University of Connecticut Online Education Task Force. Vision, Goals and Recommendations. Final Report

Transcription

1 University of Connecticut Online Education Task Force Vision, Goals and Recommendations Final Report June 16,

2 Executive Summary Charge, Vision Statement, Goals and Recommendations On December 11, 2008, Provost Peter Nicholls established the Online Education Task Force to research and report on the status, methods, and potential of online education at the University of Connecticut. The Task Force included the following members of the faculty and staff representing schools, colleges, administrative and support services and regional campuses. Doug Cooper (Task Force Chair), Professor, School of Engineering Desmond McCaffrey (Task Force Chair), Director, Instructional Design and Development Thomas Agresta, Associate Clinical Professor, University Health Center William Berentsen, Professor, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Tom Bloom, Director, Student Affairs Information Technology Pam Bramble, Associate Professor, School of Fine Arts Kathleen Dechant, Professor in Residence, School of Business Lauren Dechant, Program Coordinator, Technology Services Group, Stamford Campus Francine DeFranco, Director for Library Research Services, University Libraries Kelly Dennis, Assistant Professor, School of Fine Arts Art Engler, Associate Professor, School of Nursing Cameron Faustman, Associate Dean and Professor, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Jill Fitzgerald, Assistant Clinical Professor, School of Pharmacy Doug Hamilton, Associate Dean and Professor, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Arthur Hand, Professor, University Health Center Jim Henkel, Associate Vice Provost, Graduate School Peter Kochenburger, Director of Graduate Programs and Assistant Clinical Professor, Law School Susan Lyons, Director of Academic Services, Avery Point Campus Adrienne Macki, Assistant Professor, School of Fine Arts Daniel Mercier, Assistant Director, Institute for Teaching and Learning Yanko Michea, Director, Faculty Instructional Technology Services, University Health Center Susan Nesbitt, Director, Center for Continuing Studies Cheryl Parks, Associate Professor, School of Social Work Andy Rosman, Associate Professor and Executive Director of Online Education, School of Business Del Siegle, Associate Professor, Neag School of Education Gillian Thorne, Director, Early College Experience Jeff von Munkwitz-Smith, University Registrar 2

3 The Provost charged the Task Force with analyzing and reporting on the promise of online education with particular attention given to developing and documenting a roadmap forward for the University of Connecticut. The Task Force approached this charge by formulating the following vision statement: The University of Connecticut must develop and deliver online courses and programs that will be perceived and acknowledged as offering superlative online education. UConn will become the benchmark against which other peer and aspirant universities compare themselves. The Task Force members agree that the following recommendations must be met if UConn is to be successful in expanding online education with the quality ascribed to a world class university. The specific recommendations are: Goal I. Ensuring the Quality of Online Course Offerings Recommendation 1: Develop University standards for quality in online education Recommendation 2: Increase the availability of instructional design to support University standards for all online courses Recommendation 3: Implement a standard baseline course evaluation model within the instructional design process for the purpose of ongoing course improvement Recommendation 4: Work with OIR and other appropriate groups to supplement teaching evaluation instruments with items that address the unique nature of online courses Goal IIa. Supporting Faculty Needs Related to Online Education Recommendation 5: Implement a University-wide faculty development model of instructional design that would encourage more faculty to explore online education, provide quality goals, and enhance faculty creativity and flexibility when teaching in this environment. Recommendation 6: Integrate and expand faculty support services to meet University-wide faculty technology and pedagogy requirements Recommendation 7: Create new faculty support services in areas identified as critical to the quality of online education Recommendation 8: Explicitly recognize issues of intellectual property in online courses Recommendation 9: Revise existing policies and implement new policies to address issues related to recognition, compensation, and PTR in online education Goal IIb. Supporting Student Needs Related to Online Education Recommendation 10: Provide online students with appropriate academic and technical resources and support Recommendation 11: Create a web portal as a single point of access for potential and existing online students seeking information and services 3

4 Goal III. Pursuing Online Offerings that Most Benefit the University Recommendation 12: Develop a comprehensive business plan for the expansion of online education at the University of Connecticut Recommendation 13: Create processes to implement the business plan The Task Force met 11 times since its formation and had presentations from 12 members and guests on various aspects and issues regarding the methods and practices relevant to online education. The Task Force also conducted detailed surveys of the university faculty and student body. The information and discussion that emerged from those presentations and surveys led to the specific Task Force recommendations summarized above. These are explored in detail in the complete report. 4

5 University of Connecticut Online Education Task Force Vision, Goals and Recommendations Introduction The University of Connecticut provides outstanding educational experiences to students by integrating teaching, research and service. The University strives to be a leader and to provide the vision and execution in these fields as would be ascribed to a world class university. The University should provide this leadership and vision in quality online education as well. The Board of Trustees approval of the University s Academic Plan on September 23, 2008 has reinforced the importance of supporting the University s mission through innovative and forward-looking strategies. Distributed across campuses, colleges, schools, programs and departments, online education at UConn is now poised to further advance the University s mission and academic plan. An uncertain economic environment demands creative problem solving and the University should leverage our existing online resources to help achieve our vision of becoming one of the top twenty public research universities in the nation. Evidence from peer and aspirant institutions points to online education as a key component for achieving this vision. With this as a backdrop, Provost Peter Nicholls appointed a Task Force on Online Education to research and report on the status, methods, and potential of online education as it relates to the recently approved academic plan. The Online Education Task Force The Provost charged the Task Force (Appendix A) with analyzing and reporting on the promise of online education with particular attention given to developing and documenting a roadmap forward for the University of Connecticut. Specific assessment and outcome guidelines directed the Task Force to identify: Methods and practices of peer institutions in online education An inventory of current support staff, faculty/unit activities and online offerings at UConn A measure of UConn s administrative, faculty and student interest in expanding our online offerings Input from academic unit administrators on their willingness/ability to offer faculty incentives The technology infrastructure at UConn relative to that required for scale-up and implementation The financial and reputational opportunities and risks for UConn of an online education initiative. Incentive options for faculty to encourage participation in developing and teaching online courses Expectations and qualifications of faculty who seek to develop an online course Intellectual property policies that maximize financial benefit to all parties A summary of views on the role of formal instructional design in online course development Needs and methods for new course approval and year-over-year evaluation of course quality Suggestions on prioritizing focus areas with greatest potential for return Recommendations for an organizing structure to facilitate and coordinate online course activities The Online Education Task Force created and distributed a survey for UConn faculty and instructors (Appendix B), and another for our students (Appendix C). These surveys generated data specifically 5

6 requested in the Provost s charge and more broadly, provided specific information on the faculty and student body s opinions and attitudes about online education at UConn. These data played a major role in the evolution of the Task Force s vision, and as such, salient points will be summarized here to give context to the remainder of the document. Faculty were asked to rate their level of concern regarding 14 components of online education (Figure 1). 483 UConn faculty responded and a factor analysis showed that their responses can be organized into three areas of concern: Instructional Quality; Infrastructure and Instructional Support; and Impact on the Individual Faculty Member. These survey results drive the first two goals found in the vision statement in the next section of this report. Figure 1 Areas of concern as determined by a factor analysis of UConn faculty survey data 6

7 A number of findings relevant to the Task Force s vision emerged from the 1650 students who responded to the survey. When asked Should a greater priority be placed on offering online classes at UConn? students responded yes in the following percentages: - undergraduate students (65%) - graduate students (55%) (for purposes of this report, graduate students includes students in the University s graduate and professional schools). Survey results show that certain conditions influence student interest in taking an online course: - It fits my schedule (70% of all respondents) - It helped me complete my degree requirements sooner (69% of all respondents) - It helped me complete my General Education requirements sooner (freshmen respondents 70%, sophomore, junior and senior respondents 55%) - Courses were offered in the summer or intersession (undergraduate respondents 74% graduate student respondents 56%) These findings are significant and were influential in creating the second and third goals found in the vision statement in the next section. The final iteration of the Task Force s vision resulted from merging data on the stated needs and desires of the faculty and students with pre-existing data including: existing research in online education, the current state of online education at UConn, UConn faculty and staff expertise, and peer and aspirant institutions experiences in online education. The Task Force considered this information within the context of the University s academic plan and created the Vision Statement below. All subsequent suggestions and recommendations evolve from this statement. Online Education Task Force Vision Statement The vision of this Task Force is that the University of Connecticut must develop and deliver online courses and programs that will be perceived and acknowledged as offering superlative online education 1. UConn will become the benchmark against which other peer and aspirant universities compare themselves. The Task Force believes that to realize this vision UConn must: I) consistently develop and deliver high quality online courses; II) comprehensively support all faculty 2 and student needs related to online education, and III) pursue online offerings that provide the greatest benefit to the University 1 Online education in the context of this report is defined as education in which students can complete 100% of the learning activities in an online environment. Normally this would occur asynchronously although there may be cases where courses will use synchronous meetings. 2 The term faculty is used extensively in this report to refer to anyone teaching an online course (e.g., tenure track faculty, lecturers, graduate students, adjuncts). 7

8 Quality, excellence and high student achievement will become the UConn brand, for our faculty and students, and as a public vision that provides institutional pride and intrinsic value as well as strategic market position. Meeting these goals while ensuring a brand of quality, excellence, and high achievement, will strengthen UConn s position as New England s top public university. The time to proceed is now. Current State of Online Education at UConn Offerings: The University of Connecticut has online education opportunities ranging from single courses to complete degree programs. Appendix D provides a more detailed breakdown of online courses at the University. In short, the following areas offer degrees that can be completed solely through online course work: Center for Continuing Studies, School of Business, and Neag School of Education. The Center for Continuing Studies also offers online certificate programs. Outside of degree and certificate programs, at least one online course is offered in each of the University s schools or colleges except for Medicine and Dental Medicine. Support Staff: Support for the design and delivery of online courses is also spread across the University. Instructional design, the process of systematically designing, developing and integrating the component parts of an online course in a pedagogically sound manner, is supported in some areas by instructional designers (ID s). Currently, there are ID s employed across the University in the following areas: Center for Continuing Studies (CCS), Human Resources, Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL), Journalism Department, School of Business, and the University of Connecticut Health Center. The ID s in ITL support undergraduate courses. The ID s in the CCS support course design for CCS initiatives. The ID s in Human Resources are not involved with the design and development of academic courses. The remaining ID s support the initiatives of their specific schools, departments, or programs. It should noted that although it doesn t formally hire ID s, the Neag School of Education offers online courses and programs and has faculty with expertise in the fields of curriculum and instructional design. The Law School has used the Business School s ID professionals on a cost-sharing basis. Technical support is similarly spread across the University. ITL s Instructional Resource Center provides HuskyCT and other technology and pedagogy support to Storrs and regional campus faculty. CCS, ITL the School of Business and the Law School have technical support staff that work in conjunction with instructional designers during online course design and delivery. Some regional campuses, colleges, schools, departments, and programs also have support staff to provide specific technical and pedagogical support to faculty; however, none of these staff are assigned solely to supporting online education. Further, there are those who are formally charged with supporting other areas of technology and teaching who have begun to support online courses or who support on an as-needed basis. University Information Technology Services (UITS) provides support for online courses through a partnership with the Instructional Resource Center and ITL. I. Ensuring the Quality of Online Course Offerings UConn s success in producing quality online education will differentiate this institution from other public and private universities in its vision, implementation, and assessment. While many peer and aspirant universities have committed themselves to online education, quality has not always been placed at the forefront of these initiatives. 8

9 One approach that has generated recent controversy includes activities in Colorado, Illinois, Texas and Utah. In all of these cases, a separate and independent administrative structure was created to integrate offerings from multiple campuses into a single virtual online degree program with a primary objective being revenue generation. These virtual university programs have failed to match the enrollment and revenue goals of their business plans and are being scrutinized and even reorganized. In Illinois, Texas and Utah, online education activities are being returned to the individual campuses for administration or are being eliminated. This Task Force strongly believes that quality in online education rather than revenue generation is our highest priority and as such is better aligned with the University's mission. This conclusion is based on analysis of the survey results, and evolving research and current experiences at UConn concerning learning designs and best practices in online course creation and delivery. The consequence of putting any factors other than quality as the primary driver is the potential for damage to our reputation and the risk of loss of time and effort on a failed strategy (e.g., Carlson & Carnevale, 2001; Jokivirta, 2006). The Task Force faculty survey results reinforce the need for quality from a faculty perspective. Issues of quality (learning assessment, learning effectiveness, academic integrity issues, the UConn brand, and consistency of quality across the institution) stood out as the major concerns faculty have regarding online courses. UConn s focus on quality will derive from developing online courses using standards and processes of instructional design grounded in current research and proven best practices. These standards and processes facilitate faculty development and the creation of active student-centered learning environments. They also form the foundation for an ongoing iterative feedback process characterized by assessment, evaluation, and accountability to accreditation guidelines. The Task Force is confident that these principles will position online education to support UConn s institutional vision to provide outstanding educational programs. To ensure the quality of online education at the University of Connecticut, the Task Force has agreed upon the following recommendations: Recommendation 1: Develop University standards for quality in online education Research in the areas of psychology, education, and online learning specifically has led to the development of pedagogical standards for online education. These standards also address issues of ADA compliance and accessibility, copyright, universal design, web design and issues of academic integrity. QualityMatters serves as one example of an organization that has developed research-based online course standards ( There are existing support groups and staff currently addressing these issues across UConn. However, these efforts are not guided by a University-wide standard. Standards will allow schools, colleges, programs and departments to work closely with support staff to develop courses and evaluate the quality of these courses against a common baseline. Existing University oversight bodies currently use their own standards to review face-to-face and online courses, often with specific focus given to when the courses are offered (i.e., semester, summer, intersession). For example, the General Education Oversight Committee (GEOC) requires special approval of all Gen Ed courses, face-to-face or online, taught in the intersessions of four weeks or less to ensure General Education course criteria will be met in the shortened time period. GEOC does not currently review courses for quality of online pedagogy or technical standards. Other bodies may review for these standards but do so without the benefit of a University standard. In the Task Force faculty survey, 69% of the respondents identified consistency as a concern if UConn implements more online offerings. This Task Force agrees with these findings and recommends that steps be taken to enhance consistency University-wide. Specific recommendations include the following: 9

10 A. Form a University advisory committee charged with developing standards for quality teaching and delivery of online courses. This committee will act in an advisory capacity to existing oversight bodies (e.g., Curricula & Course Committees, Graduate Executive Committee, GEOC, similar committees at the professional schools, etc.) as they make approval decisions regarding the quality of new online courses and programs and is not meant to serve as an additional oversight entity. The committee should consist of representatives from the faculty, heads of instructional design groups, the library, university technical support staff, the Center for Students With Disabilities and other areas identified as relevant to this process. B. Engrain in these standards the importance of active student-centered learning that is cognitively demanding and provides for improved student learning outcomes indicated by retention and future application of knowledge and skills. C. Address issues of academic integrity in online courses, standards for ensuring compliance and policies, and suggested procedures for dealing with any student disregard for academic integrity. D. Reinforce administrative support and acknowledgment of all University standards as essential to all UConn online courses. E. Conduct ongoing assessment and evaluation of online standards to ensure that they are current with research and best practices and effective in maintaining quality. Recommendation 2: Increase the availability of Instructional Design to support University standards for all online courses Standards may define quality, but it is the instructional design process that ensures that these standards are integrated into a completed course and the University s overall commitment to quality online education is maintained. As specialists in their field, faculty members are essential to providing the disciplinary expertise required for quality teaching, content, and delivery of online courses. Similarly, instructional designers are experts in providing the methods and processes by which the faculty s content expertise and teaching acumen are translated into an online environment. Through the systematic process of analyzing needs, defining outcomes, developing and designing assessments, evaluations and activities, and integrating these component parts, the instructional designer works with the faculty to facilitate the most effective learning given the constraints of the institutional setting. Faculty work in partnership with instructional designers, media specialists and other support staff to develop course materials and content, ensure that courses meet copyright and web design standards, and prepare to teach in the online environment. Faculty gain new skills from the instructional design process and begin to build their expertise regarding online course development and delivery. Such a faculty development model of instructional design results in both a new course and a faculty member who can be more effective in future course design. An additional benefit is the ability of faculty to transfer the skills learned in the design process to blended and/or face-to-face courses. This model of instructional design provides one-on-one ID to faculty and faculty to faculty mentoring (Taylor & McQuigan, 2008). as well as faculty development as primary objectives when designing courses (Lavoie, 2001; Lavoie & Rosman, 2007). The Task Force faculty survey found that faculty members abilities to take advantage of the combined efforts of instructional designers and other technical support staff is essential to ensuring quality online education. 10

11 As a result of the lack of instructional design support for all areas of the University, online courses are being developed and delivered at UConn that have not had the benefit of and associated quality achievable with instructional design support. Some academic areas are meeting instructional design and online course development needs through ad hoc means or not at all. There are staff and faculty working at the Storrs and Regional Campuses fulfilling some of the roles of an instructional designer; however, they are not formally titled as such. Unlike undergraduate education, graduate programs do not have a centralized instructional design support group so they must either hire support (as have the Schools of Business and Law) or go without. One last point must be made regarding the role of instructional design at UConn. Instructional designers are already directly supporting the University s academic mission through ongoing faculty development, campus-wide initiatives (e.g., First Year Programs, GEOC, Service Learning, Living Learning Communities), and through face-to-face and blended courses. Although there are many factors that contribute to the work load of instructional designers, this committee agrees that an instructional designer dedicated to developing online courses and working with technical support staff can facilitate the creation of between four and six online courses a year This assumes no other support responsibilities such as those mentioned above. Specific recommendations include the following: A. Increase instructional design staff as needed to ensure all new online courses meet University standards. B. Ensure that existing non-online initiatives can continue to use instructional design support when appropriate to meet the University s academic mission. C. Increase media developer, web design, and other technical support staff to ensure University standards are recognized in the development of all new online courses. D. Provide instructional design and technical support staff to all online undergraduate, graduate, and certification initiatives University-wide. E. Create a formal process for instructional design groups across the University to meet and discuss standards, best practices, emerging research, etc. so as to further maintain continuity and quality in online programs (Instructional Design Committee). Recommendation 3: Implement a standard baseline course evaluation model within the instructional design process for the purpose of ongoing course improvement Instructional design calls for the evaluation of course design. Evaluation provides faculty and designers with data to promote ongoing improvement of an online course. Though evaluation practices may vary from one course to another, there should be a common practice of ongoing evaluation related directly to the University standards. This process will allow faculty and instructional designers to measure their work against a common standard and make necessary changes to online courses. It is important to note that in this context, the evaluation process is intended for faculty and designer use, not as a tool for administrative oversight or as a measure of quality of teaching. The data gathered through the evaluation process enable the faculty and instructional designers to work together as a team to identify course strengths and areas in need of improvement and act on these findings. Specific recommendations include: A. Using current University standards as guides, formulate baseline survey items that can be used to gather data for ongoing internal evaluation of online courses. 11

12 B. Charge the Instructional Design Committee with ongoing review and revision of the evaluation instrument. C. If online faculty members agree with sharing findings, charge the Instructional Design Committee with disseminating findings from these surveys to the University community. Recommendation 4: Work with OIR and other appropriate groups to supplement teaching evaluation instruments with items that address the unique nature of online courses Current University instruments used to evaluate teaching are designed for use in face-to-face courses. There is wide agreement that they do not address some of the situations unique to online education. Specific areas that need attention are: A. Address the need for a specialized online evaluation of teaching instrument to the appropriate University committees (e.g., Faculty Standards, Scholastic Standards, Curriculum and Courses). B. Adapt instrument items on existing teaching evaluation forms so they are appropriately aligned with the online environment. C. Create new items that address the unique nature of online learning. IIa. Supporting Faculty Needs Related to Online Education Though providing the highest quality online experience for our students has been given primacy in our recommendations, this cannot be achieved without faculty involvement. A first step in gaining faculty involvement is making sure their needs are met. The Task Force faculty survey provides some valuable insight regarding faculty needs related to creating and teaching online courses. In summary, 180 UConn faculty who showed an interest in teaching online in the future were asked what resources they would need to teach online. Of this group, 102 had never taught online and 78 had. Data analysis pointed to specific areas of need regardless of faculty experience teaching online. Of the faculty respondents interested in teaching online, the following needs were identified: - Need Technical Support to Create an Online Course (74%) - Need Pedagogical Support to Create an Online Course (71%), - Need Technical Support to Teach an Online Course (60%), - Need Pedagogical Support to Teach an Online Course (57%), - Need for Flexible Location (61%), - Need for Flexible Schedule (55%), - Need for Recognition of Efforts (57%). The survey data supports other recent research finding that instructor roles in the online environment are different than in face-to-face settings and that technology and educational support must be provided to online instructors (Swan, 2003). These data combined with those referenced in the introduction faculty concerns regarding incentives, intellectual property issues, and time commitment (Fig. 1) support the Task Force s assertion that comprehensive faculty support must be provided in all areas related to designing and teaching online courses. This begins with a faculty development model of instructional design that leverages faculty members intellectual capital and progressively empowers them to develop and teach courses in a pedagogically sound manner. This connection to a course and a process and the subsequent increase in online course development and delivery skills reduces the risk and costs of high faculty turnover. 12

13 UConn should support faculty in the areas of technology, intellectual property, copyright, and pedagogy prior to, during and after a course is taught. This support is currently available in various areas of the university (i.e. varied by regional campus, college, school, program and department.) but to meet the needs of an online initiative, these services must be consistent and available to all faculty members. Support must also be provided at the departmental, programmatic, college, and institutional level in terms of recognition, compensation, promotion and tenure practices. If faculty support is not addressed in a transparent and holistic manner, UConn will likely see faculty disinterest, frustration, high turnover and a decline in willing participants for online education. The Task Force recognizes that there are costs associated with these proposals and recommends that options for adjusted tuition and/or fees for online courses and programs be explored in order to recapture these additional expenses. Creating new online courses and programs will attract additional students to the University that otherwise would not take these classes with us and can assist the University in providing for enhanced faculty support needs. To ensure sufficient faculty support related to online education at the University of Connecticut, the Task Force has agreed upon the following recommendations: Recommendation 5: Implement a University-wide faculty development model of instructional design The faculty member is central to the development of quality online courses. Working collaboratively with an instructional design team, faculty members develop courses based on their instructional priorities, philosophies, content expertise and internal expectations for their students. This faculty-centered process leads to the development of a course uniquely designed for a specific faculty member. Minimizing course rotation and instructor turnover is essential in order to maximize return on faculty effort and reduce the need to redesign a course as new faculty members are assigned to teach it. Faculty development models of instructional design not only design and produce a quality course, but develop the faculty member to become more self-sufficient and expert in the field of online course design and delivery (Lavoie, 2001; Lavoie & Rosman, 2007; Taylor & McQuigan, 2008). A skilled, confident faculty member is more likely to feel satisfaction in his or her course delivery and more likely to continue teaching online. Further, a faculty development model acts as a means of creating a growing population of faculty that may act as trained peer support to other faculty new to online education. The Task Force faculty survey suggests that this model will reinforce what is already occurring at UConn. When asked what resources they called upon while developing online courses, faculty who taught online at UConn reported that 58 % chose Storrs Instructional Design staff and 57% chose faculty peers. A faculty development model promotes and perpetuates quality, best practices and informal faculty support to complement the formal support already in place. The implementation of a University wide model will serve to bolster the activity already occurring and provide a new source of support for those who have not yet developed online courses. Specific recommendations include the following: A. Charge the Instructional Design Committee (referenced in Section I, Recommendation 2 line D) with creating a guideline for a University faculty development model of instructional design. B. Reinforce the meritorious nature of participating in a faculty development model of instructional design. 13

14 Recommendation 6: Integrate and expand faculty support services to meet University-wide faculty technology and pedagogy requirements Faculty members interested in teaching online at UConn require comprehensive support. Further analysis of the data provided in Section IIa shows that of those faculty who have taught online in the past, 59% need technical support developing online courses and 54% need pedagogical support. In terms of teaching online courses, 45% of this cohort needs technical support and 42% pedagogical support. Even after teaching online, it is clear that there is the need for ongoing, albeit reduced support services. Instructional design and the associated technical development support are essential to supporting the implementation of University standards and in directly supporting faculty needs in all areas of online course delivery. In addition, it is essential that software, hardware, and infrastructure needed to deliver online courses are present and sufficient for the expansion of online course. As online education expands at UConn, the University Libraries will continue to play a major role in supporting faculty needs specific to the online environment. Due to the nature of online learning at UConn, staff and resources in some libraries support online learning on a regular basis. Other staff see little or no demand for their services. The libraries will need to be informed of ongoing online course initiatives and needs so they are able to provide appropriate resources. The primary means of online delivery, HuskyCT, is supported by UITS. Other delivery methods are distributed across the University (e.g., hosting servers, streaming servers, data storage). These distributed services arose to fill the needs of specific groups. In many cases, these services did not originate with the primary mission of supporting online education, though some online delivery resources are specific to an academic field (e.g., legal education). Such an unplanned infrastructure is not well-suited to support the expansion of online education as recommended in this report. UITS has recently begun the process of analyzing its role in supporting UConn s academic mission and all efforts should be made to communicate faculty needs as online education increases. Specific recommendations include the following: A. Identify areas of likely online course growth and ensure the availability of instructional designers and associated support staff. (Except for the School of Business and the Center for Continuing Studies, graduate programs currently have no formal instructional design services available to them. Undergraduate support is working at capacity.) B. Supply UITS with data needed to make informed decisions regarding areas of focus and levels of support needed to increase online offerings at UConn. C. Supply the University Libraries with the data needed to make informed decisions regarding areas of focus and levels of support needed to increase online offerings at UConn. D. Identify areas of redundancy and isolation in terms of technology necessary to support online education. E. Consider expanding the mission of existing support groups so as to provide adequate support to colleges, schools, departments, programs, and regional campuses. 14

15 Recommendation 7: Create new faculty support services in areas identified as critical to the quality of online education Educational technology is a rapidly changing field and much of the technology used to deliver online education has been available for less than two years. Technology that has existed longer has not remained static, but is continually evolving. In order to offer faculty the most appropriate technology for a given pedagogical situation, the University needs to provide sufficient support, expertise, and resources to adapt to this changing environment. Specific recommendations: A. Identify current faculty support needs that are unmet and modify or create support structures necessary to support these needs. B. Create an online education technology committee (including representation from ITL, UITS, Instructional Design groups, faculty, etc.) charged with investigating, testing, and recommending new technology, software, infrastructure, etc., for the support of online education. While much of the technology infrastructure and support staff required for expanding online education already exists at UConn, these resources are distributed across the University. Additionally, the functions of UITS (University Information Technology Services) that provide the supporting technology infrastructure including connectivity, storage, back-up, hosting, media streaming and other back-room equipment and services are fundamental to the expansion of online education. Recommendation 8: Explicitly address issues of intellectual property in online courses The University must address the need for a clear and explicit policy regarding intellectual property in online courses. Although there are guidelines in the AAUP contract and University policies regarding intellectual property, they do not clearly inform faculty about their rights or the expectations of the University. If faculty members are paid to design a course, it could be considered work for hire, a situation with certain limitations on the intellectual property rights of the faculty member. If the faculty member is not paid and the course is not considered work for hire, there are other implications. Content designed in conjunction with an instructional designer or media developer raises other questions of ownership and transferability. Data from the faculty survey show that 41% of faculty members, regardless of interest or experience in teaching online, are fairly or very concerned about issues of intellectual property. 20 % were somewhat concerned. Feedback from online program administrators at peer and aspirant institutions supports that intellectual property is an issue that must be addressed in a clear and forthright manner. AAUP is aware of these issues but no formal language or agreements have yet been created. If faculty members are to design and develop online courses, they must know their rights with certainty prior to undertaking the task. Further, instructional design support groups must be aware of the effect intellectual property policies have on their efforts. Specific recommendations related to intellectual property follow: A. Identify all possible scenarios in a course development process that may raise issues of intellectual property for faculty and the University (e.g., materials created solely by the faculty, materials created solely by University staff, materials created in partnership between faculty and University staff, questions of transferability of courses to other institutions, questions of allowing faculty to teach another faculty member s course, etc.) B. Inform AAUP of these issues so it may take them into account in the labor contract. 15

16 C. Develop intellectual property agreements for online course faculty. D. Clarify the impact of a faculty development model of instructional design on issues of intellectual property and how this will impact AAUP and University policies. E. Clarify the impact of faculty involvement in instructional design as research as it is related to issues of intellectual property and how this will impact AAUP and University policies. Recommendation 9: Revise existing policies and implement new policies to address issues related to recognition, compensation, and PTR in online education The initial creation of quality online courses through the faculty development model suggested by this Task Force consumes more time and effort relative to a face-to-face course. The Administration at all levels should acknowledge this fact and seek to accommodate the online instructor as guided by the above list of motivators. Section III below highlights the importance of online education as a means of meeting the University s academic plan. To meet this end, Deans and Department Heads will need additional motivating tools for those faculty members who agree to teach courses that address targeted needs (e.g., summer and/or intersession courses that facilitate on-time graduation, attract full enrollment, and generate additional revenue). Similarly, Department Heads responsible for delivering a complete curriculum and distributing workload among their faculty must be made aware of the additional faculty effort required to design and teach quality online courses. Further, Department Heads need to understand the benefits their departments and the University will receive from online education. With this information, Department Heads can make more informed decisions regarding faculty assignments and accommodations as well as decisions related to merit and annual reporting. Many peer and aspirant institutions have structured guidelines and policies for addressing faculty compensation for developing online courses (Appendix E). The University of Connecticut lacks consistency in this area. In response to the Task Force survey, 55% of the faculty interested in teaching online were either fairly or highly concerned about the nature of incentives to develop and teach online courses. Another 26% were somewhat concerned. A recent survey of experienced online faculty at 36 colleges showed that of 23 criteria, those of inadequate compensation for online course development, online course revision and online teaching were identified as the top three demotivators for teaching online (Shea, 2007). Further support for the need for a compensation model was found through communication with administrators for online programs at the U.S. News and World Report s top-twenty institutions, who all confirmed that faculty at these institutions offering online courses are compensated for the design and development of courses. It is important to note that at many of these institutions, there is a close relationship between compensation and intellectual property. Often, intellectual property agreements are made with faculty as part of compensation packages. Given these data, this Task Force believes a compensation model must be developed that gives incentive to faculty for undertaking the process of designing and developing quality online courses. Specific recommendations include: A. Upper administration reinforces to all academic areas the importance of online education to achieving the University s academic mission. B. Upper administration works with Deans and Department heads to provide motivating tools to faculty who teach online courses that focus on meeting the academic mission. 16

17 C. Through education and outreach, increase Department Head awareness and understanding of the additional effort needed to develop quality online courses through a faculty development model of instructional design. D. Increase Department Head awareness and understanding of the benefits associated with delivering high quality online courses (e.g., increased revenue, visibility of programs, recruitment, etc.) E. Provide compensation to faculty who undertake the faculty development model of instructional design if the target course has sufficient value or importance to the University. IIb. Supporting Student Needs Related to Online Education Student access to adequate support services has been identified as a major component of successful online education (Cho & Berge, 2002; Dirr, 1999). The Task Force believes that comprehensive, quality student support is an integral component of online education at UConn. Students will be supported most directly through the quality of courses offered. The Task Force student survey provided data regarding student opinions about the quality of online education when compared with face-to-face courses. Lower division students had the greatest uncertainty of the quality (39-40%) while upper division students uncertainty was in the 23-32% range. 27% of graduate student respondents were uncertain about the quality of online instruction. Of those who had an opinion on the quality, the majority of respondents expressed the belief that online courses are of lower quality than face-to-face course. 61% of first year students believe that online quality is lower while 34% believe it was of equal quality. The remaining groups expressed the opinion that online was of lower quality, by a 50-55% plurality. Those who felt it was of equal quality were in the 41-47% range and those who felt online was better quality remained in the 4-6% range. This Task Force s vision statement stressed that the University of Connecticut must develop and deliver online courses and programs that will be perceived and acknowledged as offering superlative online education. This is especially true for students. Consistent, quality courses developed around active student-centered learning processes will redefine quality online education at UConn. Sections I and II of this report addresses these issue in its recommendations for standards, instructional design, and comprehensive faculty support. If the recommendations made in these subsections are adopted, online students at UConn will experience courses that promote student-to-student, student-to-faculty and student-to-content interaction in a studentcentered environment. Research supports these recommendations when applied to student learning and satisfaction. Shea, Swan, Frederickson and Pickett (2002) found that students who reported high levels of interaction with other online students also rated their level of learning as high. Students also found increased intrinsic motivation and psychological comfort when faculty and student interaction was promoted (Liao, 2006) and reported higher levels of learning when high levels of instructor to student interaction were present (Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz, & Swan, 2001). In addition to enabling students to achieve academic excellence, UConn must support online students needs specific to the online learning environment (e.g., student systems reliability, connectivity/access, hardware/software, setup concerns, infrastructure, technical support, etc.) as well as needs common to all students at UConn (e.g., admissions, advising, book store, career planning, financial aid, library resources, orientation, requirements, records, tutoring, etc.). Online education poses unique challenges in meeting 17

18 these needs as certain populations drawn to online education do not have the same access, proximity, or flexibility in schedule as on-the-ground students; these populations include adult learners, returning students, non-residential students, and off campus summer students. To support all online students, adaptations must be made to existing support structures. Where necessary and appropriate, new support structure must be developed. To ensure sufficient student support related to online education at the University of Connecticut, the Task Force has agreed upon the following recommendations: Recommendation 10: Provide online students with appropriate academic and technical resources and support Currently, many units within UConn have taken steps to provide for the needs of online students. Yet not all of the support services and resources used by on the ground students at UConn are accessible to all online UConn students. As online education expands at UConn, a systematic effort must be made to have appropriate resources and support available to online students. Specific recommendations include the following: A. Identify all areas of on-the-ground student resources and support that online students need access to and work with these units to develop comparable web based or otherwise accessible services. B. Provide online students with a single point of contact for all resources and services (See Web Portal in Recommendation 11). C. Charge the Online Course Standards committee with investigating the unique issues of academic integrity in online education and advising the University and its Schools and Departments on policies and procedures regarding academic integrity D. Include student representation on the Online Course Standards committee when appropriate to ensure University standards for online education address student needs that arise before, during and after enrollment in online classes. E. Identify external resources that maximize return on investment by providing for online and face-to-face student needs. Recommendation 11: Create a web portal as a single point of access for potential and existing online students seeking information and services We envision the growth of online courses as a natural evolution of higher education and do not seek to isolate or separate these courses from the rest of our course catalog. In fact, the University has already demonstrated success in online education including undergraduate, professional graduate degree, and continuing studies courses and programs. Yet, the university lacks a central web portal to attract and inform students of these opportunities, and to guide them through all steps from course selection through the enrollment process. Some UConn programs have comprehensive web-based and on-the-ground resources for addressing these areas (e.g., Continuing Studies, School of Business, Neag), yet these do not address the needs of a large number of students who enroll in online courses at UConn. Thus, UConn must attract and then funnel students to the appropriate next step. For example, students seeking to learn the specifics of a particular undergraduate, professional graduate degree, or continuing studies course must have web based resources available to them that provide further details and instructions. Specific recommendations follow: 18

19 A. Create a UConn Online web portal to attract, inform and direct students to the current and growing opportunities offered by our institution. B. Integrate links to resources and support services in this portal to provide a single point of contact for all UConn online students. III. Pursuing Online Offerings that Most Benefit the University Online education by its very nature is flexible, adaptive, and far reaching in its scope. The benefits listed below provide a broad-scale impact and are aligned with the University s mission. These benefits have been realized at certain peer and aspirant institutions, providing further motivation for UConn to undertake an expanded and coordinated online education effort. Moving ahead with all of these suggestions at once would place exceptional strain on existing online resources during the early stages of implementation. Thus a comprehensive strategic plan and business model should be developed to determine a hierarchy of importance and feasibility as well as a long-term road map for the University and its Schools and Departments. The benefits of an expanded online education effort that is aligned with the University mission include: Increased revenue from new certificate and degree programs Increased efficiencies and revenue from offering online courses in the summer and intersession enabling students to continue their UConn degrees while away from Connecticut Increased efficiencies because online courses do not require physical space, thus alleviating classroom and seat limitations that occur in certain high-enrollment courses during the academic year Increased access to required and desired courses by students at all campuses by offering courses across campuses that previously could not be offered due to low enrollment in a particular course at a specific campus Increased access to specialized courses by offering courses taught by expert faculty at specific campuses across all UConn campuses Increased opportunity for outreach and recruitment by offering courses that reach out to Connecticut s community colleges and high schools as appropriate Permitting the development of reciprocal-exchange programs with other universities Supporting the continuous improvement of teaching and learning across all disciplines and levels of education through the faculty development process and the dissemination of best practices common to online, face-to-face and blended environments Providing increased educational opportunities to the citizens of Connecticut including nontraditional students, adult, and lifelong learners Providing specialized professional and graduate education to individuals located outside Connecticut and on an international basis Increased offerings of smaller class sizes by moving large enrollment classes into the online environment Increased variety in learning modes to address the needs of a diverse student population Success requires student markets that will enroll in our online courses. The recent literature and a survey of 1,650 UConn students validates that a thriving market exists. Of the UConn students who responded to the survey: 60% felt that UConn should make it a priority to offer more online classes 50% stated they would consider taking an online class at UConn 19

20 55% sought more course choices during the summer and intersession periods 20% took a summer class at an institution other than UConn These results document a significant student market for online education and do not even include potential students who otherwise would not take courses at the University but for our online programs. Task Force deliberations suggest that UConn could capture a reasonable share of this market with a targeted catalog of online courses that is responsive to student demand. Whether return is defined as recruitment, retention or revenue, success will be determined in large part by the selection and timing of the courses offered. For example, the Registrar has noted that certain general education courses, if offered online and during the summer and/or intersession terms, fill to enrollment capacity very quickly. Thus, we could improve time-to-graduation for our students by expanding our summer and/or intersession general education offerings. Continuing with this example, because of instructor fees and other fixed costs, online courses offered during the summer and/or intersession terms provide new revenue to the university as long as enrollment is above about 20 students. At an undergraduate level, we could thus maximize revenue generation by giving priority to the development and delivery of high enrollment, summer and/or intersession online courses. To pursue online offerings that most benefit the University as a whole, the Task Force has agreed upon the following recommendations: Recommendation 12: Develop a comprehensive business plan for the expansion of online education at the University of Connecticut The Task Force recommends that an important next step toward implementation of the vision articulated in this document is the creation of a detailed business plan. To maximize the potential for positive outcomes for our students and institution through quality, support and other essential elements as detailed in this document, while providing greatest benefit to the University as a whole, the planning should be entrepreneurial in nature. Specifically, issues to be addressed include: - The trade offs among efficiency, access, and opportunity, - The size and timing of the effort, - Structure and staffing, - Investment options and potential for impact and income, - Branding, marketing and operational planning. The methods and processes for such planning are left to the Administration and its communications with colleges, schools, departments and programs. We stress the value and importance of this step, however, for growth and success of online education at UConn. Recommendation 13: Create a process to implement the business plan Since the inception of this Task Force, a tangible increase in the internal institutional awareness of online education at UConn has been noticed. Whether the existence of the Task Force has led to this increase or it is a natural progression for this time in history, there is more interest than ever in online education. 20

21 The Institute for Teaching and Learning s Instructional Design and Development services has seen a marked increase in requests for consultations regarding online course development and consultation. Colleges, schools, programs, and support units that have not previously shown interest are taking the first steps towards online education. This is a positive development, yet it also suggests that the University must proceed strategically and deliberately as it moves ahead. As the interest has increased, questions as to the academic and economic value of online education have been raised. A University-wide increase in awareness of the value of online education to UConn is essential. Interested parties from the faculty, department, school, college, and regional campus level have raised questions as to the equity of revenue distribution and the academic value of online education. These questions must be answered. Specific recommendations include the following: A. Develop a process to encourage interested faculty, departments, programs, schools and colleges to develop online courses that meet University standards and needs. B. Reinforce across UConn the role online education plays in meeting the University s academic plan. C. Address, and adjust if necessary, profit sharing related to online course revenue that makes it clear to departments, schools, colleges, and regional campuses that there is economic benefit to these entities in pursuing online education. 21

22 References Carson, S., & Carnevale, D. (2001, December 14). Debating the demise of NYUOnline. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A31. Cho, Soomyung K., & Berge, Zane L. (January 2002) Overcoming barriers to distance training and education. USDLA Journal, 16(1), Retrieved May 23, 2009 from Dirr, Peter J,. (December 1999). Putting principles into practice: promoting effective support services for students in distance learning programs Public Service Telecommunications Corporation, Retrieved May 23, 2009, from Jokivirta, Lisa (June 2006). What went wrong with AllLearn?. UniversityBusiness, Retrieved May 20, 2009, from Lavoie, David (2001). A resource-enriched learning model. Educause Quarterly. 2, Lavoie, D., Rosman, A.J. (2007, February). Using active student centered learning based instructional design to develop faculty and improve course design, delivery, and evaluation. Issues in Accounting Education, 22, Liao, L-F. (2006). A flow theory perspective on learner motivation and behavior in distance education. Distance Education, 27(1), Parry, M. (2009, May 29). News analysis: Online Education: Growing, but painfully. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved May 29, 2009, from Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A. Pelz, W. & Swan, K. (2001) Measures of learning effectiveness in the SUNY Learning Network. In J. Bourne & J. Moore (Eds) Online Education: Proceedings of the 2000 Sloan Summer Workshop on Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 3. (pp ) Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Shea, P. J., Swan, K., Fredericksen, E. E & Pickett, A. M. (2002) Student satisfaction and reported learning in the SUNY Learning Network. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education, Volume 3. (pp ) Olin and Babson Colleges: Sloan Center for Online Education. Swan, K. (2003) Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of quality online education, practice and direction. (pp ) Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Taylor, Ann., & McQuiggan, Carol. (2008). If we build it will they come? Educause Quarterly. 3,

23 Appendix A Online Education Task Force Members Doug Cooper (Task Force Chair), Professor, School of Engineering Desmond McCaffrey (Task Force Chair), Director, Instructional Design and Development Thomas Agresta, Associate Clinical Professor, University Health Center William Berentsen, Professor, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Tom Bloom, Director, Student Affairs Information Technology Pam Bramble, Associate Professor, School of Fine Arts Kathleen Dechant, Professor in Residence, School of Business Lauren Dechant, Program Coordinator, Technology Services Group, Stamford Campus Francine DeFranco, Director for Library Research Services, University Libraries Kelly Dennis, Assistant Professor, School of Fine Arts Art Engler, Associate Professor, School of Nursing Cameron Faustman, Associate Dean and Professor, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Jill Fitzgerald, Assistant Clinical Professor, School of Pharmacy Doug Hamilton, Associate Dean and Professor, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Arthur Hand, Professor, University Health Center Jim Henkel, Associate Vice Provost, Graduate School Peter Kochenburger, Director of Graduate Programs and Assistant Clinical Professor, Law School Susan Lyons, Director of Academic Services, Avery Point Campus Adrienne Macki, Assistant Professor, School of Fine Arts Daniel Mercier, Assistant Director, Institute for Teaching and Learning Yanko Michea, Director, Faculty Instructional Technology Services, University Health Center Susan Nesbitt, Director, Center for Continuing Studies Cheryl Parks, Associate Professor, School of Social Work Andy Rosman, Associate Professor and Executive Director of Online Education, School of Business Del Siegle, Associate Professor, Neag School of Education Gillian Thorne, Director, Early College Experience Jeff von Munkwitz-Smith, University Registrar 23

24 Appendix B Research Summary and Report on Faculty Online Education Survey This Appendix provides a more thorough technical analysis and report on the results of the Faculty Survey. Several outcomes from this analysis are incorporated into the report document itself, but those interested in gaining more insight into the trends and nature of the expressed opinions should consult this document. Copies of the survey instrument results are included in this Appendix. Copies of the output of the analysis are attached separately to the report. Description of the Survey Instrument and the Resulting Dataset: The survey instrument, UConn Faculty Interest in Online Courses, was administered via SurveyMonkey over a 12 day period in March, Solicitations were sent to 2424 individuals who were instructors of record in Spring 2009 UConn classes, excluding instructional staff on the Health Center campus, the Stamford campus, and those who were categorized as Off-campus. The response rate was 551 of the 2424 recipients, producing a response rate of 23%. The survey instrument consisted of 20 items, one of which (Question 20) was for open-ended commentary and six of which were demographic or factual in nature (Questions 8 and 15-19). The remaining 13 were opinion items. The raw survey data was converted into an Excel Spreadsheet, which was then imported into SPSS Version 14.0 for all data analysis. Wherever possible the results were expressed as Likkert scales. When that was not possible, responses were converted into numeric values. Subsequent Modifications to the Dataset: s from faculty comprised the large majority of the dataset, with graduate students making up 6.9% and staff making up 2.6%. Since this represents a disproportionately small fraction of the UConn instructional population and the survey instrument was intended to assess faculty interest in online education, the graduate students and staff responses were removed from the dataset. This left four categories of respondents (1) Tenured &Tenure-track faculty, (2) full-time non-tenure-track faculty, (3) adjunct faculty, and (4) part-time faculty. Apparently the graduate students and staff who received the questionnaire were instructors of record in some peripheral classes. This modification left 483 usable responses in the dataset. To further simplify the dataset, a grouped variable of Adjunct/PT faculty = 1 was created. A grouped variable of FT faculty (tenured, tenure-track, and FT nontenure-track) = 2 was also created. Since the primary question was whether prior experience in teaching online influenced faculty opinions, practices, and expectations, a combined variable of Taught_online_anywhere was created by combining the positive responses to Question 8 (Taught Online at UConn) and Question 15 (Taught Online Elsewhere). 24

25 To facilitate data analysis, the Unsure responses for Questions 13 and 14 were set to Missing. These modified variables were assigned labels containing the letter u. For example, item 13a became item 13au when the Unsure responses were removed. Several derived variables were created from the responses to Questions 17a-d, also to facilitate exploration of faculty response profiles based on level of teaching. Specifically, a Highest Level Taught variable was created, since the other responses have considerable mixing of levels (i.e., those teaching undergraduates may or may not teach graduate students and vice versa). Also, a Lowest Level taught variable and an Undergrad_only variable were created. Dataset Validity Tests: A Frequency Analysis for all variables is contained on pages A Reliability Analysis for the items in Question 1 is found on pages 23-24, while the analysis for the items in Questions 13u and 14u are contained in pages All items were found to be within acceptable reliability limits. Analysis of the Dataset: The analysis of the data is in the form of a set of questions. Each question is answered by a set of statements and a reference to specific pages of the data output document. What general factors come into play when considering online instruction issues? Factor Analysis of the concerns expressed in Question 13, shown on pages 28-29, revealed three broad areas of faculty concern. The most agreement is within a set of concerns that might be called Instructional Quality. This set includes Learning Assessment, Learning Effectiveness, Academic Integrity Issues, the UConn Brand,, and Consistency of Quality Across the Institution. Second in agreement is the broad area of Infrastructure and Support of Instruction. This includes aspects of Technical Training, Pedagogical Training, Technical Support and to a lesser degree, the Reliability of the Technology. A third factor of concern that found less agreement is the faculty issues of Incentives, Intellectual Property, and Time Commitment. This finding can frame the discussion and development of the document. Significantly, the two most prominent faculty concerns were not about the faculty itself but about the process. Only the least prominent of the three factors was associated with what would be called faculty issues. How many faculty (and what percent) have taught online, either here or elsewhere? Of the full-time faculty who responded to this item, 18% or 70 individuals have taught online. Of this group, 56% of them have online experience at UConn and 34% of them have online experience at another institution. The remaining 10% (only 1.8% of the total sample) have taught online at both UConn and elsewhere. Among 25

26 part-time faculty, 38% had taught online, either at UConn or elsewhere, which is expected since many of these folks are hired solely for teaching. The crosstabulation results are shown on page 30. Are UConn faculty interested in teaching online? Are those with previous online experience more or less interested in doing so again? Would inexperienced UConn faculty consider online teaching? For the whole faculty cohort, 39% either agreed or strongly agreed with a statement of interest in online teaching, while 34% of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea of teaching online. The remaining 27% were neutral. When previous online teaching experience was factored in, the picture changed dramatically. Among those with online experience, 79% agreed or strongly agreed with a statement of interest in online teaching while only 9% expressed disinterest or strong disinterest in online teaching and 12% were neutral. Among those with no online experience, 28% expressed interest or strong interest in online teaching, while 41% expressed disinterest or strong disinterest. The supporting tables are on page 31. This difference is highly statistically significant, as shown in the T-test results on page On what campuses are the faculty who are interested in online instruction? Samples of responses from campuses other than Storrs were too small for meaningful analysis. Does the career stage of the faculty (i.e., the length of time at UConn) influence their interest in online instruction? The responses to Question 11 (interest in online teaching) were analyzed controlling for the respondent s longevity at UConn. The results are shown on pages The only significant difference among the four experience groups was between those with <5 years experience and those with >15 years experience. Moreover, the effect size was quite small (Eta-squared = 0.034). Generally speaking, there were no differences among the respondents. The most experienced faculty (>15 years) were slightly less interested in teaching online, but there was interest at all levels of experience. Does level of instruction of faculty influence their interest in online instruction? Seeking clear trends and differences on this topic is complicated by the fact that most UConn faculty teach at more than one level. For example, only 15.5% of the respondents do not teach at the undergraduate level and 42% teach at the doctoral level. To investigate the relationship between teaching level and interest in online education, a derived variable (Teaching_level) was created, where those individuals who teach solely at the undergraduate level were assigned a value of 1 and those who teach solely at the graduate level (master s and/or doctoral) were assigned a value of 2. There were not enough faculty who teach only at the doctoral level to create a value for that. A Crosstabulation, Chi Square analysis, and Independent Samples T-Test of Teaching_level and interest in online education showed no statistically significant difference, perhaps in part because of the smaller sample sizes (N=188). One additional investigation was done. Interest in Online Teaching was investigated against another derived variable, Highest_teaching_level. This variable is self-explanatory. Its value was set based on the highest level of teaching each respondent checked in the survey instrument. The four categories were Undergrad, Master s, Professional, and Doctoral. Crosstabulation and analysis was performed controlling for prior online teaching experience. For both those who had online experience and those who had no online experience, the only significant difference in responses was between those teaching at the undergraduate level and those teaching at the doctoral level. These results are contained on pages 38-40, 26

27 with the statistical tests (Oneway ANOVA) for both those with online experience and no online experience on pages The expected trend was present those teaching at the undergraduate level only were more favorable to online education than those whose highest teaching level was at the doctoral level but the effect size was small. Is there a difference in opinion about the quality of online instruction between those who have taught online and those who haven t? Respondents were asked to rate online education as lower quality, equal quality, or higher quality compared to face-to-face education. They could also indicate they were unsure. Prior experience made a huge difference in the responses. Among faculty with no online experience, 55% believed online was lower quality, with another 30% unsure. Only 16% believed online instruction was equal to or better than face-to-face instruction. On the other hand, 60% of experienced faculty rated online instruction as equal to or better than face-to-face instruction, with 24% rating it of lower quality and 16% unsure. The results are contained in the tables on pages This finding is highly statistically significant, as shown in the T-Tests on pages Does the career stage of faculty influence their opinion of online instruction? Besides a general trend of more favorable attitude among those experienced in online instruction, there was no discernible trend by years of experience. Does highest level of instruction of faculty influence their opinion of the quality of online instruction? A similar analysis of responses to Question 3 (pages 51-53) controlled for highest teaching level and prior online experience produced results that, while statistically significant, did not seem to lend any practical knowledge or insight into the issue. Among inexperienced faculty, those teaching only undergraduate level courses had a stronger feeling that online courses were equal in quality to face-toface courses, compared to those faculty teaching graduate courses also (pages 54-55). Among experienced faculty, there was a statistically significant difference between undergraduate-level faculty and those who also taught doctoral level courses (pages 56-57). The undergraduate-level faculty believed more strongly that online instruction was equal or better (68%), compared to doctoral level faculty (31%). How familiar are faculty with the principles and techniques of online instruction? Does prior online experience influence this familiarity? Questions 1a-1g asked respondents to rank their familiarity with various aspects of online education on a Likkert scale of familiarity. Overall, faculty are not especially familiar with the aspects and techniques of online instruction, but prior online experience makes a huge difference. The trend across all 7 questions was that Not familiar received the most responses (ca %), followed by Somewhat familiar (ca. 30%), Familiar (12-20%), and finally Very Familiar (4-12%). When prior online experience was factored in, the results changed dramatically and significantly. Across all 7 questions, inexperienced faculty were uniformly more familiar with the issues. A typical example was Familiarity with Methods to Create Online Courses. 90% of inexperienced faculty answered either Not familiar or Somewhat familiar to this question, while only 32% of experienced faculty answered that way. Moreover, the remaining 10% of inexperienced faculty indicated they were either familiar or very familiar with the topic, while 68% of experienced faculty were familiar or very familiar with the topic. The outcomes of the analysis are shown on pages

28 Do faculty think that online instruction is good for the institution? Does online experience influence their opinions? Overall, 46% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that UConn would benefit from more online classes, while 22% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. When separated into experienced and inexperienced online teachers, some great contrasts were apparent. Among those who have taught online, only 9% disagreed with the benefits of online instruction while 65% agreed. Compare this to the response patterns of those who have not taught online, where 25% disagreed and 39% agreed (page 65). Do faculty think that online instruction is good for their academic units? Does online experience influence their opinions? Nearly identical patterns of response to Question 4 were derived for this question. While the overall response pattern was generally positive, those with online teaching experience were much more strongly positive about the benefits of online instruction to their departments (page 66). For those who have taught online at UConn, what were the motivating factors that led to that activity? The respondents who have taught online at UConn were asked to select from among 10 reasons why they participated in online instruction. No single choice received more than 46% of the possible responses (see pages 67-69). The top four reasons included Department Requested It (46%), Desire to Use Technology and Be Current (44%), Personal and Professional Growth (44%), and Desire to Innovate a Current Course (41%). The median number of responses chosen was 3, while the mode of the choices was 1 (21%), see page 70. For those who taught online at UConn, what resources were used to accomplish that activity? The respondents who have taught online at UConn were asked to choose from 7 types of resources they used while developing their online courses. Only two resources were selected by the majority of the instructors (pages 71-72). These were Storrs Instructional Design Staff (58%) and Faculty Peers (57%). The next closest choice was Outside Training (24%). Of those who selected Storrs Instructional Design Staff, 66% also selected Faculty Peers. This clearly supports the need for support from both of these sources if the effort is to be expanded. What resources or rewards are needed for those who have taught and for those who have not but would be interested? One of the questions was whether or not faculty would be interested in teaching online in the future (Question 11). For those who either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (180 people), further analysis was performed on their responses to Question 12, which asked what resources would be needed if they were to participate. 89% of these individuals chose more than one resource, with a mean number of 5.38 responses (median = 6, Mode = 7) from the list of 10 resources, as shown on page 73. Seven of the ten were selected by at least 50% of the respondents. Four of these include the areas of technical and pedagogical support resources, including Need Technical Support to Create an Online Course (74%), Need pedagogical Support to Create an Online Course (71%), Need Technical Support to Teach an Online Course (60%), Need Pedagogical Support to Teach an Online Course (57%). Others were Need for Flexible Location (61%), Need for Flexible Schedule (55%), and Need for Recognition of Efforts (57%) (see pages 74-76). 28

29 These results were further disaggregated by prior experience with online courses. One might expect to see a difference in response patterns from those with prior online teaching experience compared to those with no experience. These results are contained in pages In the domains of Technical and Pedagogical Support, those with no prior experience overwhelmingly expressed a need for support resources both for creation of course material (86% for Technical Support to Create, 83% for Pedagogical Support to Create) and delivery of course material (71% for Technical Support to Teach and 69% for Pedagogical Support to Teach). Interestingly, the levels of technical and pedagogical support for creation of material, as expressed by experienced teachers, was also high, 59% for Technical Support and 54% for Pedagogical Support. Technical and pedagogical support for teaching online among the experienced cohort was significantly lower, 46% for Technical Support and 42% for Pedagogical Support. The expressed need for other means of support, including Flexible Scheduling and Flexible Location and Recognition of Efforts were found to be not significantly different between the two prior experience cohorts. The conclusion from this is that faculty feel the need for both Technical and Pedagogical Support from an Instructional Design team during both the creation of the material and probably for the first time delivery of the material. After that, continued support for creation and modification of the material is beneficial but fewer resources will likely be needed for delivery. What concerns and issues do faculty have regarding online instruction? From Question 11, we have an indication that there is a group of about 180 faculty who are interested or strongly interested in teaching online. Using this cohort, we looked at the concerns they have about online instruction, that is, we limited the analysis to those who answered Agree or Strongly Agree to Question 11. About 80 of those have taught online previously, while about 100 have not. Their responses to Question 13 examined 14 different concerns about online instruction. While the responses were controlled for prior experience, only two of the questions showed a significant difference of opinion between those with prior experience and those without prior experience. The results are shown on pages The inexperienced cohort was significantly more concerned about Technical Training compared to the experienced cohort, which is not surprising since the experienced cohort knows more of what to expect. Similarly, the inexperienced cohort was significantly more concerned about Academic Integrity issues. This could be due to the inexperienced group being influenced by what they have heard while the experienced cohort has a more realistic view of Academic Integrity from their online classes. The remaining concerns were unremarkable. Question 14 asks about the same issues, only in the form of ratings of importance instead of concerns. The results of this analysis are shown on pages As with Question 13, the responses of the cohort who responded positively to Question 11 were analyzed, controlling for prior experience. Only two issues showed a significant difference between experienced and inexperienced cohorts. One was the importance of Technical Training, which agreed with Question 13, where both groups thought it was important but the inexperienced group thought it was more so. The other issue was the importance of the support of the 29

30 Dean. While there was a statistically significant difference between the groups, both groups supported the idea that Dean Support was important, but the experienced group felt it was less so. I am inclined to discount this finding as an anomaly. Regarding the other issues of importance, the entire group affirmed that Technical Support is very important, Department Head support is very important, an Adjustment of Teaching Load is very important, and both Pedagogical Training and Design Training are very important. If UConn goes forward with an online instructional initiative, these are the factors that must be addressed if the effort is to succeed. James G. Henkel 29 April

31 UCONN Faculty Interest in Online Courses 1. Please rate your familiarity with following areas of online teaching and learning: Not familiar Somewhat familiar Familiar Very familiar Current research in the field of online teaching and learning 49.7% (273) 32.2% (177) 12.4% (68) 5.6% (31) 549 Methods for creating quality online courses 43.5% (239) 35.5% (195) 13.6% (75) 7.6% (42) 550 Technology used in the delivery of online courses 26.5% (146) 38.5% (212) 23.3% (128) 11.6% (64) 550 Online pedagogy 42.3% (232) 33.9% (186) 17.5% (96) 6.4% (35) 548 Student support in online courses 47.3% (255) 32.5% (175) 14.3% (77) 6.1% (33) 539 UConn s current online course offerings 47.8% (261) 37.7% (206) 12.1% (66) 2.6% (14) 546 UConn s faculty support resources for designing and developing online courses 48.8% (267) 31.1% (170) 14.6% (80) 5.9% (32) 547 answered question 551 skipped question 2 2. My understanding of an online class is one where the content and interaction with professors and students is conducted: Percent 100% via internet 45.6% 251 At least 75% via internet 29.0% 160 At least 50% via internet 12.0% 66 In any amount using the internet 7.3% 40 Other (please specify) 6.2% 34 answered question 551 skipped question 2 Page 1

32 3. In terms of the quality of education, when compared to face-to-face courses, I believe online classes provide: Percent Better quality learning opportunities 2.8% 15 Equal quality learning opportunities 23.5% 127 Lower quality learning opportunities 48.4% 262 I am not sure about the quality of learning in online classes 25.3% 137 Comments: 123 answered question 541 skipped question I believe UConn as an institution could benefit from offering more online courses. Percent Strongly agree 18.9% 103 Agree 26.8% 146 Neither agree nor disagree 32.5% 177 Disagree 12.7% 69 Strongly disagree 9.2% 50 Comments: 73 answered question 545 skipped question 8 Page 2

33 5. I believe my department could benefit from offering more online courses. Percent Strongly agree 15.9% 87 Agree 24.7% 135 Neither agree nor disagree 26.0% 142 Disagree 19.6% 107 Strongly disagree 13.9% 76 Comments: 65 answered question 547 skipped question 6 6. I feel current tenure and promotion practices adequately address the teaching of online courses at UConn Percent Strongly agree 1.5% 8 Agree 3.5% 19 Neither agree nor disagree 18.7% 102 Disagree 16.1% 88 Strongly disagree 11.9% 65 I am unable to determine at this time 48.4% 264 Comments: 40 answered question 546 skipped question 7 Page 3

34 7. I feel current compensation practices adequately address the teaching of online courses at UConn. Percent Strongly agree 1.3% 7 Agree 5.3% 29 Neither agree nor disagree 18.8% 102 Disagree 10.5% 57 Strongly disagree 8.7% 47 I am unable to determine at this time 55.4% 301 Comments: 37 answered question 543 skipped question I have taught/am teaching an online course at UConn. Percent Yes 13.7% 75 No (If no skip to question 11.) 86.3% 471 answered question 546 skipped question 7 Page 4

35 9. (Only answer if you have taught or are teaching online at UConn) I taught my course(s) online for the following reasons (Select all that apply): Percent Contractual agreement with Continuing Studies 31.2% 24 Departmental emphasis/request 45.5% 35 Desire for flexibility, workload scheduling 33.8% 26 Desire to reach new, broader audience 32.5% 25 Desire to use technology; be current 45.5% 35 Opportunity to innovate current course(s) 40.3% 31 Other external incentives (course load reduction, stipends, etc.) 10.4% 8 Pedagogical beliefs 19.5% 15 Perception of student interest in online courses 35.1% 27 Personal and professional growth and achievement 42.9% 33 Other (please specify) 15.6% 12 answered question 77 skipped question 476 Page 5

36 10. (Only answer if you have taught or are teaching online at UConn) What support and training resources did you draw upon to help you design your online course(s)? (Select all that apply) Percent Faculty peers who teach online 54.8% 40 Participation in outside training 27.4% 20 Previous experience teaching online at another university 19.2% 14 Regional campus library personnel 2.7% 2 Regional campus technical and/or instructional design staff 4.1% 3 Storrs campus library personnel 5.5% 4 Storrs campus technical and/or instructional design staff 58.9% 43 Other (please specify) 27.4% 20 answered question 73 skipped question I am interested in teaching online courses at UConn in the future. Percent Strongly agree 18.1% 97 Agree 20.5% 110 Neither agree nor disagree 27.0% 145 Disagree 20.5% 110 Strongly disagree 14.0% 75 Comments: 40 answered question 537 skipped question 16 Page 6

37 12. I would be interested in teaching an online class at UConn if I received (Select all that apply): Percent The opportunity to try it out before making a commitment 27.7% 148 Pedagogical support and training in creating online courses 53.3% 285 Pedagogical support and training in teaching online courses 45.6% 244 Technology support and training in creating online courses 56.6% 303 Technology support and training in teaching online courses 48.2% 258 Department Head request and/or encouragement 32.1% 172 The opportunity to work collaboratively with a knowledgeable peer 31.0% 166 Flexibility in scheduling (do not have to be on campus for class at a certain time) 39.3% 210 Flexibility in location (can deliver the course from anywhere with internet access) 43.9% 235 Recognition of my efforts through tangible recognition and rewards, e.g., grant, merit, etc. 44.7% 239 I would not be interested in teaching an online course at UConn under any circumstances. 21.7% 116 Other (please specify) 12.5% 67 answered question 535 skipped question 18 Page 7

38 13. The following are areas that may be of concern if UConn were to implement more online courses and/or degree programs. Rate to what extent these areas are of concern to you. Not concerned Somewhat concerned Fairly Concerned Very Concerned Unsure Ability to conduct accurate evaluation of student work and learning assessment 18.3% (97) 23.4% (124) 22.3% (118) 34.0% (180) 2.5% (13) 529 The Amount of faculty and administrative time required to adapt coursework for online environment 11.3% (60) 17.6% (93) 24.8% (131) 43.7% (231) 2.6% (14) 529 Availability of technical training for faculty 16.3% (86) 23.6% (125) 25.7% (136) 32.1% (170) 2.6% (14) 529 Availability of training in online pedagogy for faculty 15.4% (81) 25.9% (136) 24.4% (128) 31.6% (166) 3.2% (17) 525 Consistency of course quality across programs, departments, schools, and colleges 12.5% (66) 16.3% (86) 23.1% (122) 43.8% (231) 4.2% (22) 527 Costs associated with acquiring and implementing new technologies 27.1% (143) 29.4% (155) 21.0% (111) 16.5% (87) 6.4% (34) 528 Dealing with issues of academic integrity in an online environment 11.1% (59) 16.8% (89) 23.0% (122) 44.9% (238) 4.2% (22) 530 Effect varied student experiences with online courses may have on the UConn "brand" 21.8% (115) 18.2% (96) 24.2% (128) 28.4% (150) 7.6% (40) 528 Issues of intellectual property 22.8% (120) 24.3% (128) 22.4% (118) 27.1% (143) 4.2% (22) 527 Nature of incentives to develop and teach online courses 16.7% (87) 24.9% (130) 23.8% (124) 27.4% (143) 7.3% (38) 522 Ongoing technical support for faculty 12.0% (63) 23.9% (125) 26.1% (137) 33.2% (174) 4.8% (25) 524 Online education s effect on residential campus community 31.7% (166) 19.8% (104) 21.4% (112) 20.8% (109) 6.7% (35) 524 Reliability of technologies used for online education 19.2% (101) 29.3% (154) 22.7% (119) 24.0% (126) 4.8% (25) 525 Students' ability to learn effectively online 11.9% (63) 16.8% (89) 18.7% (99) 46.7% (247) 6.2% (33) 529 Other Areas of Concern: 54 answered question 531 Page 8

39 skipped question How would you rate the following in terms of importance for successful online teaching? Not Important Somewhat Important Fairly Important Very Important Unsure Availability of online technical support 1.2% (6) 6.1% (32) 18.8% (98) 72.2% (376) 1.9% (10) 521 Support of Dean 5.4% (28) 18.2% (95) 24.7% (129) 46.1% (241) 5.9% (31) 523 Support of Department Head 3.5% (18) 12.5% (65) 25.6% (133) 54.6% (284) 4.2% (22) 520 Technology training 1.9% (10) 6.3% (33) 28.0% (146) 61.7% (322) 2.1% (11) 522 Teaching load adjustment 8.1% (42) 10.2% (53) 22.2% (115) 53.4% (277) 6.4% (33) 519 Training in online course pedagogy 3.8% (20) 10.0% (52) 24.4% (127) 60.1% (313) 2.3% (12) 521 Training and support in online course design and development 2.1% (11) 7.4% (38) 23.0% (118) 65.8% (338) 1.8% (9) 514 Other important factors to consider: 34 answered question 524 skipped question I have taught an online course at an institution other than UConn: Percent Yes 9.2% 48 No 90.8% 475 answered question 523 skipped question 30 Page 9

40 16. Which position describes you best? Percent Adjunct Faculty 12.5% 67 Full-time Non Tenure Track 13.3% 71 Part-time 2.2% 12 Tenured Faculty 41.6% 222 Tenure Track Faculty 18.7% 100 Other (please specify) 11.6% 62 answered question 534 skipped question The courses I teach fall within the (check all that apply): Percent Undergraduate curriculum 85.4% 457 Graduate/Masters curriculum 56.6% 303 Professional school curriculum 9.9% 53 Doctoral curriculum 38.3% 205 Other (please specify) 2.1% 11 answered question 535 skipped question 18 Page 10

41 18. I have been employed at UConn: Percent Under 5 years 36.3% to less than 10 years 27.5% to less than 15 years 10.7% years+ 25.6% 137 answered question 535 skipped question For the Spring 2009 semester, my primary campus location is: Percent Avery Point 2.9% 15 Greater Hartford 7.1% 37 Law School 1.0% 5 Storrs 85.1% 444 Torrington 1.1% 6 Waterbury 2.9% 15 answered question 522 skipped question Please use the space below for comments, recommendations, concerns, etc. 105 answered question 105 skipped question 448 Page 11

42 Appendix C Research Summary and Report on Student Online Education Survey This Appendix provides a more thorough technical analysis and report on the results of the Student Survey. Several outcomes from this analysis are incorporated into the report document itself, but those interested in gaining more insight into the trends and nature of the expressed opinions should consult this document. Copies of the survey instrument results are included in this Appendix. Copies of the output of the analysis are attached separately to the report. Description of the Survey Instrument and the Resulting Dataset: The survey instrument, UConn Student Interest in Online Courses, was administered via SurveyMonkey over a 12 day period in March, Solicitations were sent to 24,896 students who were registered and active in any career and program in Spring 2009, excluding those on the Health Center campus, the Stamford campus, and those who were categorized as Off-campus. The response rate was 1695 of the 24,896 students, producing a response rate of only 6.8%. The survey instrument consisted of 12 items, three of which were demographic or factual in nature (items 10-12). The remaining 9 were opinion items. The raw survey data was converted into an Excel Spreadsheet, which was then imported into SPSS Version 14.0 for all data analysis. Wherever possible the results were expressed as Likkert scales. When that was not possible, responses were converted into numeric values. Dataset Validity Tests and Modifications to the Dataset: An identical survey was sent to a subset of students, who were identified by the Registrar as having transferred to UConn from other institutions. The two separate student datasets, transfer students (N = 43) and everyone else (N = 1652), were combined into one dataset with an additional variable (Xfer) added to denote those students. The responses to Items 3a-3f were set to Agree/Disagree for any responder who answered any of them. All other cases were set to missing. Question 3f was changed and recoded from the negative ( I did not take a summer class at another institution ) to the positive ( Took summer class elsewhere ). Crosstabulations of Item 10 (Class Standing) vs. Item 11 (School Enrollment) for the whole cohort showed several inconsistencies. Professional students should be present only in Law and Pharmacy, yet only 25 of the 41 students were in these categories. Only 10 of the 22 responses in the Nondegree column of Class Standing were coded as Nondegree school affiliation. Most troubling was the Other/Undecided/ACES School Enrollment. Of the 190 responses in this row, 52 were from students who classify themselves as Seniors, Graduate Students, or Professional Students, which was clearly a miscoding. 42

43 This study is directed to obtaining information about the student s views of online instruction and especially if there is a favorable opinion of the use of online courses for summer session. Under these conditions, the primary target is the undergraduate cohort. Thus the analysis was limited to undergraduates and graduate students. Further analyses can be performed on the larger cohort at a later date if desired. This modification produced a final cohort size of Frequency tables of this cohort are contained on Pages 1-10 of the attached SPSS output document. Crosstabulations of Class Standing vs. School Affiliation are on Pages and those for Class Standing vs. Campus Affiliation are on Pages Analysis of the Dataset: For what reasons did students who attended summer classes choose schools other than UConn? Students were presented with 5 potential reasons for attending summer classes at an institution other than UConn. Only some of the reasons were confirmed by the results of the study, shown on Pages The reason of Cost Savings was supported 52% to 48%, but when disaggregated by Academic Standing some interesting trends were apparent. Freshmen did not support this reason by 60% to 40%. Sophomores, Juniors, and Graduate Students did support the reason by about 60% to 40%, and Seniors again did not support this reason by a slight 52% to 48% margin. The respondents uniformly did not support Summer Class not Available by a 75% to 25% margin. Graduate students rejected this reason by a 63% to 37% margin. Freshmen, Sophomores and Juniors generally supported a More Convenient Location as a reason for going elsewhere, in the range of 52% to 60%. Seniors and graduate students rejected the statement by variable margins. The companion reason of More Convenient Time was soundly rejected across all cohorts by large margins, typically 77% to 23%. Likewise, the issue of the class being less difficult somewhere else was also soundly rejected. The conclusion from this analysis is that while cost is a supported factor in choosing to attend summer classes elsewhere, other plausible factors, including the class not being offered, an inconvenient time, and less difficult classes elsewhere, are not supported. The factor of a more convenient location gave mixed results, which was a little surprising when the rural character of Storrs is considered. What is the attitude of the student body toward online instruction at UConn? The respondents were asked a number of questions about their attitude toward online instruction from both a positive and negative perspective. Generally the attitude is favorable to very favorable. In Question 4 the respondents were given a series of conditions under which, if met, would induce them to take an online class. The following results followed: If it saved money. Undergraduates favored this reason by 70% to 30%. Graduates disagreed by 54% to 46% (Page 21). If it fit my schedule. Everyone favored this reason by 70% to 30% (Page 22). 43

44 If it saved travel. s showed decreasing support with more advanced standing. First- and second-year students favored this 55% to 45%. Third-and fourth-year students disfavored it 55% to 45%. Graduate students disfavored it by 63% to 37% (Page 23). If it helped toward the degree. This reason was favored by everyone by a margin of 69% to 31% (Page 24). If it helped toward general education requirements. This reason was most favored by Firstyear students (70% to 30%). The remaining undergraduates favored this reason generally by 55% to 45% (Page 25). If it were offered in the summer. This reason was strongly favored by undergraduates by as much as 74% to 26%. Graduate students favored it but at a lower level of support, 56% to 44% (Page 26). If it were offered in the academic year. Interestingly, this option received mixed support. Firstand second-year students favored it by 63% and 54% respectively. Third- and fourth-year students opposed it by 56% and 54%, respectively. Graduate students supported it by 53% (Page 27). Additionally, the respondents were asked directly if they would NOT take an online class no matter what. Only a small proportion of students selected this option, ranging from 14% of the freshmen to 20% of the seniors. 35% of the graduate students said they would not take an online class (Page 28). A second series of questions was asked from the perspective that they would NOT take an online class at UConn or anywhere else. The reasons and results follow: It would be more expensive. This reason was rejected across all groups by margins ranging from 73/27% to 90/10% (Page 29). The location would be less convenient. This response was rejected by an even larger margin, ranging up to 96% against (Page 30). The time would be less convenient. A similar overwhelming response occurred for this question as well, with an average of 92% against it (Page 31). I dislike online classes. The respondents rejected this argument by an average of 83% to 17%, showing broad support for online classes (Page 32). The classes are harder. This was also rejected by a wide margin, in the 90% to 10% range (Page 33). I lack the discipline to take an online class. This reason was similarly rejected across the board by an 88% to 12% margin (Page 34). It is too impersonal. None of the class standing groups believed that online courses are too impersonal. They showed a consistent 77% to 23% response against this statement (Page 35). I prefer face-to-face contact. The responses to this statement were consistently opposed by about 68% to 32% (Page 36). In addition, the cohort was asked directly if they would take an online class at UConn % of the undergraduates replied that they would take an online class at UConn, while 67% of the graduate students agreed that they would take an online course at UConn (Page 37). 44

45 Do students feel prepared to take an online class? Overall, 64% agreed or strongly agreed that they were prepared and another 25% were neutral on this question, so clearly the confidence in their state of preparation exists (See Page 38). A One-way between-groups ANOVA for Item 6 (Prepared for Online Class) and Class Standing showed a small but statistically significant difference in attitude between the lower division (First- and Second-year) students and the rest of the cohort (upper classmen and graduate students), with the latter feeling more prepared than the former. The effect size was small, however, with eta squared = (See Pages 39-40). Do students have an opinion of the quality of online instruction? Item 7 addressed the students opinion of Online Learning. The results are shown on Page 41. A large percentage of the students were unsure about the quality of online instruction compared to in-person instruction. Lower division students had the greatest uncertainty (39-40%) while upper division students uncertainty was in the 23-32% range. 27% of graduate student respondents were uncertain about the quality of online instruction. Of those who had an opinion of the quality of online instruction, a large fraction felt the quality was lower than face-to-face instruction (See Pages 42-43). 61% of first year students believed online quality was lower while 34% believed it was of equal quality and only 5% believed it was of better quality. The remaining groups expressed the opinion that online was of lower quality, but by a 50-55% plurality. Those who felt it was of equal quality were in the 41-47% range and those who felt online was better quality remained in the 4-6% range. We were unable to control for prior online experience, since that question was not included in the questionnaire. Do students think that a greater priority should be given to online classes? The entire range of students stated that a higher priority should be given to online classes, as shown on Page 44. The undergraduate favorability was almost uniform at 65% to 35%, while graduate students favored greater online priority by 55% to 45%. Did a transfer student have a different opinion about online classes than UConn students who had not transferred from somewhere else? A cohort of 40 students was identified by the Registrar as being transfer students. Eighteen of these students were sophomores, 10 were Juniors, and 12 were seniors. A Chi Square analysis was conducted to determine if there was any significant difference between the attitudes of this group and the attitudes of the UConn student cohort. Throughout all of questions 4 and 5, there was no statistical difference in the responses of the two groups. The same reasons were supported by both groups (results not shown but available if required). James G. Henkel 29 April

46 UCONN Student Interest in Online Courses 1. My understanding of an online class is one where the content and interaction with professors and other students is conducted: Percent 100% via internet 66.8% 1,102 at least 75% via internet 25.8% 426 at least 50% via internet 4.7% 78 in any amount using the internet 2.6% 43 answered question 1,649 skipped question 3 2. I am aware that there are online classes currently offered at UConn that would meet my degree requirements. Percent Yes 46.9% 772 No 53.1% 875 answered question 1,647 skipped question 5 Page 1

47 3. I took summer class(es) at an institution other than UConn for the following reasons (choose all that apply): Percent Cost savings 14.7% 230 Classes were not offered at UConn in the Summer Session 7.1% 111 It was a more convenient location 13.5% 212 It was offered at a more convenient time 6.6% 103 I perceived that the class would be easier/less effort 5.2% 81 I did not take a summer class at another institution 76.9% 1,205 Other (please specify) 2.9% 46 answered question 1,567 skipped question 85 Page 2

48 4. I would be interested in taking online classes at UConn if: (choose all that apply): Percent It saved me money 63.2% 1,025 It better matched my busy schedule 60.6% 984 It saved me travel time 46.3% 752 It helped me complete my degree requirements sooner 59.3% 963 It helped me complete my General Education requirements sooner 42.6% 692 Courses were offered in the summer or intersession 55.9% 907 Courses were offered in the regular semester 42.2% 685 I would *not* take an online class at UConn 14.8% 240 Other (please specify) 3.5% 56 answered question 1,623 skipped question 29 Page 3

49 5. I would *not* take an online class at UConn, even if I intend to take it somewhere else, because (check all that apply): Percent Cost/belief that it would be more expensive 17.4% 269 It would be less convenient in terms of location 6.2% 96 It would be less convenient in terms of time 8.5% 131 I don t like online classes 17.4% 269 I believe online classes are harder/require more effort 9.8% 151 I do not have the discipline to take a classes online 12.4% 191 Online classes are too impersonal 23.8% 367 I prefer the personal contact of faceto-face classes 34.4% 531 I *would* take an online class at UConn 51.7% 797 Other (please specify) 4.1% 63 answered question 1,543 skipped question 109 Page 4

50 6. I feel prepared to take an online course. Percent Strongly agree 33.3% 541 Agree 31.0% 503 Neither agree or disagree 24.9% 404 Disagree 7.2% 117 Strongly disagree 3.6% 58 answered question 1,623 skipped question Compared to face-to-face classes, I believe online classes provide: Percent Better quality learning opportunities 3.0% 49 Equal quality learning opportunities 29.4% 475 Lower quality learning opportunities 37.0% 598 I am unsure about the quality of learning in online classes 30.7% 496 answered question 1,618 skipped question I believe the UConn administration should make it a priority to offer more online classes: Percent True 62.1% 999 False 37.9% 610 answered question 1,609 skipped question 43 Page 5

51 9. I am not interested in taking an online class anywhere, regardless of quality, convenience or price Percent True 24.6% 396 False 75.4% 1,217 answered question 1,613 skipped question What is your academic standing? Percent Freshman 14.6% 236 Sophomore 14.1% 227 Junior 19.2% 310 Senior 17.7% 286 Graduate Student 30.6% 494 Professional Student 2.5% 40 Non-degree 1.4% 22 answered question 1,615 skipped question 37 Page 6

52 11. What school are you enrolled in? Percent Agriculture & Natural Resources 6.3% 102 Business 13.8% 223 Education 7.1% 115 Engineering 10.0% 162 Fine Arts 2.2% 36 Law 1.8% 29 Liberal Arts & Sciences 39.2% 633 Nursing 3.0% 48 Pharmacy 1.4% 23 Social Work 2.5% 41 Other/Undecided/ACES 11.6% 188 Non-degree 0.9% 15 answered question 1,615 skipped question 37 Page 7

53 12. For the Spring 2009 semester, my home campus is: Percent Avery Point 2.5% 41 Greater Hartford 9.0% 144 Stamford 0.1% 1 Storrs 82.8% 1,331 Torrington 0.9% 15 Waterbury 3.1% 50 Law School 1.6% 26 answered question 1,608 skipped question 44 Page 8

54 Appendix D Online Course Offerings Class Term Class Subject Courses Instruction Mode Offered Fall 08 Accounting 7 World Wide Web Fall 08 Art 1 World Wide Web Fall 08 Business Administration 2 World Wide Web Fall 08 Communication 1 World Wide Web Fall 08 Economics 2 World Wide Web Fall 08 Education Psychology 19 World Wide Web Fall 08 Finance 1 World Wide Web Fall 08 General Studies 9 World Wide Web Fall 08 Grad Prog Professional Studies 6 World Wide Web Fall 08 Homeland Security Leadership 2 World Wide Web Fall 08 HPAHS: Allied Health 2 World Wide Web Fall 08 Human Resource Management 4 World Wide Web Fall 08 Humanitarian Services Admin. 1 World Wide Web Fall 08 Info Sci and Knowledge Mgmt 6 World Wide Web Fall 08 Law 1 World Wide Web Fall 08 Management 4 World Wide Web Fall 08 Marketing 3 World Wide Web Fall 08 Occupational Safety and Health 5 World Wide Web Fall 08 Operations And Info Mgmt 2 World Wide Web Fall 08 Political Science 2 World Wide Web Fall 08 Puerto Rican & Latino Studies 1 World Wide Web Fall 08 SW: Social Work Elective 1 World Wide Web Inter 09 Art 1 World Wide Web Inter 09 Biology: Ecology/Evolutionary 2 World Wide Web Inter 09 Political Science 1 World Wide Web Spring 09 Accounting 2 World Wide Web Spring 09 Business Administration 1 World Wide Web Spring 09 Classics/Ancient Medit.Studies 1 World Wide Web Spring 09 Communication 2 World Wide Web Spring 09 Economics 1 World Wide Web Spring 09 Education Psychology 20 World Wide Web Spring 09 Finance 2 World Wide Web Spring 09 General Studies 9 World Wide Web 54

55 Spring 09 Grad Prog Professional Studies 10 World Wide Web Spring 09 Homeland Security Leadership 1 World Wide Web Spring 09 HPAHS: Allied Health 4 World Wide Web Spring 09 Human Resource Management 1 World Wide Web Spring 09 Humanitarian Services Admin. 2 World Wide Web Spring 09 Info Sci and Knowledge Mgmt 7 World Wide Web Spring 09 Interdepartmental 2 World Wide Web Spring 09 Law 2 World Wide Web Spring 09 Management 4 World Wide Web Spring 09 Marketing 1 World Wide Web Spring 09 Nursing 7 World Wide Web Spring 09 Occupational Safety and Health 4 World Wide Web Spring 09 Operations And Info Mgmt 2 World Wide Web Spring 09 Political Science 3 World Wide Web Spring 09 Puerto Rican & Latino Studies 1 World Wide Web Summer 09 Accounting 26 World Wide Web Summer 09 Anthropology 2 World Wide Web Summer 09 Art 2 World Wide Web Summer 09 Biology: Ecology/Evolutionary 3 World Wide Web Summer 09 Classics/Ancient Medit.Studies 1 World Wide Web Summer 09 Economics 2 World Wide Web Summer 09 Education Psychology 3 World Wide Web Summer 09 English 1 World Wide Web Summer 09 General Studies 5 World Wide Web Summer 09 Geography 14 World Wide Web Summer 09 Grad Prog Professional Studies 7 World Wide Web Summer 09 Homeland Security Leadership 1 World Wide Web Summer 09 HPAHS: Allied Health 5 World Wide Web Summer 09 Humanitarian Services Admin. 2 World Wide Web Summer 09 Info Sci and Knowledge Mgmt 6 World Wide Web Summer 09 Management 4 World Wide Web Summer 09 Natural Resourse and The Envir 1 World Wide Web Summer 09 Occupational Safety and Health 2 World Wide Web Summer 09 Political Science 4 World Wide Web Summer 09 Urban & Community Studies 1 World Wide Web TOTAL COURSE OFFERED 267 TOTAL ENROLLMENT (actual and projected)

56 Appendix E Select Faculty Compensation Models for Developing Online Courses Institution 1. University of California-Berkeley Extension (Non-matriculated) 2. University of California-Berkeley Summer Sessions (Matriculated) Compensation - $2,000-2,500 to develop course - $10,000 to develop 3. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Determined within schools/colleges 4. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill $4,000 to develop undergrad. $5,000 to develop grad. (Paid when all material is submitted) 5. Georgia Institute of Technology - Varies from course to course based on market research and projected income. 6. Pennsylvania State University-University Park (Supported through World Campus) - Between $8,000 and $15,000 offload or dept. gives them release time. 7. University of Florida - $10,000 for development 8. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey - Each faculty member negotiates their payment agreement with Dean and Dept. Chair. Information gathered through interviews with administration and staff at respective Universities. 56