In an age wherein online education opportunities are expanding rapidly, accreditors have begun to search for consistency and predictability in online offerings within college programs. Such consistency may require elements of standardization, a feature traditionally viewed as a threat to academic freedom. This presentation explores modes of standardization that do not threaten faculty freedoms.
Context
Colleges and universities incorporate online education using a variety of approaches. For some, there is little oversight applied to course design; faculty members enjoy free reign to engineer course structure as they wish within a college’s learning management system. At other institutions, instructors manage pre-written courses and serve only to grade assignments and answer student questions.
At institutions in which there is little oversight on design, academic freedom reigns supreme. Instructors may independently design and organize their respective online courses. This may be characterized as a “faculty-centered“ approach, from which stem at least two concerns:
1) Professional development programs are typically used to share best practices in online instruction. A survey of 432 college faculty members suggests that 26% of faculty have not attended any professional development courses, and 40% are uncertain or unlikely to attend future development opportunities [1]. Lack of time and lack of financial incentive are persistent barriers to participation in faculty development programs [2,3, 4].
2) In the absence of consistency in course design, students must learn new learning protocols and navigation styles upon entry to each course within an institution.
At the other end of the spectrum, institutions that hire instructors to lead pre-written courses offer little academic freedom. While pre-written courses may be designed to promote a student-centered environment in which navigational approaches are familiar, they do so while restricting the editorial academic freedoms of faculty members.
Administrators are therefore faced with a formidable challenge: finding a sustainable balance between student-centered standardization and academic freedom.
Balance & Accreditation
The importance of academic freedom within an institution is classically tied to the freedom of speech provision in the Bill of Rights. Such freedom is important to individual faculty members, and it is also important for institutional accreditation. Across the board, accreditation of colleges and universities is predicated upon the preservation of academic freedom [5].
However, in an age wherein online education opportunities are expanding rapidly, accreditors have begun to search for consistency and predictability in online classrooms within a college program. Accreditors have adopted a pronounced emphasis on a student-centered approach to course design, rather than on a faculty-centered approach. For example, The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, a partnership that comprises the major accreditors for over 3000 colleges in the United States, has published an inter-regional list of guidelines for online education [6]. The guidelines suggest that consistency of student experience is valued as a measure of program quality, as curricula for online offerings within an institution must demonstrate a “coherent” and “cohesive” relationship with traditional classrooms. The guidelines also require that online classrooms are the subjects of internal reviews, and that online classrooms must adhere to best practices, which include disclosures of university policies, systems of accommodation, and support mechanisms, all of which may be unique in the online environment.
Because terms such as “coherent” and “cohesive” can be subjectively assessed, colleges and universities may be caught underprepared for the expectations of review teams. This is of particular concern when accreditation assessments are made through a process of peer review. The practice of peer review itself has been under fire for its inconsistencies and reliability [7], and when applied as a means to assess a field that is rapidly evolving (online education), the process becomes even more unpredictable.
The 2017 observations of the Higher Learning Commission, a regional accreditor, provide insight into the accreditation outcomes of a wholly faculty-centered approach. It denied approval of online programs for Scottsdale Community College [8]. The assessment documentation cited lapses in faculty participation in elective online training, inconsistencies in course navigation, and decentralized, uncoordinated mechanisms for course reviews and oversight. The peer review team’s recommendations included student-centered standardization and consistency across the college’s academic online offerings.
Methods
Colleges must therefore navigate a path that ensures both academic freedom and a student-centered standardization in approach as sought by accreditors. Of course, standardization has long been a taboo term in education communities. Typically, it denotes a pre-established curriculum and coursework. Limited standardization, however, can be a boon to both student and faculty communities. A learner in a traditional classroom knows to read the syllabus, come to class, and follow the professor’s instructions. When learners enter an online classroom, it may not be evident how to find the syllabus, or the professor, or the instructions. Standardization in course design within a program can effectively address these variables, without affecting an instructor’s academic freedom. Course design templates, selected elements of content, and grading rubrics may all be standardized without meaningful losses in academic freedom.
Course templates are tools that promote consistency without infringing on academic freedom. A template may designate standard denotations and locations for posting a syllabus, collecting assignments, posting a calendar, contact information, and nomenclature for sections of the course. While the instructor retains control of course content, adhering to consistency in course design fosters student success in navigation as they begin each new course within a program. Research indicates that professors who use standard course templates observe a decrease in student confusion, and appreciate a framework that allows instructors more time to be “creative” with content [9].
It may be counterintuitive to suggest that some elements of content may also be standardized without adversely affecting academic freedom. However, faculty syllabi traditionally contain standardized language to cover institutionally required disclosures. The inclusion of such language has been widely accepted by faculty communities. As online courses require specialized information about protocols, services, and policies, the availability of such pre-written content for reproduction within the course itself would be a boon to teaching faculty. Few would argue that academic freedom requires the ability to compose postings of college policies on help services, professor points of contact, or online accommodation.
Further, online faculty and students may benefit from elements of standardization within grading rubrics for assignments. Standardization promotes consistency in grading practices, which in turn supports student learning. Moreover, standardized grading rubrics that are customizable by instructors to meet the needs of an assignment can preserve palatable levels of academic freedom [10].
Results
Anecdotally, within an online program that transitioned towards increased predictability and student-centered elements of standardization, faculty turnover rates were no higher than the rates in face-to-face programs, indicating comparable faculty satisfaction with the level of academic freedom. Moreover, in a survey conducted with the permission of the internal review board, all faculty members within the online program who underwent audits and revisions to align their courses with quality control standards indicated that the process was “helpful”, with responses ranging from “somewhat helpful” (9%) to “very helpful” (28%).
Concluding Recommendations
Online education evolves at a faster pace than the traditional classroom. As such, both institutions and faculty have grown agile at managing change. As online education continues to change and expand, the expectations of accreditation teams also change to ensure that institutions meet the needs of the students they serve. Evidence suggests that accreditors seek consistency in online courses within a program. Standardized tools such as course templates, disclosures regarding online course policies, and grading rubrics can help institutions demonstrate consistency and quality while preserving faculty academic freedom in course content.
*A version of this proposal has been submitted for publication. The proposed presentation includes extensive descriptions of standardized elements (rubrics, content, and design). These elements would not be shared outside of OLC.
References
[1] Jessica Pesce. 2015. Professional development for teaching in higher education: Faculty perceptions and attitudes. Boston College University Libraries. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:104134
[2] Kristin Betts. 2014. Factors influencing faculty participation & retention in online & blended education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring171/betts171.html
[3] Elizabeth Ann Mascher. 2016. Factors Influencing Participation in Professional Development to Promote Online Course Excellence and the Impact on Faculty Confidence and Teaching. Dissertation. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3165&context=etd
[4] Yvonne Steinert, Peter McLeod, Miriam Boillat, Sarcas Meterissian, Michelle Elizov, and Mary MacDonald. 2009. Faculty development: A “Field of Dreams”? Medical Education 43, 1, 46-54 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03246.x
[5] American Association of University Professors. Regional accreditation standards concerning academic freedom and the faculty role in governance. Retrieved from
[6] Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. 2011. Interregional guidelines for the evaluation of distance education. Retrieved from http://www.nc-sara.org/files/docs/C-RAC%20Guidelines.pdf
[7] A. Alacbay. (2016). Accreditation dysfunction. American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Retrieved from https://www.goacta.org/the_forum/accreditation_dysfunction
[8] Higher Learning Commission. (2017). Embedded Change Report: Substantive Change Recommendation Form. Retrieved from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4042790-Maricopa-CC-Scottsdale-CC-Embedded-Change-Visit-1.html
[9] Vance Burgess, Karen Barth, and Cindy Mersereau. 2008. Quality online instruction -a template for consistent and effective online course design. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved from https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/quality-...–-template-consistent-and-effective-online-course-des
[10] Miriam Abbott and Peggy Shaw. Publication forthcoming. Concordance within an RN to BSN program: Standardized writing assessment rubrics. Nursing Education Perspectives.