Factors Influencing Faculty Satisfaction with Asynchronous Teaching and Learning in the SUNY Learning Network

Download PDF version:

Abstract
"...100% of faculty reported that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the SUNY Learning Network."
                                                            Spring 1999 SLN Faculty Satisfaction Survey

The State University of New York (SUNY) Learning Network (SLN) is the on-line instructional program created for the 64 colleges and nearly 400,000 students of SUNY. The foundation of the program is freedom from schedule and location constraints for our faculty and students. The primary goals of the SLN are to bring SUNY's diverse and high-quality instructional programs within the reach of learners everywhere, and to be the best provider of asynchronous instruction for learners in New York State and beyond. We believe that these goals cannot be achieved unless faculty receives appropriate support. This paper will examine factors that have contributed to the high level of faculty satisfaction we have achieved in the SLN. The analysis will be done on several levels. This first section will look at the SLN at a program-wide level and will provide information regarding the systemic implementation of our asynchronous learning environment.

The second section examines issues that contribute to on-line teaching satisfaction from a faculty- development and course-design perspective. This section will present the evolution of the four-stage faculty development process and a seven-step course design process that was developed by SLN and comment on lessons learned.

The third section presents results from the SLN Faculty Satisfaction Survey conducted in spring 1999. This section examines factors from a quantitative analysis that significantly contributes to faculty satisfaction with on-line teaching and offers recommendations for course and program design based on these factors.

The fourth section examines faculty satisfaction at the level of individual institutions with examples from specific courses. This section will introduce the reader to local implementation of SLN courses at two college programs in the SUNY system: the Department of Educational Theory and Practice at the University at Albany (UA), and the Internet Academy (IA) of Herkimer County Community College (HCCC). These case studies present and examine important evidence of faculty satisfaction from a single-institution and individual-faculty perspective.

I. INTRODUCTION

With generous support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation-combined with enthusiasm and resources from SUNY System Administration and participating campuses-the SLN has successfully met the challenges of the initial developmental phases that focused on proof of concept and expansion/scalability. The annual growth in courses, from eight in 1995-96 to 1,000 in 1999-2000, and annual growth in enrollment, from 119 in 1995-96 to more than 10,000 in 1999-2000, illustrates that the project has far exceeded the original projections.

The SLN started as a regional project in the Mid-Hudson Valley involving eight SUNY campuses. At that time, the development and delivery of asynchronous courses was a new activity for SUNY campuses and faculty. The first courses were offered in the 1995-96 academic year.

Successful experiences led to an expanded vision and goals for the SLN and the scope and objectives of the project have grown substantially. Whereas we originally developed courses at the third- and fourth-year levels-that were offered by two of our institutions, we are now offering courses at all undergraduate levels, as well as the graduate level, and 42 of our institutions are involved. Our initial developmental phase focused on proof of concept within the SUNY system. This was followed by a phase that focused on proof of scalability that achieved significant growth in course offerings and student enrollments. SUNY's efforts continue to evolve the SLN from a project status to a fully integrated virtual learning component responsive to the needs of learners in the new millennium. Ultimately, the SLN will represent the entire SUNY through the creation of one virtual campus that will be open seven days a week, 24 hours a day to students across the globe.

The SLN primary mission is to bring SUNY's high quality instructional programs within reach of learners anywhere. Another objective has been to take an efficient approach in supporting the SUNY campuses. Rather than each campus reinventing the wheel, SLN has developed and implemented the appropriate operational services and support yielding both cost savings as well as the sharing of experience from one campus to another.

SLN has traditionally assisted campuses in conducting individual course evaluations. Additionally, the SLN office conducted two program-level student surveys and one faculty survey during the 1998-99 academic year. The faculty study focused on appraising the satisfaction of faculty with SLN and determining what factors contribute to faculty satisfaction. The results of this survey are presented in this paper.

SLN strives to provide the appropriate high quality services and support to faculty so that they may provide a rich learning environment for their students and have high quality teaching experiences. SLN has taken a lot of pride in working with some of the outstanding SUNY faculty. The success of SLN is inextricably related to the number of faculty who emerge from the project as both competent and enthusiastic regarding asynchronous course delivery.

II. BACKGROUND

Prior to the SLN program, many SUNY campuses were starting to experiment with asynchronous components to complement their classroom-based courses. In addition, some SUNY campuses were taking regional approaches to utilizing synchronous two-way videoconference and some satellite broadcast forms of distance learning courses. SLN has been unique in SUNY in that it has been a unifying effort for all SUNY campuses to participate in the same single-system program for ALN.

SLN is not a replacement for the classroom-it is another choice for students and is, therefore, open to all students. Students who participate in SLN range in age from 16 to 70+. They are both traditional students as well as returning adults. Most students have not taken an on-line course before and report that they have average or high computer skills. Completion rates vary by course and faculty member, just as they do in classroom-based courses.

The majority of the faculty developing and teaching courses through SLN are the regular full-time SUNY faculty. The choice of faculty, including adjunct faculty, is purely a campus-based decision. Early in the development of the SLN program, faculty were provided incentives to participate. For the past year and in the future, this will be the exception. Many faculty were using some technology in their classrooms but many had never used technology at all.

The support that faculty receive comes from full-time professional staff at SLN. Some campuses are now starting to provide this directly to their own faculty. This support includes instructional design assistance, technical support, training, collaborative experiences, and printed and Web-based faculty materials. All of this is part of a structured, well-organized, four-stage faculty development process. This process will be outlined in greater detail in the next section.

The enrollments in the SLN continue to grow dramatically. In 1995-96 SLN had 119 enrollments. This grew to over 6,000 enrollments in 1998-99. We anticipate doubling every year for the next three years.

III. METHOD

The technical infrastructure for SLN has evolved over the past five years. When SLN started, there were no course-management systems-so we developed our own, utilizing the industry standard for collaborative computing, Lotus Notes. Since then we have enjoyed the advances of Lotus Domino and the ability to operate on multiple Intel based Windows NT servers at the same time-a tremendous advantage over other commercial packages. When a server goes down, all of the courses are on all of the other servers so students and faculty can continue in this teaching and learning experience. This infrastructure was developed, implemented, and operated by SLN for the first four years. During the past year another system-wide support center has begun to provide server management support while SLN maintains application and program management. SLN has built common applications and processes so that there is consistency for students from the different campuses. For example, students can use a single user name and password to gain access to all of the courses they are taking.

The delivery of SLN courses is through a Web browser so students enjoy text, graphics, and other media. SLN has tried to keep in mind the balance required by slower Internet access capabilities that our students might have. It is also important to note that our on-line courses do not require that every learning activity be Web-based. Faculty may utilize other software applications, simulations, videotapes, other non-computer-based media, and other non-technology-based activities. An example of such off-line activities might be a student observing a local kindergarten classroom for a Child Psychology and Development course.

Students participate as a cohort and start and end the course according to the calendar of the campus offering the course. Participation is asynchronous throughout the course but it is not self-paced. Most courses have very strong discussion components and faculty have placed a great deal of value in this area. Faculty have been very creative in developing and adjusting their approaches to student assessment. Many instructors have implemented on-line tests and quizzes but often this has been used for student self-assessment. There have not been any mandatory synchronous requirements in the courses. A few faculty have had optional real-time activities and certainly an on-campus student that wants to visit a professor during office hours would not be turned away.

In SLN, the faculty member is ultimately responsible for course development. Our initial experiences have led us to believe that the person teaching the course should also develop the course, so that they have a complete understanding of the course and how it functions. SLN, and now a few campuses, provide instructional design support for faculty. This assistance is part of a well-organized and structured faculty development process. There are face-to-face, hands-on training workshops, remote support, and technical support seven days a week through the SLN Help Desk, as well as print and Web-based resources.

Initially the program allocated some compensation from our Sloan grant to the campuses to provide to the faculty in addition to a laptop computer. This is the exception for some selected sponsored-degree programs and the majority of individual courses are handled by the local campus. Some campuses have instituted local approaches to faculty compensation that varies.

We have understood that there are two aspects to faculty persistence with ALN. We have many faculty who develop and teach courses and then go on in subsequent semesters to develop and teach other courses. We also have faculty who have developed and taught one or two courses who then continue to teach those one or two courses. Both aspects are important to the programs and both typically see continuous revisions and enhancements to the courses each semester. More detailed information on faculty persistence will be presented in the Results section.

LESSONS FROM FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

"...97.1% of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with their on-line teaching experience."
                                              Spring 1999 SLN Faculty Satisfaction Survey

I. INTRODUCTION

This section discusses the evolution of the SLN faculty development and course design methodology as well as the technology used and processes developed for these purposes. It will outline and demonstrate the sequential steps in the process developed by the SLN that have been used to support faculty to develop and deliver more than 400 unique, completely Internet-based courses from 42 different colleges in the SUNY system. We believe that this systematic approach is a significant factor in the high levels of on-line teaching satisfaction that we have achieved in our program.

II. BACKGROUND

Beginning in 1994, traditional faculty were hired to create on-line courses for asynchronous delivery into the home via computer. Each faculty member worked with an instructional design partner to implement the course. From fall 1995 through spring 1997, 40 courses were developed and delivered, and the instructional designers conducted interviews, made observations, and collected empirical data. Our objectives during this period were to identify best practices, synthesize scaleable and replicable processes, develop tools and resources, and implement production.

III. RATIONALE

With the intention of supporting faculty and course development on a large scale with relatively limited resources, a scaleable and replicable faculty development process was synthesized based on the research conducted by instructional designers. The results are a four-stage faculty development process and a seven-step course design process. Developed and piloted in February 1996, SLN faculty development and course design has been an iterative process. Though the original models remain essentially unchanged, each semester, working with an increasing number of "real" faculty and "real" students, our processes, resources, and support continue to evolve and improve. The SLN faculty development and course design processes are implemented through the SLN Instructional Design Team. The mission of the SLN Instructional Design Team is to help SUNY faculty create technically and instructionally robust learning environments in which to teach and learn.

This comprehensive approach now includes

• An on-line faculty resource and information gateway

• An asynchronous conference for all developers

• An asynchronous faculty orientation

• A series of workshops for new faculty

• Instructional design sessions for returning faculty

• A comprehensive step-by step course developer's handbook

• A course template

• A faculty help desk

• On-line mechanisms for faculty evaluation of SLN services

• An assigned instructional design partner to support faculty development and course design

A critical factor in our successes has been our ability to evaluate needs, conceptualize solutions, to implement these with active faculty and students, assess our success or failure, and to apply what we have learned as we begin this process again. For example, initially, wanting to model asynchronous instruction, we developed an on-line course to teach faculty how to develop an on-line course. This course was originally designed as a scaffolding mechanism for faculty through the course design phase between face-to-face trainings. Used for three semesters between 1995 and 1996, this course was evaluated by faculty and, based on their feedback, was divided into several of its component parts. It now consists of a printed how-to manual that follows our seven-step course design process, an on-line asynchronous conference for new and returning faculty that is moderated by an experienced faculty person, a on-line faculty orientation moderated by our Help Desk, and the SLN Faculty Center of on-line resources.

Structure of the Faculty Development and Course Design Program
The on-line faculty conference mirrors our four-stage faculty development process and consists of facilitated asynchronous discussion on issues of asynchronous teaching and learning. This forum provides opportunities for networking between faculty and disciplines. Within the on-line conference faculty can access links that take them to "live" SLN courses for observation (used with permission) that act as models. We recently implemented a separate, on-line asynchronous faculty orientation using the same template. This orientation is moderated by the Help Desk and is designed to introduce faculty to the on-line course environment and specifics of how students interact with the course materials.

Our development cycles are offered in a cohort model. Faculty developing courses for the fall term begin in March and for the spring term, in September. We now also have summer and winter terms, but allow only experienced instructors with repeat courses and provide limited support.

Figure 1: Faculty Development and Course Design Process

IV. METHOD

SLN program uses a GroupWare application call Lotus Notes in conjunction with a Domino server. A course template was designed and developed specifically for SLN using Lotus Notes and the Domino server technology. There were a number of significant factors that went into the decision in 1994 to choose this product. The nature of GroupWare in facilitating a collaborative working environment for network and remote users and the absence on the market of any other similar product was key. At the time, Lotus Notes was the only integrated product that offered remote use via replication. It also offered a WYSIWYG document creation and sharing. Ultimately, because Lotus Notes allowed relatively easy development and customization of applications and because it was a robust product supported by a reliable company we decided to adopt it as a platform for our template. We chose to develop the SLN course template because, at the time, there were no course-management products on the market such as LearningSpace or WebCT. Later, as we moved to the Domino server for the delivery of courses over the Web, the fact that faculty did not have to learn, understand or use HTML or other Web-page creation technologies, made the Domino technology ideal. We began with the premise that faculty should be able to focus primarily on teaching and students on learning; the technology must, therefore, be as transparent as possible. The relative simplicity of the SLN template for course development and a Web-browser interface for course delivery allowed faculty and students to focus on teaching and learning, not technology.

In addition, we have developed a number of custom database applications to support our administrative, faculty, and student services including

• A student gateway to prepare students for asynchronous on-line learning

• A Student Commons for accessing courses

• On-line (and printed) course catalogues

• An on-line faculty center

• An on-line faculty development conference

• Moderated faculty and student orientations

• Student and faculty help desk report tracking

• Student and faculty survey data collection

Students access and participate in SLN courses on the World Wide Web using a Web browser. Faculty work in two environments in our program:

• They develop and teach their courses using the SLN course template, a custom Lotus Notes application created by SLN for this purpose. The Lotus Notes/Domino server automatically translates the SLN course template documents into HTML code. Our internal E-mail system is also an important part of the way we communicate and work with faculty. Faculty work with local replicas of the server databases. The ability to work off-line is often cited by faculty as an advantage to our system.

• Faculty also use the Web to preview their course from the students' perspective as they develop their materials. Access to the Web is also necessary to access our many on-line resources.

A. The SLN Course Template
The SLN course template is designed to allow faculty to quickly and easily create and manage their courses. The template contains a number of documents, forms, and views to create courses. The template allows faculty to easily accomplish the following:

• Create an orientation and syllabus for their course.

• Manage on-line discussions, including private, small group discussions.

• Exchange private documents with students, e.g., a written assignment, essay, or test.

• Create multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes and tests with automatic grading.

• Create and organize their lecture notes and other course materials.

• Create a bibliography of resources, including hot-links to Web sites.

• Create hypertext linking to materials within their site, as well as to other Internet sites.

• Evaluate, track, and grade students' work.

• Make announcements.

• Create a course area where the instructor and students can get to know each other and chat about both course-related and non-course related topics.

The SLN course template is accessible to faculty on the Web during their course design process so that they can see how the course looks and functions from the Web. It comes with pre-designed Web navigation bars to help students navigate their course with ease. It also contains buttons so that students can ask questions and request technical help from any page in their course. Faculty are asked to complete a faculty orientation, which is an on-line course moderated by the SLN Help Desk. This course uses the SLN template and orients faculty to how their course will function from the students' perspective.

B. The Faculty Development Process
The SLN faculty development process is delivered to a cohort of faculty that has prescribed start and end dates that directly precede the term targeted for delivery of the course. A full cycle for a new faculty person consists of a development and delivery cycle. All faculty must go through the faculty development process to participate in the program.
To participate in the program, the instructor's campus must be a participating institution in the SLN program, and have officially proposed the course for development for a specific term. We also suggest that faculty meet the following guidelines.

New faculty should have the following attributes:

• At least basic computer skills

• A willingness to adapt their teaching style to the networked/asynchronous environment

• Availability to participate in the SLN faculty development and course design program that includes: participation in an on-line conference, observation of live on-line courses, attending three, day-long training sessions scheduled throughout the development cycle at various locations around the state, and working closely with an instructional design partner

• Time to fully develop and create their entire on-line course prior to the first day of class

As course development can be time-consuming, we recommend that faculty select a course that they have previously taught rather than develop a new one. It is SLN policy that faculty new to the SLN program develop a single course their first time through the SLN faculty development and course design process.

In our experiences, faculty who have been most successful are those who have a passion for teaching, are willing to rethink how they teach and assess learning, are committed and have the time to develop the course completely prior to the first day of the term, and have institutional support for their on-line teaching endeavors. It is important to note that our program targets participation of mainstream faculty, not the technology-early adopter. It is the comprehensiveness of our support and the robustness of our technology that enable us to have our high levels of success with mainstream faculty and that contribute to the richness of our growing community of on-line instructors and course offerings. Some of our finest instructors would never have made the cut had there been technology proficiency requirements for participation in the program. We have been successful in making the technology as transparent as possible so much so that faculty (and students) do not need to know how it works.

1. Stage One: Get Connected and On-line
All new faculty begin together by reviewing our on-line course-developers gateway and resources including

• Links to journal articles and papers regarding on-line teaching and learning

• Recommended guidelines for course development for planning purposes

• Information about the resources, support and services offered to new faculty

• Access to the All Faculty Conference

The purposes of stage one are to get the faculty on-line as soon as possible, so that technology and access issues are addressed right away. It also serves to familiarize the faculty with the program, the components of the faculty development process, and with our Web resources for new faculty. Stage one also begins the reflection period for faculty where they can begin to think about teaching and learning on-line in general and about things specific to their discipline and course. From the Developer Gateway, they are instructed to participate in the on-line All Faculty Conference. This is a facilitated asynchronous resource for all SLN faculty in which they can meet colleagues who are currently developing or preparing to re-teach. An SLN veteran course developer facilitates the conference that includes a faculty lounge/bulletin board area where faculty can chat asynchronously with other faculty. Other highlights of the conference include private small group areas that can be used by the instructional designers with the assigned group of faculty they support, Web links to a variety of Internet resources relevant to teaching and learning on-line, and live, model SLN courses for observation.

The conference has a variety of objectives:

• Provides opportunity to network with new and experienced faculty.

• Introduces new developers to the SLN Web-course interface.

• Models the role of "student."

• Models effective instructional/course design and moderation of asynchronous discussion.

• Provides an opportunity to participate in asynchronous discussion as students do.

2. Stage Two: Conceptualize the Course
Stage two is the conceptualization stage in the faculty development process. Faculty continue to participate in the All Faculty Conference and the emphasis is on course design issues. Faculty focus on student expectations, how students will interact and navigate the course materials, the need for consistency, redundancy, explicitness in design and instructions, designing learning activities, and completing the structure of the course prior to teaching it.

The most important component is the observation of live on-line courses. Course observation is essential for new faculty for a variety of reasons. It allows new faculty to see what a complete course looks like. Through observation, new faculty see how a variety of courses are structured and how each course is unique and defined by the content area and instructor in spite of the use of a template. They also learn about the wide variety of on-line and off-line learning activities that make up a wide range of courses and how courses are organized into modules. Finally they are introduced to different methods of evaluation as different instructors carry them out and witness how a course grows and unfolds with the participation of active students.

Courses for observation are selected as model courses. For the fall 1999 cycle, 18 courses were selected to show a variety of disciplines and approaches to course design. Undergraduate and graduate courses from a mix of SUNY institutions were represented. Among the criteria for selection were

Effective Instructional Design: Complete and explicit orientation and syllabus area; consistent module structure; explicit, consistent, and redundant instructional cues for students; well-named modules, sections, and documents in the course that convey content or instructional information to the student; clear overviews and expectations for every learning activity; completeness of course

Effective Teaching Strategies: Timely responses from the instructor; built-in opportunities for interaction with the instructor and other students

• Effective use of technology or the Internet

• Effective collaborative learning activities: discussion; small group activities

• Effective off-line activities

• Innovative "work-arounds" for common problems, ex. science labs or testing

• Model use of any of the features of the course template

• Various and effective approaches to the structure of the learning materials and activities: by topic, by chapter, by steps in a process, by metaphor

• Personality of the instructor

3. Stage Three: Develop the Course
Stage three marks the beginning of the seven-step course design process and begins with the first of three, face-to-face trainings for new faculty. At the first workshop, faculty are given user names and passwords to our system, and introduced to the course development GroupWare application used by the program including our course template and our E-mail system. In addition, they are given an individualized course template, our course developer handbook, and assigned an instructional-design partner. Faculty are asked to bring their syllabi to the training. The first and third trainings are scripted and led by a veteran course developer. We have found that new faculty respond very well to these workshops led by experienced peers. We suspect that a peer instructor who can speak from experience adds elements of trust and the voice of first hand knowledge to the experience.

The objective of the first training is for each new developer to create the main modular structure of his/her course in an individual template to take with them when they leave. We call it chunking their course. Specifics about the program support and services are reviewed and their next steps are outlined. Though benchmarked by the series of three face-to-face trainings with faculty (each now conducted in five locations regionally to accommodate the numbers of faculty being trained), the course-design process is proactively facilitated by the instructional designer according to specific program guidelines and milestones.

During stage three, faculty continue to have access to the All Faculty Conference and the courses for observation. In addition, they are given access to the SLN Faculty Center, a password-protected Website that builds a personalized Web homepage for each faculty person including links to

• Send and receive personal SLN and Internet E-mail

• The SLN Faculty Help Desk

• Get and submit information such as submitting course descriptions and materials order information.

• Download the SLN course template database

• Check SLN program announcements.

• The All Faculty Conference, including live courses for observation, a sample course, and a best practices examples area

• Access link to the individual's course on the Web

The second face-to-face training generally takes place about a month after the first training. This provides time for the faculty to begin working in their template. The Instructional Design Intensive brings the faculty back together to discuss issues in the development of on-line courses and is devised to address the instructor's specific questions related to the creation of learning activities. There is a roundtable component of the workshop to identify and brainstorm issues and solutions and a hands-on portion to demonstrate or implement solutions that emerge from the discussion. Tips, recommendation, guidelines, suggestions, and checklists are collected from the participants and existing information is disseminated. Milestones and next steps are outlined as well as programmatic issues so that faculty continues to understand and feel part of the program.

The remainder of stage three involves the faculty working on the design and development of their course. The role of the Multimedia Instructional Designer (MID) in this stage is to help the faculty develop technically and instructionally robust teaching and learning environments that are appropriate to the instructor's style of instruction, content area, level of the students, and technology being used. Faculty work closely with the MID and endeavor to complete the development of the course prior to the final face-to-face training. Using a series of checklists, the MID conducts an instructional design and technical review of the course to insure its readiness for delivery. The objective of stage three is to complete the course development steps so that during the delivery phase faculty can concentrate on students and teaching the course and not on developing components of the course or dealing with issues of design and technology.

a. The Seven-Step Course Design Process
Faculty use these steps to guide their course development beginning in stage three of the faculty development process. These steps are followed and supported by all our resources and services including the course developer handbook, the trainings, MID procedures and guidelines, and throughout the SLN Faculty Center of on-line resources. We believe that our ability to achieve consistent, successful results with faculty is due to the comprehensive structure and integrated nature of our process, resources, support and services for faculty.

b. The Multimedia Instructional Design Partner (MID)
The MID is the fulcrum of the SLN course design process, acting not as a collaborator in the design of the course nor in a clerical support capacity, but as a guide to the faculty. The MID's role, though part editor, part technical support, is primarily as an expert in instructional design and on-line teaching and learning. They are also experts on templates and technology and can guide the faculty to the most effective and efficient ways to achieve their instructional objectives. All MIDs are given an orientation to the program and trained in our technology and the SLN faculty development and course-design process. They observe courses, complete an on-line orientation, participate in course-design reviews, review and familiarize themselves with our guidelines, tips, recommendations, and our course developer handbook. They are also encouraged to take an on-line course, given a practice template and encouraged to develop an SLN course. They become members of the program's instructional design team and participate actively in bi-weekly meetings. As part of the training, new MIDs carry a reduced load of faculty, partner with the lead instructional designer for support, and assume progressively responsible roles at the faculty trainings.

The relationship with faculty is a delicate and negotiated role that, in addition to technical and instructional design expertise, requires diplomacy and high-level interpersonal skills. We have learned that graduate assistants, experienced faculty, and staff may have pre-existing relationships and roles on campus that can inhibit carrying out the role of the MID successfully.

Currently, the SLN instructional design team consists of four full-time MIDs and six campus-based MIDs. The development of the campus-based MID model grew out of a combination of reasons that included, limited program resources to add staff and growing numbers of faculty on individual campuses. The programmatic shift from scaling the project to institutionalizing and sustaining the program added logical rationale to a move in this direction. Building a locally available campus resource facilitates campus ownership and investment in the end makes access for faculty convenient. Campus-based MIDs are trained by the SLN program and function as members of the SLN instructional design team.

The MID functions as a single point of contact between the instructor and the program. The MID team is kept up to date on the latest programmatic information, procedural changes, technology or instructional design issues, and provides a forum for designers to share information and tips, and the opportunity to brainstorm and problem-solve solutions to design and technology issues with each other. Working closely with the faculty and having the SLN instructional design team to rely on puts the MIDs in an advantageous position to share information, strategies, and solutions with their cohort of assigned faculty and with each other. The instructional design (ID) team uses a common GroupWare database to post questions, document common issues and solutions, disseminate documentation and share information between meetings. The ID team is geographically dispersed across the state and communicates and shares information asynchronously. Each MID is assigned a maximum of 30 to 40 new faculty to support per term and is responsible for follow-through on the development of their assigned faculty as on-line instructors and the course design process according to programmatic guidelines and schedules. The MIDs participate in the training sessions for their regional locations.

The comprehensiveness of our processes, resources, support, and services facilitates the MIDs in their pivotal role and allows them to do their jobs in a well-documented, organized manner. The unique role of the MID in the SLN program is a distinguishing factor in our faculty development and course design processes and we believe, based on our high degrees of satisfaction with both faculty and students, critical to our successes in both faculty development and course design.
 
4. Stage Four: Pilot the Course
Stage four of the SLN Faculty Development Process begins with the third face-to-face training. The Teaching and Managing Your Course workshop marks the transition for faculty from the course development to the delivery. This training prepares them for students entering their course. Program staff explain to faculty how students access the system and access their course and discuss any questions faculty may have. A roundtable discussion with veteran faculty caps the development cycle at this training. This roundtable provides an opportunity for new faculty to meet and talk with experienced faculty, to ask questions, and for our experienced faculty to share what they know and what to expect with new faculty.

Stage four is the pilot-your-course stage. The MID closely monitors new faculty and their new courses during the first three to four weeks of the semester. Weekly check-ins, telephone, and E-mail communications and intervention, when necessary, take place behind the scenes. Faculty are asked to take notes on what is working and what needs improvement as they teach the course to make evaluations and revisions easier the next time they teach the course.

Stage four ends with an on-line survey to assess faculty satisfaction and to help us learn more about teaching and learning on-line and to help us improve our services, support, and resources for faculty.

IV. CONCLUSION

Faculty performance is not assessed at the SLN program level. SLN does not have academic oversight over courses nor is it in a position to evaluate the instructors or their courses. Campuses deal with these issues on an individual basis, most often in the ways traditional courses and faculty are evaluated. The program does, however, have a formal instructional design review process conducted at the end of the course design process and conducted by the assigned instructional design partners. With a series of checklists available both to the instructors and the MIDs, the MIDs conduct the ID review to "pre-flight" the course in anticipation of the first day of class. A formal review report is written and given to the instructor and any recommended revisions are discussed with the instructor and implemented. The ID team marks success by faculty who want to teach again and do, by those that continue to develop new courses, and by those that recommend teaching in the program and by this method to colleagues.

A. SLN Best Practices

• Good on-line instructional practices are independent of software.

• Just because you can does not mean you should.

• A well-designed course creatively leverages the options and recognizes the limitations of the on-line learning environment.

• Assume nothing.

• If you do something and it does not work (or it breaks something), do not do it again.

• Just because a course is on-line does not mean it all has to be on-line.

• Asynchronous distance learning does not mean self-paced.

• First make it work and then make it pretty.

B. Specific SLN Best Practices

• Create opportunities for interaction with students and between students.

• Create/use activities that build a sense of class community.

• Think literal.

• Talk; do not write.

• Use the structure of the course to convey information about the course, content, task.

• Provide explicit instructions cues and signposts for students.

• Be flexibly firm.

• Be consistent, redundant, and complete in the structure and creation of your course.

C. Comprehensive Support to Develop Effective On-line Faculty

• Faculty-driven course design or pedagogy must not be imposed by the course management application or the instructional designer.

• Faculty must develop the course themselves.

• Opportunities for reflection, evaluation, and revision.

• Opportunities for participation in on-line courses or discussion.

• Observation of live on-line courses.

• Access to experienced faculty, opportunities for interdisciplinary networking, peer Support/training.

• Individual instructional design support and technical support.

• Reliable stable network and technology.

• Template that makes technology transparent.

• Collecting and sharing best practices.

• Resources and support in a variety of media.

D. Some of Our Current Challenges

Enhancing support and services for our returning faculty, now the majority. Providing the next level instructional design support, evaluation and revision, and providing opportunities for discipline-specific networking and best practices.

• Training faculty at a distance.

• Out-of-term development.

• Training faculty to deliver courses that they did not develop.

• Campus-based MIDs: Transferring our models and processes to the campus. Loosing control of the faculty development process and influence on course design.

We have now gone beyond our initial questions of what works. Will it scale? And how do we institutionalize and sustain this program? Our questions now include what specific elements of instructional or course design are most effective? What specific on-line teaching strategies are most effective? Does teaching on-line affect/change/improve how you teach in the classroom? Can our processes, models, and generic resources be successfully implemented by individual faculty, departments, or campuses outside the context of the SLN program? As we continue to grow and evolve we will continue to learn from our faculty and share with them what we learn.

Successful, satisfied on-line instructors have effective course designs and effective teaching practices. SLN has been able to achieve high levels of faculty satisfaction efficiently and consistently on a large scale with a comprehensive approach to the support of SUNY faculty, their development as on-line instructors, and effective support and attention to the instructional design of their on-line courses. Specific data is presented in the next section.

THE SPRING 1999 SLN FACULTY SATISFACTION SURVEY

I. RESULTS

In spring 1999, faculty teaching courses in the SLN completed a survey that may be useful in understanding questions related to faculty satisfaction in asynchronous on-line instruction. So far, 105 instructors have completed the survey, approximately 40% of faculty for the spring 1999 semester. The factors that significantly contribute to faculty satisfaction in the teaching of their courses are student performance, level of student interaction in the course, reason for choosing to teach on-line, satisfaction with the SLN, a positive perception of the effects of the technology, low levels of technical difficulties, and how well the faculty got to know their students.

A. Student Performance
When asked to rate their students' performance in the on-line classroom relative to the traditional classroom, approximately 45% of the respondents felt that their on-line students performed better than their classroom students did. About 44% felt there was no difference in the performance and only 8.6% felt that their classroom students performed better.

Note: Ratings are based on a Likert scale of 1-4. 1= a very high level of satisfaction, 4 = a very low level of satisfaction.

Student Performance

	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
On-line performed better	47	44.8	44.8	44.8
No difference	46	43.8	43.8	88.6
Classroom performed better	9	8.6	8.6	97.1
I did not teach in class	3	2.9	2.9	100.0
Total	105	100.0	100.0

When the faculty's assessments of their students' performance are compared to their level of satisfaction with their on-line teaching experience, perhaps not surprisingly, those who felt that their on-line students did better also felt significantly more satisfied with on-line teaching.

Satisfaction with Teaching X Student Performance
Satisfaction with Teaching

ANOVA Table
Satisfaction with Teaching

B. Interaction with Students
The survey also asked the faculty to rate the level of interaction between students in their on-line classes relative to students in the traditional classroom. Approximately 48% felt that the level of interaction between their on-line students was Higher or Much Higher than that of their classroom students. Two-thirds of the respondents felt that there was at least no difference. Approximately one-third felt that the level of interaction was lower for their on-line student that for classroom students.

Student Interaction

When faculty ratings for student interaction are compared to their level of satisfaction with their on-line teaching experience, those who rated their students level of interaction as higher or much higher were significantly more satisfied with the experience than those who felt it was much lower.

Satisfaction with Teaching X Student Interaction
Satisfaction with Teaching

ANOVA Table
Satisfaction with Teaching

C. Reasons for Teaching an On-line Course
Faculty were also asked why they chose to teach an on-line course. The most common responses were "an interest in on-line teaching and learning" and an "interest in technology and the internet" which accounted for nearly 70% of responses. Less than 2% of respondents felt that they wanted to or needed to telecommute and less than 3% chose to teach due to fear of being left behind.

Why On-line?

When responses for motivation for on-line teaching are compared to satisfaction with the experience the results indicate that those whose motivation was an interest in the Internet or on-line teaching rated their satisfaction as higher than those whose motivation was that the course was only offered on-line, fear of being left behind, marketability of skills, research, curiosity, or other.

Satisfaction with teaching X Why did you want to teach on-line?
Satisfaction with Teaching

ANOVA Table
Satisfaction with Teaching

D. Satisfaction with SLN Program
The faculty were also asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the SLN. Of the 105 respondents, 73 rated their satisfaction level as a great deal. Another 32 said they were satisfied. There were no faculty who responded either not very satisfied or not satisfied at all.

On-line Satisfaction

When respondents satisfaction level with the SLN program are compared to their satisfaction level for on-line teaching, those who rated their satisfaction level with SLN as a great deal were significantly more satisfied with their teaching experience than those who rated their satisfaction with SLN as merely satisfied.

Satisfaction with Teaching X Satisfaction with SLN
Satisfaction with Teaching

ANOVA Table
Satisfaction with Teaching

E. Effects of the Technology
Respondents to the survey were also asked how they felt about the effects of the technology used in teaching an on-line course. When asked to what extent they agreed with the statement, "Overall, I think the technology had a positive effect on my teaching", approximately 91% agreed, with approximately 42%
feeling they agreed strongly and another 50% stating that they agreed.

Effect of the Technology Positive

When faculty ratings for the effects of the technology are compared to their level of satisfaction with on-line teaching, those who felt that they agreed strongly were significantly more satisfied with teaching than either those who merely agreed or those who disagreed. Also, those who agreed were significantly more satisfied than those who disagreed.

Satisfaction with On-line Teaching by Effects of the Technology
Satisfaction with Teaching

ANOVA Table
Satisfaction with Teaching

F. Technical Difficulties
Faculty were also asked how technical difficulties affected their teaching. Approximately 51% felt that technical difficulties did not affect their teaching at all. Among these instructors, 27% felt that they had had no technical difficulties and another 24% felt that although they had some technical difficulties, these did not affect their teaching. Another 16% felt that, although technical difficulties had affected their teaching, these difficulties were no greater than those experienced with classroom teaching. Approximately 31% felt that technical difficulties made their teaching experience somewhat more difficult and another 2% felt that such difficulties made their teaching experience much more difficult.

Technical Difficulties

When ratings for the effects of technical difficulties are compared to on-line teaching satisfaction, those who felt that technical difficulties had not affected their teaching are compared to those who felt it had, the former are significantly more satisfied than the latter.

Report
Satisfaction with Teaching

ANOVA Table
Satisfaction with Teaching

G. Knowledge of Students
Faculty were also asked to rate how well they knew their on-line students relative to their classroom students. Approximately 64% felt that their was at least no difference with 7% responding that they knew their on-line students much better another 33% stating they knew them better and 24% feeling they knew them the same. Approximately 35% felt they did not know their on-line students as well and another 1% felt that they did not know them at all.

Know Students