As online course delivery becomes increasingly prevalent in higher education, it becomes more important to assist faculty in gaining new pedagogical skills. This article scans current literature regarding concerns and best practices in this area, and reports on a study of institutional support for training LIS faculty. The online survey of 16 quantitative and qualitative questions was distributed to all faculty from ALA accredited master’s programs requesting feedback about what support was available and what support was especially needed and/or appreciated by the faculty members. The results of this survey suggest a model of institutional support that includes faculty course release, LIS program level training and support, and structured mentoring. Implementation of such a model will help institutions create a culture of support for online
teaching.
Keywords: online teaching, online education, faculty development, faculty surveys

Discussions in the higher education literature regarding online teaching, where content is delivered primarily over the Internet rather than in face-to-face classroom meetings, have shifted in recent years from the general “is it wise and is it good for learning?” focus to a quest to discover and share best practices. While certain voices still call for more careful attention to whether teaching via remote access is in the overall best interest of student learning (Shieh, 2009), we nevertheless generally acknowledge that new delivery methods are here to stay. The current argument is more often centered not on whether to deliver the curriculum online, but how. Central to the “how” discussion needs to be a focus on retooling professors who, when teaching online, are shifting to a completely different teaching and learning environment.

We tend to teach the way our favorite professor taught, which for many of us was the lecture method, or what Brent (2005) refers to as “teaching as performance” and Bain (2004) calls “the transmission model of teaching” (p. 173). But an online learning environment differs from the face-to-face classroom, where human interaction, eye contact, facial expressions, and verbal cues help faculty and students engage in the learning process.

This paper explores the mechanisms used by college professors to adapt to online teaching environments, especially regarding concurrent efforts of their institutions to offer support in the midst of these changes. The paper includes the results of a study conducted to gauge the current availability and impact of such support systems within LIS graduate schools.

To inform this study, I looked for literature that described the importance of, or need for, faculty development in teaching and learning technologies, with an emphasis on online course design and development. Most of this research comes from online course evaluation studies or from IT-focused articles which evaluate the effectiveness of university investments in IT-based teaching and learning tools. I then searched for examples of best practices in technology-based faculty development. Some best practices were true examples of structured institutional support for online course development or for teaching and learning technologies; others simply articulated the need for these institutional supports in our changing environments. As the focus of this study is LIS institutional support, I paid special attention to examples in the literature from within LIS graduate programs.

Background and Literature

Allen and Seaman (2005) report that more than 2.3 million students were enrolled in online courses in the fall of 2004; they also report an 18% per year growth in online course delivery. Within the 62 American Library Association (ALA) accredited graduate schools of LIS, 41 programs (66%) offer some of their curriculum online and 14 other institutions (23%) offer their entire program online (American Library Association, 2009). This indicates that 89% of ALA-accredited LIS programs offer courses online. In the face of such growth, the issue of educational quality has been actively discussed in the higher education literature, and training faculty is core to that discussion. “The question is no longer whether online education is as good as face-to-face instruction, but rather how to prepare and support faculty in the online environment and ensure that students achieve important learning outcomes whether they study in online or face-to-face settings or both” (Moskal et al., 2006, p. 26).

Some institutions have addressed the concern of training faculty by separating course design from the content experts, creating what Wright (2005) calls “academic sweatshops.” Wright writes about the changes in academic culture as more teaching is outsourced, but one wonders if this marginalization of core faculty is in the long term interest of the faculty, the students, or the institution. Noble (1998) suggested something similar in his much-cited article suggesting “the automation of higher education . . . is not a progressive trend towards a new era at all, but a regressive trend, towards the rather old era of mass production, standardization and purely commercial interests” (Abstract, para. 1). Noble argues that distinct lines have emerged between student and faculty desires for quality learning, and administrators’ desires for the profitable economic model seen in online course delivery.

In his critique of online education, Speck (2000) comes to a similar conclusion regarding the power of the economic model; he develops three criticisms which together he calls a breach of ethics in the academy. His criticisms are: (1) the failure of the academy to evaluate learning effectively in the online environment; (2) the concomitant failure to prepare faculty to teach online courses; and (3) an assessment that the academy has chosen online course delivery due to an economic model rather than an educational one. Speck argues that these problems can be overcome; he is not philosophically against online teaching but rather against the afore-mentioned gaps in institutional preparation to move so quickly (and basically unprepared) into new learning environments. Writing about faculty preparation, Speck argues:

The academy not only fails to provide adequate training for professors to teach online courses but also undermines professorial authority by putting them in situations where they are dependent on others to deliver subject matter content . . . in doing this, the academy violates the contract it has with students—namely, the agreement that professors are credentialed as expert teachers. (pp. 76–77)

This concern is reflected as more published literature emphasizes the critical need to train faculty to use teaching and learning technologies effectively. For example:

Colleges have spent millions on ‘smart classrooms’ packed with the latest gadgets to assist teaching computerized projection systems, Internet ports at every seat, even video cameras with motion detectors that can track the movements of a lecturer. But colleges have spent far less time and money giving professors the skills to use even the simplest technology effectively. (Young, 2004, p. A31)

Lewis and Abdul-Hamid (2006) investigated how highly-qualified faculty members incorporate effective teaching practices in their online courses. Their research demonstrates that effective online teaching “is, at best, an elusive and confusing process” (p. 95). However,

Despite differences in online course platforms, one of the expectations for effective online instruction is for structured pedagogical approaches, which evolve around interactivity and the deliberate actions of faculty willing to provide careful attention to student needs. Evident from this study is that this type of environment is not one that emerges naturally or unwittingly in online courses. (pp. 95–96)

A significant concern with online courses is that the current deliverymechanisms seem to flatten the traditional multi-sensory learning environment. How do we learn to add back those critical multidimensional elements into the learning environment? One way is to take advantage of web conferencing systems. With web-based synchronous learning environments, professors and students can begin to recapture the human touch we miss in the frequently-silent online course structure. For example, Hofmann (2004) considers the instructor’s voice to be an essential tool in an online synchronous environment (p. 52). She recommends best practices such as using a script for guidance rather than for reading, using humor and positive reinforcement, and “smiling” with your voice.

How does a faculty member learn these skills and techniques? Even in institutions where good teaching is clearly articulated as part of the core mission, support structures for online teaching need to be examined. Reder (2007) challenges us to rethink our assumptions of “good teaching”; because an institution values excellence in teaching does not necessarily mean that the structures are in place to provide support for learning effective pedagogical practices. This is true for faculty in various disciplines, at various career stages, and in relation to emerging teaching and learning technologies. Reder writes of the need for formal centers of teaching and learning excellence for ongoing faculty development. This is especially necessary, says Carey (2006), for members of the baby boom generation, who struggle to teach Net generation students “in a manner that capitalizes on the group’s technology-driven lifestyle and fosters quality liberal learning” (p. 3).

Much research has focused on current student satisfaction with the use of information technology in higher education. The EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research conducts an annual study of undergraduate students and their uses of IT in college. Their 2008 study shows increased ownership (80%) of laptop computers, a high rate of confidence in their own use of the Internet (80% report being “very skilled” or “expert” Internet searchers), and an 85% participation in social networking sites (Caruso & Salaway, 2008). Additional results from the study (Caruso & Salaway, 2008) indicate that “students perceive that more instructors need to use IT effectively in courses,” “students are increasingly mobile,” and “students expect IT to be available” (p. 4).

There is evidence that students come to college as expert users of information technologies, and expect to find a university infrastructure to support their use. Whether their courses are fully online or their professors are incorporating more teaching and learning technologies in their face-to-face classes, these expert users set the bar high for effective use of teaching technologies in the academy.

Because of changing student expectations and because of significant institutional investments in teaching and learning technologies, there have been ongoing efforts to evaluate their effectiveness. Focusing on the efforts to evaluate online teaching, a helpful starting point is the overview of research by Tallent-Runnels, Thomas, Lan, and Cooper (2006). Key points in their review include the importance of learner-centered course design for online courses, the importance of interactivity, and the key roles of faculty in online teaching. Berge (1999) emphasized instructional design over delivery mechanism, and Hansen
and Gladfelter (1996) drew conclusions regarding the perplexing nature of online pedagogy to many faculty. Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) provide many best-practice examples from research; they also evaluate the quality of research available in this emerging area of higher education study. Overall, they find:

Institutional aspects of these studies showed that few universities have written guidelines or policies for online courses. They also confirmed the lack of technical support for both faculty members and students engaged in online instruction. Faculty members want training and course development assistance as well as rewards for preparing courses to be taught online. Few faculty members said that they would require additional compensation for the work if they could get help developing and delivering courses . . . Appropriate and excellent course design and development may prove to be paramount to the success of students in online courses. (pp. 116–117)

Other reports from research regarding best practices in online course delivery include Barron (2003); Bouhnik and Marcus (2006); Bourne and Moore (2004); Chickering and Ehrmann (1996); Jones (1997); Kassop (2003); Pribesh, Dickinson, and Bucher (2006); and Smith, Ferguson, and Caris (2001), and on emerging centers for teaching and learning excellence in Lewis, Fino, Hungar, Wallace, and Welch (1994) and LeBarron and McFadden (2008). To maximize the potential of online course delivery, we must provide structured learning about best practices for online course design and development through formal institutional centers for teaching and learning.

One frequent method of developing quality teaching in online programs is to rely on early adopters among the faculty to provide inspiration and peer support for others. While individual leaders and innovators are essential to moving forward, dependence on these individuals is ill-advised. Harman (2008) cautions against this sort of dependence on the innovation and energy of a few, citing short-lived and spotty progress, inconsistent results, and limitations of scale across the institution (p. 25).

What is preferable is a system-wide approach to training and support as demonstrated by several programs included in Barron’s (2003) review of LIS progress in distance education. For example, when developing the fully online LEEP program at the University of Illinois, planners included a strong emphasis on faculty training and instruction:

The challenge [of moving to online teaching] was the time required to make the change from lecture in front of a classroom or a TV camera to this new design requiring change in methodology. The University of Illinois . . . had overcome this difficulty by providing faculty with a semester off before teaching and assigning the faculty member a single class the semester they taught the new class. (Woolls & Loertscher, 2003, p. 265)

Faculty training and a strong technological infrastructure were developed and maintained through deliberate regenerative funding using LEEP’s tuition (Estabrook, 2003).

Woolls and Loerscher (2003) reference the new skill sets required by the faculty in their description of San Jose State University’s preparation for online offerings. In their early days of online course delivery, San Jose received an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grant to create a two-week intensive program for all kinds of library educators in the state (state library agencies, library staff development officers, etc.). The two week program provided instructors focused time with professional instructional design personnel.

Support centers for instructional design and technology training are described by Barron (2003) at the University of South Carolina, Kovacs (2003) at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and Turner (2003) at the University of North Texas. Each of these authors reports on the necessity for faculty development and support when delivering online courses.

In other situations faculty have felt a lack of support from their IT department, or an absence of instructional design support, and have adapted an attitude of learned helplessness. In a podcast about faculty technology training issues, Carlson and Arbogost (2008) say that when learning new technologies, potentially innovative faculty who are not supported by their institution may exhibit learned helplessness and tend to “simply give up.”

Unfortunately, often “the digital reform of the academy has happened so quickly and with such little consultation with the faculty that the ‘transformation’ of higher education is being conducted without due regard for faculty expertise” (Speck, 2000, p. 77). Speck recommends that administrators provide adequate training for faculty before they teach online, an opinion reflective of the best practices described above.

Faculty need to be prepared for online teaching, in terms of pedagogical shifts and technological tools. The emergence of teaching and learning centers in the academy indicates an acknowledgement of the importance of excellent teaching and of the distinction between subject expertise and pedagogical skills. Are centers for teaching and learning addressing the needs of the online learning environment? What other support systems exist for faculty in institutions offering online course delivery? These questions indicate a need for further study, beginning with the LIS education community.

Research Question

What support structures exist in LIS programs and their institutions to help faculty develop new skills in online course design, delivery, and content? An exploratory study was developed to investigate existing support systems in LIS education which assist faculty who are retooling for online teaching.

Limitations

This survey was limited to faculty in LIS programs, and did not try to survey the respondents’ university support structures for comparison to faculty responses. No component in this survey measured student satisfaction or teaching effectiveness. Rather, this study concentrated on faculty perceptions of support for their own development in online teaching and emerging course content. The study did not try to measure the effectiveness of one training method over another.

Methods: General Description

A questionnaire sent directly to faculty members was identified as the best research approach, as it was their experiences the study wanted to capture. Electronic survey tools distributed via the Internet make it possible to collect information rapidly from a large number of participants. SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com), a Web-based commercial software tool, was selected for its ease of use and for its built-in ability for email follow-up to non-responders. The survey (Appendix A) included multiple choice and open-ended questions. The combination of quantitative and qualitative questions provided concrete data regarding the range of support structures and an opportunity to gauge respondents’ attitudes and priorities. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS v.16 and NVivo.

Methods: Sample Selection

Using the ALA’s alphabetical list of accredited schools, LIS faculty and their email addresses were identified. All full-time faculty members of ALA-accredited master’s programs were sent an email invitation to participate in an online survey. The email included a brief description of the research project, an invitation to participate, and a link to the online survey. The email and the first screen of the survey assured the participants of anonymity and of the voluntary nature of their response.

Of the 907 emails sent to potential respondents, 883 invitations to participate in the survey were delivered, while 24 were returned due to bad email addresses or previously designated blocks of SurveyMonkey mailings by individual recipients. There were 331 total respondents, nine of whom declined to participate in the survey and did not advance further. Twenty-six respondents agreed to participate in the survey but did not respond to any of the questions; they are excluded from further analysis. The resulting number of total valid respondents is n = 296, although not all respondents answered every question. Percentages cited in this report are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Data Analysis

The survey consisted of 16 multiple choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions. Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments on four of the questions, and a final question invited additional comments. The data from SurveyMonkey were downloaded into SPSS v.16 for analysis. NVivo software was used to identify word frequency counts in the qualitative responses. Narrative responses were further analyzed with hand-tabulation to identify common themes.

Results from Multiple Choice and Yes/No Questions

The majority of respondents (n = 243, 83%) were from institutions with over 10,000 students, with the remaining coming from smaller institutions (Table 1). The greatest number of respondents (n = 166, 58%) teach in LIS programs with more than 250 students.

Table 1: Number of Respondents by Institution Size.

Support available	Percentage	Frequency
1,000–5,000	9%	27
5,000–10,000	8%	23
Over 10,000	83%	243

 

Table 2: What Support for Learning How to Teach Online is Available to You at Your Institution?

Institution size by number of students	Percentage	Frequency
Informal support through faculty peer-to-peer training	63%	179
Informal support through university IT workshops	58%	165
Formal training through the university	44%	125
Formal training through the LIS program	20%	56
Little to no training is offered	17%	49

 

Of the 297 respondents, 92% (n = 262) reported that their program offers some online courses; 36% (n = 103) reported teaching where the program is available fully online as an option. Approximately 69% (n = 198) of the respondents teach online courses or courses offered in a hybrid environment (partially face-to-face and partially online). These figures correspond well to the overall ALA statistics cited earlier in this paper; 89% of ALA accredited LIS programs offer courses online, and 23% of those are available fully online. It appears as though respondents to this survey are slightly more likely to be involved in a fully online program than the overall LIS faculty population reported by the ALA.

When asked if they had received formal and/or informal training in online course design and delivery (Table 2), 17% of respondents said little to no support was available to them. Sixty three percent rely on peers, confirming the observations expressed in the literature cited above. The next most frequent form of support came from university IT workshops (58%), and 44% cite formal university support as part of their preparation. Twenty percent cite formal training through their own LIS program as being a part of their training for online course design and delivery. (This question invited multiple responses, so the total is greater than 100%.)

Similar results were seen in the responses regarding support for faculty development in incorporating new technologies into LIS coursework, with the most support (64%) coming from peers, and the least support (18%) coming from within the LIS program.

Survey participants were asked to note incentives offered by the institution for developing online teaching skills. Ninety eight (24%) of the respondents said no incentives were available. Of the 405 total instances of institutional support cited, the most frequently cited (19%) was competitive faculty development grants, with support for conference attendance (15%), consideration in faculty review (15%), and case-by-case reimbursement for expenses incurred from outside training (14%) fairly evenly distributed. Thirteen percent of respondents cited the availability of a course release for developing new teaching skills for online course design and delivery (Table 3).

When asked about general support for new course development and professional development, 24% reported receiving financial support and 13% of respondents referred to course release time. No support for new course development and ongoing professional development was reported from 63% of respondents.

Additional analysis as done to assess if institution size made a difference with regard to support for developing new content. Table 4 shows the breakdown of incentives reported for developing new course content; respondents in the smallest and largest institutions reported the highest percentage of “no support is available” (76% and 77% respectively), with 61% of respondents from institutions of 5,000 to 10,000 students reporting no support in this area.

Table 3: Incentives by Institution Size for Developing New Online Teaching Skills, Listed by Frequency of Response (Total Responses: 405).

Size of Institution	No. of Incentives Offered	Faculty Development Grants	Funding to Attend Conferences	Consideration in Faculty Retention	Reimbursement for Outside Training	Course Release
1,000-5,000	8	6	8	6	7	6
5,000-10,000	83	63	45	49	45	44
Over 10,000	7	8	9	5	45	44
Total	98 (24%)	77 (19%)	62 (15%)	60 (15%)	57 (14%)	51 (13%)

 

Table 4: Incentives for Developing New LIS Course Content, Listed by Frequency of Response (267 total responses).

Size of Institution	No Support is Available	Financial Support for Study and Training	Course Release
1,000-5,000	19	3	3
5,000-10,000	14	6	3
Over 10,000	135	54	30
Total		63 (24%)	36 (13%)

 

Whether training opportunities and incentives are offered by the institution is one issue; whether faculty take advantage of them is another. In this survey, the most frequent (n = 161, 56%) type of opportunity respondents reported taking advantage of within the past two years was informal instruction from colleagues. The next most popular (n = 126, 44%) response was conference attendance, with formal training through the university next (n = 104, 37%). Sixteen percent had not taken advantage of any opportunities during the past two years (Table 5).

Conferences attended most frequently were ALISE (51%), ALA annual and midwinter (40% and 36% respectively), and ASIS&T (39%). Respondents frequently attend more than one conference annually.

Respondents were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 1–5 for confidence in online teaching (1 = not at all confident , 5 = highly confident). Sixty five percent rated themselves at a 4 or a 5; the mean score was 3.84. A related question asked respondents about their level of confidence in adapting their LIS course content to include emerging LIS practice tools such as social software and Web 2.0, with an overall mean of 3.61.

Examining the relationship between teaching some courses fully online and the degree of confidence in teaching online, there was a significantly increased level of “confident” and “highly confident” responses from those who teach online.

Table 5: Support Opportunities for Learning How to Teach Online which Respondents have Taken Advantage of in the Last Two Years.

Support Opportunity Taken Advantage Of	Percentage	Frequency
Informal support from colleagues	56%	161
Conference attendance	44%	126
Formal training from the university	36%	104
Formal training from outside sources	18%	53
Formal training through the LIS program	17%	50
None	16%	46
Course release	8%	23
Financial support	8%	24

 

Table 6: Cross-comparison, Q8 (instructional design support) with Q13
(online teaching confidence).

Support Available	Confdent to Highly Confident
Formal support: LIS department	76%
Informal support: IT workshops	70%
Informal support: peer to peer	70%
Formal support from instructional design personnel	63%
Little to no support	57%

 

When formal support for instructional design is made available by the institution (reported to be the case by 155 respondents), 63% of professors report being confident to highly confident in their online teaching. Seventy percent at those levels of confidence report having IT workshops at their university; 77% report formal training being available through their LIS programs. Of the 179 respondents reporting informal peer-to-peer support, 70% report being confident to highly confident in their online teaching. Thirty five respondents report little to no support being available at their institution; 58% of those 35 still report high levels of confidence in online teaching.

Results from Open-Ended Questions

When asked in the two final questions for additional comments, including examples of what they would like to see offered by their institutions, participants expressed many needs. Content analysis of these qualitative comments indicated the most frequently expressed desires were for time, course release, financial support, instructional design support, and training. Some of these expressions overlap; “time,” for example, sometimes refers to course release, but also seems to refer to “time” in a more cosmic sense (e.g., “Is there ever enough time?”). Financial support refers to continuing education, course release (again), and infrastructure investments. Table 8 is a breakdown of common themes from the responses to the question “What support would you like your institution to offer?”

Other less frequently occurring support mentioned included: more access to teaching assistants, peer support from open sharing sessions, Web 2.0, XML, Web development training, andmore creative cyber spaces for online teaching.

 

Table 7: Cross-comparison, Q11 (What support opportunities for learning how to teach online have you taken advantage of) and Confidence in Online Teaching.

Respondent Has Taken Advantage of This Support	Confdent to Highly Confident
Course Release	83%
Financial support	83%
Formal support: LIS department	78%
Formal training from outside sources	77%
Informal instruction: peer to peer	72%
Conference attendance	71%
Formal training from the university	71%
No support used	55%

 

Table 8: What Support for Learning How to Teach Online Would You Like Your Institution to Offer?

Requested Support	Frequency
Course Release	33
Formal courses, workshops, training	25
IT infrastructure, including support, software LIS specific software, personnel, and attitudes of collaboration from IT	21
Money/financial support	19
Nothing—the university is doing well or is working in the right direction	14
LIS specific help or formal training structure	13
Time	13
Incentives; administrative understanding; consideration in the tenure and promotion process	10
Instructional design help or personnel	10
One-on-one help or mentoring	8

162 total responses to this question; many included more than one reference.

 

A frequently expressed desire was for greater structure in the support offered; respondents mentioned the need for formal programmatic structures beyond the technology, from mentors to administrative recognition and institutional rewards.

Fourteen respondents expressed a high level of satisfaction with the support provided by their institution, but there was often concern about finding time to take advantage of the learning opportunities. Respondents also expressed a need for the IT offerings to be more applicable to the LIS environment, and for instructional design support within the LIS program. These responses reflect a desire for customized services, and for support closer to home. This concern of the LIS school being underserved by the university was expressed as an outright tension in multiple responses; several comments referenced a lack of cooperation from the university’s IT department and a lack of attention to emerging technologies important in LIS (such as Web 2.0).

One faculty member mentioned an interesting problem: “As we try to be ahead of the curve in our teaching (with the virtual world Second Life, for example), we frequently find that we are ahead even of the IT support staff at our institutions.” Individual faculty members reported being ahead of some LIS peers, and the LIS program being ahead of the university. Another faculty member echoes this concern, saying: “. . . [it’s harder] to get a server or application in place and supported throughout the semester by our school IT staff . . . There is often a disincentive to introduce new tools into a class, because doing so puts a serious setup, administrative and IT support burden on the instructor.” Another respondent referred to a need for “courses aimed at higher levels of competence.” A few respondents pointed out that since online teaching is not a priority in their program, any lack of support for this kind of development is not unusual, although incorporating emerging technologies into the curriculum requires a strong IT support infrastructure.

The desire for release time for learning, reflection, and course refinement was a consistent theme in the narrative responses. Another commonly expressed need was for funding to take outside courses, including commercial continuing education opportunities. The top item on the wish-list was for release time to pursue the new learning required to adapt to online teaching environments, through a course release or simply expressed as “time.” As one respondent stated, “What I desperately need is time, even if to learn this stuff on my own, without a lot of strings attached. I don’t believe that this technology is that difficult, but there is a tremendous amount of it and it is constantly changing. . . . I can’t say this enough.” And, from another respondent, “TIME, TIME, TIME.”

Interpretation and Discussion of the Data

Connections to the Existing Literature

Several examples from this study confirmed previous findings and best practices. Speck’s (2000) call for adequate faculty preparation before online teaching was consistent with the high value this survey’s respondents placed on their preparation, whether it came from their peers or from other sources. Lewis and Abdul-Hamid’s (2006) emphasis on developing mechanisms for learning effective online pedagogies is mirrored in the respondents’ calls for LIS level and institutional level supports.

Respondents to this survey generally reinforce the observations from Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) in that LIS faculty members understand the importance of good training in creating successful online courses; they use it when it is available and they want it where it is not. They are looking for leadership to provide support structures, but when those structures are not there, faculty forge ahead and make things work to their greatest capabilities. This would indicate that people who teach online manage to gain the needed skills to do so; it is also possible that by gaining experience in online teaching the faculty member also gains the needed skills to feel confident. One could also say that those who do not feel confident simply opt out, when possible, of teaching in online environments. As one participant responded, “Aside from assistance from colleagues and occasional university workshops, the general approach is ‘sink or swim.’ So I stay out of the pool.”

This study supports the existing literature emphasizing the need to prepare faculty to teach online (Carey, 2006; Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, 2006; Speck, 2000; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006; Young, 2004). For programs offering online courses, a more clearly articulated, systemic approach to faculty development for online teaching is essential.

A Model for a Culture of Support for Online Teaching

Three of the items in the top six listed in the themes from the survey’s narrative responses (Table 8 ) are also the top three mechanisms listed as boosting the professor’s level of confidence for online teaching (Table 7): course release, financial support, and LIS specific help or formal training infrastructure. This finding can guide administrators looking for the most effective ways to train faculty for online teaching, particularly because these three items also frequently appear as best practices in the literature. The same three important items appear in the results of this survey as being rarely offered. Only 13% of respondents reported the availability of a course release (Table 3) and only 20% reported formal training through their LIS programs (Table 2). This study also supports the effectiveness and desirability of peer support in faculty development; it is a support structure faculty are highly likely to use (Table 5).

Components of an effective model for faculty development therefore include a course release and/or a learning stipend, LIS-specific training in instructional design and online pedagogical skills, and structured mentoring. The importance of a strong program-level support structure which accounts for the special needs of LIS emerged as a recurring thread throughout the survey responses and should be an integral component of this model. The importance of a culture of support for innovation is indicated in the best practice literature and is supported by the findings in this study.

From close attention to the themes evidenced in this literature review and the findings in this study, a model emerges that combines best practices and faculty’s expressed needs for online teaching support. The model consists of a multi-layered support system which includes formalized structures for program- level support and training, institutional-level supports, and outside continuing education opportunities. In this model, faculty members share responsibility for their ongoing professional development specific to online teaching skills. This shared responsibility is appropriate within the higher education culture. The model is presented in Figure 1 and is described below.

Figure 1. Creating a culture of support for online teaching.

A desire for discipline-specific support from the LIS program, beyond the generic offerings from IT, was another theme. When formal support was offered through the LIS department, 76% of this survey’s respondents felt confident to highly confident in their online teaching skills (Table 6). There is significant room for growth in this area among LIS programs, as only 20% of respondents in this survey report formalized LIS-level online teaching support (Table 2).

Finally, respondents acknowledged the expertise of their students. Opportunities to partner with skilled student workers who could act as support personnel in faculty’s online courses were seen as highly valuable, and are suggested as part of this formal model.

Institutional Support

The institution is responsible for strong infrastructure investments in technology and in teaching and learning. Many university IT departments are still evolving from hardware and software support systems to multi-layered departments with complex demands. There is also a strong trend toward the development of centers for teaching and learning excellence in higher education. However responsibilities for online teaching support are divided among departments and personnel, a culture of support should include instructional design support and resources for online pedagogy best practices. Technical workshops should focus on campus-wide systems (such as the dominant course management system in place) and on basic technical skills associated with changing software and hardware environments. One-on-one technical training should be available to faculty who are working on special projects or interested in developing specific skills.

Finally, the institution is responsible for broader infrastructure issues such as specific incentive and reward programs, including positive components in retention and tenure policies and financial incentives such as development grants for outside learning. The institution has a unique opportunity to make a positive difference in the culture of support by creating thoughtful policies associated with online course design and delivery. These policies, for example, could mandate faculty training and impose strict
course caps to address the need for appropriate faculty workload in online courses and to ensure quality experiences for students. Policies such as these standardize best practices across the institution and protect individual faculty members from
having to negotiate for them on a case-by-case basis.

External Continuing Education

Conference attendance was second (to peer support) among the faculty development opportunities this survey’s respondents
acknowledged using in the last year. It could be assumed that this is ranked highly because it is the most readily available, but it is also an established part of higher education culture. Faculty members traditionally use conference attendance to keep current. Financial support for these learning experiences should be part of the culture of support. In addition, many skills associated with online teaching are available though local community college courses, or from within the institution’s own degree curriculum. Commercial programs are available locally or online which address a wide variety of technical and online course development skills.

Summary

This model provides a basis for institutions’ planning for helping faculty prepare new ways of teaching in a rapidly changing environment. Taken together, the structures presented in this model create a positive culture of support for online teaching.

Suggestions for Further Study

Additional research is needed in the design and testing of such a faculty development model within LIS programs. It would be useful to broaden this study by surveying faculty in other graduate programs, and undergraduate faculty. It would be useful to include university IT departments and Centers for Teaching Excellence to measure impressions from the service providers, and to assess the percentage of schools with online courses where there are formal policies about online teaching and course delivery. Studies which correlate specific aspects of faculty training with student success will be important as part of an ongoing cycle of improvement.

Conclusion

As the number of courses delivered online continues to increase, faculty members must gain enhanced pedagogical skills for online learning environments. Universities should see their commitment to faculty development in this area as a significant investment in institutional quality. Results from research literature regarding best practices for online teaching development have been combined with a survey of LIS faculty to determine their existing structures and their perceived needs. The result is a
model for a culture of support which should be used to improve online teaching.

Appendix A: Survey Questions

1. (The first question indicated an agreement
   to participate in the survey.)
2. How many students attend your university as of Fall 2008?

          a. 1000–5000
          b. 5000–10,000
          c. Over 10,000

3. How many students attend your LIS program as of Fall 2008?

          Under 100
          100–250
          Over 250

4. Does your program offer online courses? (Yes / No)
5. Is your program available 100% online as an option? (Yes / No)
6. Do you teach any fully online or hybrid courses? (Yes / No)
7. Do you have formal and/or informal training for online course design and delivery? (check all that apply)

          a. Formal training programs through the university
          b. Informal training through university IT workshops
          c. Formal training through our own LIS program
          d. Informal peer-to-peer training among our own faculty
          e. Little to no training is offered

8. Overall in your teaching, do you have formal and/or informal instructional design support or training, such as assistance for course syllabus development, training for effective teaching strategies, and development of instructional materials? (check all that apply)

         a. Formal support at the university level via professional Instructional Design personnel on staff
          b. Informal support at the university level through IT workshops
          c. Formal training through our own LIS program
          d. Informal support among faculty for peer-to-peer training
          e. Little to no training is offered

9. What incentives does your institution offer to faculty to develop new teaching skills for online course design and delivery? (check all that apply)

          a. Funding via competitive faculty development grants
          b. Funding for faculty conference attendance
          c. Course release
          d. Positive factor in the university’s faculty retention and promotion policy
          e. Case-by-case reimbursement requests to fund outside training or courses
          f. None

10. As LIS programs face rapid changes in the profession, schools are responding with curriculum changes and additions to include such aspects as the use of social software tools. What support is available to you for course development and updates in your knowledge of today’s professional practice? (check all that apply)

          a. Course release for study and / or training
          b. Financial support for study and / or training
          c. No support is available for new course development at this time.

11. Which of these training opportunities and / or incentives have you taken advantage of in the past two years? (check all that apply)

          a. Formal training through the university
          b. Formal training through my LIS program support
          c. Informal instruction from my colleagues
          d. Formal training that I sought from outside sources, independent of my institution
          e. Course release
          f. Financial support
          g. Conference attendance
          h. None

12. Which conferences have you attended in the last 18 months? (check all that apply)

          a. ALA Annual conference
          b. ALA Midwinter
          c. ALISE
          d. ASSIS&T
          e. Internet Librarian
          f. None
          g. Other (please specify)

13. Overall, on a scale of 1–5 (1 being not at all confident, and 5 being highly confident), how confident do you feel in adapting your teaching methods to online environments?
14. Overall, on a scale of 1–5 (1 being not at all confident, and 5 being highly confident), how confident do you feel in adapting your course content to include emerging in LIS practice tools (such as social software andWeb2.0)?
15. What assistance would you like to see your university offer in relation to the development of new course design and delivery skills, and in the area of learning new LIS content? (open-ended)
16. Other comments: (open-ended)

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

American Library Association. (2009). Directory of ALA-accredited master’s programs in library and information studies. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/ala/educationcareers/education/accreditedprograms/directory/i dex.cfm

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barron, D. D. (Ed.). (2003). Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary Web-based learning. Educational Technology, 39(1), 5–11.

Bouhnik, D.,&Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305.

Bourne, J., & Moore, J. C. (Eds.). (2004). Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Brent, D. (2005). Teaching as performance in the electronic classroom. First Monday, 10(4). Retrieved July 1, 2009, from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1221/1141

Burnett, K., Bonnici, L. J., Miksa, S. D., & Kim, J. (2007). Frequency, intensity and topicality in online learning: An exploration of the interaction dimensions that contribute to student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 21–35.

Carey, S. J. (2006). From the Editor. Peer Review, 8(4), 3.

Carlson, S., & Arbogast, W. (2008). Professors and technology: Helpless or hopeless? Tech Therapy, [episode 20]. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Tech-Therapy-Helpless-or-H/3852/

Caruso, J. B., & Salaway, G. (2008, October). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology: Roadmap. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergr aduateStu/163291

Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles:Technology as
lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3–6.

Eastabrook, L. (2003). Distance education at the University of Illinois. In D. D. Barron (Ed.), Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience (pp. 63–73). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Graves, W. H. (2005). Improving institutional performance through IT-enabled innovation. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(6), 78–99.

Hansen, N., & Gladfelter, J. (1996). Teaching graduate psychology seminars using electronic mail: Creative distance education. Teaching of Psychology, 23(4), 252–256.

Harman, J. L. (2008). Moving teaching and learning with technology from adoption to transformation. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(6), 24–25.

Hofman, J. (2004). The synchronous trainer’s survival guide: Facilitating successful live and online courses, meetings, and events. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Jones, M. (1998). Creating engagement in computer-based learning environments. ITFORUM Paper 30. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/paper30.html

Kassop,M. (2003, May/June). Ten ways online education matches, or surpasses, face-to-face learning. The Technology Source. http://technologysource.org/article/ten_ways_online_education_matches_or_surpasses_facetoface_learning/

Kingma, B., & Keefe, S. (2006). An analysis of the virtual classroom: Does size matter? Do residencies make a difference? Should you hire that instructional designer? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57(2), 127–143.

Kovacs, B. (2003). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Master of Library and Information Studies. In D. D. Barron (Ed.), Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience (pp. 169–176). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

LeBaron, J., & McFadden, A. (2008). The brave new world of e-learning: A department’s response to mandated change. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(2), 143–156.

Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83–98.

Lewis, P. H., Fino, L. M., Hungar, J. Y., Wallace, W. H., & Welch, R. F. (1994). Campus based academies, institutes, and seminar or workshop series. New Directions for Higher Education, 87, 27–39.

Mellon, C. A., & Kester,D.D. (2004). Online library education programs: Implications for rural students. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(3), 210–220.

Montague, R., & Pluzhenskaia, M. (2007). Web-based information science education (WISE): Collaboration to explore and expand quality in online education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 36–51.

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C. D., Upchurch, R., Hartman, J., & Truman, B. (2006). Assessing online learning: What one university learned about student success, persistence, and satisfaction. Peer Review, 8(4), 26–29.

Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First Monday, 3(1). Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490

Pribesh, S., Dickinson, G. K., & Bucher, K. T. (2006). A comparison of online and face-to-face cohorts in a school library media specialist graduate program:A preliminary study. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(4), 303–323.

Reder, M. (2007). Does your college really support teaching and learning? Peer Review, 9(4), 9–13.

Shieh, D. (2009, February 10). Professors regard online instruction as less effective than classroom learning. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/free/2009/02/11232n.htm

Smith, G. G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2001, April 1). Teaching college courses online vs. face-to-face. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved January 08, 2009, from http://thejournal.com/articles/15358

Speck, B. W. (2000). The academy, online classes, and the breach in ethics: Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84 (Winter), 73–81.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A, Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.

Turner, P. M. (2003) What can we learn from automating the card catalog? Distributed learning at the University of North Texas. In D. D. Barron (Ed.), Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience (pp. 177–183). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Weiss, R. E., Knowlton, D. S., & Speck, B. (Eds.). (2000). Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

WISE; Web-based Information Science Education. Retrieved January 08, 2009, from http://wiseeducation.org

Woolls, B., & Loerscher, D. V. (2003). Distance education at San Jose State University. In D. D. Barron (Ed.), Benchmarks in distance education: The LIS experience (pp. 263–270). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Wright, A. (2005, January 26). From ivory tower to academic sweatshop. Retrieved January 6, 2009, from http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/01/26/distance_learning

Young, J. R. (2004, November 12). When good technology means bad teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education, p A31–A32.