I confess to disappointment in my recent reading of research on online teaching.<\/p>\n
There are many articles now expounding the benefits of faculty being assisted (whether they like it or not) by instructional designers. Many of these are written by people getting degrees in instructional design or PhDs in vague areas of Education. In addition, theses like this one (1)<\/em> claim that faculty who design their own courses cannot articulate design concepts (or \u201cinstructional development processes\u201d), and therefore need serious help. Another study claims that competencies should be based on the many roles online instructors must undertake: developer\/designer, educational expert, evaluator, facilitator, scientist of their discipline, lifelong learner, organiser\/manager, social director, technologist. (2)<\/em> It\u2019s a wonder anyone wants to teach online at all with a job description like that.<\/p>\n Of course, the fact that such \u201ccompetencies\u201d have been invented along with the whole field of online instructional design, may be part of the issue. And few acknowledge that the field itself contains serious conflicts of ideas and may be based on techno-utopianism. (3)<\/em><\/p>\n One paper (4)<\/em> does indicate that some of the problems we see in asynchronous online education may be the result of students who do not have the skills to succeed in classes coming to online classes in increasing numbers. But in general, the blame for any problems in online classes falls on the instructors, through the argument that they lack proper training.<\/p>\n Faculty teach. Some cannot articulate educational principles as taught in schools of Education, because they are experts in their field rather than Education. Can quality online classes be developed by people who do not have degrees in education, instructional design, or educational technology? Yes, indeed – I have seen many. The major requirements seem to be passion for ones discipline, passion for the online learning space, and a willingness to learn new skills to create the desired learning experiences for students.<\/p>\n But the pattern in the literature shows a desire to \u201cprofessionalize\u201d online teaching, via Cui bono? Well, those earning degrees in instructional design and educational technology, particularly those who want jobs in educational administration. For-profit online universities also benefit because they can more easily justify standardized courses taught by poorly-paid staff. So do public and private universities expanding their Ed D programs, online and on-site, to bring in those grad school dollars. The proliferation of journals and associations benefits publishers (many of them closed presses). And those who already have jobs in educational administration have more ammunition to reduce the influence of independent faculty, and limit creativity in the name of accountability.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n (1) Raul Mendez, Instructional Development Skills and Competencies for Post-Secondary Faculty-Designers Developing Online Course<\/a>s (Capella PhD, October 2014)\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n (2) Diogo Casanova, Antonio Moreira & Nilza Costa, Key competencies to become an e-Learning successful instructor<\/a> (Santiago Univ, Portugal, n.d.)\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n (3) Julian Thornton, \u201cWe will fix the deficit\u201d: deficit theories in the literature of educational technology adoption<\/a> (asccilite2014, New Zealand)\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n
\n1. the development of a body of \u201cresearch\u201d (in this case primarily through the proliferation of doctoral theses based on small sample sizes),
\n2. the advancement of fields originally focused on supporting educators, but now claiming to be leading educational reform,
\n3. the creation of \u201cbest practices\u201d and \u201ccompetencies\u201d (designed to ferret out \u201cworse practices\u201d and create standardization), and
\n4. the promotion of the idea that current online faculty are desperately in need of assistance.<\/p>\n