next »

[Colloquy Moderator]

Many faculty members say it takes more time to develop and teach online courses than traditional ones. As a result, many unions are asking that instructors get time off and extra pay for producing online classes. But some administrators argue that online tools are becoming more mainstream and that developing them should be considered just part of the job. In an age of tight academic budgets, should extra money be given to faculty members who teach online? Is it reasonable to expect professors to give up their intellectual-property rights to courses if universities pay for their creation? Will the lack of extra compensation for extra work discourage professors from participating in online education? Read more...

[%sig%]

[Dr. Arlene A. O'Leary]

As a higher education Administrator and former Dean of an online IT school,  who has worked in NY, Ill, Mass and now New Jersey I can verify that most of the Provosts, Presidents and Boards of Trustees that I have met know little about online learning. They all make the same set of assumptions that are expressed in the topic Faculty Compensation. They see this method as an "add on" to faculy work.

The idea of virtual learning is alien to the thinking of most of the Boards of Trustees,Presidents, Provosts, and Deans who have the responsibility for setting the vision, mission, and funding for Academic Programs. The term administrator speaks volumes to their mindsets, they are hired to maintain existing systems to keep the status quo or if they pretend to want change they apply solutions of the past. They fight very hard against the tides of change.

If a successful program on online learning will ever be implemented it will require the Professional Development of Administrators. It is not the faculty who are the issue, it is the inability of Administrators to understand the profoundly different leadership requirements needed in this era.
I know because I have done it and been there. The need is to develop a strategic business plan with clear project mangement responsibility,proper funding for courses and faculty development. This kind of planning is not a part of the culture of the Academy. It requires a profund change in the way they do business.

[%sig%]

[HV, Mundane State]

I've taught about 11 online courses.  To do this right, you need to use most of the previous semester setting each one up.  You should use about 7-8 two-week modules, with several lectures (2-3 single space page length) and written assignments in each.  (Some professors chiefly rely on textbook websites and "group discussions" to carry the ball-- but this is a sleazy approach.)

The effort is about the same as writing a refereed article with revisions or teaching an extra-service course.

The initial effort, since it is about the same as teaching an extra service course, is probably worth the going rate for such a course.  At the campuses on which I've taught, this would be about $3,000.

[Steven Berkhsire]

If online learning is part of the offerings at the school and students can earn credits in either format, then why wouldn't teaching online be part of the normal load of classes? To do otherwise means that online learning is something different and extra. It isn't different or extra. This is not to say that a faculty member shouldn't receive some compensation for developing the class and putting it online if that work entails a substantial amount of work and not just using the platform for the assignments and message board discussions. However, if the faculty is compensated for developing and putting the material online, the college probably owns the rights to the intellectual property that is embedded in the course. If the faculty don't want to sell the intellectual property, then don't include it as an integral part of the course. Instead use it as supplemental material when the faculty teaches the course him/herself.

[Anna-Louise Salvoy, WVU]

Whomever wrote the questions for this article is completely clueless about what faculty can and cannot demand.  Faculty do not get to choose whether they will participate in online education.  If you are told to put together an online course you either do it or find some other place to work.

In the future I would hope the Chronicle would make a more judicious choice of who writes the articles.  The questions posed by the author of this article are contrived and show a real lack of insight.  You can do better...

[Nancy Johnson, Ph.D., Capella]

Yes, faculty should be compensated for creating master courses for online teaching. These are used by adjuncts to create a standardization in the curriculum, and used repeatedly. Just as textbook authors are compensated, online course creators should be compensated. It is above and beyond the effort expended on land-based course designs and syllabi where the performance art is more critical in the delivery of the course. Nancy

[Peg Pankowski, Ed.D.]

As a developer, instructor, and administrator of online learning at a two-year public institution I would like to add that, while many administrators and faculty do not understand online learning, the key to compensation should indeed reside in the ownership of the materials.  

Currently most colleges expect faculty to both develop and teach an online course. In my experience it is still rare that a college pays for the development of a course that can subsequently be taught by others.

Wouldn't it be better to pay our top faculty, assisted by instructional designers and experienced online instructors, to develop courses that the college would then "own" and then to pay course facilitators to deliver those courses?

[Rob Mason, Physics/OCC]

I must respectfully disagree with Ms. Salvoy's comments concerning the choices available to faculty when applied to the Chronicle's overall audience.  While I won't pretend to know the exact number, it suffices to say that a significant percentage of Chronicle readers would have a choice of whether or not they teach an online course.  In many cases, such as my own, it is written into the faculty contract.  

An online class requires a great deal of additional effort to design and implement compared to a traditional face-to-face course.  Faculty members should be adequately compensated for the extra work.  Failure to do so will result in an online course of questionable quality.

[R. Gregorius, Chemistry]

There are two implicit assumptions in the article: (1) that online course development is desirable and needs to be encouraged, and (2) that such courses will not be developed if it is not supported by compensation above what is normally provided.

(1) I've worked in online course development for over 6 years. I've seen good and horrible online courses. Online delivery is not the panacea we've been looking for and is only good when developed by good educators using research-based standards and best-practices. Online teaching does not make a poor teacher better, it makes that teacher only more wide-spread.

(2) There are systems for monetary compensation of well-developed online courses: peer-reviewed, external funding, and, alternatively, market-driven product development.

I think this notion of further compensation is in support of the mediocre teacher who is unwilling to do anything without compensation up-front. I get my compensation from improved student performance. As a result, I have a marketable product.

[Pamela Peterson, Finance, FSU]

I agree with many who responded regarding compensation: An attractive model to use is that (1) the university compensates the content creator, and (2) the material is owned by the university.  This seems quite simple, but is challenging to implement because:

(a) faculty may not readily relinquish "ownership" of course material (we become very attached to our problem sets), and
(b) universities are slow to alter how they make assignments and compensate faculty members.

Until administrators and faculty change their way of thinking regarding instruction, ownership, and compensation, we will continue to face challenges in encouraging faculty members to develop online courses.

Further, online course delivery is not necessarily a solution to tight budgets; the additional cost of technology and content development may or may not offset the savings on classroom space.

Online course delivery is an alternative approach to teaching that is suitable for some students -- not all.  And, just as not every faculty member is suited to the bells-and-whistles teaching required of large lecture classes, not every faculty member is suited to develop and/or teach an online courses.

Universities should identify the faculty members suitable and willing to teach online, and should forge a partnership with these faculty members in developing online courses.

[%sig%]

[Jon Lewis]

Pamela Peterson's analysis has the closest fit to my own views.  Faculty legitimately fear that putting content on-line makes it the property of university administrators, who can then hire A.B.D.'s or M.A.'s or B.A.'s to recycle the material for far lower cost.  Given the financial pressures on many institutions, those fears may be well-grounded.

But if a faculty member is not paid to develop a specific online course, presumably he/she retains ownership over its content.  It's complicated, but following Ms. Peterson's suggestions would probably go a long way to resolving many of the concerns.

[%sig%]

[Howard Davis,formerTechDir,UVM]

Too many institutions attempt to implement online courses or hybrid learning without thinking strategically about how these technologies will further the teaching, learning, and research goals of their communities.

These technologies are disruptive in nature because simply speaking they're pipes allowing for the full flow of information, and they're agnostic with regard to institutional cultures and traditions, administrative protocols, faculty behaviors, etc.  Hence the conflict.

And institutions and all their respective stakeholders are usually more intent on maintaining the status quo than upsetting the proverbial apple cart. Using the technology first requires an understanding of why and how it can be an effective tool for promoting dynamic teaching and learning.

Colleges and universities need to be bold enough to rethink intellectual property, faculty promotion/tenure, compensation policies if order to lay the groundwork for effective online learning implementation.

The respective departments and programs  need to have a game plan with regard to course selection, online degree program development, budgeting, staffing, faculty training and support, student orientation, marketing, and the list goes on.

Academia has the intellectual capital to be at the forefront of the knowledge economy, but holding onto traditions obdurately and willy-nilly will not only prevent effective use of learning technology, but also will ultimately hinder the intellectual growth of the institution and the  communities it serves.

[Anthony Bichel]

I think the previous posts offer us an interesting solution to the problem at hand.

Speaking both as an administrator and faculty member, I think that online instruction should be part of the regular teaching load and treated accordingly.

However, in those instances where online and hybrid courses are not treated equally with face-to-face instruction it seems fair to compensate faculty who do actually spend time preparing and delivering elearning courses - just as we always have done for traditional courses.

Schools can fund these courses by reclaiming payment from faculty who have spent countless years "winging it" in the classroom at the institution, student and taxpayer's expense.  

This isn't to say that the lack of preperation for face-to-face classroom instruction is tantamount to theft, but let's not kid ourselves either about who benefits financially from the time/money "saved" in these transactions.

Once upon a time being a college professor was an honor and a privledge, not an entitlement. If faculty don't like the working conditions of 21st Century education - move on.

[visitor]

Gee, when I read:


Pamela Peterson's analysis has the closest fit to my own views. Faculty legitimately fear that putting content on-line makes it the property of university administrators, who can then hire A.B.D.'s or M.A.'s or B.A.'s to recycle the material for far lower cost. Given the financial pressures on many institutions, those fears may be well-grounded.

But if a faculty member is not paid to develop a specific online course, presumably he/she retains ownership over its content


It made me think of an on-line course taught at a local university that I discovered -- by googling my own name.

Turns out they use over 40 web pages of material I developed in that class.  Someone is getting paid for it and it isn't me.

I wasn't even asked or informed.

[LaNita Kirby, Instructor/RCCC]

At present, the NCCCFA (North Carolina Community College Faculty Association) is engaged in primary research concerning faculty compensation and workload issues surrounding online course development at all 58 community colleges in the NC Community College System.  

If you are interested in obtaining the results of this research, or if you would like to participate in the project yourself, please send an email to the attention of Rita Rogers, NCCCFA Faculty Issues Committee Chair, or Cliff Mitchell, External VP, NCCCFA, at their respective email addresses:

rogersr@roanoke.cc.nc.us;   mitchellc@johnstoncc.edu

Further information about the NCCCFA, its mission, and its goals can be obtained at this link:

www.ncccfa.org

Respectfully,

LaNita Kirby, NCCCFA
Membership Director; Chair, Online Instruction Issues
Email:  kirbyl@rowancabarrus.edu

[%sig%]