next »

[wonderingphd]

   Most of my teaching as an adjunct has been online.  I don't specify that in my CV and only admit it if I have to.  Whenever that happens, you should see the look on the faces of the interviewers for traditional teaching jobs change from engagement to disengagement. 

   It seems very clear to me that there is a strong, growing trend for online classes but the effort to teach one is completely not respected as real teaching.  It's true that some online classes have professors who are very disengaged with students (I've taken some myself since I earned my Ph.D. in a different field), but then, I had a business law teacher in colege live who was pretty disengaged with students (except for the one day he asked one of us to go across the road and buy him a Coke in the middle of a lecture!)  I write lectures, carefully design assignments, post discussion questions and respond to every student's answers each and every week, plus answer numerous email messages (many of which could be avoided if I could only get them to read the syllabus).  Except that I don't stand up and lecture, I wouldn't be doing more in a live class. 

  So why is it that online teaching is treated in a job interview like it was meaningless?  If it's good enogh for students, it should be good enough for interviewers.

[untenured]

This is a good question and one that does not have easy answers.  Online teaching may not be treated the same as in-class teaching in the hiring process for the following irrational and perhaps stereotypical reasons:

- Academic conservatism has an inherent resistance to change and new ideas.

- The job market favors the school.  Thus, distinctions between online and in-class teaching may be sufficient to choose one person over another from an enormous pool of qualified applicants

- In class experience is known to virtually all professors.  Online teaching is an unknown to many professors.  An unknown means risk.  Risk means a possible bad hiring choice.  Avoid online teachers without in-class experience and that risk disappears.

- Online teaching is not real teaching.  It does not require or encourage the analytical discussion of new ideas that in-class teaching engenders.

- Online teachers are failed in-class teachers.  They choose online teaching because they lack the skills to teach in front of students.

- Online teaching is far too easy.  Just upload a few slides and move on.

- Real universities don't practice online teaching, except on the sly as a money-making scheme.  Real universities hold classes in rooms.

- Online students don't learn.  They take tests with outside help and don't receive the in-person development they need.

- Online teachers are not that bright.  They just rely on textbooks and don't convey complex ideas.

- Online teaching represents the commodification of education.  If online teaching works as well as in-class, who needs universities?

Food for thought.

Untenured

[zharkov]

It scares the bejesus out of a lot of people.

To be fair, schools and programs that are moving to do more with online teaching, and technology in general, have thought that my online experience has been great.

Such groups aside, a lot of higher ed has the mentality of Smith's Stationery Store, which was run in the same fuddy-duddy way with high prices and iffy selection for many years.  And as soon as Staples or Office Depot opens in that new strip mall near the interstate, Smith's will be toast.

I'd also add that a lot of people in higher ed have a 19th century view of what college is all about.  This elitist view is from the days when college was basically finishing school for rich people.  In the early 21st century, college is -- for most people -- the only way to achieve a middle class lifestyle in a post-industrial global economy.

[fortune12]

I developed a course for online delivery, and then taught it, largely to see what this kind of teaching was all about. My SLAC doesn't have online courses, so I worked through a local CC to do it.

Was very impressed with (a) the amount of work involved and (b) the positive attitude of most of the students. They often blew away my SLAC students on dedication to the work. And I noticed no difference between the quality of writing I received online and the quality in the f2f class.

But my colleagues at the SLAC look at me oddly when I note that I am teaching online. In my petty moments, I am convinced most of them could not do this simply because the time and effort required is so much more than in their f2f classes - where, often, the same routine has unfolded for many years.

[larryc]

People who have never taught or learned online often believe they know a lot about it!  They know that online classes are easy to "teach" (they love to put "teach" in quotation marks), they know that students cheat and don't learn anything, they know that no respectable academic would ever teach an online class. How do they know all these "facts?"  They just know.  It simply stands to reason. There isn't any arguing with these attitudes, especially when you are in the position of supplicant. 

That said, when a college advertises a full-time position it is almost certainly to teach in the classroom.  And your online experience will not necessarily all that well into the classroom. The two venues are quite distinctly different. So they are probably disappointed to learn that you don't have any classroom experience.

[tt_finally]

The value of online teaching experience probably depends on the school.  I've done mostly face-to-face teaching, but have taught a section or two of online courses per semester for a couple years now.  When I interviewed last spring for my current job, I had at least four different people mention that the school wanted to offer the main course in my speciality via distance learning--and asked if that would be a problem for me.  I believe my standing in the job search skyrocketed when I was able to say, "I've been teaching a similar course online at school X for three semesters now and have found it to be very successful in promoting student learning because . . . ."

I should add that I don't have textbooks with any online cartridges or even supplements, so I do EVERYTHING online that I have to do in a f2f class.

That being said, if online teaching is all that you've done, see if you can get some traditional classroom adjuncting to increase your viability in the face of search committee members who may not have experience with online teaching.

[dark_globe]

People who have never taught or learned online often believe they know a lot about it!  They know that online classes are easy to "teach" (they love to put "teach" in quotation marks), they know that students cheat and don't learn anything, they know that no respectable academic would ever teach an online class. How do they know all these "facts?"  They just know.  It simply stands to reason.

OK, Larry, I'll take you up on this.

Question One: how do you control an exam in an online course? How do you verify that student A takes the exam under the same conditions as student B and that neither student is using materials not permitted during the taking of the exam?

[dept_geek]

spherical one, we have this conversation often at my place of employment. There is no right or good answer. There are multiple ways of trying. Most of them involve extra work on the instructor's part. For example, I spend time crafting the exams so that (a) the answer isn't in the book, not can it be answered from the solely from the book (the labs, homeworks, other assessments, the discussion forum, all come in to play) and (b) the questions are all essay. At some point, it becomes very expensive to cheat in my class. Ansd yes, it is more work on my part.

Other folks who are convinced they are right say that the f2f classes have the same problems, esp if the classes are large (so that the instructor doesn't know all the students). Yes, you can check IDs. You can, to some extent, control cheating in the room.

I wish the students who are trying that hard to cheat would put the same effort in to studying. I imagine they would surprise themselves by being pretty darn good students. The casual cheaters in my online classes fall by the wayside early.

[drdirt55]

I think the online diploma mills also contribute to the negative image of online education.  

Regarding the question of testing, there are many ways to handle testing.  Some schools use timed tests, others proctored tests.  I used to use open book/notes tests with no time limit - I didn't view the exam as a means to test knowledge of facts, but rather to exam the students' ability to apply the facts and concepts and learn the key points - the exam reinforces the teaching points.  With the timed exams online, the testing conditions are the same; proctored exams are next; and the open-book exam is subject to varying conditions, same as it would be in the classroom.

[larryc]

OK, Larry, I'll take you up on this.

Question One: how do you control an exam in an online course? How do you verify that student A takes the exam under the same conditions as student B and that neither student is using materials not permitted during the taking of the exam?

I assign two types of online tests (in addition to essay assignments, which I actually prefer): multiple choice and short answer.  Both are timed.  In both cases the tests are open book (since I can't prevent that!) but the combination of the specificity of the questions and the timer running means that they cannot look up more than a few of the answers before the time runs out.  The multiple choice tests use software that randomly takes questions from a test bank.  A typical quiz will use 5-7 questions from each of three 50 question test banks, so any two students get radically different quizzes. The short answer tests ask very specific questions:  "From complicated article X, what is the author's thesis and what are three specific pieces of evidence she uses to prove it?" 

My best students tell me that they learn to study enough to know 80% of the answers cold and where to find the other 20%.  On the test they quickly answer the ones they know, then madly flip through the books to relocate that passage about the Mayflower Compact. I can live with that.

(Sorry for the derail OP!)

[shamu]

Back to the original issues.

   Most of my teaching as an adjunct has been online.  I don't specify that in my CV and only admit it if I have to.  Whenever that happens, you should see the look on the faces of the interviewers for traditional teaching jobs change from engagement to disengagement. 

  So why is it that online teaching is treated in a job interview like it was meaningless?  If it's good enogh for students, it should be good enough for interviewers.

I think on-line teaching experience is a plus, and so do most of my colleagues. HOWEVER, the red flag to the SC may be:
1. Why didn't the candidate mention that most of the teaching was on-line? Is there something more to this?
2. Is the candidate trying to avoid teaching face-to-face?
3. Are there other underlying issues that prevented the candidate from balancing out on-line with face-to-face teaching?
4. Is it possible that the candidate prefers working from a distance and will avoid campus time like the plague? Dang, that would increase my committee obligations.

These may be some of the thought bubbles you could see above the SC member's heads. Yet, we assume it is some sort of stigma attached to on-line courses. I really think it's something different, potentially along the lines listed above.

[wonderingphd]

People who have never taught or learned online often believe they know a lot about it!  They know that online classes are easy to "teach" (they love to put "teach" in quotation marks), they know that students cheat and don't learn anything, they know that no respectable academic would ever teach an online class. How do they know all these "facts?"  They just know.  It simply stands to reason.

OK, Larry, I'll take you up on this.

Question One: how do you control an exam in an online course? How do you verify that student A takes the exam under the same conditions as student B and that neither student is using materials not permitted during the taking of the exam?

dark_globe,

   My answer to this is that I never give exams online.  Or, if I do, it's under duress (the chair said to do it). In that case, I give objective tests.  However, the software I use enables me to set time limits and if you take the test, even if you want to go looking for answers in the book, if you haven't already read the material, you probably won't get anything better than a C because I ask very specific things based on something a textbook spends a page or two on.  Mostly, though, I'd rather have them write papers.  I've had enough experiences of my own taking objective tests to believe that they are useful for forcing memorization but not for learning.

[acrimone]

Open invitation to anyone reading this:  I'll pass your online course for you for $1000 as long as the subject isn't Biology, Sociology, or Education.  10% discount for a Composition course, any Philosophy course, any Poli-Sci course, or any course involving legal matters.  I will take all tests, write all papers, and essentially do everything that doesn't require my sitting in front of a screen during a lecture tapping the keyboard every five minutes to verify your presence.

Now, I wouldn't actually do this because it's unethical, but the fact that I could do it is why people are sometimes wary of online courses.  It's not the instructors that are subject to skepticism, but the academic integrity of the courses themselves.

[t_folk]

Because it's icky. Impersonal. Too HAL 9000 for me.

[twofish]

Because it's icky. Impersonal. Too HAL 9000 for me.

Depends on the program.  I had far more personal contact with students in the University of Phoenix than at UT Austin.

The problem is social status.  Social status comes from scarcity.

Online education gets rid of some of the barriers to education, but if you make it easy to learn, then people that have social status based on secret knowledge start feeling threatened.