Reflections of First-Year Online Faculty Free

Susan Amirian and James Baer first met online in the facilitator-training program for the Art Institute Online. During the six-week program in the late sum-

mer of 2002, the authors were assigned as partners for a weekly assignment and maintained contact after the conclusion of the course. Both were invited to become adjunct faculty within their specialties in the

Art Institute Online program. Between them, they facilitated 19 courses for AIO in their first year.

During the timeframe of this paper, Art Institute Online, a division of Education Management Corporation, provided online courses leading to an associate degree, an undergraduate degree, or a diploma. Art Institute students had the option of taking their courses in a fully online program or to combine online with on-ground courses at one of the 29 campus locations in North America. Each of the authors’ online classes included students from both program paths.

Throughout our online teaching experience, we found the greatest struggle was to maintain a balance between the amount of time students needed from us in order to feel satisfied with their learning experience and the amount of time required for online classroom management tasks. If we spent too much time or too little time on either, we found that the students’ or our own satisfaction suffered. In balancing these issues, we found that we experienced stages of attentiveness to the following aspects of delivering an online course.

The most time-consuming activity in the beginning was getting operations organized. As adjunct faculty, organization was critical because it affected how many hours we spent on daily tasks and responding to students without letting it overflow into our other work or personal time. Central to our time management was the urgent recommendation that students read the text and assignments at least a day ahead of schedule, allowing any questions to be answered before the work was due. This helped establish realistic expectations for the timeframe of facilitator responses.

To organize the discussions, students were discouraged from starting new threads. All posting was done by reply under one of the color-coded threads we set up at the start of the course. We also created a lounge thread, a recommendation our training text called a class “water cooler” (Moore, Winograd, & Lange, 2001, p. 11. 23), as a place where students could informally share ideas and information outside of the assignment threads.

One of our most important responsibilities was to protect the learning environment. Disruptive behavior was not tolerated. Postings deemed disruptive were deleted immediately, and the student was notified privately by e-mail to not post in that manner. If there were problems or disputes that caused the behavior, they were dealt with immediately. If necessary, the appropriate administrator was brought into the situation. If it was irresolvable, the student was removed quickly so the class could return to focus and productivity. We found it to be beneficial to take a forceful, swift, authoritative stance in the classroom.

Tasks repeated in each course, such as setting up discussion threads, orientation letters, attendance and grading spreadsheets, and welcome notes for each week, could be written, refined, and saved as templates for reuse. Baer developed a checklist to set up new courses before they began, and meet critical milestones thereafter. As patterns emerged of common student questions and sources of confusion, we began collecting our responses so they could be refined and reused as needed. Use of folders and subfold-ers within e-mail applications helped us collect and organize our e-mail traffic.

The key to creating our learner-centered environment was to distribute clearly delineated expectations for the course, assignments, and student performance. It then became the students’ responsibility to achieve the established criteria. Students designed their own learning and set their own goals; the facilitator coached and guided them toward those goals.

Each course assignment contained an assessment rubric. Students saw exactly how their work and performance translated into points toward the weekly, midterm, and final grade. Having this rubric took a lot of the guesswork out of grading. Nevertheless, we found it took several iterations of a course to fully implement its rubrics because, as we became more familiar with the material, our expectations for student performance became clearer. We found it extremely important to be consistent from week to week in the assignment of points for criteria. Students who watch their grades and points carefully become confused if the interpretation of the criteria varies.

In addition to prompting and contributing to the online discussion, we provided daily and weekly feedback privately to students. In some circumstances, such as a math problem set, Baer strove to provide feedback and grades within twelve hours; given the pace of the course, the intent was to prevent mistakes from being perpetuated. In Amir-ian’s classes, students engaged in peer feedback as part of their assignments, so she delayed her feedback until after student-student interaction took place. Amirian found that for each class she devoted a full day to weekly student evaluation and feedback. Feedback always included pointing out the positive aspects of each student’s performance as well as suggestions for ways to improve his or her performance in discussion, assignments, and teamwork.

Daily feedback included responding immediately to questions or problems students sent directly to us. We also sent students e-mail to reinforce successful active learning techniques (especially during the first week). While the formal assessments determined a student’s grade, Baer believed that such informal recognition reinforced student commitment and enthusiasm. Our training text had suggested, and we also found, that we did not have to communicate with each student every day, but regularly with the class as a whole (Moore, et al., 2001).

When teachers walk into a physical classroom, they have the advantage of visual and verbal cues as to the character and behavior of their students, and can calibrate their own demeanor accordingly. In an online classroom, however, we first set the tone with welcoming orientation material, and then stepped back for a moment to watch how the students reacted.

We did not believe that a rigorous and formal approach was required in our online classrooms. We tried to share our own experiences with our students, both to enhance the course presentation and to demonstrate the relevance of the material. Moreover, we wanted students to feel comfortable approaching us for help and to give our online classrooms what Meyer termed “personal presence” (2002, p. 5). We signed our e-mail and online messages with only our first names. We saw our roles as mentors and guides in the learning process and wanted students to be free to engage in discussion; but left no doubt as to our authority in classroom management or the assignment of grades.

Each class was unique, due to the presence and interactions of unique individuals. Our approach was calibrated accordingly. All learners had the ability and responsibility to move at their own pace through the material and to go as deeply into the material as they chose. Our role was to provide encouragement, clarification, and any additional information the learners needed to accomplish their learning.

The first assignment for our classes, to produce a student bio, was uniquely valuable. We not only had the opportunity to learn about all the students, but to watch as they read and responded to one another’s postings. The biography proved to be a valuable indicator of a student’s attitude in the classroom, ability to communicate in writing, and willingness to read and respond to the postings of classmates. With experience, we were able to detect students with a variety of problems from their bios—not just in what was written, but in the use of language and attitude it represented.

Needless to say, the active-learning paradigm required an adjustment for students inured to the on-ground lecture model. One of our most important tasks during the early weeks was to explain and demonstrate how the active classroom functioned, and repeatedly clarify expectations that may have been new for them.

Once the course management was under our control (and this usually took a few facilitation experiences with the course), we had more time to focus on the quality of the experience. We looked for techniques, strategies and methods that would enrich and improve the teaching and learning for both the students and ourselves.

Discussion was key to the AIO classroom. We were constantly asking ourselves, at what point to step into the conversation so that the end result was positive for the students. This was not an efficient process. It was messy, and at times frustrating, and it could take a lot of time and effort. When students really struggled with ideas, hashed them out, and brought outside resources into the conversation, it was a wonderful process. For students who didn’t want to struggle, to spend the time, or who just wanted to know if the acher thought their answer was ght or wrong, pressing them into onversation could be frustrating for everyone.

In most cases, we found that stu-ents questioned each other and esponded very nicely to their peers’ rompts. Once the faculty weighed with an opinion on a student’s olution, however, consideration of he work often ended. The focus hifted to students wanting to know hat the faculty considered a correct answer.

There was no sitting in the back f the room in this style of online arning. If students were not partic-ating, posting to them in the dis-ussion was futile. Direct e-mail or lephone calls did more to get them ack on board. Tracking attendance nd participation helped prevent tudents from getting lost or falling oo far out of the mainstream. The pportionment of approximately 5% of the final grade to discussion articipation also provided a power-ful incentive.

We both felt that the ability to perate as a part of a team was a ritical skill for students to have oing into the workplace. Moreover, he use of team projects enhanced he opportunity for peer learning, to Which we can attest firsthand.

eveloping or practicing that skill in he classroom was not easy, and in he online classroom it took on dded challenges. Both of our classes utilized team-Work in short-term weekly assignments. We assigned the teams. Students had the option of performing their teamwork through e-mail, instant messaging or in the courseware team area (an option hat Baer encouraged, as it allowed in to monitor participation and intervene when needed). We also ecommended a procedure for students to follow and a timeline for its execution. In the early weeks, students seemed to rely heavily on this scaffolding; later in the term, most were able to contact their teammates, plan their assignment, and accomplish it without support.

Results were mixed. When the students embraced active learning, their collaboration on team assignments was excellent, and significant instances of peer learning were noted. In cases where students failed to embrace the discussion-based active learning paradigm, they also failed to perform as a team.

Attendance was not taken automatically by our courseware system. At first, we both used a check sheet logging in each student’s daily participation. Later, Amirian wanted to know more—how many times each day students had participated and where in the discussions—in order to guide them to a richer online experience. She copied and pasted the discussion page into Word, and tabled and sorted it to get a much clearer picture of students’ patterns of participation over time.

In a text-based online course, it was extremely difficult for someone who struggled with reading and writing English to be successful. We found that difficulty with language often led to several problems beyond the obvious grading of written assignments. It was difficult for some of these students to participate in assignment discussions or team projects, or even to seek help from the facilitator.

Some students, if encouraged to look more carefully at their work before posting it, could participate depending on their level of skill in English. Translation programs (though imperfect), combined with the spell and grammar check of Microsoft Word, improved their ability to communicate. However, we wondered if minimum language proficiency should be listed as a prerequisite for text-based online courses or if courses could be offered in other languages.

It was critical for the instructions—assignments, participation, teamwork, and syllabus, for instance—to be crystal clear to the users. Text instructions determined how students structured their work and time in the class. Because language, by its nature, is subject to interpretation, it was not unusual for questions to arise. Through multiple experiences with the material, it became evident where instructions in the course might be clarified.

Over time, we also found that students were asking for more information about certain topics in the lecture or the assignments. In the first year, we recommended Web sites to satisfy this need. Because these Web sites did not specifically tie to the lecture, reading, or assignments as our course posed them, it became evident that we needed to develop a second layer of materials for additional support. Because Web sites moved or disappeared, we sought permission from the content owners to rehost this content on a private or class-related Web site, to ensure permanent availability. As courses were reviewed, we proposed course content revision to incorporate the new materials.

We were surprised by the first instances of plagiarism we encountered. Given our experiences, however, we were forced to acknowledge that plagiarism was a practice with which online educators must come to terms. We adopted a policy that students received no credit for the first plagiarized assignment; a second incident resulted in that student failing the class. This aligned with the school’s plagiarism policies. Just as we stated expectations for the course work and participation, we defined plagiarism, provided examples, and stated the consequences of the offense. In addition, Amirian gave her students Web links to resources that explain how to properly cite work to avoid plagiarism.

We both felt that any disciplinary action should be discreet, in order to protect the plagiarist’s future viability in the classroom. Some students respond positively to the knowledge that plagiarism is a serious breach of academic integrity, and make a sincere effort to avoid future offense. We felt those students deserved support and fairness.

The juggling act that facilitators play is deciding where to step in and prompt and when to hold back and wait to see if the students come up with the answers themselves. The guiding factor for us was what we had determined about the abilities and needs of the class as a whole, and individual students in particular.

For a strong and reactive class, a simple question was sufficient to spur conversation. For a weaker or less participative class, more probative questions were required. Reminders to participate were delivered via e-mail and in the weekly feedback, where points were also demonstrably lost for lack of participation.

In addition to providing direct feedback, Baer had excellent results with improvised “Bonus Challenges” that provide extra credit for class members answering interesting questions raised by classmates. The resulting discussion reinforced the content, and increased its retention, precisely because the students themselves initiated and resolved it.

After facilitating courses for a year, we found that many of the same questions were asked or issues recurred. This was one reason that we each created a feedback bank. Another reason was that variation in responses could cause problems if the information was critical to assignments. We did not view this as a static resource. The replies were constantly refined so that the explanations were as clear as possible; and they were customized when used, so the students did not feel that they were receiving a “form letr” response. Those that recurred ost often over time were recom-ended for clarification in a course evision.

Each student was unique, having ifferent needs and expectations om his or her education. To the xtent that they adopted the ctive-learning paradigm, students dicated when they felt things were ot going according to their expecta-ons. We helped them adjust to the equirements of the course, to find a ay to make it work for them. esponding to students’ needs was art of the uniqueness and value of his online learning experience. This arning was personalized because ach student controlled so many spects of his or her own learning xperience. As Meyer (2002) discov-red, we also found that student suc-ess and satisfaction was our reatest reward.