1. NASULGC-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning

2. This survey was conducted by the NASULGC-Sloan National Commission on Online Learning, with the support of Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, as part of the first cross- sectional examination of faculty experiences, attitudes, and beliefs towards online learning ever used in the United States.

3. Overview  Terminology  Background & Methodology  Demographics  Participants in Online Learning  Effort Required  What Faculty LIKE  Greatest Barriers  What Faculty DISLIKE  Institutional Support  Other Considerations

5. Terminology  Regular faculty – tenured or tenure-track faculty teaching on- or off-campus, full- time or part-time  Temporary faculty – all other full-time or part-time on-campus faculty teaching courses for CMU  Adjunct faculty – all other full-time or part-time off-campus faculty teaching courses for CMU

6. Background & Methodology  54 questions in original survey CMU omitted 11 for regular faculty (43); added 5 for temporary/adjunct faculty (59)  552 total faculty participated 33% overall response rate (invited 1650) 174 regular faculty of 625 378 temp/adjunct faculty of 1025  Administered February 13 – March 3

7. Background & Methodology

8. Demographics  40% Female, 59% Male  44% Full-time, 53% Part-time  128 tenured, 40 tenure-track, 383 neither  Years Teaching More than 20 (35%) Less than 1 (3%)  Most faculty surveyed teach face-to-face undergraduate or graduate students, mainly

9. Demographics Total Years Teaching

10. Demographics  77% of temp/adjunct faculty have taught for another university Of these, 47% have taught for another university online  Number of credit hours currently being taught by temp/adjuncts varies (see chart)

11. Faculty and Online Learning  “Faculty attitudes are critical to the success of any online learning program.”  Most faculty have never taken, taught, converted, or developed an online course

12. Faculty and Online Teaching

13. Faculty Experience with Online Learning

14. Effort Required  What was your experience with the level of effort required for developing (or teaching) an online course compared to a face-to-face alternative? Developing (teaching) an online course from scratch...

15. What Faculty LIKE  Online education reaches students not served by face-to-face programs (80%)  Online education is critical to the long-term strategy of my school (61%)  Top Motivators for Online Learning: Online courses meet student needs for flexible access (73%) It is the best way to reach particular students (64%)

16. What Faculty LIKE  Open-ended responses Student Convenience & Access (39%) “I enjoy interacting with students at times that are convenient for the students. It is always interesting to post a message at midnight and receive a response by a student within a few minutes.” “It offers students flexibility. Consumer-oriented.” Instructor Convenience (26%) “I can be flexible in my time and teach in several states at once.” “Less travel. Do not have to find care for my school aged children when teaching.”

17. Greatest Barriers  Faculty at my school accept the value and legitimacy of online education (38% agree, 28% disagree)  In your judgment, learning outcomes in online education are currently…

18. Greatest Barriers  Students need more discipline to succeed in online courses (64%)  Temp/Adjuncts Only Inadequate compensation for development and/or delivery (56%) Additional faculty effort required to develop online courses (55%)

19. What Faculty DISLIKE  Open-ended responses Disconnection/Lack of Student Engagement (21%) “Impossible to actually gauge student retention of material, interest level, engagement level, etc.” “No student/instructor face to face interaction. No group interaction. I do not consider ‘discussion groups’ interaction of the type necessary for a college education.” Requires More Work to be Successful (9%) “Most schools require 4-5 days of participation from instructors in one class.” “A lot of extra work for faculty with little or no tangible reward or credit in terms of reduced load, real salary, or counting towards tenure.”

20. Institutional Support  Tech infrastructure (47% above, 12% below)  Faculty training and support for development (42% above, 20% below)  Faculty training and support for delivery (43% above, 20% below)  Support for students (39% above, 15% below)

21. Institutional Support  Institutional policy on intellectual property that adequately protects faculty (34% above, 15% below)  Provides sufficient incentives for developing (24% above, 32% below)  Provides sufficient incentives for delivering (25% above, 32% below)  Recognition of online instruction for faculty tenure and promotion (21% above, 27% below)

22. CMU vs. National Results CMU is more motivated by these two factors http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/nasulgc_prelim

23. CMU vs National Results What was your experience with the level of effort required to teach an online course compared to a face-to-face course? Total Sample (National) Total Sample (CMU) Is a lot less effort 2.5%.7% Is somewhat less effort 10.2% 2.2% Is about the same level of effort 23.2% 19.4% Is somewhat more effort 33.1% 38.8% Is a lot more effort 31.1%38.8% What was your experience with the level of effort required to develop an online course from scratch compared to a face-to-face course? Total Sample (National) Total Sample (CMU) Is a lot less effort.7%1.7% Is somewhat less effort 1.0%10.6% Is about the same level of effort 13.1%29.6% Is somewhat more effort 30.8%34.6% Is a lot more effort54.4%23.5%

24. Online Student Satisfaction Survey  October 2007  374 responses (18.7% response rate)  20 questions  Why online is better than face-to-face: Convenience (time, attire, scheduling) Issue of distance from a CMU location Employment (time conflicts, flexibility)  96% claim their experience with an online course provided what they were looking for  94% would recommend online courses or programs offered by CMU to a friend  93% were pleased with the availability of his/her instructor(s) and/or advisor(s).