The A.P.L.U. (formerly NASULGC)-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning has been working for the past two years to identify the perceptions of college and university presidents and chancellors toward the potential of using online learning as a strategic asset to achieve broad institutional goals and priorities. As one part of this work, the Commission implemented a comprehensive national study of the key factors that underlie successful, strategic online programs. A second part of the study was a cross-institutional survey of faculty attitudes toward online learning. This session will summarize the results of both aspects of the study, identifying not only those elements of success cited most often by administrators, but also identifying faculty perceptions and beliefs about online learning. Presenter: Muriel Oaks, Dean, Center for Distance and Professional Education, Washington State University and Member, A.P.L.U.-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning

1. Benchmarking Online Learning:
Perceptions of University Faculty
and Administrators

2. Muriel Oaks
Washington State University
APLU-Sloan National Commission on
Online Learning
October 23, 2009
WCET Annual Conference
Denver

3. APLU Initiative in Online Learning
• Grant from Sloan Foundation to create a cadre Presidents and Chancellors
knowledgeable about the strategic value of online
• Established APLU-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning
(Jack Wilson, President, Univ. of Massachusetts, Chair; 7 Presidents; and
other senior administrators)
• Commission Strategies:
– understand the knowledge base and experience of
Presidents/Chancellors re: online learning
– target the key priorities and concerns of senior leadership
– determine the potential of online learning to serve as a strategic tool to
address those issues
– develop strategies/resources that could assist Presidents and
Chancellors in overcoming barriers limiting the strategic utilization of
online learning

4. APLU-Sloan National
Commission on Online Learning
• Surveys:
– APLU Presidents and Chancellors
– Tribal Colleges and Universities Presidents
– NAFEO Presidents and Chancellors
• 27 dialogue events:
– 850 participants; 300+ CEOs

5. Survey Findings:
Is there a disconnect?
Strategic Importance of Online Learning
– critical to long-term strategy of institution APLU – 68% AIHEC – 62% NAFEO –84%
– represented in institution's strategic plan APLU – 41% AIHEC – 27% NAFEO –52%
– not critical to long term strategy APLU – 4% AIHEC – 15% NAFEO – 7%

6. Institutional Interviews
Background
• Designed to acquire a better understanding of the key factors
contributing to successful, strategic online learning initiatives
• Invited 95 APLU members; anticipated 15-18 participants;
47 campuses volunteered
• final cohort – 45 institutions (wide range)
• 1M+ students; 100,000+ online enrollments

7. Institutional Interviews
Areas of Inquiry
Faculty Incentives
Student Life Cycle
Senior Administration
Academic Quality and Effectiveness
Administrative and Financial Models
Technology

8. Institutional Interviews
Methodology
• Cohorts of approximately six institutions in each area of inquiry
• Interviewed 4-8 personnel per campus identified by institutional
contact
• Conducted 231 interviews (7/08 - 1/09)
• Interviewees:
– Chief Executive Officers/Governing Board members
– Senior Academic Administrators
– Senior Non-Academic Administrators
– Online Administrators
– Faculty and Online Students

9. Institutional Interviews
Key Observations
• Integrate online into institutional planning, academic
structure
• Review and assess routinely over time
• Develop reliable financing mechanisms
• Develop adequate and consistent resources for both
faculty and students
• Engage senior leadership

10. Faculty Survey
Background
• First cross-institutional survey of faculty attitudes toward
online
• 69 campuses
• Comparable questions to Sloan-C Annual Survey of chief
academic officers

11. Faculty Survey
Methodology
• Invitations delivered via e-mail with link to online survey
form
• Most institutions also sent a single reminder message
• 11,000+ opened survey
• 10,700+ complete responses
• 21,000+ open-ended text responses

12. Faculty Survey
Participating Campuses
• All public
• Research/Doctoral, Masters, Associates
• Land Grants, HBCUs, State Universities, others
• Faculty: 60 to 3,500+
• Represent 900,000+ enrollments
• Online enrollments: zero to 10,000+

13. Who Teaches and Develops Online?
Taught Online
Taught and
Developed
Online
Developed Online
All Faculty

14. Who Teaches Online?
Under 5 years teaching
6 - 9 years teaching
10 - 19 years teaching
20 plus years teaching
Female
Male
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

15. Who Teaches Online?
Not tenure track
Tenured
Tenure track, not tenured
Part-time
Full-time
0% 10% 20% 30%

16. It Takes More Effort
Effort to Develop
Effort to Teach
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage of respondents
A lot less Somewhat less About the same Somewhat more A lot more

17. Why Faculty Teach Online?
Online courses meet student needs for
flexible access
It is the best way to reach particular
students
For personal and professional growth
It is the wave of the future
To earn additional income
For pedagogical advantages
Because I am required to
0% 20% 40% 60%
Important Very Important

18. Barriers
Additional effort to develop online courses
Inadequate compensation
Additional effort to deliver online courses
Students need more discipline
Does not count toward tenure and promotion
Lower retention rates
Lack of acceptance by potential employers
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Important Very Important

19. Faculty Institutional Ratings
Technological infrastructure
Faculty support for development
Faculty support for delivery
Support for online students
Policy on intellectual property
Recognition in tenure and promotion
Incentives for developing online
Incentives for delivering online
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Below Average Average Above Average

20. Learning Outcomes
Superior Online Faculty
CAO - Sloan Survey
Somewhat Superior
Same
Somewhat Inferior
Inferior
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

21. Recommend Online?
Total Sample
Ever developed an
online course
Ever taught an online
course
Currently teaching an
online course
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

22. Benchmarking Study Results
The Challenges
• Online takes more faculty time and effort
• Institutional incentives are not viewed as good motivators
• Concerns persist about quality of learning outcomes

23. Benchmarking Study Results
The Opportunities
• Everyone teaches – stereotypes are not correct
• Faculty are motivated by student needs
• Faculty recommend online
• Faculty with online experience are more positive

24. Benchmarking Study Results
Imperatives for Campus Leaders
• Administrators need to know who is teaching online and
why
• Campus leaders need to develop creative ways to
recognize and reward faculty
• Faculty and administrators need to resolve issues around
perceptions of quality
• Online initiatives must be routinely reviewed and
assessed to identify and address needs and opportunities
as they arise

25. Link to Survey Reports:
http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=282

26. Questions?

27. Thank you!
For more information, please contact:
Muriel Oaks, Dean
Center for Distance and Professional Education
Washington State University
oaks@wsu.edu

28. Additional Slides

29. Overall Institutional Ratings
Percent rating their institution Above Average
Technological infrastructure
Faculty support for online delivery
Faculty support for online development
Support for online students
Institutional policy on intellectual property
Recognition online in faculty tenure and promotion CAO
Faculty
Incentives for developing online courses
Incentives for delivering online courses
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

30. Rating faculty training and support
for online course delivery
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
28
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
4
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Below Average Average Above Average

31. Recommend Online
Superior to face-to-face
Somewhat superior to
face-to-face
The same as face-to-
face
Somewhat inferior to
face-to-face
Inferior to face-to-face
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%