Online teaching: Implications for institutional and academic staff development Romana Pospisil and Lesley Willcoxson Teaching and Learning Centre Murdoch University

With the advent of online teaching new issues and requirements have surfaced for institutional and academic staff development. Some requirements are highly visible and obvious to all, such as the need for more IT training and awareness, however there are other less obvious issues and needs that may hold the key to success in an online teaching environment.

Strategic decisions need to be made by universities to address the key issues such as the commitment to full or partial online delivery of courses, together with a commitment to the provision of support infrastructures and assistance for staff. Once these decisions have been made staff development can then be targeted to the key areas of need. In this paper we propose the existence of three models of institutional development for online delivery. For each model we identify the infrastructure profile and compare the staff development issues. The negative and positive aspects of each model are summarised. Assuming the existence of these three models we then identify the key elements of a universal staff development strategy for the planning of efficient and effective academic staff development matched to the needs of the university and academic staff in the online age.

Much has been written on teaching online, the pros and cons of online delivery and on how to go about putting courses online. Specific issues addressed have been the general outcomes of online teaching and effective use of educational technology (Laurillard, 1993; Alexander, 1995; Harasim et al, 1995; Kearsley et al, 1995), discipline based examples of teaching strategies (Arnold, 1997), software and design issues (Collis, 1996) and the policies and development strategies in institutions (Ivanoff and Clarke, 1996).

Online teaching is now being promoted as the teaching mode of the future. Harasim (1995:271) refers to online teaching - 'learning networks'- as 'a new form of education, creating a paradigm shift: a change to a new model and set of expectations and rules for how to function successfully within a new learning environment'. Learning about this new learning environment, the new technologies and how to successfully negotiate the problems that arise has now become a necessity for those many university lecturers who are suddenly, enthusiastically or reluctantly, facing the prospect of teaching online.

In some universities the development of online learning materials has been under way for many years, starting with the use of networks for communication through to delivery of full courses online (Harasim et al, 1995, Kearsley et al, 1995). For other universities the revolution in course delivery is just beginning and the issues that were identified by the pioneers in web delivery as worthy of researching are now becoming everyday issues requiring urgent attention. For example, Kearsley et al (1995) identified the need to address issues relating to the financing of courses, integration of these into the administrative structure of the university and the need for staff development for effective online delivery. This list of issues is now expanding to include access and equity, student support, curriculum development, delivery support, online assessment and assignment management, copyright and intellectual property, graphical design issues, website design and management and many others (Ivanoff and Clarke, 1996; Jones and Buchanan, 1996; Debreceny and Ellis, 1996; Atkinson, 1997, Rice, 1997), forming a seemingly endless list with more issues than an individual can hope to deal with.

In the face of such increasing complexity, universities are being confronted with the need to decide upon strategies for developing online teaching/ learning materials and delivery processes. Some universities - for example Swinburne University of Technology (Pilgrim & Creek, 1997) - have opted for a controlled approach to development, concentrating their efforts on developing a small number of high quality programmes for online delivery while maintaining face-to-face teaching as the primary mode of delivery. Although this type of controlled approach permits (subject to resource availability) the rapid conversion of part or all of a university's teaching delivery mode, it can alternatively promote incremental change in an institution's delivery patterns (Deden, 1998).

At other institutions, such as at Murdoch University, control over development is more dispersed, with central bodies coordinating and guiding some online development while the remainder is driven and undertaken by individuals and within schools. At yet other universities little or no control is exercised over the processes or direction of development, and individuals or departments remain essentially free to pursue and direct online development as they see fit.

In this paper we examine and relate some of these diverse approaches to online development. We propose the existence of three models of institutional development for online teaching and compare these on the basis of infrastructure requirements and staff development issues, as well as the contrasting negative and positive aspects of each model of institutional development. Following this comparison we discuss the staff development needs associated with each model and propose strategies for dealing with these.

Three models of institutional development for online teaching

• Anarchic Development: where the individual's interest and capacity with educational technology determines what online development occurs (i.e. the institution sets no strategic priorities)

• Negotiated Development: where individual or small group interests significantly influence or determine institutional strategic priorities and the choice of instructional design models, and

• Controlled Development: where strategic priorities are determined at a high level in the institution, and central control is exercised over development resources and instructional design models.

Table 1 describes the key features of the three models of institutional development for online teaching.

Anarchic development Individual determines online development activities and outcomes	Negotiated development Individual or small group interests significantly influence the institution's strategic priorities and also instructional design	Controlled development Institution sets priorities and chooses models of instructional design
Infrastructure profile Centralised and perhaps local financial resourcing of online course development is kept to a minimum No large scale university investment in infrastructure such as labs, modem pools, help facilities, training for students etc necessary Online development by interested individual academic staff Specialist online development staff can be employed only if funds are available and usually on a project by project basis	Infrastructure profile Parallel centralised and local resourcing may lead to duplication or inefficient use of resources Need for some university investment in infrastructure but degree of freedom permits local infrastructure development according to needs, if funding available Online development funded by faculties often on an ad hoc basis. Alternatively, a team of centrally funded specialist staff may be engaged by individuals or small groups to work on projects as need arises and resourcing permits.	Infrastructure profile Costly centralised resourcing of online course development, but economies of scale possible Significant university investment in infrastructure required including strategies for ensuring students have access to appropriate software and hardware off campus and on campus A team of centrally funded specialist staff employed to coordinate and assist in the development of materials using standard instructional design models or processes
Staff development issues Little central awareness of what people are doing and therefore of what the staff development needs are Staff development needs may be so diverse that it is impossible to cater for all or only a small minority are catered for in any depth. Few staff development and course design specialists need be employed. Tendency to offer generic teaching and learning and IT workshops and hope that this meets needs	Staff development issues Greater awareness of staff development needs facilitates targeting of activities Staff development and course design support tends to be given to enthusiastic individuals or groups. Rational and strategic planning of development activities may be difficult. A significant number of staff development and course design specialists must be employed if needs are to be met as they arise.	Staff development issues Staff development activities can be clearly targeted to meet institutional and individual needs A team of specialist staff development and course design specialists must be employed to further the development of online courses to the standards set by the university
Pros & cons: Anarchic development model + Unrestricted development potential that allows individuals to capitalise on their interests and expertise - Most staff are likely to have no involvement whatsoever in online teaching - Capacity to offer online courses determined by availability of local infrastructure such as labs etc. or students' personal ownership of PCs and software + Infrastructure generally provided locally and can be driven by needs of individuals doing the development - considerable frustration where resources are not adequate to meet needs of individual developers - For students there may appear to be little consistency in instructional design throughout a degree programme - No assistance for students to develop necessary computer skills and no hardware and software support + Staff development and support needs can be seen as minimal or best met by centralised workshops or external providers and therefore costs to the institution can be minimised.	Pros & cons: Negotiated development model + Availability of support may encourage fringe dwellers to join the online development community + Availability of support for educationally-sound online teaching development may encourage staff to further their understanding and range of teaching strategies + Capacity to offer online courses is increased by availability of central resources such as labs - Due to dispersed funding and responsibility, infrastructure may be inadequate to meet demand created by senior management's encouragement to put courses online - Enthusiasm generated for online teaching may be dulled by the gap between expected and provided resources in areas such as time release for development, support staff to put courses online etc. + Students are likely to experience a more coordinated approach to online course design throughout a degree programme. - Helpdesk and training support for students is likely to be inadequate - Staff development and support costs increase as the enthusiasm of individuals and small groups for online course development grows. - Institutional support for the move towards online teaching, in the absence of a coordinated plan, leads to a wide range of staff development needs which resources may be inadequate to meet.	Pros & cons: Controlled development model - Requirement to put courses online using institutionally- determined formats may engender resistance in staff - Conformity required in format may limit the scope and creativity of materials development + Availability of support for educationally-sound online teaching development may encourage staff to further their understanding and range of teaching strategies - Requirement to use set formats may encourage staff to ignore educational issues underpinning online teaching and engage in mass production of courses + Investment in infrastructure ensures adequate resourcing for online teaching + Students experience consistency in course design and delivery + Students adequately supported to engage in online learning by provision of a helpdesk, training etc. + Efficient and programmed use of specialist support services possible

Infrastructure and staff development issues

In the highly centralised Controlled Development model costs are likely to be high, but investment is premised on considered strategies and a clear plan to move all or part of the institution towards online delivery. Therefore rational decisions can be made about re-allocation of resources from, for example, one form of teaching development activity or group of support staff to another. One of the disadvantages of this model, however, may be a relative lack of flexibility. High and ongoing investment in online teaching may militate against a change in direction when even newer technologies become available, or investment may not be adequately repaid if online teaching proves not to be the predicted panacea for achieving improved learning outcomes in times of increased student numbers and reduced staff numbers and resources.

Perhaps the least cost efficient of the three models is the Negotiated Development model, for the unbalanced interaction between individual enthusiasms and centralised planning or market demand may lead to investment of resources in areas that do not hold long term strategic advantage for the institution. The fact that institutional development is often driven by the enthusiasm of individuals means that central support resources are more likely to be allocated in a haphazard way and emphasise one-to-one support. Investment in faculty-based support services that have no established connection to centralised support services may lead to an uncoordinated approach, resulting in duplication, in re-invention of the wheel in many different places, or in different sections of the institution being "captured" by different software companies.

In terms of staff development the three models also each exhibit different characteristics, advantages and disadvantages.

In the Anarchic Development model, individual course developers may receive little benefit from generalised university-wide staff development programmes. Specific courses and training programmes will usually be required by staff, and funding for these may need to be found locally. Technical support needs may be very specialised and expertise may need to be acquired by hiring specialist staff or by outsourcing. On the positive side this model allows individuals the scope for driving development in the direction that they see to be most relevant to their teaching needs and the needs of their students. If funds are available it is possible for interesting and innovative solutions to be developed, with facilities to match. From the university staff developer's point of view assistance can be provided by offering places on appropriate university wide programmes or by offering customised training designed to suit individuals' needs, but resources are likely to be insufficient to provide customised training for more than a few individuals.

The Negotiated Development model offers greater scope for coordinated staff development. In this model some strategic priorities are set and common areas of need emerge. Activities can be targeted to individuals and groups in a more cost effective fashion than in the Anarchic Model. However, long term planning may be difficult due to the lack of set direction and the likely changes in preferred strategies over time. A wide range of staff development activities may be required which will lead to greater costs and staffing requirements.

In the Controlled Development model the clear direction and priorities enable the planning of centralised staff development activities which can be targeted to meet institutional and individual needs and these are likely to be very similar. Long term programmes can be implemented and a staff development team with the skills necessary to meet university needs can be established. The costs involved are more clearly defined and the university can monitor the success of the programmes with greater ease. This development strategy may lead to a greater number of staff becoming involved in online teaching within a shorter period of time, and there is also greater scope for motivating staff to participate in the planned effort by offering incentives such as time release or personal computers. Staff development may include training in the latest educational technologies and instruction in areas such as online educational design, the management of online communications, copyright and intellectual property, computer-based assessment strategies etc. However, if only general staff development activities take place and there are no additional specialist courses for those wanting to extend their development work beyond the level planned and funded by the university, staff may be forced to seek additional training elsewhere.

Staff development strategies

Identify the university development model Conduct training and support needs analysis across university Establish types of staff development or support required Draft staff development and support plan Plan activities and allocate/recruit staff development resources

While it seems likely that staff development programme and staffing costs will increase progressively from the Anarchic to the Negotiated to the Controlled Development model, this is probably in part a reflection of the differing levels of explicit institutional commitment in each of the models rather than a reflection of real need. As online teaching and learning gains acceptance amongst staff and students, increasing numbers of staff will need support to develop or work with online materials regardless of the prevailing institutional development model. It is likely in fact that an adequate staff development strategy for any of the development models would involve the following elements, offered university-wide and/or within disciplines:

• A general introduction to effective online teaching and learning
• Instructional design, navigation and interface design guidance
• Provision of support and training within Faculties/Schools to meet specific discipline needs
• Basic IT training
• Provision of specialist IT training not available within university
• Visits from outside experts able to share development experiences and directions
• Opportunities for staff to showcase their projects and share their experience and knowledge with others.

References

Arnold, M. (1997). Using the Web to Augment Teaching and Learning. In Kevill et al (Eds). What Works and Why. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth: Curtin University.

Collis, B. (1996). The internet as an educational innovation: Lessons from experience with computer implementation. Educational Technology, 36(6), 21-30.

Debreceny, R. and Ellis, A. (1996). Developing and implementing information technology in teaching and learning: A critical success factors perspective. In Christie et al (Eds). Making new connections. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Adelaide: The University of South Australia.

Deden, A., (1998). Computers and Systemic Change in Higher Education. Communications of the ACM, 41(1), 58-63.

Harasim,L, Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., and Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ivanoff, G. and Clarke, J. The use of the World Wide Web for teaching - Things to consider before putting materials on-line. http://www.opennet.net.au/about/paper4.htm

Jones, D. and Buchanan, R. (1996). In Christie et al (Eds). Making new connections. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Adelaide: The University of South Australia.

Kearsley, G., Lynch, W., and Wizer, D. (1995). The effectiveness and impact of online learning in graduate education. Educational Technology, 35 (6), pp. 37-42.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. Routledge: London.

Pilgrim, C.J. and Creek, M.J. (1997). On-line Education - A University Strategy. In ASCILITE'97 What works and why. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth, Australia.

Rice, M.T. (1997). Finding out What Works: Learning from Evaluations of Information Technologies in Teaching and Learning. In ASCILITE'97 What works and why. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth, Australia.

Authors: Romana Pospisil and Lesley Willcoxson Teaching and Learning Centre Murdoch University romana@cleo.murdoch.edu.au lesleyw@cleo.murdoch.edu.au Please cite as: Pospisil, R. and Willcoxson, L. (1998). Online teaching: Implications for institutional and academic staff development. In C. McBeath and R. Atkinson (Eds), Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit. Proceedings EdTech'98. Perth: Australian Society for Educational Technology. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/pospisil.html