach (1994) and
Williams (2003) used a theoretical foundation from the human resource field, so their
identification of roles extended into classifying roles into corresponding outputs and
competencies.
22
The term role is “easy to speculate about but difficult to operationalize, and
subject to various interpretation” (Biddle, 1979, p. 84). For purposes of this study, role is
defined as “an organized set of behaviors belonging to an identifiable office or position”
(Sarbin & Allen as cited in Mintzberg, 1973, p. 54). Similar to activity, a role includes
four key components which include behavior, person, context and characteristics (Biddle,
1979). Roles are behavioral. They are overt actions that may be observed and that
characterize the persons observed. Included in this concept are those things, or activities,
that the observed person does. Mintzberg (1973), Davidson (2003), and Hernon, Powell
& Young (2004) all looked at the behaviors of individuals in various contexts. The
second component of the definition assumes that roles are performed by persons, namely
human beings. The third component specifies that roles are limited by context. They “do
not represent the total set of all behaviors exhibited by those persons studied, on stage
and off stage, at work and at home, 24 hours a day or 365 days a year” (Biddle, 1979, p.
58). Lastly, roles consist of those behaviors that are characteristic of a set of persons and
a context. Several behaviors must be observed and by doing so it is then possible to
detect those behaviors that are characteristic (Biddle, 1979).
As documented above, there are distinctions between work activities and roles.
Many studies use the term role to encompass both concepts and very few studies clearly
distinguish between the concepts of activity and role. One such example of this is the
study by Pan, Deets, Phillips & Cornell (2003) which attempts to understand the nuances
of instructional designers’ roles in an online education program by analyzing the work
activities they perform during a typical day at work, without using the specific term work
activity.
23
Roles of faculty support staff in online education programs
As described in the background of the study in Chapter One, there is a limited
research base on the work activities of faculty support staff in online education programs.
The literature in this area mainly consists of anecdotal descriptions of practitioners’
experiences and reflections on their experiences (Inglis, 1996). One such example is a
book chapter that addresses staffing and staffing strategies to help enhance teaching with
technology in higher education (Brown, 2003). The chapter on staffing and staffing
strategies describes the roles and responsibilities of a web-development team at the
University of Florida (Allen, 2003). The author provides some anecdotal information on
the roles of the individuals who support faculty at her institution along with brief bulleted
lists of their corresponding responsibilities. Another anecdote comes from a reporter from
the Chronicle of Higher Education who followed one instructional technologist and one
instructional-technology specialist at two different institutions for a day and described the
types of activities they performed at work (Guernsey, 1998). The description of the work
activity of the instructional-technology specialist reads as follows:
…her days are a mix of training sessions on multimedia software, discussions
with individual professors, work on Web-page design, grant writing, and meetings
with technies about network issues. She also tries to stay on top of the latest on-
line innovations that might help faculty members engage students in their courses.
(Guernsey, 1998, p. A36)
When I examined the non-anecdotal literature, there appear to be a few different
ways in which roles of staff who work in online education programs are defined and
described. Studies have attempted to identify broad categories of roles (Hanrahan et al.,
24
2001; Wright & Miller, 2000), or identify lists of the most important roles in distance
education (Thach, 1994; Williams, 2003) or attempt to anecdotally describe roles in more
depth than just a list (Fredericksen et al., 1999) or identify conceptions of roles (Inglis,
1996).
Hanrahan, Ryan & Duncan (2001) describe a case study of their Professional
Engagement Model (PEG) where they interviewed support staff called SOTA’s (School
On-Line Teaching Advisors). Grounded theory analysis of documents related to the
SOTA’s work activities identified several roles including that of helper, consultant and
problem solver, experimenter, reporter, modeler, critical thinker and advocate. Similarly,
broad categories were suggested by Wright and Miller (2000) and include duties in the
areas of teaching and facilitation, research and publication, administration and service,
consultancy and coordination.
Thach (1994) and Williams (2003) both attempted to list the most important roles
in distance education. The studies looked broadly at all of the roles necessary to
“implement and manage a distance education program in higher education” and not
specifically at the roles of faculty support staff (Williams, 2003, p. 47). As a result of
survey responses from 103 distance education experts in the United States, Thach (1994)
developed a competency model that includes four major roles, seven support roles and
ten competencies. The four major roles determined of most importance in distance
education programs are instructor, technology expert, administrator and instructional
designer (Thach, 1994). Interestingly, one of Williams’ (2003) research questions was to
investigate if the roles and competencies he identified differed from those identified in
Thach’s (1994) earlier study. Through survey research using the Delphi technique,
25
Williams (2003) identified two new roles that were not suggested by Thach (1994),
which include that of leader/change agent and trainer.
Another approach to the study of roles emerges from the United Kingdom where
Inglis (1996) found that teaching-learning specialists hold eight conceptions of their role.
These conceptions were then used to identify a framework which helps to “define the
outcome space of the conceptions of a phenomenon” (p 282). Three dimensions of
outcome space were identified and the teaching-learning specialist viewed their roles as
having functional, structural and relational dimensions.
The SUNY Learning Network (SLN) and the University of Central Florida
(UCF), two of the largest online education programs in the United States, have written
extensively about their online faculty development and support programs (Fredericksen et
al., 1999; Shea et al., 2002; Truman, 2004; Truman-Davis et al., 2000). SUNY and UCF
make clear the importance of their support staff in online education programs. Truman
(2004) from UCF acknowledges that it is the investments in talented faculty and staff that
have “yielded award-winning faculty development programs” (p. 95). Pan et al. (2003)
studied one instructional designer from UCF and examined their expert qualities and their
professional working relationship with faculty. They found that the instructional designer
has many roles including that of leader, subordinate, teacher, change agent, guide,
assistant and advisor. Similarly, the Multimedia Instructional Design (MID) partner at
SLN is in a unique role and is a distinguishing factor and critical to the success in the
faculty development and course design process” (Fredericksen et al., 1999, p. 250). The
role of the MID is defined as part guide, part editor, part technical support and expert in
26
instructional design, online teaching and learning and technology, but they are not
considered clerical support (Frederickson et al., 1999).
In conducting this literature review, I found evidence that other professional fields
are struggling to define work activities and roles for professions that are new and
emerging. It is appropriate to look at studies of emerging roles across seven professions
which will provide insights into methods, techniques and challenges for defining work
activities and roles.
Emerging roles across professions
Many professional fields are documenting the emergence of new roles.
Disciplines such as library science (Goulding, Bromham, Hannabuss, & Cramer, 1999;
Law & Horne, 2004; Rapple, Euster, Perry, & Schmidt, 1997), nursing (Sebastian,
Mosley, & Bleich, 2004), educational technology (Davidson, 2003), corporate training
(Aragon & Johnson, 2002), educational development (Wright & Miller, 2000),
information technology (Thompkins, Perry, & Lippincott, 1998) and instructional
technology (Guernsey, 1998) have clearly documented the challenges they face in
defining new roles in their respective disciplines. Librarians and the field of library
science seem to have the most documented literature on their changing roles since they
are now “called to a mission beyond merely keeping and preserving books” (Goulding et
al., 1999; Law & Horne, 2004; Rapple et al., 1997).
This section describes two themes that emerged when I looked across seven
different professions and how they describe their new and emerging professional roles.
First, new roles are being created and defined because they require specific knowledge of
two or more disciplines and/or specialties. Second, roles are often described and
27
documented through the use of metaphors. The following sections will expand upon these
two themes and how they emerged in the literature.
New roles are being created and defined because they require specific knowledge
of two or more disciplines and/or specialties. It is at the intersection of these multiple
specialites where the new roles emerge. The roles are interdisciplinary (Thompkins et al.,
1998). For example, in the nursing field, there is a documented new role of the Academic
Nursing Practice Dean (ANPD) who facilitates integration of three specialty areas:
nursing research, education and practice (Sebastian et al., 2004). Similarly, in defining
the role of the educational technologist in the K-12 classroom, Davidson (2003)
identified the intersection of five primary disciplines for understanding the Educational
Technologist – the Educational Technologist as a technician, teacher, specialist,
administrator and the district curriculum specialist. A possible comparable role in higher
education may be that of the instructional informatician or instructional technologist
(Guernsey, 1998; Thompkins et al., 1998). Instructional informaticians organize and
manage information in support of teaching and learning and this role is considered as
being at the “crossroads of information technology and the sciences, social sciences, and
the humanities” (p 105). The jobs of instructional technologists include “hybrid expertise
that blends academic computing with college teaching” (Guernsey, 1998, p. A35).
Interestingly, but not surprising, knowledge of electronic communication and
internet technology is frequently cited as one of the disciplines at this intersection. This is
especially true in the changing role of the librarian and that of the corporate e-learning
trainer (Aragon & Johnson, 2002; Rapple et al., 1997). In the future, the information
professional, previously known as the librarian, will most likely be a hybrid of
28
librarianship, computing, media specialization and instructional technology (Rapple et
al., 1997). In the corporate training arena, the role of the e-learning trainer is now vastly
different “because of the internet and the development of multifaceted communication
tools that allow geographically dispersed individuals to collaborate in real time” (Aragon
& Johnson, 2002).
The second theme that emerged when looking across this body of literature is that
roles are often described and documented through the use of metaphors or compound
titles (Cook-Sather, 2001; Guernsey, 1998; Inglis, 1996; Law & Horne, 2004; Surry,
1996). Emerging roles are often described by metaphors, or descriptions that relate the
job to other, more commonly known, jobs (Surry, 1996). For example, what clearly used
to be library job titles may now be described in metaphors such as information analyst,
information architect or resource center manager (Law & Horne, 2004). In the case of
instructional technologists, they may be called instructional-technology consultants,
information-resource specialists, or instructional designers (Guernsey, 1998). Metaphors
are used to “highlight particular features of their role that these practitioners have come to
regard as being of central importance” (Inglis, 1996, p. 269). Both the metaphors and
compound titles are used as an attempt to capture the breadth and complexity of what
these individuals do.
Given the use of metaphors, it becomes difficult to identify the specific work
activities and roles of individuals who occupy such positions. Evolving roles and
changing terminology all become issues to consider. As roles continuously evolve it
becomes essential to have an awareness of key knowledge and skill requisites necessary
to fulfill certain roles (Sebastian, Mosley, Bleich, 2004). Rapple et al. (1997) caution us
29
on the reliance of using specific terminology to define roles since “librarians, or
information specialists or what ever they may be called, for terminology will change” (p.
49). The metaphors may be useful to trigger a rethinking of roles, but they may also
contribute to “re-rolling – wrapping too tightly” of the roles (Cook-Sather, 2001).
As we look across these professional fields we are faced with broad categories of
roles and the use of metaphors and compound titles to help define roles. Since many of
these roles are new, the first attempt at operationalizing what the individuals in these
roles do, is to use metaphors. When Wright and Miller (2000) analyzed internationally
advertised job opportunities in the field of educational development they concluded that
“the profession is just beginning to articulate its less traditional roles” (Wright & Miller,
2000, p. 26). This may be the case of all professions that are experiencing, and trying to
keep up with, the emergence of new roles in their professional fields.
Faculty support in online education
One of the motivating factors for faculty to become involved in teaching online is
the availability of support services which are continuous and available from the planning
stage through implementation (Clay, 1999; Kosak et al., 2004). When an institution
supports faculty with adequate technology, training and ongoing technical and
administrative assistance faculty satisfaction is enhanced (Moore, 2002). Faculty
satisfaction is defined by the Sloan Consortium (2005b) as when “instructors find the
online teaching experience personally rewarding and professionally beneficial” (p. 1).
Models of faculty support in online education programs
Before I examine specific faculty support models, it is appropriate to explore the
concept of model as it relates to distance and online education. There is not just one
30
concept of distance and online education and “often these concepts are so strong and
convincing that they are cast into the mould of a model which can be tested and
practiced” (Peters, 2003, p. 40). To acknowledge the scope and types of models of
distance education, Peters (2003) presents seven selected models: examination
preparation, correspondence education, multiple (mass) media, group distance education,
autonomous learner, network-based distance teaching, technologically extended
classroom models. Institutional models of online and distance education emerge as
hybrids of these various models since numerous variables need to be considered and
acknowledged during the growth and development of online education programs.
Regardless of the model or approach to online education, all aspects of faculty support
takes place within the framework of such models.
Within these broadly defined models of online education, we can find various
approaches specifically related to faculty support in online programs. Melody Thompson
(2003) from Penn State’s World Campus acknowledges the spectrum of support models.
She states:
On one end of the spectrum are those that offer faculty training in the skills
necessary to take responsibility for design and development; on the other end are
those that provide the centralized support services of a team of experts who
provide the expertise necessary to transform faculty-developed content into online
courses. (p. 192)
However, extensive models are not necessary to have an effective faculty support
program. It is “the existence of support, more than the model for provision of support,
which is a key component of faculty satisfaction” (Thompson, 2003, p. 192).
31
Large programs such as the State University of New York (SUNY) and the
University of Central Florida (UCF) have published extensively on their faculty support
programs (Fredericksen et al., 1999; Shea et al., 2002; Truman, 2004; Truman-Davis et
al., 2000). The State University of New York Learning Network (SLN) has created a four
stage faculty development process and seven step course design process. At each of these
stages extensive support is provided in the form of people (staff), materials, training,
software and online resources (Shea et al., 2002). Truman (2004) reports that a “hierarchy
of systematic, faculty support exists at UCF to create a systemic, complex ecosystem” (p.
90). This ecosystem is represented in a visual representation of a pyramid. Forming the
foundation of the support ecosystem are critical components such as technology
infrastructure and architecture. Built upon this foundation include elements such as
faculty and professional development initiatives, staffing, instructional design teams,
training, resources, learning management systems, self-paced tutorials, extensive training
courses, course development support and vanguards (Truman, 2004). All of these specific
entities make up a “deliberate interplay of faculty support” at UCF. (Truman, 2004, p.
90).
Other types of faculty support programs that may be equally effective, but not as
expansive, have been published as effective practices (Sloan-Consortium, 2005a).
Effective practices are published because they promote faculty satisfaction in online
teaching and provide resources and opportunities for faculty who are involved in the
online course development and teaching process. Institutions develop such practices
based on their unique needs and available resources. Examples of effective practices
include the presence of interactive learning communities to promote faculty collaboration
32
and sharing of experiences which include online book clubs, faculty fellows programs
and online conferences (Corbett, 2003; Siccama, Powanda-Croft, & Woods, 2004; Wolf,
2004). Others may include guides and rubrics for online instruction, online resource
centers and standards of excellence for faculty support (Clerkin, 2004; Landrum, 2002;
Scott, 2003; Sederberg, 2003).
It is within these models, support ecosystems and effective practices where the
support staff conduct their daily activities and the actual support of faculty. At the
foundation are the staff who work on the ‘front lines’ and have direct interaction with
faculty as they proceed through all phases of online course development and delivery.
Support services can be very broad and take on many different forms. It is appropriate to
explore what constitutes faculty support and the specific forms it may take in online
programs, as this helps to provide critical background information before undertaking this
study.
Types of faculty support
Support in online education is broadly based and includes elements such as
administrative support, faculty development support, technical infrastructure support,
operational support, academic support, training coordination, instructional design
support, library support, technical support and student services (Fetzner, 2003). It is
realized that faculty support can be woven throughout all of the types of support listed
above. For purposes of this study, faculty support is defined as the direct assistance that
support staff provide to faculty during all phases of online courses – training, planning,
design, development, and delivery. As Fetzner (2003) describes, the functions of the
support team members are not linear in nature, but they are issue oriented and require
33
multiple layers of cooperation between all team members. Often times there are not
individuals or teams of individuals to focus on each specific area of so individuals with
multiple skill sets are needed (Allen, 2003).
When looking specifically at the literature related to the work activities and roles
performed by faculty support staff in online education programs I found two themes that
emerged. First, I found that most support activities are done overtly since specific
activities can be observed, listed and documented. Second, I did find some mention of the
role of support staff having more covert roles such as providing moral support and
providing services in the form of guide, mentor, personal trainer and broker (Fredericksen
et al., 1999; Oliver, 2003; Thompson, 2003; Truman-Davis et al., 2000). The following
section describes the overt and covert types of faculty support that were described in the
literature.
Overt
The overt and observable types of faculty support for online education may
consist of, but may not be limited to, development of instructional materials, applying
selected technologies, training, developing effective technology skills and instructional
support and design (Lee & Dziuban, 2002; McKenzie, Mims, Bennett, & Waugh, 2000;
Rockwell et al., 2000). In a recent survey, more than 230 faculty and administrators from
two US institutions were asked to identify the type of education, assistance and support
they need to deliver online education. The survey contained thirty-nine items all of which
could be classified as training or support needs for teaching online. An interesting
finding showed that none of the items on the survey were ranked unimportant. Findings
showed that faculty and administrators feel it is very important to obtain education about,
34
assistance with, or support for developing online interaction, developing instructional
materials, and applying selected technologies (Rockwell et al., 2000).
At SUNY, it is the SUNY Learning Network (SLN) Instructional Design team
who facilitate the faculty development and course design processes. Their
comprehensive support structure includes asynchronous conferences, faculty orientations
and handbooks, workshops, course templates, faculty help desk, mechanisms for
evaluation of support services and assigned instructional design partners. SUNY
recognizes that it is the comprehensiveness of their support that allows them to have such
a successful online program.
Covert
The new and different forms of support and collaboration between faculty and
staff have led to the documentation of more covert roles and unanticipated impacts of
such interactions. New collaborations between faculty and staff have emerged as a result
of consistent and reliable support. The professional relationships that staff develop with
faculty is a “delicate and negotiated role” (Fredericksen et al., 1999). Like that of the
instructional technologist, they are more concerned with people than with technology,
being sensitive to the ideas, hopes, fears and needs of faculty (Surry, 1996).
Metaphors used to describe such roles include coach, personal trainer, mentor and
guide (Fredericksen et al., 1999; Levy, 2003; Truman, 2004; Truman-Davis et al., 2000).
Chang (2004) further elaborates on the role of the mentor as technical support, social
connectedness initiators and teaching assistants.
The Monroe Model, a comprehensive, team-based approach to faculty support, is
one example that documents the unanticipated impacts of faculty support in online
35
programs, including the building of credibility and rapport between faculty and staff
(Fetzner, 2003). The process is one of team work. During the online course development
and delivery process, different parts and members of the support team become clearly
defined. All parts make up the team that will successfully provide quality education for
those involved (Boaz & Walsh Hardy, 1993).
It has been clearly documented in the literature that structured and organized
faculty support in online programs play a vital role in the success and growth of programs
(Fetzner, 2003). Given the types and variety of online programs, the faculty support staff
at any institution handle a wide variety of questions, needs, challenges and work with
faculty at various skill and knowledge levels about online education. The role is unique
multifaceted and evolving, and it is new within the higher education arena. This study
probed into the daily work activities of these professional staff to provide a description of
their work.
Discussion
Now that the strands of inquiry have been defined and emergent patterns
identified the following discussion serves as a continued analysis across the strands of
inquiry. The emphasis is on the intersection and lack of intersection between the primary
strands of literature. Emerging from the literature review are three overarching themes
that speak to the new and emerging roles of faculty support staff in online education
programs in higher education. I have summarized the three emerging themes into the
following categories: 1) what we want, 2) what we think we have, and 3) what we have
done. What is missing is any empirical evidence of topic of this study: What do faculty
support staff who work in online education programs do at work? Each of the themes that
36
emerged provide different angles and lenses through which new and emerging
professions in higher education have been reviewed. None of which specifically focus on
the topic of this study.
What do faculty support staff do at work?
What we want
Analyzing job descriptions of instructional technology service positions and
educational developers is how Surry & Robinson (2001) and Wright & Miller (2000)
identified what institutions want when they are looking to hire new professionals to
higher education. After analyzing 449 job announcements from the Chronicle of Higher
Education posted between the years 1997 and 2000, Surry & Robinson (2001) emerged
with eight different categories of instructional technology service positions. Included in
the broad category of instructional technology service position were categories such as
instructional designer, distance learning coordinator, instructional technology
manager/administrator and World Wide Web specialist. Required qualifications,
responsibilities and average salaries were also compared and analyzed. Unique to the
Surry & Robinson (2001) study is the focus on service, not faculty, positions. “Service
positions in higher education represent an emerging job market for instructional
technology professionals that has not been the focus of extensive study” (Surry &
Robinson, 2001, p. 232).
Wright & Miller (2000) attempted to describe the “essential nature of educational
development work” (p. 20) by analyzing 20 position announcements posted between the
years 1998 and 1999. Wright and Miller did not clearly specify if the criteria for selecting
position announcements for their study were for staff or faculty positions, or both. From
37
what they found, it seems like they focused on faculty positions because their findings
categorized the demands on the educational developer to include such areas as teaching,
facilitation, research, publication, administration, service, consultancy and coordination.
All of these demands are common expectations for those who occupy faculty positions.
Analyzing position announcements is a unique way to document new and
emerging positions in higher education by identifying the types of jobs available and the
associated responsibilities and qualifications. However, the position announcements also
reflect the perceptions of the administrators and/or institutions who write them up. What
is missing is a link between the stated requirements in a position announcement and the
actual work activities that are conducted by the individuals who are hired for these
positions. We need to “develop a vision of the profession that goes beyond the perception
of search committees” (Wright & Miller, 2000, p. 27).
What we think we have
Given the ubiquitous use of metaphors and compound titles to describe new and
emerging roles in higher education the theme of ‘what we think we have’ has emerged.
Metaphors, or descriptions that relate the job to other, more commonly known, jobs are
often used to describe emerging roles (Surry, 1996). Surry & Robinson (2001) found,
after analyzing job announcements, that there is no agreed upon terminology for
instructional technology service position job titles in higher education. They speculated
that positions of this nature “are fairly new and, as a result, there has not been sufficient
time for a standardized terminology to develop” (Surry & Robinson, 2001, p. 237).
What have also emerged are unstated expectations and assumptions about the role
and importance of such individuals in online education programs. The literature seems to
38
hint at the necessity of some type of expert who understands the nature and nuances of
online education and the necessity of such individuals in providing support to faculty
who are developing and delivering education online via the internet. For example,
Howell, Saba, Lindsay & Williams (2004) reviewed the distance education literature and
identified seven strategies for enabling faculty success in distance education. One
strategy, especially relevant to this study, is to “improve training and instructional
support for distance education faculty” (p.39). In their article, statements such as
“distance learning staff should” and “in assigning distance education personnel to train
faculty…they need to cover such issues as…” (p. 43). This provides us with information
on the work activities that someone thinks the “distance learning staff” and “distance
education personnel” should do in their daily work activities. However, there is no
indication that any analysis of faculty support staff work activities was conducted.
What we have done
Portfolios can serve as a tool to document professional experience, or ‘what we
have done’ at work. Stanley (2001) and Wright & Miller (2000) both propose the use of a
portfolio to document the work of faculty developers and educational developers,
respectively. The faculty development portfolio is like a resume that can highlight ones
strengths, accomplishments and professional experience. It can serve dual purposes, 1) to
document one’s professional development for others, or 2) to document the improvement
of one’s own performance over time (Stanley, 2001). Wright and Miller (2000) suggest
that educational developers create a portfolio because there is clear evidence that there is
a broad range of conceptions of the educational development profession. An educational
39
developer’s portfolio provides the means to define the profession and gives a rare
opportunity to choose how to define roles and responsibilities (Wright & Miller, 2000).
In 2005, the Association for Learning Technology began using the concept of the
portfolio to allow members to become certified as learning technologists, which would
allow them to have the designation of Certified Member of the Association for Learning
Technology, or CMALT (CMALT Prospectus, 2006). As part of the certification process,
learning technologists are required to demonstrate evidence, in their portfolio, in four
core areas of work and in one or more specialist options. The four core areas include: 1)
operational issues, 2) teaching, learning and/or assessment practices, 3) the wider context,
and 4) communication. The specialist options require applicants to demonstrate evidence
of independent practice in a variety of areas, some of which may include, producing
learning materials, project management, training, research, and/or interface design.
What do faculty support staff do?
Within the past five years, there seems to be an interest in the study of work
activities and roles of new professions in higher education. Research studies from the UK
seem to be primarily informing this area of interest (Beetham et al., 2001; Conole, 2004;
Oliver, 2002; Shephard, 2004). However, none of the studies emerging from the United
Kingdom (UK) are specific to online education or distance education programs. This is
surprising because the UK Open University is known for two innovations in distance
education, 1) adoption of team approach to educational development and 2) appointment
of specialists in educational technology to work with course teams on the design of online
courses (Inglis, 1996).
40
There is some recognition and attempt to document how the roles change over
time. Williams (2003) conducted a study on the roles and competencies for distance
education programs and he was particularly interested to find if any roles had changed
based upon the findings that Thach (1994) found five years earlier. Gosling (1996; 2001)
conducted two studies, five years apart, identifying what UK educational development
units do.
Due to the newness of faculty support staff in online education programs I came
across no articles that actually address the specific research question which is the focus of
this study; What are the work activities of faculty support staff in online education
programs? Since there is no standardization in the titles of such professionals (Surry &
Robinson, 2001; Wright & Miller, 2000), I would often get my hopes up when
conducting literature reviews and finding the titles of various related articles.
For example, an article titled What do instructional designers actually do? An
initial investigation of expert practice, Rowland (1992) studied expert and novice
instructional designers as they solved a design problem. He concurs with what I found,
that we “have abundant information on what authors/designers say they do, or say others
should do, but little idea of what expert designers actually do themselves” (Rowland,
1992, p. 65). In Oliver’s (2002) article What do learning technologists do?, he explored
learning technologists and what they do. He found that the jobs are “ill-defined and often
outside of the mainstream of institutional support structures” (p. 245). Pan et al. (2003)
published an article titled Pulling tigers’ teeth without getting bitten: Instructional
designers and faculty which examined their expert qualities of instructional designers and
41
their professional working relationship with faculty. None of these three examples
described above speak to the specific research question being explored in this study.
Research on new and emerging roles in higher education are often not specific to
online education programs. What has emerged is an obvious interest in new and evolving
professions in higher education. What’s missing is any literature to support the categories
and perceptions which have emerged. Are the perceptions really an accurate indication of
what these individuals do? If we dig deeper and break apart the perceptions and lists of
roles and explore beneath the descriptions of support programs, we would be at the heart
of this research study, a documentation of what faculty support staff do in their daily
work activities.
Conclusion
This literature review has provided an examination of the literature related to
work activities and roles and faculty support in online education programs in higher
education. The problem remains, we do not know about the daily work activities of
faculty support staff in online programs. Current research focuses on using metaphors,
portfolios or perceptions of work activities, rather than the actual work activities. Faculty
support in online programs is clearly a new and emerging role in higher education
institutions and needs to be further documented. Using the existing literature as a
foundation, it provides a basis for ideas and methodology for designing an appropriate
research study. There is an acknowledgment that faculty support staff play a significant
role in the success of online education programs in higher education. The existing
research tends to be focused very broadly on categories and perceptions of roles. There
42
has been “relatively little empirical research aimed at substantiating the patterns
emerging from the opinion data” (Inglis, 1996, p. 269).
43
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
A qualitative collective case study is the approach by which I describe the work
activities of professionals who occupy the role of faculty support staff in online education
programs. This allowed for a naturalistic and in-depth investigation of my research
question: What are the work activities of professionals who occupy the role of faculty
support staff in online programs? I used the case study approach for its primary purpose,
“to optimize understanding of the case rather than generalization beyond” (Stake, 2003,
p. 135).
This chapter provides my rationale for a qualitative collective case study and
describes the research design, site and participant selection, data collection, management
and analysis. Strong consideration and discussion are given to the study’s validity and
ethical considerations, as well as my subjectivity and role in the study.
Research Design
Instrumental and Collective Case Study
This study was designed and guided by Stake’s (1995) concepts of instrumental
and collective case studies. An instrumental case study examines one or more cases to
provide insight into an issue (Stake, 2003). In this study, 4 study participants were
44
considered the cases. These cases were instrumental in helping me to understand and
describe their work activities, the unit of analysis. Collective case study is instrumental
case study extended to several cases (Stake, 2003). In a collective case study the sample
is purposive and the criteria for selecting cases should be to “maximize what we can
learn” (Stake, 1995, p. 4). The cases may be “similar or dissimilar, redundancy and
variety each important” (Stake, 2003, p. 138). Generalizing to other settings is not the
goal of case study research (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2004). As Stake (1995)
writes, “we take a particular case and come to know it well, not primarily as to how it is
different from others but what it is, what it does” (p. 8).
Rationale
The purpose of this qualitative collective case study was to describe the work
activities of professionals who occupy the role of faculty support staff in online education
programs. A case study approach was used for this research study primarily because it
presents basic information where little research has been conducted and can present “a
detailed account of the phenomenon under study” (Merriam, 1991, p. 27). The day-to-day
lives of these individuals, including the mundane, daily events and the unusual and non-
routine work activities were examined (Hernon et al., 2004; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Data collection techniques, including the use of a demographic questionnaire, site
observations, interviews, visual data and Week in Review Activity Logs allowed me
insight into their professional daily lives to aid in describing their work activities within
their respective online education programs.
The research that has been specific to work activities and roles in online or
distance education programs is limited. Four studies were found that relate to this area,
45
two are quantitative (Thach, 1994; Williams, 2003) and two are qualitative case studies
(Pan, Deets et al., 2003; Pan, Thompson, & Deets, 2003). In other fields, not specific to
online or distance education, the work activities and roles of educational technologists
(Davidson, 2003), academic library directors (Hernon et al., 2004), student programmers
(Holland & Reeves, 1996), and managers (Mintzberg, 1973) have successfully been
documented by using qualitative research strategies.
This research helps to provide support to the anecdotal information that exists in
attempt to document the work activity and role of faculty support staff. There is a lot of
anecdotal evidence that exists on staffing and support issues. For example, Brown (2003)
dedicates an entire chapter to “staffing and support strategies”, however, it contains only
anecdotal essays and descriptions of model programs. Another anecdote is given by
Sener (2005) when he describes how one faculty member went from skeptic to believer in
online education due to a unique mentoring relationship with the director of elearning at
her college.
The rationale for choosing a qualitative research design is substantiated by the
many strengths of qualitative research. First, it allowed for data collection in a naturalistic
setting, which was in the work place of the study participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003;
Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Kaptelinin, 1996). Case studies are characterized based
on their unique feature of collecting data in many different ways (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004).
Five different types of data were collected from 4 individuals who provided information
that reflects their everyday work activities (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Second, this qualitative research design allowed me to identify the work activities
of the study participants as they were situated and embedded in local contexts (Johnson &
46
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Activity theory, proposes two very specific notions of context, “the
activity itself is the context” (Nardi, 1996b, p. 76) and context is “constituted through the
enactment of an activity involving people and artifacts” (Nardi, 1996b, p.76).
Lastly, having participants take photographs and maintain activity logs over a four
month period provided me with their personal experiences of their work activities,
otherwise known as the emic, or native, perspective (Bellamy, 1996; Denzin & Lincoln,
2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Having participants take photographs of their
work activities allowed them to become “recorders of their own worlds” (Daniels, 2003,
p. 194).
In designing this study, I needed to identify an appropriate sample size. Looking
at previous qualitative research studies which documented work activities and roles of
individuals, sample sizes varied from one (Davidson, 2003), to five (Mintzberg, 1973) to
twelve (Hernon et al., 2004). A decision was made to study 4 individuals, or cases. Such
a small sample size allowed for depth, versus breadth, in describing the work activities of
such individuals. It is common for qualitative researchers to work with small samples of
people so they can study individuals in depth (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Miles &
Huberman, 1994). One limitation of small sample sizes is the possibility of having
participants drop out of the study. Participation in the study was completely voluntary
and participants could have discontinued their participation in the study at any time for
any reason. I took careful precautions in selecting participants and in providing them with
necessary information to help them make informed decisions about participating in the
study. Further details on the process I used for selecting participants can be found in the
Gaining Access section of this chapter.
47
Research Question
This study was designed to describe the work activities of professionals who
occupy the role of faculty support staff in online education programs. The research
question shaping this study is: What are the work activities of professionals who occupy
the role of faculty support staff in online education programs?
Participants
Selection Criteria
Detailed participant selection criteria allowed me to gain access to individuals
who were appropriate to help me answer my research question (Maxwell, 1996). Four
research participants were purposely selected so that so that I could gain access to
professionals who occupy the roles of the faculty support staff who work within online
education programs. To gain access to 4 qualified individuals I identified institutions
which currently offer online education programs and identified willing people within
those institutions to participate in the study. The organization of faculty development and
support at each institution is so different that there needed to be some criteria for
selecting the individuals who participated in this study.
The faculty support professionals who participated in this study work directly
with faculty members in any or all aspects of online course planning, design,
development and delivery. These individuals have direct contact with faculty and occupy
various roles in training, technical support, conducting workshops and face-to-face
meetings. Each of the study participants works full-time, with a minimum of twelve
months experience in their role conducting faculty support (Inglis, 1996) and works in a
support/service position versus a faculty position (Shephard, 2004).
48
The institutions within which the participants work are within the northeastern
region of the United States and offer graduate or undergraduate asynchronous online
courses over the internet. Participants work at institutions where the faculty members
conduct their own course development and there exists a structured faculty support and
training program for faculty who teach online. Institutions that outsource their online
course development or purchase their online courses from outside vendors were not
included in this study. All four institutions are accredited through the New England
Association of Schools and Colleges. Three of the four institutions are also accredited by
additional discipline appropriate accreditation agencies.
Each of the 4 participants performs similar work activities within their respective
online education programs, but each has a different title. Surry and Robsinson (2001)
found similar inconsistencies in titles when they studied the job descriptions of
Instructional Technologists. Of the 4 participants in this study one is a Director, one is
one is a Manager, one is an Instructional Technology Specialist and one is an Associate
Director. These individuals work in a state college, University, community college, and
private college, respectively. Prior to the study, I did not personally know any of the
participants. Further details about the participants and the institutions within which they
work can be found in Chapter Four.
Ethical Considerations
This research study involved human subjects and utmost care and consideration
were given to my ethical behavior as a qualitative researcher. I abided by the Institutional
Review Board requirements of my institution and the ethical standards of my profession.
I strive to protect my study participants, to maintain the integrity of my research, my
49
research community, and all of those with whom I have professional relations (American
Educational Research Association, 2004). Ethical considerations within this study will be
addressed through three avenues a) informed consent and protection of human subjects,
b) access and rapport, and c) privacy and confidentiality.
Informed consent and protection of human subjects
All precautionary measures and required approval processes were followed to
protect all human subjects who participated in this research study. As a requirement for
the doctoral program, I have completed the Human Participants Protection for Research
Teams online course, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. This course is part
of the mandatory education requirement for doctoral students to demonstrate knowledge
of human subject research, including ethics (Institutional Review Board, 2004-2005). On
September 29, 2005, I received approval from the University of Massachusetts Lowell
Institutional Review Board.
Gaining Access
Gaining access to a research site and establishing rapport with the appropriate
gatekeepers and study participants is referred to by Maxwell (1996) as negotiating a
research relationship. I recognize the fact that this negotiation process is continual and
requires ongoing nurturing. It was my goal to create a relationship with my participants
that enabled me to ethically learn what I need to learn in order to validly answer my
research question (Maxwell, 1996).
Of the 4 participants in this study, three participants were referred to me by
colleagues that I know in the field of online education. This type of sampling is known as
snowball sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Snowball sampling is when one
50
“identifies case of interest from people who know people who know people who know
what cases are information-rich” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28).
Since I was unable to identify 4 study participants through my personal
networking, I referred to recommendations from trusted colleagues who have extensive
experience, knowledge and contacts within the field of distance and online education. I
was referred to an informant who works for a consortium of 24 Massachusetts state and
community colleges who offer online courses and programs. I shared the study criteria
with this individual who then referred me to two individuals. It is interesting to note that
one of the two individuals who was recommended by the informant was the same
individual who I had recruited through my personal networking. This is somewhat of a
confirmation that the pool of individuals who met the study criteria is quite small. The
second individual who was recommended to me by the informant did not meet the study
criteria, but referred me to someone else who did meet the criteria and agreed to
participate in the study.
In the process of obtaining 4 willing participants, a total of 12 individuals were
contacted. Four met the study criteria and were willing to participate, four did not meet
the study criteria, three did not respond to my emails and one declined to participate. I do
not know if the person who declined to participate met the study criteria.
All initial contacts to potential participants were made via email. An initial email
was sent as an attempt to gather initial interest in participating in the study. In this brief
email, I introduced myself and let them know who referred me to them. I also briefly
explained the study and the associated time requirements of participating and explained
my role as a doctoral student conducting my dissertation research on the work activities
51
of faculty support staff who work in online education programs. Each person was always
emailed directly and individually from my personal email address. Group emails to all 4
participants were avoided to maintain confidentiality among and between all research
participants.
Once a participant expressed interest in participating in the study I sent them a
more formal email that outlined the study criteria along with an email attachment that
included an introductory letter, a study timeline and descriptions of each study
component, a copy of the directions for the Week in Review Activity Log and a blank
copy of an activity log. I felt it was important to share a copy of the activity log early in
the process as a way for the participants to see what the form looks like. Providing the
instructions and the blank Week in Review Activity Log to potential participants allowed
them to see the types of information were going to be asked of them and allowed them to
realistically assess whether they would be able to complete such a form two times over a
four month period of time.
Recruitment of 4 participants was the first step toward gaining access and
establishing rapport with the participants. It was important to consider how my personal
characteristics and status could have affected my relationship with the study participants
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I believe I was able to establish a professional relationship
with the study participants because I am “one of them”. I am not in any type of
supervisory, judgmental or other evaluative role with these professionals. I came to them
because I am a seeker of knowledge and because I wanted to hear and learn about what
they had to say, I was not assessing their competence, knowledge or effectiveness as
52
professionals. Information gleaned as part of the research study will not be shared with
anyone in an evaluative or supervisory position to the study participants.
I studied individuals who have similar professional roles as I do, but at institutions
that are different from my own. In my current role as a distance learning faculty
coordinator I am very familiar with one successful model of a faculty development
program. However, I am aware that there are different models of faculty development
programs that may be just as, or more, successful.
My personal experiences could have been an asset or a drawback to this study if
not acknowledged and monitored. It could have been an asset because I have a deep
understanding of the nature of the role and the professional work environment in which
these individuals work. My personal experience could have been drawback because it
serves as a lens in which I view all aspects of the online education program being studied,
the participants and their work activities. Thus, it was critical that I remain objective in
my data collection and analysis so that it appropriately reflected the voice of the study
participants.
I went into each research site with an open mind and open eyes to learning about a
different model of faculty support than I am familiar with. My experience and
assumptions accompanied me in my role as researcher, and I monitored such influences
through the use of research memos. My feelings and reactions were subjected to rigorous
review through the use of logs and memos. This served as a way for me to critically
reflect on myself as researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 2003). This reflection was documented
via memos in NVIVO and took place when I was in the research setting (in the field) and
in my office reviewing the data.
53
Privacy and Confidentiality
Privacy is having control over the extent, timing, and circumstances of sharing
oneself with others (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2002). Through my regular
contacts and interactions with the study participants, I was continually working to gain
their trust and establish rapport. Not paying close attention to such details as establishing
rapport, gaining trust and respecting their privacy could have easily dissolved any
attempts at gathering rich, valid data.
Confidentiality pertains to the treatment of information an individual has
disclosed in a relationship of trust with the expectation that it will not be divulged to
others inconsistent with the information contained on the informed consent form (NIH,
2002). All information and data collected from the study participants was kept
anonymous and in the strictest confidence. Following the policy of the University of
Massachusetts Lowell Institutional Review Board, research data will be destroyed by
burning or shredding, no later than three years after termination of the research study. To
protect the participants, pseudonyms will be used in all written documents, transcripts
and in the NVIVO software.
Data Collection Methods
The next three sections describe details of the data collection methods, data
management and analysis and validity. Important to the structure and integration of each
of these methodological approaches was the use of QSR NVIVO®, a qualitative data
analysis software. NVIVO, as it will subsequently be called, allowed me to compile,
manage, access and analyze data and to keep a perspective on all of the data, without
losing its richness or the closeness to data that is critical for qualitative research (Bazeley
54
& Richards, 2000). Figure 1 displays how each of the following three sections are
interconnected via use of NVIVO.
Figure 1. NVIVO integration into research study
Overview of Data Collection
In order to understand the complex work activities of individuals who occupy the
role of faculty support staff within online programs, five different categories of data were
collected from 4 individuals who participated in the study. All data was collected over a
four month period and began once approvals were granted from my dissertation
committee and the Institutional Review Board. Table 3 provides an overview of the types
of data which were collected and analyzed.
55
Table 3. Overview of Data Collection and Analysis
Study Component
Case #1 Case #2 Case #3 Case #4 Total amount of data to be analyzed
Demographic Questionnaire
1 1 1 1 4 Questionnaires
Site Observation*
2 1 2 2 7 Observations
Interviews 2 2 2 2 8 Interviews Visual Data (photographs)
12 3 12 12 39 Photographs
Week in Review Activity Logs
2 2 2 2 8 Activity logs
* Site observations were conducted at the same time as the interviews.
As Table 3 shows, the first type of data which was collected was a demographic
questionnaire. The second and third type of data were two on-site interviews with
simultaneous site observations. The fourth was visual data in the form of still
photographs which study participants took with a disposable camera that I provided to
them. Two times over the course of the study participants completed Week in Review
Activity Logs, which provided the fifth type of data collected.
Demographic Questionnaire
One week prior to my first on-site visit to conduct the interview, I mailed each
participant a two page demographic questionnaire to complete (see Appendix C). I
collected the completed questionnaire when I was on-site to conduct the first interview.
The demographic questionnaire allowed me to gather background information on my
study participants. It provided me with information on their current position such as their
title, length of time in their current position, and their supervisory responsibilities.
Participants were also asked to attach a copy of their current job description to the
questionnaire. Inquiries were also made about their educational background and the ways
in which they obtain professional development to stay current in their field.
56
To develop the items on the demographic questionnaire, I used multiple sources.
Ideas for the questionnaire came from the review of the literature and from reviewing
questionnaires used in methodologically similar studies (Lehoullier, 2005). By using case
nodes, the information collected from the demographic questionnaire played an important
role in NVIVO by allowing me to link demographic data with the study participant.
Setting up the NVIVO project in this way allowed for conducting retrieving, filtering and
scoping searches for within-case and across-case analysis (Bazeley & Richards, 2000;
Richards, 1999). Further details on this process can be found in the section on Data
Management and Analysis with NVIVO.
Observations
During the first and second interviews, I simultaneously conducted observations
of the site. These observations allowed me first hand observation of the staff enacting
their professional roles within their work environment. Such observations enabled me to
expand upon and draw inferences about meaning and perspective that I could not obtain
exclusively from interview or other data (Maxwell, 1996).
In addition to observing the participants during our interviews and our time spent
together, I also had the opportunity to observe office areas, workspaces, and their
interactions with work colleagues and/or faculty members. In observing these physical
spaces and interactions I looked to glean insights into the work activities of these
individuals. Immediately after leaving the interview site I typed up my observations in
the form of fieldnotes. The fieldnotes were descriptive and reflective (Bogdan & Biklen,
2003). The descriptive aspects of my fieldnotes include portraits of the subjects,
reconstruction of dialogue, description of physical setting, accounts of particular events,
57
depiction of activities and my behavior (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I captured exactly what
I saw and also noted the interactions, dialogue, mood, tone and style, as appropriate, of
the setting. The reflective part of the fieldnotes include reflections on analysis, method,
ethical dilemmas and conflicts, points of clarification and my frame of mind during the
observation (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Two different types of fieldnote memos,
descriptive and reflective, were created in NVIVO. This allowed for a clear demarcation
between the actual descriptions of the site and my reflections.
Interviews
Interviews were one of the primary sources of data collected for this research
study. Two interviews were conducted with each participant, the first at the beginning of
the study and the second at the end of the study when I reviewed the photographs with
each participant. The interviews provided an opportunity to learn about what I could not
see and to explore alternative explanations of what I saw (Glesne, 1996). Person-to-
person interviews were conducted with each study participant in a location that was
convenient, available and appropriate (Glesne, 1996). The first interview took
approximately two hours and the second interview took approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
The first interview meeting was two hours in length because I needed to make sure there
was adequate time to review and obtain the signed informed consent form and to review
and provide a three-ring notebook to each participant. In the three-ring binder were
directions for completing the activity log, two copies of the activity log, a photo log,
camera and directions for taking photographs, and a padded self-addressed stamped
envelope for mailing back the camera.
58
I began both interviews by reminding participants of my role as a seeker of
knowledge, and reassured them that all information shared was done so in strict
confidence. I followed Schamberger’s (1997) suggestion to “adopt an attitude of wonder
and not an attitude of certainty regarding hypotheses which may arise during the
interview” (p. 25).
The first interview served as an initial point in the data collection which allowed
me to begin to identify categories, themes and patterns about the work activities of the
study participants. An interview protocol for Interview I (see Appendix D) was
developed as a guide for directing the first interview. Interview questions were developed
primarily from the review of the literature. Due to my experience in a role of faculty
support staff, I have also created questions based on my personal experience of learning
in the field (Glesne, 1996).
The interview protocol for Interview I contains 23 questions and is structured
around a seven-part framework designed to elicit information critical to understanding
the research question: 1) context, 2) typical work activities, 3) interaction with faculty, 4)
training responsibilities, 5) support responsibilities, 6) overt work activities and 7)
professional development. The interview protocol areas of inquiry were informed from
the literature described in Chapter Two. Initial questions elicited details about the model
of faculty support in which these individuals work. This helped to provide a context
within which they work. The participants were asked to explicitly describe a typical
early, mid and end of semester week. Knowing the types of activities conducted at
various times throughout the semester helped to provide baseline data for comparing
against the Week in Review Activity Log data. Specific details were gathered about their
59
work related to providing training, written resources, technical support and assisting
faculty with the transition from teaching in a classroom to teaching online. The final
section of questioning attempted to elicit information on their overt work activities, such
as how they build credibility and rapport with faculty.
The interview questions were written using lay terms familiar to the participants
and did not include any technical jargon or terms that might lead to confusion or
misunderstanding. Questions were written in such a way to avoid asking participants
grand tour questions about their work activities, but instead asked about very specific
areas of their work which helped to reveal the type of work activities in which they
engage (Glesne, 1996; Inglis, 1996).
Inquiring into the work activities of professionals could have led to the possible
discussion of personal work related information such as information related to current or
past salary details, bargaining agreements and performance evaluations. This type of
personal information was not raised during any of the interviews. To help keep the
interview flowing smoothly and keeping to the interview protocol, I used the technique of
reflective summaries throughout the interview process to help to steer the interview back
on track when it diverged away from the topic (Schamberger, 1997). Verbally reflecting
back on key points throughout the interview, by using reflective summaries, allowed the
participant to verify that their comments were understood and provided additional
opportunity for the participant to validate the summary, reconsider statements and/or
formulate new thoughts (Schamberger).
Both first and second interviews were audio taped for purposes of transcription. I
transcribed the audio tapes as soon as possible after each interview took place. Every
60
precaution was taken to protect the privacy and the confidentiality of the records and data
pertaining to each research participant. Examples of precautions include the destruction
of raw data, use of pseudonyms, and removal of identifiers (names) that link subjects and
their institutions to data. Per the Institutional Review Board agreement, the audio tapes
and photographs will be destroyed by burning or shredding no later than three years after
the completion of this research study.
The second interview took place at the end of the study after participants had
taken their photographs and I had received and developed their photos. More details on
the format of the second interview are in the following section on Visual Data.
Visual Data
Still photographs were the type of visual data used in this study. Photographs are
forms of data which the researcher has obtained with a camera (Emmison & Smith,
2000). Visual data in this research study were used for triangulation purposes to compare
and contrast to the other data sources. The photographs serve as an important supplement
to the other four types of collected data.
Advantages of visual data are that they include a considerable amount of detailed
information and they can allow for leisurely analysis (Daniels, 2003). When participants
take photos of their own work activities they can be considered an observer and an
informant (Zimmerman & Wieder, 1977). When taking the photos, participants were
able to continue about their normal activities as a lay observer without me being present
to observe the activities, and then they assumed the role of a reflective informant during
the second interview when they reflected back upon each photograph (Zimmerman &
Wieder, 1977).
61
Participants in this study had information that I wanted. If I were to have taken the
photographs, I may not have depicted an actual representation of their work activities. By
allowing the study participants to take photographs of their work activities, they provided
pathways into unfamiliar, unforeseen environments (Collier & Collier, 1986). Given the
complexity of their work activities and the cyclical nature of the academic semester,
participants were asked to take twelve photographs during the four month duration of the
study with one instruction: take pictures that depict what you do at work (Kroeger et al.,
2004).
After signing and returning the informed consent form to me at our first interview
session, each study participant was given a disposable camera, a blank photo log and a
self-addressed stamped envelope. The notes written in the photo log became especially
important during the second interview when they served as a memory aid to the
participants in helping them to remember important aspects of each photograph. Once 12
photos were taken, participants mailed the camera to me in the self-addressed stamped
envelope. I then developed the photos and emailed each participant to arrange a mutually
convenient time to return to each institution to meet with them for a second interview, the
visual data interview. Three of the participants took 12 photographs. Lynn was only able
to take four photographs. We agreed that due to her busy schedule, it would be more
efficient if we discussed the four photographs via conference call, rather than an in-
person interview. The conference call was conducted on speaker phone, so I was able to
record and transcribe the conversation.
The primary focus of the second interview was to review all of the photographs
and to glean insights into the work activities of the faculty support staff and what types of
62
work they perform within their online education programs. The second interview
allowed me to probe further into the five W’s of each photo: who, what, when, where,
and why (Zimmerman & Wieder, 1977) and allowed me to obtain a verbal account of
each particular picture as it related to their work activities.
Photographs can be interpreted differently by any number of viewers so this
second interview was important to obtain the meaning behind each picture from the
person who took the actual picture (Pink, 2001). A secondary focus of Interview II was to
obtain clarification on any information from the first interview or Activity Logs that was
unclear to me. During the second interview I brought along a copy of Tables 1 and 2 and
asked participants to review the accuracy of the information on those charts. This was
helpful to have them review, because Sally and Lisa had changed the format and length
of their online training programs, respectively.
The second interview was guided by the Interview Protocol for Interview II (see
Appendix E). The interview protocol was created as a way to keep the interview focused
on a discussion about the content of the photographs. Similar to Interview I, I used the
technique of reflective summaries throughout interview II to keep the interview on track
(Schamberger, 1997). When asking participants about their first picture, I used the
Interview II protocol so they were aware of the types of information I was looking for
about each picture. Participants described subsequent pictures with more of a narrative
format, including reference to the five W’s and the Interview II protocol.
The focus of Interview II was to probe into why participants chose to take each
particular picture and how it depicted what they do at work. For each photo, participants
63
were asked to describe the activity itself, the time the activity took place, the purpose of
the activity and the location of the activity.
Photographs of the faculty support staff “in action” in their natural setting is
appropriate to depict what they do at work, however, this may raise some concerns about
anonymity and privacy. The nature of the work of faculty support staff requires them to
meet, interact, and collaborate with many types of individuals on campus. It is not
uncommon for faculty support staff to participate in various events, trainings, workshops
or meetings and they did take pictures of such activities because they depict what they do
at work. Photographing such activities provided insights into who they work with and
provided insights into the form and structure of professional social interactions which
comprise a significant portion of the work activities of the faculty support staff (Collier &
Collier, 1986). However, for purposes of privacy and confidentiality, it was strongly
encouraged that the participants not take photographs of themselves or any other
individual with whom they work. When participants found it appropriate to take pictures
of a space or event where there were other individuals, they were encouraged to take the
photo before or after the event so as not to take pictures of those in attendance. Sally and
Dina found it hard not to take pictures of other people. The photos that had people in
them were returned to both Sally and Dina immediately after the second interview for
safe keeping or destruction. The only record I have of such photographs is in the
description obtained during Interview II.
In addition to taking photographs of various events and activities, photographs
were taken in the personal spaces or offices of each faculty support staff member,
workshop or teaching spaces, meeting spaces, computer labs or other areas in which they
64
thought reflects and helps to document their work activities. Depending on the size of the
space, often multiple photos were taken to capture a single space. Both Lynn and Lisa
made comments about the symbolism the photographs represented. Lynn mentioned that
one photo she took of an empty office was “symbolic” of her work. The empty office
represented an instructional designer who recently left her institution so she is doing the
work of the instructional designer and all of her own work. Lisa also noted that her
photos were “abstract” and represent “themes” of her work.
Week in Review Activity Log
The Week in Review Activity Log is a mix between a reflective log and a daily
journal (See Appendix F). The Activity Logs, as it will subsequently be called, allowed
me close access into the daily lives of the faculty support staff during a four month period
of time. The Activity Logs were completed by participants at the end of week five and
week ten of the study. The completion of two activity logs over a four month period of
time provided detailed information on the various activities performed by the participants
over time. As with most positions in higher education, the activities performed by the
faculty support staff ebb and flow within an academic semester or term. The activity log
helped to document how their work activities change due to the cyclical nature of the
academic semester or term.
The Activity Log is a strong asset in helping to elaborate on the characteristics of
the work of the participants. Gathering details about where they work, with whom, how
long they work and what media they use, such as email or telephone, reveal the
characteristics of their work. The Activity Log asks participants to document the five W’s
(who, what, when, where and why) as they complete each activity log. By providing this
65
information, the Activity Log as a data collection instrument meets Mintzberg’s (1973)
criteria for describing characteristics of work activities.
Two recent studies use similar methods for capturing work activities of
professionals. Davidson (2003), in her study of Educational Technologists (ET) collected
a daily journal, written by the ET, to capture the work content of the ET. Hernon, Powell
and Young (2004) used the Diary: Diary-Interview method (Zimmerman & Wieder,
1977) to record the work activities of Academic Library Directors. Daily journals would
provide vast amounts of important data on what these professionals do in their daily work
lives, however, the issue of the study participants’ time had to be seriously considered. I
recognize that the professional lives of faculty support staff are very busy with little, if
any, free time. To make this as minimal a burden as possible, I provided a detailed set of
instructions (see Appendix G) and I made myself available to study participants for
questions prior to and during data collection (Hernon et al., 2004; Zimmerman & Wieder,
1977).
In each of the two specified weeks, participants were asked to reflect back upon
their week and document what they did. These activity logs served as a means to validate
and deepen the information obtained during the interviews. Participants were asked to
look back at their paper or electronic weekly scheduler (calendar, palm pilot, blackberry,
etc..) to review the types of events or activities they participated in that week. It also
asked them to review and describe the emails, postal mail and telephone calls they
handled during the week. Additional sections in the activity log included gathering
information on any workshops and trainings they provided, weekly meetings in which
they participated, and any technical and moral support they provided to faculty. The last
66
section of the activity log asked participants to describe any thing else they did during the
week that was not previously described.
Two copies of the Activity Log were made available to participants in the three-
ring notebook given to them at the first interview. The forms in the notebook offered a
place where written notes could be taken throughout the week. Even though I made the
Activity Logs available in paper format, all four of the participants told me that they
prefer to work electronically. The actual Activity Log form was completed by each study
participant in a Microsoft Word document and submitted to me as an email attachment.
The Activity Log was set up and created as an electronic template with section headings
in Microsoft Word so that it could be easily imported into NVIVO.
In completing the Activity Log the study participants were both an observer and
an informant. As with the visual data collection activities, the participants were able to
continue about their normal activities, as a “lay observer” without me physically being
present to observe the activities (Zimmerman & Wieder, 1977). Study participants then
took the role of reflective informants when they actually completed and submitted their
Activity Logs.
Purposeful deception and oversimplification are limitations of the Activity Log.
Both can be detected by using multiple sources of data and conducting validity checks
(Yinger & Clark, 1985), so that “maintaining a pretense would be difficult without falling
into glaring inconsistencies” (Zimmerman & Wieder, 1977, p. 491).
Data Management and Analysis with NVivo®
A data management strategy for this research was established early within the
NVIVO qualitative research software allowing for frameworks to be established for data
67
management, organization and analysis. This structure of data management allowed for
simultaneous data collection and interpretation as the research process unfolded
(Creswell, 1994). NVIVO housed all of the primary and secondary research data
including the demographic questionnaire, interview transcripts, observation memos,
artifact memos, Week in Review Activity Logs, visual data, methodological memos,
‘theme’ memos, and literature reviews. All of the data was saved in NVIVO in what is
called a “project”. Data in this electronic format allowed me to link, code, memo, shape
and prepare visual representations of the data on an on-going and continual basis as new
data was collected. The following section describes how I set up cases in NVIVO and
used various strategies, such as memos, coding and searching during the data analysis
process within the NVIVO software.
Organizing and Managing Data
With five different types of data collected from 4 participants it was imperative
that I remain extremely organized in handling each piece of data as well as managing the
logistical details inherent in such a research study. Data was collected in four different
ways: 1) by email (activity logs, various artifacts), 2) in person (observations, interviews
and two of the demographic questionnaires), 3) by mail (cameras and two of the
demographic questionnaires), and 4) by phone (Lynn’s Interview II via conference call). I
kept two different and separate data management charts. These management charts
proved to be extremely valuable and reassuring for me in organizing and managing the
fine details of the research process.
On one chart I kept track of the dates that I: (a) mailed and received the
demographic questionnaire, (b) conducted both site observations, (c) conducted both
68
interviews, (d) received the cameras, (e) got pictures developed, (f) emailed and received
Activity Log #1, (g) emailed and received Activity Log #2 (See Table 4). This chart was
taped on the wall right next to my computer so I could easily and immediately write
down important dates as I communicated, via email, with my participants throughout the
study.
Table 4. Study Component Management Chart
Study Component Case #1 Case #2 Case #3 Case #4
Demographic Questionnaire M: Oct 11 R: Nov 30
M: Oct 20 R: Nov 30
M: Oct 11 R: Oct 18
M: Oct 14 R: Oct 25
Site Observation #1 Nov 1 Oct 27 Oct 18 Oct 25
Site Observation #2 Jan 13 N/A Jan 20 Jan 12
Interview #1 Nov 1 Oct 27 Oct 18 Oct 25 Interview #2 Jan 13 Jan 25 Jan 20 Jan 12 Visual Data (photographs)
R: Jan 7 D: Jan 10
R: Jan 19 D: Jan 21
R: Dec 23 D: Dec 29
R: Dec 23 D: Dec 29
Activity Log #1 E: Nov 3 R: Nov 20
E: Nov 3 R: Nov 22
E: Nov 3 R: Nov 22
E: Nov 3 R: Nov 12
Activity Log #2 E: Dec 8 R: Dec 16
E: Dec 8 R: Jan 16
E: Dec 8 R: Dec 16
E: Dec 8 R: Dec 16
Legend: M = mailed; R = received; E = emailed, D = developed
The second management grid I kept in a notebook to keep track of other logistical
details related to the study. I kept track of the dates that I: (a) made my initial contacts
with participants, (b) emailed their ‘willingness to participate’ packet, (c) received their
letter stating their willingness to participate in the study, (d) gave them their 3-ring
binder, (e) received their signed informed consent form, (f) contacted to set up interview
one, (g) first interview transcribed, (h) emailed transcribed first interview to participants
to review, (i) received reviewed transcript for interview one, (j) second interview
69
transcribed, (k) emailed transcribed second interview to participants to review, (l)
received reviewed transcript for interview two.
A third strategy I used to keep organized was to import each piece of data into
NVIVO as I received it and then place it into a tree node called ‘Data Sources’. The
interview data and most of the Activity Log data were in the form of long pieces of text
that represented responses to the questions. Each interview question and Activity Log
question were set up as electronic templates with section headings. The section headings
included the question number and a short name for each interview question and each
activity log question. I imported these transcribed and completed documents into
NVIVO, which were then auto-coded by section heading. Using this technique, each
interview and each activity log were automatically coded by question number and name.
This process created each question as a node, determined the context and did the coding
(Bazeley & Richards, 2000). This served to be extremely helpful for me especially when
I wanted to see, at-a-glance, how each participant responded to one particular interview
question or one activity log question. I could just click on the question number and select
to browse the node and NVIVO would then display the responses, by participant, for that
specific question.
Memos
Memo writing allows for documenting researcher’s reflections, synthesizing data,
building arguments and putting the data back together (di Gregorio, 2003). Memos are
conceptual in intent and they are reserved for notes about nodes or coding and are meant
to be kept strictly separate from the primary documents (Gibbs, 2002; Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The following section describes my use of memos both during the
70
research design and development process and throughout the data collection and analysis
processes.
When developing my research proposal, one of the most significant memos I
created was called “proposal unfolding memo”. This is equivalent to a hand-written or
research journal in notebook format, except that it is in electronic format. For 14 months,
from August 2004 until October 2005, when my proposal was approved by my
dissertation committee, I wrote in this almost daily and it served to document thoughts on
my research question development and refinement, setting “boundaries” for the research,
free writes, noting definitions, and meeting minutes from formal and informal doctoral
committee advisory meetings. Since each entry is date and time stamped with a
descriptive heading, I can easily retrieve, read and review past entries, and have a
documented history of my thoughts as the early stages of this research unfolded.
Moving from the proposal stage into the data collection, management and analysis
process, I created and worked with six different types of memos. While working on
various pieces of the project simultaneously, I constantly flowed back and forth, within
NVIVO, between the data and appropriate memos so I could capture and describe my
decisions, thoughts, questions and ideas. The following section describes each type of
memo: 1) artifact memos, 2) observation memos, 3) NVIVO methodology unfolding
memos, 4) transcription memos, 5) chapter update memos and, 6) theme memos.
Artifact memos.
All 4 participants gave me temporary access to their online training courses and
materials. Since I did not know how long I would have access to their online materials, I
went through all of the training materials and created an artifact memo on each one. The
71
types of information I recorded in the artifact memos included a list of the weekly topics
or areas they cover in the training courses, any information that described the support
they provide to faculty, and if there was anything in their trainings or online materials
that they talked about in the interview.
Observation memos.
Two different types of observation memos were created and stored within
NVIVO, descriptive observation memos and reflective observation memos. There were a
total of 14 observation memos. Immediately after each interview, I wrote both memos.
Keeping the descriptive and reflective memos separate allowed for a clear demarcation
between the actual descriptions of the site and my reflections. The descriptive aspects of
my fieldnotes include portraits of the subjects, reconstruction of dialogue, description of
physical setting, accounts of particular events, depiction of activities and my behavior
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The reflective part of the fieldnotes include reflections on
analysis, method, ethical dilemmas and conflicts, points of clarification and my frame of
mind during the observation (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
NVIVO methodology unfolding memos.
The NVIVO methodology unfolding memo contained information related to the
mechanics of using NVIVO and it served as documentation for me as I began to build out
my NVIVO shell and conduct various operations in NVIVO such as setting up my case
nodes, coding, importing data, creating templates, creating sets, coding-on and attributes.
Often found in this memo were summaries from meetings with my doctoral advisor on
different ways and suggestions on how I could effectively use NVIVO in data
management and analysis.
72
Transcription memos.
The transcription memo was used as a place for me to document the conventions
and ways in which I handled the pseudonyms of individuals and institutions within the
interview transcripts. It was necessary for me to create a convention for handling data to
make sure that the information within the transcripts remain anonymous and are imported
into NVIVO in this way.
Chapter update memos.
Chapter update memos were one way that I kept track of questions, ideas, updates
and additions that I wanted to make to each respective chapter. The Chapter Two memos
included notes to myself about newly published or additional literature sources that were
appropriate to support the study and that I needed to integrate into the Chapter Two
review of the literature. Any methodology related revisions were kept in the Chapter
Three update memo. Chapter Four update memo was originally focused on early
emergent themes. It proved to be extremely helpful in the very early stages of data
collection and coding. I quickly realized that each theme that was emerging needed its
own space as a memo, so the focus of the Chapter Four memo changed to be a place
where I could record information that was appropriate for my Chapter Four discussion
section. Chapter Five update memo was created based on a recommendation from one of
my dissertation committee members for me to keep notes throughout the research and
analysis process about possible implications of my research for practice, policy and
future research. I would frequently add to this memo when something came up that was
interesting but did not fall within the scope of this research study. Chapter Five update
73
memo includes important thoughts and reflections that I would have after attending
conferences on online learning.
Theme memos.
As themes began to emerge from the data, I was originally documenting them
within the Chapter Four update memo. I quickly realized that each theme grows, emerges
and changes and it would be more appropriate and more organized if I created a memo
for each theme. Figure 2 shows an example of the contents of my ‘Theme Building
relationships with faculty” and how this theme unfolded.
Figure 2. Unfolding of a theme
By reading the dates and associated headings shown in Figure 2 a visual
representation is provided of when and how this particular theme emerged and the
thought process that evolved during a ten day period as I grappled with and questioned
the data specifically related to this theme. After such interrogation of the data, I found
74
myself in a position to then move to Microsoft Word and begin writing up the theme
based on the evidence gathered in this memo.
Coding at Nodes
For organizational and analysis purposes, all of the data that I collected were
coded as a way to break the data into categories. Codes are tags or labels for assigning
units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Coding is how I identified topics, themes, issues and patterns
in the data and it allowed me to bring together segments of data that fall into the
respective categories (Bazeley & Richards, 2000). Coding is analysis (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). All of the coded data is associated with nodes. Nodes can be
considered containers for the codes (Bazeley & Richards, 2000). Nodes reflect but do not
reproduce the data and they are a way of “connecting a theoretical concept or idea with
passages of text that in some way exemplify that idea” (Gibbs, 2002, p. 57).
Methodologically, I needed to decide how I would make use of codes and nodes to assist
in data analysis. NVIVO allows for the creation of free nodes, tree nodes and case nodes.
All three types of nodes were used at various points throughout this research study. I
primarily used tree nodes and case nodes, but did make use of free nodes on three
occasions.
Coding and data analysis began once I had transcribed all four of the first
interviews. For me to be able to study the transcripts and become closer with the data, I
printed out all four of the Interview I transcripts and did my initial coding by hand, on the
margins of the paper. As a result of this initial coding process I identified approximately
60 – 100 items which could have been created as free nodes. Instead of creating these as
75
free nodes, I decided to do a second review of the data using broad brush coding
techniques and created five tree nodes in NVIVO which encapsulated some general and
initial emergent themes. This is also referred to by Richards (2005) as topic coding or
allocating passages to topics. Throughout the coding process, I maintained descriptions of
each code within the NVIVO Node Property window. The descriptions proved to be
essential to me in many ways. They served as a reminder as to my initial thoughts in
creating the node, as a way to maintain consistency in my coding, as a way to track the
evolution and existence of a node, and lastly, as a way to build trustworthiness of my
data.
Tree nodes allow for organizing nodes into categories or sub-categories
(Richards, 1999). In addition, tree nodes help to 1) represent a taxonomy, 2) gain an
overall view of the growing conceptual framework, 3) prevent node duplication, and 4)
form the basis for using matrix searching (Gibbs, 2002). Child nodes can be created
beneath each tree node which have a meaningful connection back to the specific tree
node. Creating tree nodes served as a way to create deeper categories of nodes which
allowed me to draw inferences and make connections among the nodes. In setting up tree
nodes, consideration was given on how the data can be useful and partitioned when
creating matrices and conducting searches in NVIVO.
Once I had reached a point where all of the data had been coded into tree nodes, I
began a systematic approach to ‘taking off’ (Richards, 2005, p. 94) from the data and
conducting what Richards calls analytical coding. I followed a systematic approach to
analyzing each tree node. I first browsed the node and printed out a node report that
included all of the text that was coded at that specific node, which allowed me to study
76
and reflect on the content of the node. Often at this point the data suggested new
categories or themes which required me to ‘code-on’ and create child nodes beneath the
tree node. I then printed out a report of the newly created child nodes to see if there were
possible new meanings or new categories emerging from the data. Since coding is an
iterative process, initial coding from the interviews and observations gave way to more
analytical coding as the Activity Logs and visual data sources began to inform the study.
The one challenge I encountered with every node was the appropriate naming of
the categories. It was reassuring when I read Richards (2005) quote “naming is an
analytical process in itself” (p. 95). I struggled with this challenge for every single
category, or theme.
It became clear to me that I was conducting analytical coding when I was able to
create “in vivo” categories which is defined by Richards (2005) as “categories well
named by words people themselves use” (p. 95). “Understanding grows as you bring
together instances of a ‘sound’ in the data” (Richards, 2005, p. 95). This was the case
with the Building Professional Relationships with Faculty theme, all of the child nodes
were created because the terms were used by each participant.
In addition to tree nodes, case nodes were also used in this study. Gibbs (2002)
reports that there are two kinds of research in which the use of case nodes in NVIVO
makes sense. This research study meets his recommended criteria for using case nodes
because it is a case study where each case is linked to multiple documents (Gibbs, 2002).
In this study, I set up two case types. The first is faculty support staff and the second is
titled Institution Online Education Program. In the faculty support staff case type node
each study participant is set up as a case node (Richards, 1999). In the Institution Online
77
Education Program case type node, each institution is set up as a case node. The data
gathered from the demographic questionnaire, and some data from the Activity Logs and
interviews were considered attributes of the case types and were used to populate case
type attributes in NVIVO as a way to define the case nodes.
By assigning attributes, or values, to the case type, then all of the case nodes
linked to the case types inherited these attributes (Bazeley & Richards, 2000). Attributes
were considered holders for the demographic data, which allowed me to expand them as I
found new comparison areas. For example, the first few questions of Interview I provided
important information related to their online programs, and this information became
stored as attributes of the Institution case node. The Activity Logs also provided data that
was set up as case type attributes including the following, 1) time they arrived at work, 2)
time they left work, 3) if they worked evenings, 4) taught workshops that week, 5) had
scheduled meetings, 6,) how many scheduled meetings, 7) had unscheduled meetings, 8)
how many unscheduled meetings, 9) number of emails received, 10) number of emails
responded to, and 11) number of phone calls received.
Setting up the NVIVO project in this way allowed for retrieving, filtering and
scoping searches for within-case and across-case analysis (Bazeley & Richards, 2000;
Richards, 1999). All of the documents that are relevant to each case were coded at a
single case node. For example, all of the data collected and documents generated from
my interactions with Sally were coded at a single case node for Sally. Used in this way,
the case nodes were used in searching to restrict the scope and it allowed for a case-by-
case analysis (Gibbs, 2002). It is the case nodes which allowed for a case-by-case
comparison, which was done by matrix searching. A matrix provides a visual display of
78
data and is when two or more main dimensions are crossed to see how they interact
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The coding processes described here were part of an iterative
and emerging process and were used to inform each other and help form the basis for the
data analysis.
Subjectivity
The purpose of this research study was to describe the work activities of
individuals who occupy the role of faculty support staff who work in online programs.
Through the use of a demographic questionnaire, interviews, visual data and Week in
Review Activity Logs the study participants opened and shared their professional lives
with me. As a qualitative researcher I brought my values, experiences, biases and identity
with me as I conducted this research – I brought myself. As I immersed myself in this
study, I became part of the setting, context, and culture I was trying to understand and
represent (Altheide & Johnson, 1994). Being in such a role required a balance between
myself as a researcher and myself as “one of them”. This balance needed to be
acknowledged and monitored throughout the research process. Subjectivity memos were
written, and saved in NVIVO, to help document and monitor my subjectivity.
My professional role at my institution did not exist before I came into my current
position, so I brought with me ideas and biases on what a “new professional in higher
education” is like. I’ve had to find my space in a higher education institution and learn
how to interact with all of the stakeholders. This is a role that doesn’t have a clear path
ahead and/or history or precedent behind.
Given these experiences, I have beliefs and opinions that could affect the data I
collected and the data I analyze and report in the final research dissertation. I recognize
79
that the data must bear the weight of any interpretation, so I confronted my own opinion
and prejudices with the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). To guard against my own biases I
followed the recommendations of Bogdan & Biklen (2003) by recording detailed
fieldnotes that included reflections on my own subjectivity, and shared my project as it
unfolded within a supportive community of doctoral students. This community of
doctoral students abides by a policy, of utmost confidentiality, that is, not sharing and
discussing research in progress with outsiders.
However, it goes beyond this, it requires reflexivity, or a constant critical
reflection on myself as researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 2003). This reflection was
documented via memos in NVIVO and took place when I was both in the research setting
(in the field) and in the office reviewing the data. I was cognizant of my different
identities and different “selves” that were put forth and these were acknowledged,
monitored and disclosed (Bianco & Carr-Chellman, 2002).
Validity
Validity is considered a goal rather than a product and it provides an avenue for
the reader of this research to judge both the processes and outcomes of this inquiry
(Lincoln & Guba, 2003; Maxwell, 1996). The concept of validity is defined by Maxwell
(1996) as the “correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation,
interpretation, or other sort of account” (p. 87).
The following section describes how I ruled out validity threats and plausible
alternatives to my interpretations and explanations (Maxwell, 1996). Multiple
“traditional” strategies were used for addressing validity threats in this study, however, a
discussion of the powerful role NVIVO plays in addressing validity threats cannot go
80
unstated. The following section provides a description of the ways validity threats were
ruled out based on the approach to data collection, types of methods used, and data
management and documentation in NVIVO.
Multiple measures to rule out validity threats were used to assure integrity of my
research. Interviews were recorded with a digital audio recorder and verbatim
transcription of the interviews took place as soon as possible after the interview.
Recording and subsequent verbatim transcription of the interviews helped to address the
one main threat to valid description, which is the inaccuracy or incompleteness of the
data (Maxwell, 1996). By conducting the transcription of the data by myself, I became
extremely close and intimate with my data.
This research was conducted to describe the work activities of faculty support
staff in online programs. In order to achieve a rich description of the work activities,
study participants had multiple opportunities to share their perspectives with me, via a
demographic questionnaire, interviews, visual data and Activity Logs. To reduce the
possibility that I might impose my assumptions or perspectives on the collected data, I
asked all study participants open-ended questions, following the interview protocols for
Interview I and II and carefully listening to the information, experiences and perspectives
they shared with me. To assure that I did not misinterpret their meaning and or
perspective, member checks and reflective summaries were conducted during the
interview to assure my understanding. Member checking was also used in two additional
ways. Once each interview was transcribed from the audio tape, I emailed the entire
transcript back to the participant so they could review it for accuracy. Participants were
encouraged to provide alternative language or interpretation (Stake, 1995). I received
81
three interview transcripts back, with minor edits, from member checking. A second type
of member checking I used was during the second interview to confirm that I was
reporting accurate data in Tables 1 and 2, as shown in Chapter Three. According to
Maxwell (1996), this type of systematic solicitation of feedback about the data is the
single most important way of ruling out misinterpretation of meaning and perspective.
Case studies can be characterized by the collection of multiple sources of data
(Fitzpatrick et al., 2004). Five different types of data were collected during this study.
While there is no guarantee that triangulation increases validity, triangulation is
recommended to address validity threats (Fielding & Fielding as cited in Maxwell, 1996).
Triangulation is considered a process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning,
verifying the repeatability of an observation or interpretation (Stake, 2003). The claims
made during the interviews were substantiated with evidence documented in the Activity
Logs and visual data. Using methods such as verbatim transcription, detailed fieldnotes
and member checks have provided me with rich data so that I could appropriately
triangulate the five types of data in terms of validity threats. Triangulation is important to
reducing threats to validity, but the iterative nature of this process is more like a crystal
with many sides versus a triangle with three sides, a metaphor used by Richardson (cited
in Lincoln & Guba, 2003). The crystal as a metaphor helps researchers to see the
interweaving processes in the research: discovery, seeing, telling, storying, re-
presentation.
As a doctoral student, I recognize the importance of sharing ideas and soliciting
feedback on this research as it unfolds. I made use of existing opportunities available for
feedback from colleagues and other doctoral students as a strategy to identify validity
82
threats, my biases and assumptions, and flaws in my logic or methods while adhering to
confidentiality agreements (Maxwell, 1996).
Enhancing validity by using NVIVO
One of the strengths of qualitative research is to describe the processes that lead to
the outcomes (Maxwell, 1996). Richards (2004) documents four methods in which
NVIVO can serve to ensure the appropriate data are used, the inquiry is thorough and the
best possible outcome is achieved. These four methods include, a) maintenance of audit
and log trails, b) interrogate interpretations for sound inquiry, c) scope data for a well
founded analysis, and d) establish saturation for robust explanation. I will describe how
these four methods were used, in conjunction with NVIVO, to reduce validity threats.
Maintenance of Audit and Log Trails.
All documents and entries created and edited in NVIVO have a date and time
stamp. This allowed me to monitor how the research process unfolded over time.
Through the use of the methodological log and ‘theme’ memos, as described in the Data
Management and Analysis with NVIVO section, I was able to keep track of decisions,
assumptions, understandings and origins of key concepts or coding categories. I kept my
subjectivity in check by creating follow up memos after each interview, site observation,
and after transcribing the interviews and after I received and read through each Activity
Log for the first time. These memos serve as a trail map to my thinking, questions,
concerns, biases in relation to, and as a reflection on, each data collection point.
Interrogate Interpretations.
Interrogate interpretations is a term from the NVIVO literature, which refers to
establishing a sound and thorough inquiry into the data. Before data interrogation can
83
take place the data needs to be thoroughly coded. This includes the use of multiple coding
where many meanings occur, coding-on to develop dimensions, developing categories,
and checking context (Richards, 2004). There can be multiple levels of coding depending
on the interpretation and meaning that emerges. I did not prohibit myself from coding
single passages or contexts multiple times given there was data that existed to help
address my research question. My use of free nodes and tree nodes allowed me to
investigate deeper into the data to conduct and build iterative searches. A strong
foundation of codes within the data allowed me to gain access to the data by case,
question or topic so that any emergent theme could be investigated.
The use of attributes and case nodes in NVIVO allowed me to ask questions of
the data and extending their value “beyond simply being tools for managing data, to
being tools to assist in interrogating the data” (Bazeley & Richards, 2000, p. 153). For
example, search matrices were created that ask questions of descriptive data and
interpretive data simultaneously. Thus, allowing for an examination of the interaction and
intersection of different types of data.
Scope Data.
Data can be scoped for a well founded analysis and to check the completeness and
validity of my coding (Gibbs, 2002; Richards, 2004). With the large number of memos,
documents, nodes and attributes within NVIVO, advanced searching capabilities allowed
me to scope a search. Scoping allowed me to specify a subset of data to search, then the
search tool allowed me to specify what, how and where to search and then specify what
to do with the results. The ability to scope a search provideed for accurate focusing of a
question or just scoping specific documents or nodes that I wanted to explore further
84
(Richards, 1999). As my data collection expanded, I used advanced NVIVO tools to
scope and assay the data which allowed me to identify themes and help me to know just
what claims I could make based on the data (Richards, 2004).
Qualitative research is an iterative process and NVIVO is powerful in that it can
help support such a process. All documents in NVIVO have appropriate naming
conventions and have been structured in such a way that I can accurately and easily
access them according to date, coding or attributes (Richards, 2004). An NVIVO shell
was created in NVIVO early in this project so I was able to begin to create placeholders
for future data and shape the data management and analysis for easy manipulation and
organization. The purpose of the NVIVO shell was to think about the data before and
during collection, protect data, and to strengthen validity and trustworthiness (Hickey,
2005).
Establish saturation.
For rich and robust explanations, saturation needed to be established (Richards,
2004). Establishing saturation relied on the use of multiple tools within NVIVO to show
connections between the development of ideas, and to clarify concepts and their
relationships. For example, the Show Tool in NVIVO was used to get an overview of my
project then often a graphical representation was created to display the connections
between the codes in the tree nodes. This allowed me to see if and where there are
connections between the themes and can help to identify overlap in my coding.
The use of NVIVO qualitative software to help rule out validity threats to
qualitative research is new and emerging. Using NVIVO has allowed me to capture the
85
process of research as it unfolds and ensure the appropriate data are used, the inquiry is
thorough and the best possible outcome is achieved.
Representation and Presentation
Representation and presentation refer to how a researcher locates themselves
within the research. I needed to find a balance between how I represent the words and
experiences of my study participants and how I share my analysis and interpretation of
such words and experiences. This has been referred to as the triple representational
problem by Fine, Weis, Weseen and Wong (2003) which is known to be a challenging
part of the decision making process in qualitative research. It resides in deciding how to
a) present myself as researcher, b) present my study participants, and 3) present the
“others” who may be referred to by study participants (Fine et al., 2003).
Five different types of data were collected for this study including a demographic
questionnaire, interviews, observations, visual data and Activity Logs. As themes
emerged from the synthesis and compilation of the data, I carefully considered and
acknowledged multiplicity of voices, considering the voices heard and not heard
(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). It is important that readers “hear” the voices and the exact
words of the study participants and “see” their world through the visual data (Lincoln &
Guba, 2003). The data collected from interviews and activity logs were quoted, as
appropriate, from the transcripts allowing for clear representation of the voice of the
study participants. Interpretation and analysis of the visual data were integrated into the
research text in such a way to share my voice and the voice of the study participant as
they represent themselves in the data. It is my goal to “tell the participants’ storied
experiences and to represent their voices, all the while attempting to create a research text
86
that will speak to, and reflect upon, the audience’s voice” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p
147).
Conclusion
Faculty support programs serve as a critical foundation for successful online
programs as online education continues to grow and increase in demand by students. To
keep up with such growth, qualified and appropriate support staff are necessary to
provide adequate resources, training and support for faculty who develop and teach
online courses. Higher education institutions are now challenged to define the work
activities and create the roles for such individuals. However, this cannot be accomplished
until we can articulate the types of activities faculty support staff perform in their day-to-
day work.
This study was concerned with identifying the work activities of faculty support
staff who work in online education programs in higher education institutions. I have
found no studies to date that study this exact topic, so a collective case study approach
was the most appropriate for studying such an undocumented topic. In studying work
activities of professionals it is assumed that they know their work most intimately. Thus,
data collection techniques chosen for this study primarily relied on the study participants
to provide documentation of their work. Interviews provided some broad and very
important information about the general work activities of the participants. This served as
an important foundation in the creation and emergence of themes, codes and patterns of
the work activities. Supplementing the interviews and providing additional in-depth, and
powerful, information were the demographic questionnaire, site observations, visual data
and Week in Review Activity Logs. As the data was collected, the Week in Review
87
Activity Logs and Visual Data became critical in providing specific details into their
work worlds. The five data collection techniques analyzed individually and triangulated
with each other allowed for a rich description of the work of faculty support staff in
online programs.
In Chapter Four, the data from the 4 faculty support staff will be presented. We
will explore the five findings that emerged as a result of the five types of data. Once the
themes have been presented, Chapter Four concludes with a discussion that looks across
the findings, explores their meaning and discusses three significant outcomes that
resulted in connection to my inquiry.
88
Chapter IV
FINDINGS
This chapter explores the work activities of 4 professionals who occupy the role
of faculty support staff in online education programs and discusses the findings derived
from four months of data collection. The methods used to accumulate information
included the following: four demographic questionnaires, seven site observations, eight
semi-structured interviews, forty photographs, eight activity logs, four job descriptions
and a number of written documents, referred to as artifacts, which included items such as
online training courses, online tutorials, author manuals and teaching manuals. Once
collected, NVIVO was used to code and analyze data within and across data types.
The question guiding this research study was: What are the work activities of
professionals who occupy the roles of faculty support staff in online education programs?
During the first interview when I began to gather background information about each
institutional model or approach to online education, I quickly realized that each
institution has a model that is complex and unique. It would not be appropriate for me to
describe the participants of the study without first sharing a description of the
institutional model of online education at the respective institutions within which they
work. Also, it would not be appropriate for me to introduce the participants until I
89
provide a general overview as to the scope and the variety of support activities they
perform. The following sections are organized to help introduce each online program
within which the participants work, the types of support provided by the participants, and
background information about the study participants. Once the participants and
institutions are introduced, the remainder of this chapter focuses on the discussion of the
findings that emerged as a result of data analysis.
Background of Participants’ and their Online Programs
Background of the Participants’ Online Programs
Defining the work activities present in online education in higher education varies
depending on the institutional environment, particularly related to the distance education
model being implemented (Clay, 1999; Smith, 2004; Williams, 2003). Institutional
models of online education emerge as institutions confront the numerous variables that
need to be considered and acknowledged during the growth and development of online
education programs. The online programs within which the participants work are unique
and complex in all aspects of their existence. It is appropriate to introduce the larger
context, or the model of online education, in which the faculty support staff work and
conduct their daily work activities.
The attributes feature within NVIVO allowed me to organize pieces of similar
information about each institution. What emerged were two main categories of
information contained within the attributes. The first type illustrates a general overview
and background of each of the four online programs (see Table 1) and the second type
illustrates the institutional approach to course development and training (see Table 2).
90
Table 1. Background information related to online programs
Name Institution
Age of online program
# certificates
# courses
# online degrees
Level of Program
Length of courses
Sally Maple State College 1998 2 40 3
Grad and Undergrad 14 weeks
Lynn Oak University 1997 4 124 35
Grad and Undergrad
8 weeks (UG), 11 weeks (G)
Lisa
Willow Community College 1999 1 72 2
Undergrad only 14 weeks
Dina
Cedar College (Private) 2002 26 49 0
Undergrad only
3 weeks to 12 weeks
In regards to online degrees, Willow Community College is a member of
Massachusetts Colleges Online which allows community colleges in Massachusetts to
offer fully online programs because they are able to broker courses from other colleges
within the consortium. Maple State College is also a member of Massachusetts Colleges
Online, but online course brokering does not occur at the State College level. Cedar
College, a private college, does not offer degrees online but they hope, at some point, to
offer degree completion programs for students who have taken courses on campus.
The faculty who teach at these institutions are a mixture of full time and adjunct
faculty. Except for Willow Community College, the recruitment and hiring of faculty
takes place through Continuing Education departments with approvals sought from the
appropriate academic departments. Willow Community College has a “bottom up”
approach as to what courses get developed and offered online, “it is the faculty who come
91
forward when they are interested in developing an online course” (Lisa). Each institution
has unique attributes which emerge together to define their institutional approach to
online course development and training.
Table 2. Institutional approach to course development and training
Name Expectations
Length of Training
Training Format
Learning Management System
New courses per semester or term
Sally
Complete course online
7 modules, 6 weeks
Self-Paced Online Tutorial, one-to-one, asynchronous instructor led Blackboard 1-2
Lynn
1 week online 8 weeks
Asynchronous instructor led One-to-one Blackboard 3-4
Lisa
Complete course online
6 weeks online (9 month development process)
one on one and asynchronous online Blackboard 2-5
Dina
Complete course online
Author: 4 weeks Instructor: 8 weeks
One-to-one, online showcase & print manuals, group sessions Proprietary 3-4
The second column in Table 2 titled Expectations is the amount of course
materials faculty are expected to have developed and online within the Learning
Management System before an online course begins. Three of the four institutions require
faculty have their complete course online before they begin teaching it online. Lynn
encourages her faculty to have two-thirds of the course developed before the course
begins, but she requires the first week online and noted, “a good rule of thumb is to have
it all done, but in my world that is pretty unrealistic” (Lynn).
To help faculty meet these expectations all of the support staff conduct some sort
of training in a variety of lengths and formats. At three of the four institutions faculty do
92
all of their own course development and they learn how to use the Learning Management
System, Blackboard, to post their materials online. Even though the participants may
offer online training courses, it is important to remember that the training and learning do
not end when those courses end. In the case of Lisa, she teaches a six week online
asynchronous training course, but reminded me that the “training runs through the whole
nine month development process” and that the course development process is not
separate from the training process.
Dina uses a different model. At her institution she works with two types of
individuals, course authors and course instructors. The authors are the faculty that they
hire to write the content for the course and the author works with a team of editors and
course developers who edit the content, build learning interactions, and implement the
content into the learning management system. The authors are closely involved in their
course design and development process by reviewing, revising, and offering ideas and
feedback on what is produced by the course developers. Formal training takes place with
authors over a four week period. The instructors, who may or may not be the same as the
course authors, are the individuals who teach the course. Over an eight week period,
instructor training consists of “curriculum planning and understanding of the material that
they are going to be teaching and two weeks of tool specific training” (Dina).
This is the type of support model that Thompson (2003) was referring to when she
described a type of institution that provides “the centralized support services of a team of
experts who provide the expertise necessary to transform faculty-developed content into
online courses” (p. 192).
93
In addition to supporting their online faculty and courses, Sally and Lisa have
additional responsibilities to support web-enhanced and hybrid courses, which are
courses that are not offered fully online but are on-campus courses which utilize some
technology components of the Blackboard Learning Management System. Lynn and Dina
work solely with faculty who are developing and teaching online courses.
Types of Support available at each Institution
As described in Chapter Two, the type of support an institution provides to faculty
during any phase of online course development can be broadly based. Support can
include elements such as administrative support, faculty development support, technical
infrastructure support, operational support, academic support, training coordination,
instructional design support, library support, technical support and student services
(Fetzner, 2003). Interviews, artifact memos, activity logs, visual data and the job
descriptions of participants provided evidence as to the types of support the institutions,
and therefore, the faculty support staff provide to faculty. Appendix A provides a table
with types of support available at each institution. There were eleven different types of
support that all four institutions provide to faculty. In addition, each institution offers
some unique and innovative approaches to support such as embedding librarians into
online course discussion boards to create stronger connections between faculty, students
and campus librarians, WIKI spaces and online Communities of Practice, comprehensive
content and technology orientations for students, and stringent editorial review and
proofing processes.
Just as important to share the types of support they provide, it is important to
mention the types of support they do not provide. Sally, Lynn and Lisa all mentioned that
94
their current support model does not help faculty members get copyright clearance for
materials they may want to include in their online course. Lisa mentioned that was a
“weak area of ours”. The online tutorial that Sally developed does review and ask faculty
to read about the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act
and why they might need to get copyright clearance, however, she does not obtain the
clearance for faculty.
Background Information of Participants’
There were 4 participants who participated in this study. All 4 were female,
however, gender was not a specified as part of the study criteria. All participants were
Caucasian. Participants worked in four different types of higher education institutions, a
state college, a University, a community college and a private college. Every participant
has been working in their current position from two to four years. Two participants began
working in their online programs in different roles than they currently hold. Lynn began
working in her online program as an instructional designer and now she is a manager.
Sally was hired as a staff associate and is now the Director. Three of the four participants
have supervisory responsibilities in their current positions, supervising both full and part
time staff and student staff (i.e. work study students). Participants report that they
supervise between one and four-and-one-half staff and one to three students.
In regards to education, all four have Master’s degrees. Their Master’s degrees
were in a variety of fields including Nutrition, Communications, Organizational
Communications, and Professional and Technical Writing. Two have additional
professional certificates. The professional certificates were obtained in Project
Management and a Language/History Study Abroad program. This is similar what
95
Gornall (1999) found about the backgrounds of new professionals. Their backgrounds are
often specialist or discipline based and they are applying their professional skills in a
“new strategic and practical context” (Gornall, 1999, p. 45). Sally reflected back upon her
life experience as it relates to her current role as Director.
I knew nothing about online learning, so I think what I am bringing to the table
that may be unique is the things that I’ve done in the outside world and past lives,
past jobs, where I’ve done a lot that are customer service focused.
Professional development of each participant takes various forms. All participants aim to
keep up to date and current on trends in the field of online education by reading print and
electronic publications, joining professional organizations, joining email list serves and
attending conferences (See Appendix B). Given the variety of backgrounds and
experiences, it is not clear, yet, what professional journal they may read (Gornall, 1999).
As displayed in Appendix B, there is some overlap as to what journals and publications
the faculty support staff read, but the materials, blogs and journals they read are varied.
None of the participants have ever contributed articles to any of the publications
that they read on a regular basis. On her demographic questionnaire when asked if she
ever contributed to any of the publications she reads, Lynn wrote “when does one find the
time?”. It was also common to see piles of paperwork and reading materials on their
desks, as evidenced from the site observations and visual data. In describing Photo 1,
Lynn described the piles as “theoretically organized” based on different “issues in our
field”. She described them as “a big pile for quality oversight, a big pile for engaging
students in discussion, a big pile on using technology”.
96
Photo 1. Lynn’s Office
A few participants are active members within various professional organizations.
Lynn is a board member of the United States Distance Learning Association and also a
peer reviewer for the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Sally is on a
conference planning committee for a statewide consortium of community colleges and
state colleges in Massachusetts. Sally has also recently volunteered to be on two different
committees with the North East Regional Computing Program (NERCOMP). During the
study, both Sally and Lisa presented at regional and national conferences, respectively.
Details of Participants Work Activities
It is appropriate to describe the minute details of the participants’ day to day work
activities which were shared as part of the Activity Logs that participants completed
twice throughout the study. For each week that the participants completed the Activity
Logs, seven of the activity logs were reflective of a ‘somewhat typical’ week. Lynn
reported that the week in which she completed Activity Log two was ‘not at all typical’.
Table 5 provides details on the number of emails they sent and received, the phone calls
they received, as well as their working hours.
97
Table 5. Emails, Phone Calls, Meetings and Working Hours
Name Week of Semester or Term
Email replied to
Email Received
Phone Calls received
Scheduled Meetings with Faculty
Unscheduled Meetings a
Worked Evenings?
Week 9 147 83 A few 3 0 Yes Sally
Week 14 250 275 7 0 0 Yes
Week 2 100 250 10 0 2 Yes Lynn
Week 7 150 250+ 10 3+ 0 Yes
Week 10 50 50 18 3 0 No Lisa
Week 15 90 110 38 1 6 No
Mid to near end of term
79 117 12 1 5 Yes Dina
In between terms
94 122 12 0 2 No
a Unscheduled meetings are informal meetings that take place in the hallway, restrooms or when someone drops into their office looking for assistance.
The range in the numbers of emails, phone calls and evening work correspond to
the time of the semester or term in which the Activity Log was completed. The Activity
Log provided important details regarding the types of media they use and the
photographs provided data to support what was shared in the activity logs.
All 4 participants took pictures of their computers or laptops, telephones, and their
desks. Lisa took a picture of her laptop with her email program on the screen. In
describing that picture Lisa said it was the “center” of her work world and representative
of the way she manages the information flow in and out of her work day. Sally also noted
that her laptop “represents everything” that she does. Sally and Lisa described their
telephones as an important tool in their work world. When Lisa described the picture of
her desk (see Photo 2) she also noted the different types of media that were on the desk.
Such items included color coded post-it notes, a cell phone, a regular phone, a laptop, a
98
thumb drive, plus various pieces of paper and pens, which is all representative of the
“multi-tasking” that she does.
Photo 2. Lisa’s Desk
Typical work days for all four participants began between 8:30 and 9:00am when
the participants arrive at work and end between 4:30 and 6:00pm when they leave work.
The interviews and visual data revealed additional details about their working hours that
were not asked about in the Activity Log. For example, Lynn reported that she usually
begins work at 6am by checking her email, beginning her work day before she arrives at
work. Neither the activity log or interview questions asked participants about working on
the weekends but it was revealed in the Activity Logs, visual data and artifacts that Sally,
Lynn and Lisa had done some work on the weekends. Lynn took a photo of her office on
a Saturday when she was in the office noting that she “does a lot of good work on the
weekends”.
One additional area of inquiry was into the types of physical mail, or “snail mail”
that the participants received. Two people responded that they get a lot of junk mail.
Often the mail is some type of college specific publications, bulletins, or invitations.
99
Other types of snail mail received may fall into the following categories: advertisements
from vendors, conference announcements or upcoming training events, faculty resumes,
publications that they subscribe to and occasionally a vendor invoice.
The Activity Log inquired into the types of meetings that participants attended
during the week. Table 5 displays the number of scheduled and unscheduled meetings
that the support staff had with faculty. Unscheduled meetings are informal meetings that
take place in the hallway, restrooms or when someone drops into their office looking for
assistance.
Photo 3. Lisa’s Hallway
Photo 3 shows a picture that Lisa took of a hallway and noted that a lot of her
meetings, conversations and consultations occur in this hallway. She even noted that
some of the conversations that take place in the hallway do materialize into larger
projects. A third question, not included as part of Table 5, was asked about other
scheduled meetings (ie staff meetings) that participants had attending during the weeks in
which they completed their Activity Log and the number ranged from zero to six
meetings.
100
Critical Themes
Now that the participants and their respective online programs have been
introduced, the remainder of this chapter describes the findings, and concludes with a
discussion of those findings. There were five findings that emerged as a result of the data
analysis.
First, the faculty support staff play a very important role in managing the online
course development process by managing, organizing and keeping track of the progress
of faculty who are at various stages of online course development. Second, and related to
managing the course development process, is the work that is done related to managing
course evaluation processes. Third, the faculty support staff initiate and facilitate
discussions with faculty, both synchronously and asynchronously, about teaching online.
Fourth, faculty support staff clearly articulated the importance of building relationships
with faculty throughout the online course development process. Fifth, in addition to
building professional relationships between themselves and the faculty members, the
faculty support staff spoke frequently about and provided evidence for how they promote
and create networking opportunities among faculty who teach online.
Managing the Process of Online Course Development
It wasn’t until all data types were imported into NVIVO, especially the Activity
Logs, that this theme emerged. The activity logs provided important insights into what
faculty support staff do on more of a daily and weekly basis. The interviews serve to
support this theme but in more of a secondary role. As Figure 3 shows, the types of
documents coded at this node are broad and all encompassing.
101
Figure 3. Showing documents coded at a Node
Faculty support staff work with many
different types of faculty at any one time. In
managing the course development process,
they are managing, organizing, and keeping
track of the progress of faculty who are at
various stages of online course development.
For example, when a faculty member gets
hired to teach online, the support staff need
to make sure that faculty get signed up and
into the appropriate training courses far
enough in advance to give them time to
conduct their course development. During
and after the training process, the support staff monitor and communicate with faculty to
make sure they have the tools and resources they need, while simultaneously scheduling
the faculty member to teach in an upcoming semester or term. This is one example as to
the multitude of tasks that need to be kept track of for each faculty member.
Figure 4 shows the details for the number of passages coded for each of the five
sub-themes that emerged as a result of coding-on from the parent node.
102
Figure 4. Passages coded at Managing the Process of Online Course Development
The following section begins with a description of the types, or categories, of
faculty the support staff work with. Then describes two strategies the faculty support
staff use to help manage the course development process, including 1) timelines and
checklists, and 2) meetings. Some common challenges are discussed that are inherent in
such a task like managing the course development process. Finally, the work that the
faculty support staff do behind the scenes in parallel to managing the course development
process will be discussed.
The spectrum of faculty that the faculty support staff may work with or keep track
of at any one time is very broad, from those who are just thinking about teaching online
to those who may have taught many courses online at their institution. The bulleted list
below highlights the spectrum of faculty that the support staff may work with at any one
time.
• faculty interested in teaching online
• potential faculty (not hired yet)
• full time and adjunct faculty hired to teach online
• experienced online faculty
• those in training
• those scheduled to teach in future
103
• those scheduled to develop subsequent online courses
• those beginning to teach
• those currently teaching
• those wishing to update or revise existing online courses
• keeping database of all faculty who have ever taught online
Fetzner (2003) also recognizes the variety of online faculty “categories” that her
faculty support staff serve. She identified nine online faculty “categories” that the support
staff may work with during a training session, including co-developers of a course,
department chairs, faculty teaching an already developed course and/or faculty who are
taking over an existing course mid-semester and need “just in time” training.
It is important to note that the participants in this study do not manage the course
development process alone. It was the visual data that was extremely rich in providing
documentation on the important role of teamwork. Sally, Lisa and Dina all thought it was
important to take pictures that depict the teams and colleagues with whom they work,
including both staff colleagues, faculty and work study students. When Sally described
the theme of her photos to me she remarked, “I just wanted to include part of everybody
at one point in time”, so many of her photos were of people. Lisa found it important to
take photos of documents that represent the work of a “whole bunch of people” on the
implementation of distance learning activities. For example, Lisa took a picture of a
document that was part of an institution wide distance learning grant (see Photo 4).
104
Photo 4. Lisa’s Grant Document
Photo 4 represents the work of 20 people, three years of work, and includes details on
how her institution will implement distance learning initiatives for the next two years.
This is important to Lisa because it represents work that she may be “responsible for or
be helping to promote and support”, especially since many of the courses and programs
that are developed at her institution are part of this institution wide grant.
Sally, Lynn and Dina are in roles where they are responsible for managing the
course development process and have supervisory responsibilities for small teams of staff
to “make sure the trains are running” (Lynn). Lisa also works with a small team of
colleagues, but has no supervisory responsibilities.
The data further suggested that a large portion of the time and resources in
managing the course development process are spent when faculty are in the “in training”
and “beginning to teach” phases. Various strategies are used by the participants to
manage the logistical details that are inherent in such complex systems such as timelines,
checklists and meetings.
Timelines and Checklists.
It was very interesting to find that all 4 participants have created and use some
type of timeline or checklist to share with faculty. Such tools are given to faculty to help
105
them to better understand the various milestones or action items expected of them during
the online course development process, and as a way for faculty to help manage and plan
their own course development progress. Two of the timelines are very detailed and
specific to online course development and two are more general in nature.
Lisa and Dina present very detailed and specific timelines and stages,
respectively. In her training course, Lisa provides faculty a timeline, in a monthly
calendar format, that includes due dates and expectations for course development during
the nine month course development process. For example, for faculty developing a
course for Spring 2006, they began the process in May of 2005 and each month they are
expected to work, with the support staff, on various pieces of their course. Dina also
presents a course development process which include three stages, 1) course outline
stage, 2) course development stage, 3) course review stage. The process is presented in a
flow chart format that illustrates the twenty steps of the process. Dina also presents a pie
chart that explains the approximate time faculty will spend on the development of each
submission. To help in the management of the course development process Dina and Lisa
keep a database that tracks the progress of all of the courses.
Two of the checklists are more general in nature. Sally has developed an eleven
item semester check list to serve as a reminder to faculty on the various pieces of their
course they need to prepare before the semester starts. Reminders to create welcome
messages, send welcome messages to students, create faculty pages, review their
syllabus, content, rules of engagement, and post a copyright statement into their courses.
Lynn provides faculty with a checklist and timeline for teaching in her distance education
program. It is set up in a table format and includes columns for milestones and action
106
items. It includes general information about teaching within their distance education
program such as, take training course, review handbook, review and sign instructor
agreement, get Blackboard set up, review syllabus, prepare and upload content in
Blackboard, fill out evaluations, turn in grades, handle student issues, request course roll-
overs to next semester.
Meetings.
Meetings become an important way to manage the online course development
process. Depending on the model of the online education program and the type of
training that is offered, two different types of meetings were reported, 1) meetings with
faculty and, 2) meetings with staff. Meetings with faculty are usually in the form of one-
to-one meetings to discuss the online course they are currently developing. Meetings with
staff colleagues are meetings that the faculty support staff had with their colleagues, or
the other staff who work within the online program, as a way to discuss progress and
status of courses being developed for an upcoming term or semester. Such staff meetings
are not a direct form of faculty support, but the ‘to do’ lists that emerge as a result of the
meetings often result in some form of communication with faculty members.
Meetings with faculty may be held to discuss teaching pedagogy for the online
environment, to address technical questions related to the Learning Management System
or other technical issues, to monitor the progress of course development or to review
course content and offer suggestions to faculty. While she tries to minimize it, Lisa
reports that sometimes she has to travel to a sister campus, 25 minutes away, for meetings
with faculty or other administrative meetings.
107
Lynn, Lisa and Dina all report that they have regularly scheduled staff meetings to
discuss the status of courses currently being developed for upcoming terms. Lynn talks
about the importance of these meetings and working closely with her staff “we are
meeting weekly so that it is not really me, the manager, and it is more just we are all a
team”. Based on faculty feedback about her online training course, Lisa is redesigning
and reducing the length of the course. Multiple meetings took place to “pull the course
apart and put it back together” (Lisa). In this case, meetings spanned across Lisa’s
Activity Logs and visual data, and ironically, were meetings to discuss, revise and update
the ‘medium’ which helps to manage the flow of the course development process.
Challenges.
Working with such a diverse group of individuals is not without its challenges.
Early in the course development process Lisa finds that sometimes there is confusion
about her institutions’ nine month timeline and expectations for developing an online
course. Generally, faculty are aware that there is a grant application process but
sometimes there is some confusion.
During the training component of the online course development process, many
challenges seem to emerge. Lisa shares that she has had problems with faculty retention
in the online course because they may get discouraged while taking the online course.
She is hoping that meeting with them one time during the newly revised six week training
course will help address the faculty retention issue. It is challenging for Dina to work
with difficult authors who don’t follow the agreed upon course development deadlines.
Lynn’s challenges are more around institutional policy issues. “We don’t offer
development money, but at the same time it is a best practice to really have that class
108
developed before” the term begins (Lynn). Oak University does not offer stipends to
faculty for developing their online courses, so this is one reason why she feels that she
cannot ask faculty to have more than one week online before the class begins. However,
Lynn did tell me during our first interview and it was also stated in her online training
course, that she is revising this requirement and “moving toward more content
developed”.
Lynn also describes a challenge with an instructor who was academically
qualified to teach a particular course but does not like the technology and learns just
enough “to get by”. Lynn noticed a recent increase in student complaints about the non-
responsiveness of this particular instructor. Great empathy was required to handle the
situation since the instructor was sick with a terminal illness, so Lynn describes how she
needed to empathize with the instructors’ frustration and ask her to make the necessary
changes in her communication to students. Lynn noted that “the call was difficult and in
the end it did not help her or help our situation”.
Work Activities behind the Scenes.
In managing the course development process, there is much technical and system
administration work that happens, as Sally notes, “behind the scenes”. Sally also
commented that faculty “don’t need to hear all of that” in referring to the types of work
she does behind the scenes to make the process as seamless as possible for faculty,
students and staff.
This theme came about because in addition to supporting faculty with their
specific online courses, the faculty support staff conduct activities behind the scenes that
directly affects faculty, their online courses and students. Faculty may or may not be
109
aware of the work done behind the scenes, but it is a very important part of supporting
faculty in their online course development process. Examples of such work are to assure
that the online courses get created in the Learning Management System, that faculty get
access to the appropriate courses, and the online students get enrolled into their courses,
and that general maintenance issues be handled at the beginning and end of each
academic semester and/or term. Some study participants are more involved than others in
these system administration responsibilities; however, each of the 4 participants plays
some role in managing or overseeing such processes.
Another common work activity that occurs behind the scenes is that Sally, Lynn
and Lisa report their work on managing relationships with Blackboard, the company who
provides their Learning Management System. As Lynn notes she works to keep her
“relationship with Blackboard solid”. In the case of Dina, she works closely with her
technical team to improve, build and update their proprietary Learning Management
System.
Managing Course Evaluation Processes
Participants often shared through their interviews and Activity Logs how involved
their work is with managing the course evaluation process. The course evaluation process
often takes place at the end of the semester or term, when online students have access to
complete an anonymous course evaluation about the course they are completing online. A
second theme that emerged, related to course evaluations, is the work that the faculty
support staff do to solicit feedback related to the structure of their training approaches
and training courses. The following section will describe two evaluation areas which the
110
faculty support staff manage: 1) online course evaluations, and 2) training course
evaluations. Figure 5 depicts the number of passages coded with each of the two areas.
Figure 5. Passages coded at Managing Course Evaluation Process
Online Course Evaluations.
The work that the faculty support staff do related to online course evaluations is
varied. The support staff role within the course evaluation process may involve managing
the logistics related to making sure that the course evaluation gets posted at the
appropriate time in the semester or term, they may do the actual data analysis of the
evaluation results, and they are involved in making sure the results get distributed to the
appropriate campus administrators and to faculty. When I met with Sally in November
2005 for our first interview, she mentioned that she was still finishing up the analysis of
the summer evaluations, reporting that it “takes a little time”. On the other hand, Lynn
has a system in place which sends the course evaluations electronically to instructors
within a week of the end of their course. It is also interesting to note that during the study,
Sally was managing a trial of a course evaluation system that her institution may be
implementing if the trial goes smoothly.
Lynn and Dina use very structured approaches to conduct course evaluations to
assure that the evaluation data gets acted upon. Lynn has a Quality Rubric, titled Quality
Rubric: Course Components and Instructor Attributes, which forms the basis for a
comprehensive course review. At the end of each semester, the rubric, completed by the
instructor and instructional designer, along with the course evaluations form the basis of a
111
comprehensive review of the course, which then gets delivered to the department chair.
Dina begins the course evaluation process during the course development process, in the
course revision stage, continues the process informally during the semester where she
encourages faculty to solicit feedback from students at different points in the course and
then at the end of the course there is the formal course evaluation that students will
complete. At the end, they look at all of these pieces and say “how did we do” (Dina).
Three of the four participants clearly communicated the work that they do to act
upon the data that they receive from course evaluations. For example, in her second
Activity Log, Lynn reported that during that week she had to handle some faculty issues
related to poor evaluations. Ten instructors had poor reviews and she had to follow up to
“address red flag classes” (Lynn). These particular faculty had low evaluations and
negative comments from students on their teaching style and approach. Dina also
reported on her Activity Log that her work entails plotting revisions to courses based on
course evaluations. Sally has used her course evaluation data and feedback from students
to support that she needs a more structured approach to her faculty training. More details
about this issue will be described in the section below on Training Course Evaluations.
Lisa’s role in the course evaluation process was not mentioned to me as part of
her regular work activities, as it was with Sally, Lynn and Dina. However, Lisa uses the
results of the course evaluation data in an innovative and creative way. In her six week
online training course, she shares a summary report of the online course evaluations from
her institution. In her online course, she also lets faculty know “we'll be setting the stage
for each unit by letting you hear from real students about their experiences with online
courses. We hope this will help you see the courses through a student's eyes.” For
112
example, when introducing the instructional design concepts to faculty in her online
training course, she introduces it by using real student comments “in praise of the well-
organized course” and “pleas for improvement”.
Handling and managing course evaluations are not without challenges and
frustrations for the faculty support staff. Technical challenges were described by Sally
and Lynn. Lynn reports that “our course evaluation rates have been very low” and the
“course evaluations are a huge issue for us because we don’t have a system in place that
requires students or blocks students from doing anything else before they take it”. Lynn
describes the manual intervention that her and her staff need to do to assure that the
course evaluation website link get posted into each of the courses.
Training Course Evaluations.
The faculty support staff actively solicit feedback from faculty about how they
can improve their training programs. For example, at two points during her online
training course Lisa solicits feedback from faculty on the structure, assignments,
readings, content of the course, the experience, the facilitators and the strongest and
weakest aspects of the course. As a result of this feedback, in addition to her
observations, she is now in the process of revising the course by shortening it by two
weeks and instituting a mid-course meeting with them. When Lisa told faculty she was
shortening the course “they were ecstatic”. Another source of feedback about the
trainings comes indirectly from the online students. For example, Sally recently had a
student say to her “this was one of the worst experiences that I had, I never heard at all
from my instructor”. This statement is one that prompted Sally to “push really, really
hard” with her Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs to change the format of her
113
online training. Beginning in January of 2006, for the first time at her institution, Sally is
offering an instructor led, asynchronous online course, which would be based on her
existing self-paced tutorial.
Initiating and Facilitating Discussions about Teaching Online
Teaching online is different from teaching in a classroom. Faculty need to
understand these differences and how they can redesign their courses for teaching in an
online, asynchronous environment. Through the data provided by the artifact memos,
interviews, visual data and Activity Logs the faculty support staff are clearly very
involved in discussions about teaching online including, 1) Initiating Discussions and, 2)
Facilitating Discussions. Figure 6 depicts the number of passages coded within each of
the two areas.
Figure 6. Passages Coded at Initiating Discussions about Teaching Online
Jack Wilson , the President of the University of Massachusetts, and keynote
speaker at the 2005 Sloan-C International Conference on Asynchronous Learning
Networks, noted that online education has prompted compelling and widespread
conversations about teaching in learning, has meant that we have had to rethink how we
teach, and has meant that we have to look at content and learning processes in new ways
(Wilson, 2005). When initiating discussions about teaching online, Lisa reports that part
of that process involves “initiating the shift in mindset that needs to occur when
designing an online course”. While these conversations are happening at many levels
with higher education, it is the faculty support professionals who work directly with the
114
faculty who are prompting and having many of these ‘front line’ conversations, both
synchronously and asynchronously, with faculty.
Each of the 4 participants provided me with access to the components of their
training programs that are online. This was in the form of password protected websites to
which I was given access. When I discuss training, it is important to remember the multi-
faceted approaches to training that each of the participants are involved with, and the
term may encompass one-to-one consultations, group sessions or workshops, self-paced
online tutorials, showcase courses, written manuals, online asynchronous instructor led
courses and/or any combination of the above.
Each online training course was presented in different ways, each serving as a
model online course for the faculty at the respective institutions. All participants
consistently reported that they have developed their training approach based on a similar
goal to help faculty understand what elements are effective, appropriate and important in
developing online courses. It is interesting to note the variation in the approaches they
take to meet that goal and how they initiate and facilitate discussions about teaching
online.
Based on the experience and generally accepted principles of course design, Sally
presents components of online course development based on the premise of content
engagement. Content engagement is defined, in a video clip within her self-paced online
tutorial, as interaction within the context of content. In her asynchronous online instructor
led training course, Lynn covers the different topics that are important in developing
excellence in online teaching, by promoting a systematic course design process
developed from a constructivist framework. In a comprehensive nine month course
115
development process, Lisa’s training is centered around an instructional design approach
focusing on pedagogy instruction, using a process called Integrated Course Design. When
coaching course authors, Dina strives to help faculty understand the online experience
and what works most effectively online. The approach is structured around an intensive
instructional design process, by which a course author develops the course materials, and
a team of course developers and graphic designers format the materials and associated
learning interactions for online presentation.
Regardless of the theoretical foundations of the online training, it is the existence
of the structured support system that helps the faculty support staff to set the stage for
initiating and facilitating discussions about online teaching. It is in within these informal,
yet structured spaces where faculty begin to grapple with the differences between the
classroom and online. Regardless of how the training has been structured, the underlying
goals of the faculty training were consistently reported by all participants. The goals are
to help faculty to understand what online education is all about and to focus on teaching
not on the technology. In doing so, they often begin by initiating discussions with faculty
about familiar teaching situations, for example, how do you teach in the classroom? Then
continuing the facilitation of such discussions by prompting communication about how it
will work, or translate, to the online environment.
Initiating the discussions: How do you teach in the classroom?
Regardless of the method of training faculty, all participants began the discussions
about teaching online by helping faculty create connections between the classroom and
online, making connections between the familiar with the unknown. Lisa uses a creative
approach by asking faculty to think about their rhythms of their on-campus courses. In
116
the online training course, Lisa structures a discussion that is specifically focused on
having faculty reflect and share details on the rhythm and work flow of their on-campus
courses. It is this reflection on one’s classroom teaching practices, and sharing ideas with
other faculty colleagues, which help faculty to determine how or if these practices can be
translated into an online environment.
In the model that Dina uses, they often, but not always, want to develop a course
that aligns directly with what is taught on campus, so she will interview them about their
campus course, and “pull information out of them” in terms of how a particular online
course can be structured. Especially important is for her to know if there is anything
special about course content and the way the faculty member teaches it, and anything
especially critical to the learning experience that needs to be recreated or
reconceputualized for the online environment.
These initial discussions take many forms and participants report that they use
many different strategies to help faculty through the process. The faculty support staff
may initiate the discussions, either in person or online, by encouraging faculty to share
their experiences with other faculty, asking faculty to reflecting on their current practice,
sharing examples of existing online courses, sharing best practice examples, and
brainstorming. Lisa shares a good synopsis of her approach to her nine month
comprehensive faculty development process for developing a new course
we basically rip their course apart and talk about each piece of it and their
teaching style and their students needs and put it all back together for online
delivery and incorporate those parts of the things that translate directly that work
117
well online and then come up with other ideas for things that don’t work as well
online
After the initial discussions have taken place and faculty have started to think
about what “some of the issues are” (Lisa) they are often equipped with a “vision” (Lynn)
and can begin “mapping out” (Lisa) what their course would look like online.
Facilitating the discussions: How will it work online?
Initial discussions between faculty support staff and faculty, and between faculty
and faculty, pave the way for more in-depth thought, reflection and discussion about how
each particular course will be taught online. Lynn shares her viewpoint on the process
the training is required but we are looking for you to share your experiences, so
here are some interesting questions, let’s discuss, and in the end I pull together
some of their ideas, and it becomes they’ve discovered the answers.
Faculty support staff recognize the importance of and the time needed to
reconceputualize and transform a classroom based course to an online course. Often,
especially in the online portions of their training programs, one week or more is reserved
for “talking” about key concepts such as presenting course content online,
communication and collaboration, instructional activities and assessment, and course
management.
When facilitating discussions about presenting course content online, Sally
presents this topic in terms of what an online course is not. As Sally states, “I want to
make sure that they understand that it is not just about posting content, that there is a lot
more to it” (Sally). Lisa provides some reading materials on topics such as “Should I use
Powerpoint?”. The readings raise important points, yet do not dictate to faculty what an
118
online lecture should be, they help faculty to consider how it ties back to the instructional
goals of a particular lesson.
One of the biggest differences between teaching in a classroom and teaching
online is how faculty communicate with their students. Faculty support staff engage
faculty in important discussions about the types of communication online (namely,
discussion boards, chat rooms and email), and how such tools can be used most
effectively to communicate and engage with students. Faculty are often asked to consider
how they will facilitate student-instructor communication and student-student
communication. Important to Lynn are collaborative learning activities, so she works
with faculty to identify how they will build, sustain and facilitate collaboration in their
courses. Online interaction and discussion facilitation techniques are often the topic of
many on-campus faculty workshops, too. For example, Lynn integrates student
complaints with course evaluations and if she sees any recurring patterns of concern she
will offer on-campus, face-to-face workshops on topics such as discussion board
facilitation techniques.
As the course development continues, the discussions begin to center on faculty
ideas for potentially useful instructional strategies. There is much talk about different
ways to develop assignments or curriculum online and sharing of best practices and
examples of existing courses. There is a lot of talking, in person and online,
brainstorming, sharing, questioning and exploring ideas. This is a time when faculty are
asked to consider the types of active learning activities, how will students participate, and
how will these activities support the goals and objectives for the course. Faculty are often
asked to consider their role in the specific instructional activity and how they will
119
communicate that to their students. Lisa recognizes that faculty know their students best,
so she asks faculty to consider their students and based on that, what are the anticipated
challenges that need to be considered as they design each element of their course.
In designing an online course, all of the faculty support staff recognize the
importance of course management techniques and often facilitate discussions with faculty
around this topic. Helping faculty to consider course design strategies that are
manageable, including consideration of both student workload and expectations and the
resulting workload this creates for the faculty member. As an example, Lisa provides a
course map to help faculty plan their course and how the topics, learning goals,
assessments and learning activities are interconnected and what the resulting “faculty
tasks” will be for each week of the online course. In her instructor manual, Dina provides
some time saving techniques for course management and also provides a document on
“What you can do if you have only ten minutes to check the course”.
Initiating and facilitating discussions about teaching online is an important piece of the
support process because it is often a time when faculty are provided structured
opportunities and guidance as they begin the course development process, often in the
company of their colleagues who are also developing online courses. While it can be
overwhelming for the faculty, the support staff aim to “make it a non-intimidating
process for them” (Lisa).
Building Professional Relationships with Faculty
Interwoven within the descriptions of their work activities, each participant
clearly described the importance of building relationships with faculty throughout the
online course development process. The support staff clearly articulated to me some
120
behaviors they enact when facilitating the support of faculty who are in the process of
designing, developing and teaching online courses. Such behaviors are supported through
evidence in interviews, Activity Logs and artifacts.
The professional relationships that staff develop with faculty is a delicate and
negotiated role (Fredericksen et al., 1999), and the participants in this study recognize the
importance of this role. When this category was first coded in NVIVO, the result was a
total of 74 unique passages of text that emerged as a result. Further analysis of the data
emerged two distinct points in time that are critical to the building of professional
relationships with faculty. The first is the first contact with faculty and the second is all
subsequent contacts with faculty. Both of these points, first and subsequent contacts,
were ‘coded-on’ in NVIVO from the original tree node of ‘building relationships’. Figure
7 shows the details for the number of passages coded for each of the two sub-themes that
emerged as a result of coding-on from the parent node of ‘building relationships’.
Figure 7. Passages coded at Building Relationships with Faculty
Through the interviews and activity logs, all 4 participants noted the importance
of the early communications they have with faculty, especially the first contact. The first
contact is defined as the first meeting or phone call that participants make with a new or
potential faculty member who may teach online at their institution. Common to all 4
participants is that the first contact always occurs before any formal training takes place.
The first contact takes place either in person or over the phone, especially with adjuncts
121
who teach from a distance. The first contact may also take place before, during or after
the faculty are hired to teach online.
When asked about a typical day at work Sally talks about how she often sets up
appointments with faculty who have been hired to teach online at her institution. With
some concern in her voice, Sally informs me that she does want a more structured
training program than she currently has but worries that changing her current model of
faculty training to a more structured approach may affect her initial contact with faculty
which she feels is very important. Lynn affirms the importance of this first contact. Lynn
usually conducts an interview call with adjunct faculty before she hires them which
serves as her first contact. This interview call “is not like an interview of I’m going to
hire them or no I am not, it is more a chance to connect with them on the phone”(Lynn).
Lisa facilitates an in person orientation for faculty who will be participating in her six
week online training course to “soothe their minds and take the edge off because it can be
intimidating for them”.
After the first contact there are many different types of behaviors that participants
perform as a way to continue to build their relationships with faculty. Five categories
were created “in vivo” which is defined by Richards (2005) as “categories well named by
words people themselves use” (p. 95). The five categories include:1) make faculty feel
comfortable, 2) listening, 3) meet faculty needs, 4) patience, and 5) follow through. The
emergence of these categories affirm what Surry (1996) suggests that, like instructional
technologists, faculty support staff are more concerned with people than with technology,
being sensitive to the ideas, hopes, fears and needs of faculty. Figure 8 displays the
number of passages of text coded at each of the five categories.
122
Figure 8. Number of passages coded at Building Relationships with Faculty node
Making Faculty Feel Comfortable.
Three of the four study participants used the term comfortable during the first
interview when referring to how they like to make faculty feel when they are working
with them. In particular, the points in time when the support staff aim to make faculty
feel comfortable is right before and right after the semester or term begins, particularly
those faculty who are teaching online for the first time. This concept of making them feel
comfortable was addressed in response to the interview questions related to faculty
technical skills and monitoring the progress of faculty while they are progressing through
the training program.
Before the semester begins, Lisa checks in with faculty who are teaching online
for the first time to make sure there are not any last minute details that need to be
addressed and to make sure that the faculty members are comfortable. Once the semester
gets underway Sally tries to make the faculty member feel comfortable by making sure
they know there are no stupid questions, always being there to respond to their emails. In
the initial days of the term Dina checks in with the new authors or new instructors to
make sure that they are comfortable and that they are doing what they need to do.
123
Listening.
Listening to faculty’s needs and concerns around the development and teaching of
their online course is one way in which the faculty support staff build credibility and
rapport with the faculty. Lynn specifically identified various ways she builds credibility
and rapport with both full time and adjunct faculty, “for full time faculty it is meeting
with them on staff, it’s talking with them what they think, listening to them, for our
adjuncts it is having that first interview call where we talk and I listen to them” (Lynn).
Throughout the process of working with both course authors and instructors Dina affirms
that it is “listening to them, being caring, and supportive of them” which is important in
building their trust. Once faculty begin teaching their online course they often return to
Sally for suggestions or feedback on how they can improve the organization of their
course. At this time Sally considers herself a “sounding board” for faculty.
The faculty support staff often provide moral support to faculty. Moral support is
defined as respect, approval and/or sympathy without action. Lisa documented in an
Activity Log that a faculty member who is teaching a math course stopped by her office
to “vent about the problems she’s having in her online course with a third-party piece of
software”. The faculty support staff, since they work so closely with the faculty members,
often become neutral parties to which faculty can share personal issues unrelated to their
online course. However, the personal issues may interfere with the development or
teaching of an online course such as when a course author fell behind in authoring his
course materials because of family issues, and Dina was able to kindly encourage him to
continue the development while being “sympathetic to what he’s been through” (Dina).
124
Meeting Faculty Needs.
The data suggest two categories in which the faculty support staff work to meet
the needs of the faculty who are teaching online. They strive to meet the learning needs
and the technology needs of faculty. All 4 study participants aim to understand how
faculty learn and will adjust their teaching style to fit the learning needs of faculty. For
example, Dina may go to the office of a faculty member to help them since it is easier for
the faculty member to work and learn from their own computer. Lisa talks about
“meeting them where they are and bring them along”.
Another important consideration when working with a faculty member who is
developing or teaching online is to be able to meet their technology needs. Participants
often spoke about finding out what the faculty needs are in relation to technology and
getting them the resources, tools and support they need to meet their needs.
In previous sections related to this theme, the focus has been on working with
faculty who are new to teaching online. This category is one in which participants
specifically talked about meeting the needs of all online faculty, including those who are
new and those who are experienced in teaching online. Lisa talks about meeting the needs
of faculty experienced in teaching online in the capacity of helping them to get the tools
and resources they need to develop their online course.
Patience.
One behavior mentioned by all participants is patience. Participants described
how they use the virtue of patience in the many different spaces in which they work
including in person, over the phone or asynchronously during an online training course.
125
The importance of having patience with faculty especially in relation to technical
issues was commonly mentioned. Sally talks about working with faculty to post materials
into Blackboard, the Learning Management System used at her college. She noted that “if
it takes all day, to post an item, or it takes five minutes, I am going to make sure that
when they leave they are comfortable with whatever it was that they were trying to
achieve.”(Sally). Early in the academic term when instructors are still learning how to use
the learning management system, Dina notes “on the first day of the term for somebody
who is really struggling, we sit down and post the welcome announcement together”, and
she further notes that “if someone is really having trouble downloading student
assignments then I’ll go to their office and we’ll sit down and do it together” (Dina).
Lynn provided some examples of the range of technical skills of the faculty who
participate in her online training course from those who maintain their own blogs to
faculty who do not know how to post an attachment to a discussion board. Her patience
is critical when working with faculty with different skill levels in the same online course.
Her course is geared to online faculty who may be new to the technology, so in addition
to facilitating and managing the flow of the course, she uses email and works individually
and asynchronously with the faculty who need extra support.
Follow Through.
Follow through is defined according to specific words or phrases that the
participants shared with me such as “always being there”, “getting back to them on time”,
“delivering on what you say you will do”, and “follow through” . The interviews did
include some evidence of the importance of follow through, however, it was through the
126
data provided by the Activity Logs and artifact memos which helped to build important
evidence for this category.
The phrase actions speak louder than words embody this category. When
participants were asked how they let faculty know what they do they said “word of
mouth” (Lisa), “I don’t tell faculty what I do” (Sally) or they gave a general explanation
of their role to faculty (Lynn, Dina). This suggests that faculty don’t know the extent to
which the support staff are there for them to answer questions or meet their needs until
they are already into the course development process.
Using email and replying to faculty emails is one way in which they follow
through on faculty queries. Dina does communicate to faculty that they can rely on her
but also follows up such statements by delivering on what she says she is going to do.
Sally spends an hour a day answering questions from faculty and she does this because
she wants to make sure that if faculty are asking questions they are not sitting and feeling
isolated waiting for a response from her, especially adjunct faculty who can’t just stop by
her office and ask questions. In the training course that Lisa facilitates, she proudly
announces that she answers email quickly, within 24 hours during the week and at least
once on the weekends. It is through such actions that relay to the faculty that their
specific institutions are serious about providing them adequate support staff and
resources so they can effectively teach their course online. Such interactions may result in
what Fetzner (2003) calls the unanticipated impacts of faculty support in online programs
which is the building of credibility and rapport between faculty and staff.
127
Connecting Faculty to other Faculty
In addition to building professional relationships between themselves and the
faculty members, the faculty support staff spoke frequently about and provided evidence
for how they promote and create networking opportunities among faculty who teach
online. These networking opportunities take place within the space in which these
support staff work, namely asynchronously and synchronously. The types of connections
they make between faculty seem to be most often connecting faculty who are new to
teaching online with faculty who have experience with teaching online. Figure 9 shows
the number of passages that were coded at this node to help support this theme.
Figure 9. Passages Coded at Connecting Faculty to Other Faculty
Asynchronously.
All 4 participants facilitate and/or provide access to some type of self-paced or
instructor led asynchronous online training course which is required for faculty to
complete prior to teaching online. The online training courses provided by Sally, Lisa,
and Dina each provide various types of articles, PowerPoint presentations, websites,
multimedia files which have been developed by other faculty at their respective
institutions. During the week in the online course when faculty are asked to think about
presenting course content online, Lisa provides eight examples of course content pages as
samples. In addition to providing examples of courses to faculty, Dina also provides
access to existing online courses in their field of study and in the case where there is a
new instructor teaching a previously developed course, giving them access to online
128
courses that have been taught by other instructors so they have a repository of
information that other instructors have developed.
Lynn affirms the importance of connecting faculty with other faculty, especially
“if an instructor is teaching face to face and needs to start developing and teaching online,
the most powerful way for them to really start grasping it is to see what their peers are
doing” (Lynn). She is also extending the networking beyond the training course. Lynn is
currently building out resource areas, or Online Communities of Practice, which consist
of online communities by subject, which is an initiative to help make stronger
connections and relationships between the adjunct faculty and full time faculty at her
institution.
Synchronously.
Even though a lot of the work that the support staff do with the faculty are online
in the training courses or via email, there is still a strong existence of working one-to-one
and face-to-face with the faculty. Participants often spoke about various workshops they
have for faculty. Common characteristics of these workshops are they are informal, offer
refreshments or lunch, and they are created so that faculty have an opportunity to talk and
share their experiences. If the workshops are technology related they may be led by one
of the support staff since it is more of a technology “training” session. If the topic of the
workshop is pedagogy focused, the faculty support staff will often have faculty develop
and/or facilitate the workshop. These may take the form of a show and tell, sharing a
success story, or on a specific topic related to online teaching, such as building
interactivity into an online course. Lynn described a program at her institution called ‘By
Educators, For Educators’, where faculty develop the workshop materials and content
129
and teach the workshop for the first time. Faculty would then give the materials and
content to the online program to use for subsequent workshops.
It is interesting to note that Sally and Lisa often run and develop their workshops
for new faculty who will be teaching for an upcoming semester or for a cohort of faculty
who were in a training course together and have not taught online yet. Dina is more
inclusive and invites anyone who does work with them including both online authors and
instructors.
They realize that they are facilitators of training and realize the power of faculty
talking to other faculty about their experiences. Lynn and Dina both mentioned that if a
faculty member is “having trouble grasping” (Lynn) or “struggling with something”
(Dina) this is when they would take the opportunity to connect individual faculty with
other faculty. As Dina states, “if they relate well to somebody on campus who has gone
through this experience we’ll encourage them to talk to them”.
Discussion
The themes that emerge from data analysis should reflect the purpose of the
research and also constitute the answers to the research question (Merriam, 1998). Thus,
the answers to the research question: What are the work activities of professionals who
occupy the roles of faculty support staff in online education programs? are:
• Manage the Online Course Development Processes
• Manage Course Evaluation Processes
• Initiate and Facilitate Discussion about Teaching Online
• Build Professional Relationships with Faculty
• Connect Faculty to Other Faculty
130
The following discussion serves as a further analysis of the data, especially how
each of the five themes are interrelated to each other. When I looked across the findings
and explored their meaning, three significant outcomes resulted in connection to my
inquiry. The outcomes discuss the work of the faculty support staff at three levels: 1) at
the course level, 2) at the program level and 3) within an institutional environment. More
specifically, first, it is at the level of the online course where the faculty support staff
provide customized support to faculty. Second, it is at the level of the online education
program where the faculty support staff focus on promoting quality. Third, the nature of
the faculty support staff work is cyclical. The work that they do at both the course and
program levels take place within the milieu of the academic environment where their
work ebbs and flows within the cyclical nature of academic semesters and/or terms.
The following sections will discuss each of these three outcomes and in
discussing the findings will integrate components of the participants’ job descriptions and
how they relate to the findings. As part of the demographic questionnaire, participants
were asked to share their job descriptions with me. Therefore, the following discussion
integrates the data, including the participants’ job descriptions, and the literature. By
integrating their job descriptions into this discussion, it begins the process of making
connections between the stated requirements in a position announcement and the actual
work activities that are conducted by the individuals who are hired for these positions
(Wright & Miller, 2000).
Faculty Support Staff provide Customized Support to Faculty
The faculty support staff work with many different types of faculty at different
phases of online courses including training, planning, designing, development and
131
delivery. The faculty support staff keep track of various nuances of each course and/or
how each faculty member teaches their course. It almost becomes a type of customized
support for faculty and this becomes a critical element in supporting the necessity of
faculty support within online education programs. It is the faculty support staff who are
the individuals who become most familiar with the courses, how they are set up, how
faculty members teach their courses, and what tools they use. For example, Lynn was
working with an instructor who was developing a new online poetry course and she had
heard a radio commentary on National Public Radio and it gave her an idea for his
course. In her email to this faculty member she wrote “hearing the poems made me think
how easy it might be to have your students create and share audio poems.” Lynn
concluded the email by sharing some ideas on how he could integrate and include follow-
up discussions using his blog or the discussion boards, and if he was interested in using
the audio poems that she could help him with the logistical and technical aspects.
The support staff are also expected to stay up to date on emerging technologies or
at least be able to provide resources to faculty looking to integrate emerging technologies
into their courses. Sally describes an email she received from a faculty member who was
in the process of developing a new online course. This faculty member inquired about
emerging technologies, like gaming. Sally had recently attended a conference session on
gaming, so she was able to forward that information to the faculty member.
Other emerging technologies that the faculty support staff use or need to be
familiar with are blogs, WIKIS, Podcasts and course cartridges from publishers. Lynn
integrates an activity in her training course which asks faculty to practice using the
plagiarism prevention software, Turnitin.com. Not only do they need to know about
132
these new technologies, they are integrating them into their online training courses so
faculty become familiar with and aware of the technological and pedagogical
implications of using such technologies in their online courses. Lisa shared a story of a
faculty member who wanted to use a course cartridge from a book publisher and have it
loaded into her Blackboard course site. Lisa loaded the cartridge for the faculty member
but then followed up with an email to the faculty member suggesting that they meet to
discuss how to integrate the cartridge, both technologically and pedagogically, into the
online course.
The technical support that the faculty support staff provide to faculty is also
customized. Often the faculty support staff receive emails from faculty with very specific
questions related to their own particular course, or something very specific to their course
website or related to the Learning Management System. This could be considered
customized support because the support staff troubleshoot each specific problem as it
arises and follow up with the respective individuals.
Parallels can be drawn to Moore (2002) when she refers to personalized
instruction in online learning, referring to the way that faculty can personalize instruction
to their online students. Specific to this study, however, the learners that the faculty
support staff work with are the faculty. As evidenced in the examples provided above, the
faculty support staff use similar strategies that Moore (2002) suggests for working with
online students where they “personalize learning in innovative ways through approaches
that emphasize the uniqueness of individual learners” (p. 10).
The customized nature of their job is also evident in the job descriptions of the
faculty support staff. “Resolving student-faculty disputes or complaints” (Lynn’s Job
133
Description) is something that would be confidential and only relevant and pertinent to
that particular course, instructor and student. Lisa’s is responsible for “integrating
technology into the teaching and learning process through appointments and on-demand
questions” (Lisa’s Job Description). Dina is expected to assist her Dean in “managing
relationships with authors” (Dina’s Job Description). All five data types provided
evidence on how customized the faculty support staff jobs can be. Each of these
examples described above, as excerpted from their Job Descriptions, provide additional
insights into the individualized and customized support that is expected of the faculty
support staff in their respective online education programs.
Faculty Support Staff Focus on Promoting Quality in Online Education
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2002) has identified seven
distinct areas that are of greatest significance to assuring quality in distance learning and
faculty support is one of these distinct areas of focus. The Sloan Consortium defines
quality as “a work in progress and each organization seeks to measure quality in terms of
its own distinctive, dynamic mission and the people who embody it” (Moore, 2005, p. 4).
At the level of the online education program, the faculty support staff work, at
various levels, to promote quality in areas such as promoting online interaction, having
comprehensive approaches for evaluating courses, providing appropriate learning
management systems, building in opportunities for faculty to share their experiences,
practice and knowledge, and providing technical support and training. The Sloan
Consortium encompasses many of these areas into what they call the Five Pillars or the
Sloan Consortium Quality Framework. The Five Pillars of quality are learning
effectiveness, cost effectiveness and institutional commitment, access, faculty satisfaction
134
and student satisfaction. The five types of data collected in this study provided clear
evidence that the faculty support staff promote quality in three of the five pillars of
quality including, 1) learning effectiveness, 2) access and, 3) faculty satisfaction.
Inquiries into the other pillars were not within the realm of this study. The following
section will look specifically at the three pillars relevant to the work of the faculty
support staff and how the data and the literature intersect.
Moore (2005) outlines the five pillars with corresponding statements that describe
an “ideal environment”. The following discussion highlights and integrates some of the
relevant “ideal environment” statements with the data obtained during this research study.
Each institution places priorities and importance on different aspects of quality, however,
the findings that emerged as a result of this study embody many of the statements that
qualify for an ideal environment.
Learning Effectiveness
Learning effectiveness is defined in relation to the quality of learning online and
how it may be comparable to the quality of learning on campus (Sloan-Consortium,
2006b). Each of the support staff clearly described to me how they work to initiate
discussions with faculty and they begin those discussions around the topic of how the
faculty teach in the classroom. What this suggests is that many of the faculty, whether
full time or adjunct, may be teaching the same courses whether they are on-campus or
online, thus contributing to the learning effectiveness of the online program.
Other elements of learning effectiveness as promoted by the Sloan Consortium
include interaction, community building and course design (Sloan-Consortium, 2006b).
All 4 participants recognize the importance of interaction in the online environment as
135
evidenced by their online training courses and associated materials. For example, one
week during Sally’s, Lynn’s and Lisa’s online training courses are reserved for
discussing the importance of interaction in online courses. The titles of these weeks are
“Building Learning Community Online” (Sally), “Collaborative Learning” (Lynn) and
“Communicating in the Online Classroom” (Lisa). Dina handles it a little differently with
her model of training; however, it still remains a very important component. As Moore
(2005) states, “interaction is key” to learning effectiveness, and all 4 participants embody
this concept in the work that they do in course and program development and faculty
support.
Once again, all 4 participants do a lot of their work helping faculty and supporting
faculty during course development and design. The faculty support staff recognize and
help faculty to take advantage of the capabilities of the technology to improve learning.
They cover such topics as preparing content, online assessment, course management,
course evaluation, preventing plagiarism, and instructional activities in the online
environment. The job description of Lynn states “develops standards for quality in online
course design and delivery” and similarly, one duty expected of Dina is to “collaborate
with the technical department to design and implement new learning technologies and
systems to provide high quality educational experiences to students online”.
Access
Access is achieved when all learners who wish to learn online have the
opportunity and can achieve success (Sloan-Consortium, 2006a). The elements included
within this pillar include evaluation mechanisms and then using the feedback obtained
136
from evaluations for continuous improvement, and assuring that courses are available to
students when they want them (Moore, 2005).
As described in the findings, the faculty support staff are very involved in
managing course evaluation processes and make use of the results in various ways to
continuously improve their online courses and programs. For example, on the course
evaluation that Sally uses to evaluate the online courses at her institution, there is a
question that asks students what other courses should be offered online. She then
describes how she uses this data to form relationships with faculty on her campus who
may be able to teach online courses in the areas where there is interest from students.
Also involved in this process is, as Sally describes, “looking at trends and talking to
people”. Sally’s job description also lists her expected duties to “expand online course
offerings” and “survey students enrolled in online courses to assess delivery and analyze
areas for improvement”. Dina’s job description reads similarly, “communicate course
evaluation feedback to instructors and institute course revision processes when
necessary”.
Faculty Satisfaction
“You are super!”, was in the body of an email that Lynn received from a faculty
member after assisting her with a technical question. This phrase, as written by the
faculty member, captures the essence of faculty satisfaction, which is when faculty
achieve success with teaching online, citing appreciation and happiness (Moore, 2005).
Two key elements of faculty satisfaction, especially relevant to this research study, are 1)
sharing of faculty experiences, practices and knowledge about online learning and, 2)
providing significant technical support and training (Moore, 2005).
137
Each of the five findings of this research study are closely interconnected to
enhancing faculty satisfaction. The findings also suggest that the faculty support staff
play a very important role in promoting faculty satisfaction among faculty who teach
online at their respective institutions, especially through building relationships and
connecting faculty to other faculty. Interestingly, Lisa’s job description was written to
recognize the importance of sharing faculty experiences, it states “conduct seminars on
“Best Practices” so faculty can share ideas and be exposed to new educational
developments”.
The Nature of Faculty Support Staff Work is Cyclical
The elements and components of the work activities of the faculty support staff
are interconnected. The data suggest that the nature of the faculty support staff work is
cyclical on many levels. In managing the flow of work, many activities are happening
simultaneously, yet, independent of each other. For example, at any one time they may be
emailing one faculty member who is currently developing an online course, while they
receive a phone call from another faculty member who is currently teaching a course,
also while another faculty member stops by their office who is interested in teaching
online. This example depicts the many spaces in which they work which may take on any
one of the following elements:
• synchronous and/or asynchronous communication
• communication online and/or in person
• one-to-one consultations and/or small group sessions
• using media such as email and/or telephone
• working with many different types of faculty
138
And all of these elements are managed by the faculty support staff during the
times in which they work which includes time in the morning before work, during the
work day, in the evenings and on the weekends. This finding concurs with Fetzner (2003)
in that the work of the support staff is not linear in nature, but rather issue-oriented and
requires cooperation between colleagues and other members of their support teams. This
concept of a “space” within which they work was also documented by Inglis (1996) when
he studied the conceptions that teaching-learning specialists had of their role. He found
that they hold three concepts of the space within which they work and it consisted of a
functional dimension, structural dimension and a relational dimension.
Figure 10 depicts an image which I constructed as a way to visually represent the
space within which the participants conduct their work activities, and also to represent the
cyclical nature of their work.
Figure 10. Space within which Faculty Support Staff conduct their Work Activities
139
At the core of their work, as depicted by the inner most circle, takes place at the
course level, providing support to faculty during any and all phases of online courses
including training, planning, designing, development and delivery. As evidenced by the
categories or types of faculty they work with, there are always new faculty joining the
process and even some that may leave the process if they find out that teaching online is
not for them.
In another cyclical, but related, space is the cyclical nature of course development
and evaluation process. Participants manage the online course evaluation process as a
way to constantly strive for continuous improvement of their institutions online courses
and program. For example, Lisa described a new initiative that she is working on where
faculty can apply for a grant, and the stipend faculty receive as part of the grant is for the
sole purpose of improving an existing online course. Lisa commented that, “this is our
way of trying to close the loop and encourage faculty to revisit their courses once they
have been teaching online for a while”.
The middle ring of the circle depicts another layer within which the support staff
work which is promoting quality at the program level. Faculty support staff are
responsible for building, growing and evaluating their online programs, so there are
always new courses and programs that are being planned for, and existing programs
being updated, as a result. Dina provides a good example of this. During our first
interview she reported that her institution offered 54 courses online. During our second
interview when I was checking to make sure that I had the information on Table 2
correct, she informed me that the number of courses offered online at her institution had
140
decreased to 49. This was because Dina “pulled some courses from their course catalog”
because she determined that those courses “were not high enrollers”.
The outer ring of the circle depicts the academic environment within which the
faculty support staff work. The work of the faculty support staff ebbs and flows within
the cyclical nature of the semester or term, and meeting faculty and student needs at
various times throughout the semester or term. In terms of their specific work activities,
there is somewhat of a cyclical nature to it since there are always new courses and new
faculty to work with, and the faculty who progress through the various stages of process.
In talking about the cyclical nature of her job, Sally refers to the type of questions she
handles depending on the time of the semester “that the type of questions may change,
but the activities still need to keep going,” and “it just keeps going round and round and
round.”
Conclusion
In this chapter, I described five themes that represent the work activities of faculty
support staff in online education programs, followed up with a discussion that looks
across the findings and reports three significant outcomes that resulted in connection to
my inquiry. The work of the faculty support staff has far reaching implications within
their respective institutions as they work closely with not only faculty, but with
colleagues, administrators and students to build and grow the number of courses and their
respective online education programs. Parallels can be drawn to what Gornall (1999)
identified in her research on new professionals in higher education, that their roles can be
regarded as marginal, yet powerful, in they can be associated with institutional change
and long term institutional strategy.
141
The individuals who occupy the roles of faculty support staff in this study
understand online education. They are in unique roles that require an understanding of
the broader issues related to online education and the data suggests that they do
understand the complexities inherent in online education including the implications on
policy, institutional change, access, growth, and new approaches to teaching and learning
using technology.
In chapter five, I will discuss the implications of these findings for policy and
practice. In addition, I will highlight suggested areas for further research.
142
CHAPTER V
IMPLICATIONS
In this study I examined the work activities of professionals who occupy the roles
of faculty support staff in online education programs. The findings of this study suggest
that the work activities of the faculty support staff involves the management of online
course development and course evaluation processes, initiating and facilitating
discussions with faculty about teaching online, building professional relationships with
faculty and connecting faculty to other faculty.
As described in Chapter Four, I collected five types of data during this qualitative
study, including a demographic questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, observations,
visual data, and Week in Review Activity Logs. In this chapter I return to the question
proposed at the beginning of this qualitative research study: What are the work activities
of the professionals who occupy the role of faculty support staff in online education
programs?
Using a framework of the five findings presented in Chapter Four, this chapter
discusses the implications of this research. Since the focus of this research was on
practice, the implications discussed in this chapter are primarily focused on practice,
however, many of the questions raised as part of this discussion will help document, or
143
perhaps initiate, discussions on policies related to the work activities of faculty support in
online education programs. This chapter then concludes with a discussion of the
implications for research and a discussion of four distinct groups of individuals who will
benefit from the research findings.
Managing the Process of Online Course Development
The faculty support staff play a very important role in managing the online course
development process by managing, organizing and keeping track of the progress of
faculty who are at various stages of online course development. As the findings suggest, a
large portion of the time and resources in managing the course development process are
spent when faculty are in the “in training” and “beginning to teach” phases.
Implications for Practice and Policy
Timelines and checklists
All 4 participants discussed how they have created and use some type of timeline
or checklist to share with faculty. Such tools are given to faculty to help them to better
understand the various milestones or action items expected of them during the online
course development process, and as a way for faculty to help manage and plan their own
course development progress. Such artifacts seem to be essential job aids in supporting
the work activities of the faculty support staff. The content of such tools varies among the
participants. Lisa and Dina present very detailed and specific timelines to faculty, and
Sally and Lynn have more general, checklist-type, tools that they use.
Since the timelines and checklists were common tools and important elements of
the work activities of the faculty support staff, future research may be beneficial to
explore such tools used by each institution and their similarities and differences. What is
144
the advantage of using a more structured and/or prescriptive tool versus a general
checklist that serves more like a reminder? What do the faculty find most helpful and
beneficial to them? Do the faculty use such tools? If so, how?
Meetings
In helping faculty with their online course development, all 4 participants meet
with faculty in one-to-one consultative type sessions, often more than one time during the
course development process. Such meetings with faculty are important in building
professional relationships between the staff and faculty. Meeting with the faculty in
person is an important and critical part of the work activities of the faculty support staff. I
sensed some evidence of this being a personal quandary for Sally and Lisa, especially
given the online, asynchronous nature of their work. Sally would like to have more of a
structured training program, but does not want to give up the appointments she has with
faculty. Lisa shared that even though she works closely with faculty in her training
course, via email and discussion boards, she notes “it is bad to say for someone who
develops online courses, but it is not the same as sitting down with someone”. This
suggests that the work of faculty support staff cannot be done entirely online. They
provide a presence and a unique expertise on campus for which the faculty can rely on,
can stop by, call or email, depending on their location and their preferred method of
communication.
According to the participants, the number of new courses that are developed each
semester or term ranges from one to five. One implication to consider is the effectiveness
of the one-to-one consultative approach on program growth. Assuming that each of these
online programs will grow in the future, the faculty support staff could be potentially
145
asked to manage the development of additional courses each semester. If so, will these
one-to-one consultation meetings still be considered an effective approach to program
growth? Each online course is so unique and specific, and these meetings are the primary
means by which the faculty support staff and the faculty meet to discuss the progress and
development that has taken place for each individual course. This is a very important part
of the work activities of the faculty support staff, but it is also very time intensive. An
area of future research may be to look at the effectiveness of one-to-one consultations in
the course development process on program growth and scalability. What is the role of
the timelines and checklists in the one-to-one consultation sessions? Do the timelines and
checklists make the one-to-one consultation model more effective? If so, how?
Copyright clearance
One area that spans practice and policy, and spans all members of the institution
including faculty, staff and administration, is the issue of copyright clearance for
electronic materials. If a faculty member wishes to include a copyrighted journal article,
video, picture or image into their online course, there needs to be some type of process in
place for assisting the faculty to meet their needs. Three of the four participants, Sally,
Lynn and Lisa, mention that they do not specifically request or obtain copyright clearance
for faculty. However, the data further suggests multiple initiatives, at various levels
within the institutions that are looking to address this challenge. For example, Sally’s
library recently joined a consortium that is providing access to copyright clearance and
Sally is on a committee which is investigating a copyright clearance building block that
integrates with Blackboard, her institutions Learning Management System. Lynn links
146
faculty to the “potential policy being discussed on copyright”. Lisa’s institution is
currently working on the development of a copyright policy.
The data suggest that the faculty support staff do not directly assist faculty with
obtaining copyright clearance for materials they may wish to integrate into their online
courses. However, there are other initiatives and committees on their respective campuses
that the faculty support staff are involved in regarding this topic.
In regards to practice, the data suggest that the faculty support staff are very close
and knowledgeable with the content and materials that are posted in the online courses.
This suggests that they would be ethically expected to raise any copyright infringement
concerns. In regards to policy, since the faculty support staff do not request the
permissions, what is the policy and procedures that faculty need to follow to obtain
copyright permission? Who keeps records of such permissions? Who renews such
permissions? Who pays the copyright fees, if applicable? Many of these questions branch
into larger institutional policy issues, however, it is still required that the faculty support
staff know and understand the legal ramifications for the faculty member and/or
institution by violating copyright.
Are the Findings Considered Best Practices?
All 4 participants use tools and techniques such as timelines, checklists, and
meetings, and three of the four participants do not assist faculty in obtaining copyright
clearance for their online materials. Since evidence of these findings were found among
the participants, at four unique institutions, does it mean that these are best practices? It is
beyond the boundaries of this study to assess or evaluate the findings to determine if they
might be best practices in faculty support in online education programs. Further questions
147
can be asked as to whether such tools and techniques enhance the faculty support process
for the staff and/or the faculty members? If they are not considered best practices, then
what are some best practices in the profession of faculty support in online education
programs?
Managing Online Course Evaluation Processes
The faculty support staff role within the course evaluation process may involve
managing the logistics to making sure that the course evaluation gets posted at the
appropriate time in the semester or term, they may do the actual data analysis of the
evaluation results, and they are involved in making sure the results get distributed to the
appropriate campus administrators and to faculty.
Implications for Practice and Policy
Handling confidential information
Three of the four participants noted their close involvement with managing the
course evaluation processes for online courses. The course evaluations are the evaluations
that are completed, online and anonymously, by students at the end of their online course.
The resulting data are then handled in different ways by each respective institution. In my
conversations with the participants, they suggested that their primary focus, and cause for
many challenges, was the technical aspects of putting and or getting course evaluation
links in courses, and/or setting up the course evaluation software.
The technical components of managing such processes are surely important in
assuring that course evaluations are obtained for online courses, also in assuring the
security, anonymity and privacy of each students submissions. One important issue that
cannot be overlooked among the technical challenges is the way data is handled,
148
including retrieval, storage, access and deletion, if appropriate. This study did not
specifically inquire into the methods by which the participants assure confidentiality of
the course evaluation data, however, there are further implications that relate to how the
faculty support staff handle the evaluation data once it is submitted by online students.
While it may not be within the role of the support staff to identify policy related to
handling of the course evaluation data, however, they may be one of few people on
campus, who are not faculty or administrators, who have access to this data. This
suggests that the faculty support staff may face personal dilemmas that are not typically
part of University staff job roles. Thus, who is helping them figure out the dilemmas they
face when handling such challenging issues? If it is not currently, than at some point, part
of their job may include assuring faculty that practices and policies are in place for
handling the course evaluation data, both the electronic and print data.
One implication to having access to such data is that it is important to recognize
the confidentiality issues related to faculty evaluations, especially full time faculty
working under union contractual agreements. Lynn and Dina’s job descriptions both
mentioned the confidentiality aspects of the job. Lynn’s stated, “University faculty
information is confidential (i.e. faculty evaluations, payroll, academic credentials)”.
Dina’s stated “Ability to handle confidential matters with integrity and complete
confidentiality”.
Sally, Lynn and Dina all commented on how they act upon the data they receive
from course evaluations. This suggests the sensitive nature of their work. As
Frederickson (1999) confirms, the professional relationships that staff develop with
faculty is a delicate and negotiated role. Using the course evaluation data to serve as a
149
tool for continual improvement of online courses is a critical component to developing
quality courses and program. However, practice and policy questions need to be
considered as to who’s role it is to contact faculty and discuss poor evaluations? And
should it be the role of the faculty support staff?
Initiating and Facilitating Discussions about Teaching Online
The findings suggest that all 4 participants work to initiate and facilitate
discussions with faculty about teaching online. Participants begin early discussions with
faculty by helping faculty make connections between how they currently teach in the
classroom and how those practices might be adapted for teaching online, making
connections between the familiar with the unknown. These initial discussions then pave
way for more in-depth thought, reflection and discussion about how each particular
course will be taught online.
Implications for Practice and Policy
How does experience inform practice?
These findings can be supported by the fact that all participants consistently
reported that they have developed their training approach based on what they think help
faculty understand what elements are effective, appropriate and important in developing
online courses. This raises some important questions for future research. What is the role
of the training courses that the faculty support staff develop and facilitate? Is it to discuss
theory related to online learning? Or is it to share and discuss tips, strategies and
techniques for teaching in this new environment?
Looking back, it is now evident that this study should have inquired into the
participants’ personal experience with teaching online or learning online. If I were to
150
revise Interview Protocol I for this study, I would include a question that asks if the
participants had ever taken an online course for credit and if they had ever developed and
taught an online course for credit, other than their online training courses. Experience
with online education is an important factor in the work activities of the faculty support
staff. It allows for first hand experience with the environment especially the planning,
designing, development and teaching. Teaching an online course also allows the faculty
support staff to obtain first hand experience at handling the various nuances of online
courses such as managing the flow of courses, monitoring and assessing students, and
facilitating discussion boards.
Knowledge of emerging technologies
Emerging technologies that the faculty support staff use or need to be familiar
with are blogs, WIKIS, Podcasts, course cartridges from publishers and plagiarism
prevention software. Not only do the faculty support staff need to know about these new
technologies, they are integrating them into their online training courses so faculty
become familiar with and aware of the technological and pedagogical implications of
using such technologies in their online courses.
Incorporating technologies such as blogs and WIKI’s into online courses requires
the faculty support staff to have knowledge about the educational uses, advantages and
disadvantages of such tools. In using technologies such as blogs and WIKI’s issues of
student safety and privacy need to be considered. Podcasts are digital audio files that can
be downloaded to any MP3 player ("Ask NAJ," 2005). Using new technologies, such as
digital audio files, requires the faculty support staff to be aware and informed of the
accessibility issues related to using such technologies in the online classroom. Questions
151
of ownership and intellectual property become apparent when faculty begin using course
cartridges and content materials which are distributed by textbook publishers and
specifically created to be imported into Blackboard, the Learning Management Systems.
Having services such as turnitin.com, plagiarism prevention software, available to
faculty is can be important in helping to detect plagiarism. Many questions emerge in
relation to how the faculty support staff are involved in the implementation of such
technologies. Are there policies and procedures in place to address security, privacy and
accessibility issues related to using new and emerging technologies in the online
classroom? What is the role of the faculty support staff in the creation and development
of such policies? How do such policies impact the work and innovativeness of the faculty
support staff and the faculty who are developing and teaching online courses? How will
such technologies integrate within the existing Learning Management Systems? Each of
these questions has implications for the current and future work activities of the faculty
support staff.
Building Professional Relationships with Faculty
All 4 participants described the importance of building relationships with faculty
throughout the online course development process. Participants describe various
strategies they use in building relationships with faculty such as making faculty feel
comfortable, listening to faculty, meeting faculty technology needs, having patience and
following through on what they say the are going to do.
152
Implications for Practice and Policy
Understanding Faculty Needs
All 4 participants noted that faculty at their respective institutions do not need to
teach online if they do not want to. It is a voluntary endeavor. However, Lisa raises an
important point when she states that even though coming forward to develop a course is
voluntary she notes that faculty may want to teach online because they feel like they are
being left behind. Whatever the reason faculty wish to teach online, the faculty support
staff need to understand faculty motivations and be able to work with different types of
faculty with different levels of concerns, apprehensions and perceptions about teaching
online. In addition, the faculty support staff need to be able to work with faculty who
have different levels of technical skills and confidence in their technical abilities. After
all, it is the institutional support and personal experience of faculty are the strongest
predictors of faculty attitudes towards distance education (Moore & Thompson, 1997).
Ethical and Moral Decision Making
Woven among each of the findings is evidence of the frequent events when the
faculty support staff are required to use their professional judgment to make various
ethical and moral professional decisions. For example, Lynn shared a story of how she
was working with a faculty member who has a terminal illness and was having some
technical problems. As a result Lynn was getting complaints from students. Handling
such matters requires delicate negotiation skills, sympathy and empathy, yet requires
professional manners to handle the challenging situation and assure that the course in
session could continue.
153
The data also provides evidence that the support staff work so close with faculty
members, they often become neutral parties to which faculty can share personal issues
unrelated to their online course. This raises some questions related to the professional
boundaries of the faculty and the staff member who are working together. The data
suggest positive examples about how they listen and can be sympathetic and empathetic
while also maintaining site of the goal while providing encouragement and flexibility to
work within challenging situations. Given the two examples above, it may be appropriate
and necessary for there to be a code of ethics for the individuals who are currently
working in the role of faculty support staff in online education programs. The existence
of a code of ethics would provide guidance to the faculty support in their professional
practice and conduct and would reflect the values and ethical principles guiding the work
of the faculty support staff.
Connecting Faculty to Other Faculty
The faculty support staff spoke frequently about and provided evidence for how
they promote and create networking opportunities among faculty who teach online. These
networking opportunities take place within the space in which these support staff work,
namely asynchronously and synchronously. The types of connections they make between
faculty seem to be most often connecting faculty who are new to teaching online with
faculty who have experience with teaching online.
Implications for Practice and Policy
Gaining Permission and Access to Courses
Three of the four online training courses that are taught by the participants
included various types of articles, PowerPoint presentations, websites, multimedia files
154
which have been developed by other faculty at their respective institutions. The faculty
support staff may also give faculty access to existing online courses in their specific
discipline. These specific work activities raise important questions related to gaining
permission and access to courses.
Faculty who are in the process of developing online courses are often eager to see
examples of existing online courses in their discipline. However, this puts the receiving
faculty member, the one who is being asked to share their course, in an awkward
position. The faculty member has invested significant time and intellectual resources into
developing the course and may have concerns about allowing another faculty member to
view their materials. Many questions arise related to how permissions are handled. It was
not within the scope of this research study to inquire into how the faculty support staff
handle permissions, but further research would be appropriate to inquire into the
procedures and/or policies for sharing online courses and course materials among faculty.
Should the faculty support staff be in the role of asking permission for someone else to
view a course and giving access to that online course? Are permissions given to view
current courses in session or only access to archived courses? Do policies consider an
appropriate length of time to grant access for? Is access given to the entire course or only
to sections of it?
Evolution of Work Activities
The work activities of the faculty support staff are constantly evolving and
changing. For example, both Sally and Lisa invested large portions of their time revising
the format and length of their training programs during the four month period of this
study. Such evolution is being driven by student and faculty needs and institutional
155
experience with online education programs. As a result, this creates opportunities to
operationalize and/or make the work activities of the faculty support staff more
systematic. This is also one reason why the implications for practice, policy and research
are so interconnected. In this new and emerging profession of faculty support in online
education programs, the distinctions between practice and policy are currently evolving
and informing each other, and as a result, are raising questions for further research.
Implications for Research
The first two sections discuss research implications that actually emerged early in
my research study while I was gaining access to potential study participants. The final
sections discuss the implications for research based on the actual research findings.
Research Implications identified while Gaining Access
Faculty Conducting Faculty Support
While in the process of gaining access and identifying appropriate individuals to
participate in this research study, I had contacted twelve individuals before I found four
that met the study criteria and were willing to participate. In this process, I learned that
four of the participants did not meet the study criteria because they held faculty positions
at their institutions and not staff positions. It was important component to this study to
focus on staff positions and not individuals who hold faculty positions. As Surry and
Robinson state, "service positions in higher education represent an emerging job market
for instructional technology professionals that has not been the focus of extensive study"
(Surry & Robinson, 2001, p. 232). There are potential research areas in studying those
faculty who are in these faculty support roles. Exploring why and how faculty get into
156
such roles, what they do in these roles, and how they integrate such roles into their
faculty commitments and expectations for service, research and teaching.
Gender and Faculty Support
The 4 participants who participated in this study were all female, however, gender
was not specified as part of the study criteria. One male was contacted to participate in
the study but he declined to participate due to his busy schedule and the time
requirements of the study. Having males as part of the participant selection criteria for
future research studies in this area, may provide interesting points of comparison, to
explore the similarities and differences in their work activities with their female
colleagues.
Research implications identified from Findings
How do Work Activities Change Over Time?
The participants in this study have been in their current positions between two and
four years. When Lisa shared her job description with me, as part of the demographic
questionnaire, she actually shared two job descriptions with me. This provides interesting
evidence as to how her job requirements have changed in the four years since she has
been in the position of Instructional Technology Specialist. One was her original job
description from when she was hired four years ago, and a second, which was recently
written when her institution hired her counterpart at a sister campus. This suggests that
the role of faculty support staff is evolving as online programs grow and technologies
change. Opportunities exist for future research to conduct this research study again in five
years, with the same individuals, if possible, to see if and how their work activities have
changed. The literature supports similar approaches as a way to document the how roles
157
change over time. Williams (2003) conducted a study on the roles and competencies for
distance education programs and he was particularly interested to find if any roles had
changed based upon the findings Thach (1994) found five years earlier. Gosling (1996;
2001) conducted two studies, five years apart, identifying what UK educational
development units do.
Expanding the Definition of Faculty Support
In keeping with my definition of faculty support, the findings of this study are
reported based on the “direct assistance that support staff provide to faculty during all
phases of online courses including training, planning, designing, development and
delivery”. I especially focused on the “direct assistance” part of that definition to keep
this research narrow and focused. However, the data provides evidence that the work
activities of the faculty support staff perform other activities at work that are not directly
working with faculty. Exploring their job as a whole, including direct and indirect faculty
support, would be a plausible topic for future research. For example, exploring their work
with and involvement in both internal and external committees, outside organizations,
working with other departments on campus, and any special projects and initiatives they
may be involved with. Further exploration into their professional backgrounds, how they
came into their current positions, and salary information would help to build upon this
research study and help to further define the profession.
Professional Development
The faculty support staff can serve as a liason between the faculty and the
administration because they are experts in the unique and ever-evolving field of online
education. Staying current and continually learning about new developments in the field
158
is critical. As described in Chapter Two, new fields are often created at the intersection
of two disciplines and/or specialties. As the findings suggest, the faculty support staff
need knowledge and understanding of a variety of areas including internet technology,
teaching with technology, online education, teaching online, and instructional design.
Their knowledge is unique and can serve to inform administrators who may not be
familiar with the developing field of online education.
Important to their job is an understanding of higher education. The demographic
questionnaire provided important information about the education and professional
backgrounds of the participants. Their educational backgrounds are not in higher
education. This suggests that they may not have an appreciation of the complexities and
freedom of the academic structure of higher education. Yet, the nature of their work is
tied closely with the academic course development process. Because of this the faculty
support staff need opportunities to engage in scholarship about higher education. Such
opportunities may include professional certificates, degrees and/or certifications. Such
opportunities need to be developed in such a way to support these busy professionals, and
allow them to integrate theory with their everyday practice.
One such opportunity now exists for learning technologists in the United
Kingdom. In 2003, the Association for Learning Technology surveyed its members and
findings from that survey suggested that the members supported the development of a
“simple, economical, voluntary, peer based structure to accredit individual members as
Learning Technologists” (CMALT Prospectus, 2006). In 2005, the Association for
Learning Technology began using the concept of the portfolio to allow members to
become certified as learning technologists, which would allow them to have the
159
designation of CMALT, or Certified Member of the Association for Learning
Technology (CMALT Prospectus, 2006).
In the hopes that a similar certification opportunity becomes available for faculty
support staff in the United States, faculty support staff should be encouraged either
independently, or by their institutions, to create and maintain a professional portfolio
which can serve as a tool to document their professional experience. Portfolios serve as a
means to highlight ones strengths, accomplishments and professional experience and
document one’s professional development for others or to document the improvement of
one’s own performance over time (Stanley, 2001)
Is it Time to Create a Professional Body?
As the results suggest, regardless of the type of institution or the model of the
online education program, there are common types of work activities that the faculty
support staff perform on a regular basis. During the interviews, each participant said they
were interested in see a copy of the final dissertation because they are interested in
finding out more about how faculty support is done at other schools. Lynn captured my
thoughts when she said “we need our own community of practice”.
Future research is necessary to explore existing organizations that might be
appropriate to help link, connect, network staff who are currently working in faculty
support positions in online education. If none appear appropriate, it may be time to
explore the creation of a new professional body that supports such individuals, just like
the learning technologists have in the United Kingdom with the Association of Learning
Technologists. Professional bodies can help sustain professional identities and close
alignment of practice, however, consideration needs to be given to how they affect
160
innovation and current practice (Oliver, 2003). These issues then raise further points for
research on faculty support staff in online education programs. Is this a profession? How
is it defined? Do those currently practicing the role of faculty support staff feel as though
they want membership in a professional organization? If so, how can we obtain ideas
about what such an organization would be like?
Significance of Implications
By examining the recommendations and questions raised in this chapter, I can
potentially see four groups benefiting from the findings of this research including, 1)
administrators, 2) faculty, 3) faculty support staff and 4) online students.
Administrators
The specific findings about the work activities of faculty support staff can be used
by administrators who may be asked to write a job description to hire faculty support
staff for an online education program. The findings also provide evidence for
administrators as to the complexities of the job, into areas that most staff positions on
campus may not be involved with such as faculty teaching, research, intellectual
property, course evaluations, and how all of these intersect with technology and the
associated issues such as confidentiality and privacy issues.
Faculty
The findings of this study can help to inform faculty who currently teach online
and those faculty who have not yet taught online. The data suggests that the faculty
support staff are not the type of individuals who go out and market their services. They
let their actions speak for themselves. This method is very appropriate once faculty come
to know and trust the support staff, however, in the early phases of the process the faculty
161
may not know what to expect and may not have trust in the work of the faculty support
staff. This suggests that faculty don’t know about the work of the faculty support staff
until they are already into the course development process. The findings may help faculty
have a better understanding of the work of the faculty support staff before they begin the
course development process and how they may be able to offer support, assistance and
expertise in the area of online education.
The faculty support staff are individuals who are hired specifically to work with
faculty who are in the various phases of online courses including training, planning,
designing, development and delivery. This research can provide faculty with insights into
the course development process and the extent and scope of the work of the faculty
support staff in that process. Multiple and parallel events happening during the process
within which the faculty and the staff work together on developing an online course. The
faculty member is the content expert, however, by being an active participant in the
training process the faculty begin to gain trust and respect for the knowledge and
expertise of the faculty support staff. The process almost becomes a shared responsibility
by both the faculty member and the faculty support staff with each member bringing
valuable knowledge, information and expertise to develop to the course.
Faculty support staff
Those currently practicing in the role of faculty support staff in online education
programs may be able to use these findings to improve, change or enhance their current
work activities to make their approaches to faculty support more effective. They can also
compare their current practices to these findings. This research may also encourage those
currently in faculty support staff roles to reflect on their current practice.
162
The findings of this study have great personal benefit to me. Since I am currently
working in a role of a supporting faculty in an online education program, I had to be
especially careful in collecting and analyzing the data. I had to keep an open mind, let the
data speak for itself and let the findings emerge. I did not want to impose my lens, and
my experience, on the data. I believe I succeeded at this goal since I do not believe I
could have predicted the findings. These findings have provided me with a new lens and
a new outlook on my current role as faculty support staff. I am going to be one of those
faculty support staff I describe above, one who uses the findings of this research to
improve, change or enhance my current practice to make my approaches to faculty
support more effective.
Online Students
From an online student perspective, they may not know much about the work of,
or existence of, faculty support staff. However, online students indirectly benefit from the
work of the faculty support staff, since the students use and interact within the courses
that are designed by the faculty, but based on many of the recommendations, tips and
strategies organized by the faculty support staff. Students benefit from the organization,
instructional design and structure of well designed courses. However, in the future,
students may begin to inquire further into the underlying foundation, structure and
organization behind the courses they take online. Institutions may want to consider
promoting their faculty training programs and existence of extensive support systems for
faculty. Just like it implies to faculty, this implies to students that the online education is
supported by and integrated into the culture of the institution.
163
Conclusion
I embarked on this research because I knew there are staff who work within
online education programs who were almost invisible in the literature about online
education. There were references to their work, assumptions that they exist, underlying
expectations about what they do, but no where I was able to find concrete documentation
about what they actually do. I now feel satisfied knowing that this research has been
conducted, their detailed work activities related to faculty support have been documented,
and it will serve to inform the field of online education.
164
References
Allen, A. L. (2003). Supporting faculty with a web-development team. In D. G. Brown
(Ed.), Developing faculty to use technology: Programs and strategies to enhance
teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of
Online Education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
American Educational Research Association. (2004). Ethical Standards of AERA.
Retrieved October 19, 2004, from http://www.aera.net/about/policy/ethics.htm
Aragon, S. R., & Johnson, S. D. (2002). Emerging roles and competencies for training in
e-learning environments. In Advances in Developing Human Resources (Vol. 4,
pp. 424-439): Sage.
Ask NAJ. (2005). Distance Education Report, 3-4.
Bazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2000). The NVIVO Qualitatative Project Book. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Beetham, H., Conole, G., & Gornall, L. (2001). Career Development of Learning
Technology Staff: Scoping Study Final Report: University of Plymouth.
Bellamy, R. K. E. (1996). Designing educational technology: Computer-mediated
change. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and
human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
165
Betts, K. (1998). An Institutional Overview: Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in
Distance Education in Postsecondary Education in the United States: An
Institutional Study. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.html
Bianco, M. B., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2002). Exploring qualitative methodologies in
online learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3),
251-260.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role Theory: Expecatations, identities, and behaviors. New York:
Academic Press.
Boaz, M. H., & Walsh Hardy, D. (1993, August 4-6). From autonomy to team work: The
real distance education challenge. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual
Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning: Teaming up for Success,
Madison, WI.
Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R.-M. (1999). Faculty guide for moving teaching and
learning to the web: League for Innovation in the Community College.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (Fourth ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, D. G. (2003). Developing faculty to use technology: Programs and strategies to
enhance teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Chang, S. L. (2004). The roles of mentors in electronic learning environments.
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 12(3), 331-342.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative Inquiry: Experience and story in
qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
166
Clay, M. (1999). Development of training and support programs for distance education
instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3).
Clerkin, M. J. (2004). The Berkeley College Online Faculty Resource Center. Retrieved
March 1, 2005, from http://www.aln.org/effective/details4.asp?FS_ID=46
CMALT Prospectus. (2006). Retrieved February 13, 2006, from
http://www.alt.ac.uk/docs/cmalt-prospectusv3.pdf
Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed
cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and
educational considerations (pp. 1-46). Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge
University Press.
Collier, J., & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research
method. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Conole, G. (2004). The role of learning technology practitioners and researchers in
understanding networked learning. Paper presented at the Networked Learning
Conference, Sheffield.
Cook-Sather, A. (2001). Unrolling roles in techo-pedagogy: Toward new forms of
collaboration in traditional college settings. Innovative Higher Education, 26(2),
121-139.
Corbett, R. (2003). Practice: Best Practices in e-Learning Online Conference. Retrieved
March 1, 2005, from http://www.aln.org/effective/details4.asp?FS_ID=43
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). Accreditation and Assuring Quality
in Distance Learning. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from
http://www.chea.org/pdf/mono_1_accred_distance_02.pdf?pubID=246
167
Crang, R. (2000). Review: Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with asynchronous
teaching and learning in the SUNY learning network. Paper presented at the 1999
Sloan Summer Workshop on Asynchronous Learning Networks, Urbana, IL.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Daniels, D. (2003). Learning about Community Leadership: Fusing Methodology and
Pedagogy to Learn about the Lives of Settlement Women. Adult Education
Quarterly, 53(3), 189-206.
Davidson, J. (2003). A new role in facilitating school reform: The case of the educational
technologist. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 729-752.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The discipline and practice of qulaitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative
research: Theories and issues (Second ed., pp. 1-47). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
di Gregorio, S. (2003). Analysis as cycling: Shifting between coding and memoing in
using qualitative analysis software. Paper presented at the Strategies in qualitative
research: Methodological issues and practices using QSR NVIVO and NUD*IST,
London.
Dillon, C. L., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance
education. American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5-21.
Emmison, M. J., & Smith, P. D. (2000). Researching the visual: Images, objects, contexts
and interactions in social and cultural inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
168
Fetzner, M. J. (2003). Institutional support for online faculty: Expanding the model. In J.
Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice
and Direction (Vol. 4). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2003). For Whom? Qualitative research,
representations, and social responsibility. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (Second ed., pp.
167-243). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program Evaluation:
Alternative approaches and practial guidelines (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Foster, L. H. (2003). The importance and frequency of work activities of professional
school counselors: Addressing the national standards for school counseling
programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University.
Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., Shea, P. J., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (1999). Factors
influencing faculty satisfaction with asynchronous teaching and learning in the
SUNY learning network. Paper presented at the On-Line Education: Learning
Effectiveness and Faculty Satisfaction, Urbana, Illinois.
Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Philadelphia,
PA: Open University Press.
Glesne, C. (1996). Making words fly: Developing understanding through interviewing. In
Becoming qualitative researchers (Second ed., pp. 67-94). Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
169
Gornall, L. (1999). 'New Professionals': Change and occupation roles in higher education.
Perspectives, 3(2), 44-49.
Gosling, D. (1996). What do UK educational units do? International Journal for
Academic Development, 1(1), 75-83.
Gosling, D. (2001). Educational development units in the UK - what are they doing five
years on? The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 74-90.
Goulding, A., Bromham, B., Hannabuss, S., & Cramer, D. (1999). Supply and demand:
The workforce needs of library and information services and personal qualities of
new professionals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 31(4), 212-
223.
Guernsey, L. (1998, December 11). A new career track combines teaching and academic
computing. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A35-A37.
Hanly, B. (1998). Online ed 101. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from
www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/culture/story/15061.html
Hanrahan, M., Ryan, M., & Duncan, M. (2001). The professional engagement model of
academic induction into on-line teaching. The International Journal for Academic
Development, 6(2), 130-142.
Hernon, P., Powell, R. R., & Young, A. P. (2004). Academic Library Directors: What do
they do? College & Research Libraries.
Hickey, C. (2005). The NVIVO "Shell": An Analogy. University of Massachusetts
Lowell Graduate School of Education.
Hill, M. N. (1998). Staffing a distance learning team: Whom do you really need? Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(1).
170
Holland, D., & Reeves, J. R. (1996). Activity theory and the view from somewhere:
Team perspectives on the Intellectual work of programming. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.),
Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Howell, S. L., Saba, F., Lindsay, N. K., & Williams, P. B. (2004). Seven strategies for
enabling faculty success in distance education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 7(1), 33-49.
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (Fall 2003). Thirty-two trends affecting
distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VI(III).
Inglis, A. (1996). Teaching-learning specialists' conceptions of their role in the design of
distance learning packages. Distance Education, 17(2), 267-288.
Institutional Review Board. (2004-2005). University of Massachusetts Lowell:
Institutional Review Board: Manual of instructions and procedures for research
projects involving human subjects.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity Theory: Implications for human-computer interaction. In
B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-
computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kosak, L., Manning, D., Dobson, E., Rogerson, L., Cotnam, S., Colaric, S., et al. (2004).
Prepared to teach online? Perspectives of faculty in the University of North
Carolina System. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(3).
171
Kroeger, S., Burton, C., Comarata, A., Combs, C., Hamm, C., Hopkins, R., et al. (2004).
Student voice and critical reflection: Helping students at risk. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 36(3), 50-57.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer
interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity
theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Landrum, C. (2002). Analysis of Faculty Experience and Initial Identification of
Standards of Excellence. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from
http://www.aln.org/effective/details4.asp?FS_ID=29
Law, M., & Horne, A. (2004). Bringing users and "stuff" together. Feliciter, 2, 51.
Lee, J., & Dziuban, C. (2002). Using quality assurance strategies for online programs.
Educational Technology Review, 10(2), 69-78.
Lehoullier, J. (2005). Role of mentoring in the professional lives of female intercollegiate
athletics directors. University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA.
Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs
in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(1).
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., & Levin, D. (1999). Distance Education at
Postsecondary Institutions: 1997-98 (NCES 2000-013). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and
Emerging Confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape
of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
172
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (Vol. 41):
Sage Publications.
Mayadas, F., Bourne, J., & Moore, J. C. (2005). Introduction. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore
(Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities (Vol. 6).
Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
McKenzie, B. K., Mims, N., Bennett, E., & Waugh, M. (2000). Needs, Concerns and
Practices of Online Instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 3(3).
Merriam, S. B. (1991). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data
Analysis (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.
Moore, J. C. (2002). Elements of quality: The Sloan-C framework. Needham, MA: Sloan-
C.
Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework and the Five Pillars.
Retrieved February 7, 2006, from
http://www.aln.org/publications/books/qualityframework.pdf
Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). The effects of distance learning, (ACSDE
Research Monograph). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
173
Nardi, B. A. (1996a). Activity theory and human-computer interaction. In B. A. Nardi
(Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nardi, B. A. (1996b). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action
models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and
consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
National Education Association. (2000). A survey of traditional and distance learning
higher education members. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from
http://www2.nea.org/he/abouthe/dlstudy.pdf
National Institutes of Health. (2002). Human Participation Protections Education for
Research Teams. Retrieved December 4, 2004, from http://69.5.4.33/login.htm
Oliver, M. (2002). What do learning technologists do? Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 39(4), 245-252.
Oliver, M. (2003). Community, identify and professionalisation: Are learning
technologists a community of practice? Paper presented at the 10th International
Conference, Alt-C, Sheffield.
Pan, C. C., Deets, J., Phillips, W., & Cornell, R. (2003). Pulling tigers' teeth without
getting bitten: Instructional designers and faculty. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 4(3), 289-302.
Pan, C. C., Thompson, K., & Deets, J. (2003). A good instructional designer is hard to
find? Paper presented at the 14th International conference on college teaching and
learning, Jacksonville, FL.
174
Peters, O. (2003). Distance education in transition: New trends and challenges (3rd ed.
Vol. 5): Bibliotheks - und Informationssystem der Universitat Oldenburg.
Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in
internet-based distance education: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Pink, S. (2001). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage Publications.
Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. (2005).
What is faculty development? Retrieved March 20, 2005, from
http://www.podnetwork.org/development/definitions.htm
Rapple, B., Euster, J. R., Perry, S., & Schmidt, J. (1997). The electronic library: New
roles for librarians. CAUSE/EFFECT, 20(1), 45-51.
Richards, L. (1999). Using NVIVO in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Richards, L. (2004). Validity and Reliability? Yes! Doing it in software. Paper presented
at the Strategies Conference, University of Durham.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rockwell, K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. B. (2000). Faculty education,
assistance and support needed to deliver education via distance. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 3(2).
Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation
of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86.
Schamberger, M. M. (1997). Elements of quality in a qualitative research interview.
South African Archives Journal, 39, 25-35.
175
Scott, S. (2003). Practice: Guiding Principles for Faculty in Distance Learning.
Retrieved March 1, 2005, from
http://www.aln.org/effective/details4.asp?FS_ID=22
Sebastian, J. G., Mosley, C. W., & Bleich, M. R. (2004). The academic nursing practice
dean: An emerging role. Journal of Nursing Education, 43(2), 66-70.
Sederberg, L. (2003). Rubric for Online Instruction. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from
http://www.aln.org/effective/details4.asp?FS_ID=39
Sener, J. (2005). From skeptical to satisfied: Teaching online as a "converstion
experience". Retrieved July 11, 2005, from
http://www.edpath.com/conversion.htm
Shea, P. J., William, P., Fredericksen, E. E., & Pickett, A. M. (2002). Online teaching as
a catalyst for classroom-based instructional transformation. In J. Bourne & J. C.
Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education (Vol. 3). Needham, MA:
Sloan-C.
Shephard, K. (2004). The role of educational developers in the expansion of educational
technology. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 67-83.
Siccama, C., Powanda-Croft, C., & Woods, A. (2004). Practice: Promoting Faculty
Collaboration through an Online Faculty Book Club. Retrieved March 1, 2005,
from http://www.aln.org/effective/details4.asp?FS_ID=50
Sloan-Consortium. (2005a). Effective Practices for Faculty Satisfaction. Retrieved
February 28, 2005, from http://www.sloan-c.org/effective/SortByFacultySat.asp
176
Sloan-Consortium. (2005b). Effective Practices: Quality Framework Faculty
Satisfaction. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from
http://www.aln.org/effective/FacultySatisfaction.asp
Sloan-Consortium. (2006a). Quality Framework: Access. Retrieved February 13, 2006,
from http://www.aln.org/effective/Access.asp
Sloan-Consortium. (2006b). Quality Framework: Learning Effectiveness. Retrieved
February 13, 2006, from http://www.aln.org/effective/LearningEffectiveness.asp
Smith, E. S. (2004). Considerations of rank and niche in distance education. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(3).
Sredl, H. J., & Rothwell, W. J. (1987). The ASTD reference guide to professional training
roles & competencies (Vol. I). New York: Random House.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2003). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies in
Qualitative Inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stanley, C. A. (2001). The faculty development portfolio: A framework for documenting
the professional development of faculty developers. Innovative Higher Education,
26(1), 23-36.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional
developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard
Educational Review, 69(3), 237-269.
177
Surry, D. W. (1996). Defining the role of the instructional technologist in higher
education. Paper presented at the Mid-South Instructional Technology
Conference, Murfreesboro, TN.
Surry, D. W., & Robinson, M. A. (2001). A taxonomy of instructional technology service
positions in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 38(3), 231-238.
Thach, E. C. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles,
outputs, and competencies needed in the field of distance education. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University.
Thompkins, P., Perry, S., & Lippincott, J. K. (1998). New learning communities:
Collaboration, networking, and information literacy. Information Technology and
Libraries, 17(2), 100-106.
Thompson, M. M. (2003). Faculty satisfaction in the online teaching-learning
environment. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online
Education: Practice and Direction (Vol. 4). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Truman, B. E. (2004). UCF's exemplary faculty support: An institutionalized ecosystem.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3), 89-96.
Truman-Davis, B., Futch, L., Thompson, K., & Yonekura, F. (2000). Support for online
teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY, 2, 45-51.
Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary
Institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
178
Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in
higher education institutions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1),
45-57.
Wilson, J. (2005). Online Education: "Reverse Engineering" Higher Ed. Retrieved
January 17, 2006, from Sloan-C 11_17_05_Jack Wilson_final-jmw.ppt
Wolf, P. (2004). Practice: Building Faculty Skills and Confidence: The Faculty Fellows
Program. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from
http://www.aln.org/effective/details4.asp?FS_ID=51
Wright, W. A., & Miller, J. E. (2000). The educational developer's portfolio. The
International Journal for Academic Development, 5(1), 20-29.
Yinger, R. J., & Clark, C. M. (1985). Using personal documents to study teacher
thinking. East Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching.
Zimmerman, D. H., & Wieder, D. L. (1977). The Diary: Diary-Interview Method. Urban
Life, 5(4), 479-498.
179
Appendix A
Types of Support Maple State
College Oak University
Willow Community College
Cedar College
Sally Lynn Lisa Dina Resources/Tools X X X X One-to-one consultation X X X Checklists/reminders/timelines X X X X Face to face Workshops X X X X Online student support X X X X Online tutorials/training X X X X Technical support X X X X Monitor courses in session X X X Written materials X X X X Online course evaluation & analysis
X X X X
Websites X X X X Learning Management System Support
X X X X
Give feedback X X X X 24/7 online support center X X Templates X X Help desk X Instructional Design support X X Faculty Newsletter X Technology & content orientation
X
Solicit feedback X X X X Pedagogy review using Quality rubric
X
“just in time” support X Convert content to online presentation
X
Copyright clearance consortium
X
E-Reserve in Blackboard X Online Communities of Practice
X
WIKI space for faculty X Textbook ordering X Library support X X
180
Appendix B
Professional Development Activities of Participants Sally Lynn Lisa Dina Journals Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks Innovate
Popular Press Campus Technology Chronicle of Higher Education
USDLA Campus Technology (formerly Syllabus Magazine) Campus Educator THE Journal
THE Journal Campus Technology (formerly Syllabus Magazine)
Macromedia Website Performance Improvement Training
Blogs Blogline Elearning Space
Elearning Space Elearning Post http://www.elearnopedia.com/ http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/ http://www.fullcirc.com/weblog/onfacblog.htm http://www.jarche.com/ http://learningcircuits.blogspot.com/ http://www.downes.ca/news/OLDaily.htm http://www.distance-educator.com/dnews/ http://www.eschoolnews.com/
List Serves Blackboard users group Association for Continuing Higher Education Sloan-Consortium
DIOS Sloan-Consortium
Online learning news and review
181
Professional Organizations
Sloan-Consortium MCO UCEA NERCOMP EDUCAUSE
ASTD USDLA – Board member
None currently ISPI Elearning Guild
Conferences EDUCAUSE Sloan-C Blackboard NERCOMP
League for the Innovation in Community Colleges Instructional Technology Council
Subject and discipline specific conferences* EDUCAUSE Online Learning and Training Elearning Guild
Web Seminars/online conferences
Sloan-Consortium TLT Group
* noting the specific conference names would breach anonymity and confidentiality agreements
182
Appendix C
Demographic Questionnaire 1. Name: ____________________________________________________________ 2. Present employer: ___________________________________________________ 3. Current job title: ____________________________________________________ 4. Please attach a copy of your current job description to this questionnaire 5. How long have you been in your current position: ____________________________ 6. Do you currently have any supervisory or managerial responsibilities for staff, including student staff? Yes No 6a. If yes, how many staff do you supervise (not including student staff)? 6b. If you supervise student staff, how many student staff do you supervise? 7. Staying current in your field: Please list the professional journals, trade magazines, newsletters or publications you read on a regular basis (including both electronic and print sources): 7a. Have you ever contributed articles to any of the publications you listed in question 7 above? If so, which one(s)?________________________________________________ 8. Involvement in professional organizations: Please list any professional organizations that you are a member of. 9. Educational background:
Degree Major Minor/Concentration
183
Appendix D
Interview Protocol for Interview I
Inquiry Category A: Identify the context in which the interviewee works.
1. Describe the structure or model of your online education program?
1a. Can you refer me to any marketing materials or other information (electronic or print) that would help me learn more about your online program? 1b. How many courses (graduate and undergraduate) does your online program currently offer online for credit? 1c. How many new online courses are offered each semester? 1d. How many online degrees does your institution offer? 1e. How many online certificates does your institution offer? 1f. When did your institution begin offering online courses?
2. What are your major responsibilities within the online program?
3. Can you describe for me the types of assistance your online program provides to faculty who are at any stage of working on or teaching an online course.
Inquiry Category B: Identify typical work activities
4. How you spend a typical day at work?
5. Describe what you do at work in a typical ‘early semester’ week.
6. Describe what you do at work in a typical ‘mid-semester’ week.
7. Describe what you do at work in a typical ‘end of semester’ week.
Inquiry Category C: Interaction with faculty
8. Describe the process of what you do when you are working with a faculty member who has never developed or taught an online course before. 9. What do you do to assist faculty in transitioning their course materials from teaching in a classroom to teaching online.
184
10. How do you work with faculty who have different levels of technical skills? 11. How do you work with a faculty member who is resistant to developing and teaching an online course?
Inquiry Category D: Training 12. Describe the type(s) of training you provide to faculty in your online program.
13. How do you monitor the progress of the faculty member as they progress through the training? 14. Describe the written resources (print or electronic) that you provide to faculty during training? 15. Describe one unique aspect of your training program. 16. How do you assist faculty in learning about web-based instructional strategies since they are so different from teaching in a classroom?
Inquiry Category E: Types of support
17. Describe the types of work that you help faculty with when the are in the design and development stages of their online course.
18. Describe the types of work that you help faculty with when they begin teaching their online course.
Inquiry Category F: Overt work activities
19. How do you contribute to the success of a faculty member’s online course? 20. How do you build credibility and rapport with the faculty you work with? 21. How do you let faculty know what you do?
Inquiry Category G: Professional development 22. How do you stay up-to-date and current on new trends in online education?
23. Is there anything that you do that we have not addressed or raised during the interview that you would like to share? If so, what?
185
Appendix E
Interview Protocol for Interview II I will ask the following six questions about each of the twelve photographs obtained from each study participant. 1. How does this depict what you do at work? 2. Who – Describe the participant(s) who were part of this activity. Please only describe them by position. 3. What:
3a. Describe the activity in this picture.
3b. What was your involvement in this activity?
4. When: What time did this activity take place? 5. Where: Where did this activity take place? 6. Why: What was the purpose of the activity?
186
Appendix F
Week in Review Activity Log
At the beginning of week five and week ten I will email you a copy of this form in a MS Word format. This will allow you to type notes directly onto the form at any time during the week. You will complete the form in MS Word and return it to me as an email attachment to [email protected]
Please use as much space as needed beneath each question.
In order to capture adequate detail of your work activities, please use the five W’s (When/What/Why/Who/Where) when responding to each of the questions on this form. The five W’s defined are as follows: When: This category refers to the time of the activity What: This category describes the activity itself Why: This category explains the purpose of the activity Who: This category identifies the participants in any activities but only names them by position. Anonymity of the participants needs to be protected. Where: This category designates the location of the activity
Section I: General week information 1. Today’s date: 2. Dates which are included as part of this activity log: 3. What week does this correspond to in your academic semester? 4. For this particular week in the semester, how typical was it of your “typical” work week? Not at all typical (1) somewhat typical (3) very typical (5) 5. On average, what time of day did you arrive at work this week? 6. On average, what time of day did you leave work this week? 7. Did you work any evenings this week? Yes No
187
7a. If yes, in your description, please include the five W’s of each event:
Section II: Weekly Projects
8. Please describe how you spent most of your time at work this week.
9. Describe, in as much detail as possible, the projects you worked on this week.
10. Describe the most challenging thing you did this week (include what you did to handle the situation, who else was involved, what additional actions need to take place as a result).
Section III: Workshops and Trainings 11. Did you lead or teach any workshops or trainings for faculty this week? Yes No
11a. If yes, please describe the event(s) (include the five W’s). Please attach a copy of the event description or any other event details, as appropriate.
Section IV: Weekly Meetings
12. Please review your daily scheduler (calendar, palm pilot, blackberry, etc..) for the past week and describe for me the types of activities, meetings, events, etc. that you participated in. Please use the five W’s in your descriptions.
Section IVa: Scheduled meetings 13. Did you have any scheduled meetings with faculty this week? Yes No
188
13a. If yes, how many?
13b. If yes, please describe two of the meetings using the five W’s. 14. Did you attend any other scheduled meetings this week (i.e. staff meetings)? Yes No
14a. If yes, how many?
14b. If yes, please describe two of the meetings using the five W’s. Section IVb: Unscheduled meetings 15. Did you have any significant unscheduled meetings* this week? Yes No *Unscheduled meetings are informal meetings that take place in the hallway, restrooms or when someone drops into your office looking for assistance.
15a. If yes, how many?
15b. If yes, please describe two of the unscheduled meetings using the five W’s.
16. How many unscheduled meetings did you participate in this week?
Section V: Email communication
189
17. Please estimate how many emails did you received this week.
18. Please estimate how many emails you responded to this week.
19. Please describe two emails which required your expertise to support faculty in any aspect of their planning, design, development or delivery of their online course. Please use the five W’s in your description. If appropriate, you can attach a copy of the emails to this form.
Section VI: Mail communication
20. Please describe the type of mail you received in your physical mailbox this week. Please use the five W’s in your description.
21. From the mail you received this week, describe two pieces of mail that you acted upon (include the five W’s in your description).
Section VII: Telephone communications
22. How many phone calls did you receive this week?
23. Please describe two phone calls which required your expertise to support faculty in any aspect of their planning, design, development or delivery of their online course. Please use the five W’s in your description.
190
Section VIII: Technical Support
24. Please provide two examples (include five W’s) of technical support you provided to a faculty member this week. In your examples, please tell me if the faculty member requested your assistance for a course they are currently developing or currently teaching.
Section IX: Moral Support
25. Please provide an example (include five W’s) of moral support you provided to a faculty member this week. Moral support involves respect, approval and/or sympathy without action
Section X: Other
26. Is there anything else that you did this week that has not been covered by your responses above? If yes, please describe below using the five W’s.
191
Appendix G
Instructions for Week in Review Activity Log
The week in review activity log will be completed at two times over the course of
the study. It will be completed at the end of week 4 and week 12. It is a place where you will document your work related activities that took place during these specified weeks. For example, on the Friday of the fourth week of the semester, you will look back on the week (beginning on Monday and ending on Friday), and complete the week in review activity log. Please document any work-related activities undertaken in the evening. As you describe and write about each activity or event that took place during the specified week, please write about the five W’s (When/What/Why/Who/Where) of each event: When: This category refers to the time of the activity What: This category describes the activity itself Why: This category explains the purpose of the activity Who: This category identifies the participants in any activities but only names them by position. Anonymity of the participants needs to be protected. Where: This category designates the location of the activity In this week in review activity log, do not omit activities because they seemed mundane or routine to you. Whatever is notable to you will be of interest to this study. Please set aside approximately 30-45 minutes on the Friday at the end of the specified week. If you have any questions while you are completing the form, please contact Carolyn Siccama at [email protected] or via phone at 781-861-8234 (home) or 978-934-2142 (work).
192
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AUTHOR
Carolyn Jean Siccama earned a Bachelors of Science in Dietetics in 1992 from the
University of Vermont. Carolyn then went to Yale-New Haven Hospital to complete a
year long dietetic internship, as a necessary requirement before sitting for the national
Registered Dietitian exam. After practicing as a Registered Dietitian for many years,
Carolyn pursued graduate work at Framingham State College where she earned a Masters
of Education in Nutrition Education in 1998. Carolyn is also an alumnus of the National
Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS).
Currently, Carolyn is the Distance Learning Faculty Coordinator in the Division
of Continuing Studies and Corporate Education at the University of Massachusetts
Lowell. While in this position she assisted in the initiation of the University’s Online
Teaching Institute, which provides higher education faculty with an orientation to
teaching online. In 2005, Carolyn was part of the Continuing Studies team which won
two awards from the Sloan Consortium in recognition for excellence in online teaching
and learning for their Online Teaching Institute and Institution-Wide Online Teaching &
Learning Programming.
Professional affiliations include the Professional and Organizational Development
in Higher Education Network and the New England Faculty Development Consortium.
Carolyn is also a member of the Qualitative Research Network at the University of
Massachusetts Lowell.