University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Faculty development curriculum to facilitate discourse in the online space

(USC Thesis Other)

Faculty development curriculum to facilitate discourse in the online space

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
CURRICULUM 1

Faculty development curriculum to facilitate discourse in the online space

by

Kimberly June Brower

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2017

2017 Kimberly June Brower Keilbach

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, for her guidance and
encouragement. Her tireless efforts to both inform and to inspire made it possible for me to
successfully navigate the dissertation process and to produce this work. I would also like to thank
my other committee members, Dr. Helena Seli and Dr. Marion Philadelphia, for their time and
commitment and for their insights and suggestions. In addition, I would like to thank members of
my thematic group at Rossier, especially Joan Getman, Hector Madrigal, and Ryan Pineda, who
shared many late night texts and weekend phone calls in our joint efforts to help one another
achieve our goals. Lastly, I would like to thank my husband Roger for his unwavering support
throughout the past four years.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 3

Table of Contents
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Literature Review 8
Statement of Problem 8
Challenges for Online Programs 9
The Need for Faculty Training 11
Learner Characteristics 12
Causes 13
Course design and development 15
Course delivery 16
Online technologies 17
General Approaches to Problem of Practice 18
Design and development training 19
Delivery training 21
Online technology training 22
Other Curricula 23
Ashford University and University of the Rockies 24
Avondale College 25
Bay Path College 25
Kennesaw State University 27
Seattle University 27
Summary 28
Chapter Two: Curriculum Overview 29
Curriculum Description 29
Learner Description and Context 31
Theoretical Frameworks 33
Community of inquiry 33
Cognitive load 34
Self-efficacy 35
Metacognition 35
Design Justifications and Designer Bias 36
Design justifications 36
Designer bias 38
Curriculum Learning Outcomes 39
Curriculum assessments 40
Curriculum activities 41
Formative and Summative Assessments 43
Level 1: Reaction 44
Level 2: Learning 45
Level 3: Behavior 45
Level 4: Results 46
Chapter Three: Curriculum Content 46
Scope and Sequence 46
Module Overview 47
Module Outlines 49
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 4

Module 1: Introduction to Online Learning (OL) 62
Module 1, Unit 1 script 62
Module 1, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 66
Module 1, Unit 1 reading summaries 67
Module 1, Unit 1 discussion prompt 71
Module 1, Unit 2 script 71
Module 1, Unit 2 interview questions for student perspectives video 74
Module 1, Unit 2 reading summaries 75
Module 1, Unit 2 discussion prompt 79
Module 1, Unit 3 script 79
Module 1, Unit 3 interview questions for student perspectives video 82
Module 1, Unit 3 reading summaries 83
Module 1, Unit 3 discussion prompt 85
Module 1, Unit 4 script 85
Module 1, Unit 4 interview questions for student perspectives video 89
Module 1, Unit 4 reading summaries 90
Module 1, Unit 4 discussion prompt 93
Module 1 workshop outline 93
Module 2: Written Discussion Forums (WDFs) 95
Module 2, Unit 1 script 95
Module 2, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 98
Module 2, Unit 1 reading summaries 99
Module 2, Unit 1 discussion prompt 104
Module 2, Unit 2 script 104
Module 2, Unit 2 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 106
Module 2, Unit 2 reading summaries 107
Module 2, Unit 2 discussion prompt 107
Module 2, Unit 3 script 107
Module 2, Unit 3 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 110
Module 2, Unit 3 reading summaries 111
Module 2, Unit 3 discussion prompt 111
Module 2 guide to written discussion forums 111
Module 2 workshop outline 111
Module 3: Asynchronous Video Forums (AVFs) 113
Module 3, Unit 1 script 113
Module 3, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 117
Module 3, Unit 1 reading summaries 117
Module 3, Unit 1 discussion prompt 120
Module 3, Unit 2 script 120
Module 3, Unit 2 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 122
Module 3, Unit 2 reading summaries 123
Module 3, Unit 2 discussion prompt 123
Module 3, Unit 3 script 123
Module 3, Unit 3 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 126
Module 3, Unit 3 reading summaries 126
Module 3, Unit 3 discussion prompt 127
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 5

Module 3 guide to asynchronous video forums 127
Module 3 workshop outline 127
Module 4: Synchronous Video Conference Forums (SVCFs) 129
Module 4, Unit 1 script 129
Module 4, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 131
Module 4, Unit 1 reading summaries 132
Module 4, Unit 1 discussion prompt 136
Module 4, Unit 2 script 136
Module 4, Unit 2 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 138
Module 4, Unit 2 reading summaries 139
Module 4, Unit 2 discussion prompt 139
Module 4, Unit 3 script 139
Module 4, Unit 3 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 142
Module 4, Unit 3 reading summaries 143
Module 4, Unit 3 discussion prompt 143
Module 4 guide to synchronous video conference forums 143
Module 4 workshop outline 143
Module 5: Online Course Delivery Strategies 145
Module 5, Unit 1 script 145
Module 5, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 148
Module 5, Unit 1 reading summaries 148
Module 5, Unit 1 discussion prompt 153
Module 5, Unit 2 script 153
Module 5, Unit 2 interview questions for student perspectives video 155
Module 5, Unit 2 reading summaries 156
Module 5, Unit 2 discussion prompt 156
Module 5, Unit 3 script 156
Module 5, Unit 3 interview questions for faculty perspectives video 158
Module 5, Unit 3 reading summaries 159
Module 5, Unit 3 discussion prompt 162
Module 5 workshop outline 162
Chapter Four: Recommendations for Implementation 164
Workshops 164
Modules 164
One-on-One Instructional Design Coaching 165
Peer Mentoring 166
References 168
Appendix A: Terms and Definitions 180
Appendix B: Module 1, Unit 1 Storyboard 181
Appendix C: Module 1 Handout 186
Appendix D: Module 2 Guide 192
Appendix E: Module 2 Handout 202
Appendix F: Module 3 Guide 204
Appendix G: Module 3 Handout 211
Appendix H: Module 4 Guide 213
Appendix I: Module 4 Handout 219
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 6

Appendix J: Module 5 Handout 220
Appendix K: Modules 1-5 Handout 229

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 7

Abstract
Online programs have proliferated over the last decade. Evidence has shown that online
courses and programs can be as effective as traditional on ground courses and programs;
however, the technologies and even the pedagogies used in teaching online courses are often
quite different than those in on ground courses. In addition, online courses require substantially
more up-front design and development than on ground courses prior to delivery. Many faculty
members, while subject matter experts in their fields, have little or no technological or
pedagogical expertise to prepare them for teaching online. This can lead to lower self-efficacy,
motivation, and even faculty attrition from online programs. As a result, many universities are
now recognizing the importance of providing support and development for their online faculty.
The USC Marshall faculty development curriculum is designed to give online instructors
the tools and the efficacy they need to facilitate student discourse in the online space. Based on
the Community of Inquiry framework and drawing on cognitive load, self-efficacy, and
metacognitive theories, the curriculum focuses on three primary learning platforms—written
discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video conference forums—that
online faculty can utilize to engage their students. The initial curriculum guides faculty through
five modules, beginning with establishing learning outcomes and culminating with effective and
efficient student feedback. Each module consists of a pre-taped instructional design video,
faculty or student perspectives video, reading summaries, discussion forum, and workshop. In
addition, faculty are encouraged to seek one-on-one coaching with the instructional design team
and also to take advantage of the faculty mentoring network within the school of business.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 8

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW
The University of Southern California, Marshall School of Business is one of the top-
ranked business schools in the country (U.S. News and World Report, 2016; Wall Street Journal,
2016). As part of its strategic plan, USC Marshall emphasizes the development of
communication and team-building skills as key components in all its business programs
(Marshall School of Business, n.d.). Furthermore, students are encouraged to actively take part in
the informal “Trojan Network” and to work together both in the classroom and out. However,
while the goal of engaging students through active discourse and collaboration may be achieved
in a traditional residential setting, its implementation in the online space poses both a challenge
and an opportunity.
Statement of the Problem
As part of a University-wide mandate to create online graduate programs across all
schools, USC Marshall launched its Online MBA (OMBA) Program for working professionals in
fall 2015. This 51-unit program begins with a two-week hybrid course, which consists of a one-
week online module followed by a one-week residential intensive module, and then continues
with five fifteen-week thematic courses, each of which is collaboratively taught and includes a
communication component designed to facilitate high-quality educational engagement within the
online space (USC Marshall Online MBA Program, 2001-2013). In addition to the OMBA
Program, USC Marshall has plans to roll out several other online certificate and degree programs
over the next few years. The school’s academic and administration leadership seeks to ensure
that online graduate-level courses and programs are as robust and engaging as residential
programs and must offer online students the same opportunities for innovation and collaboration
that their peers on campus enjoy.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 9

The USC Marshall online learning department is currently working with faculty to assess,
design, develop, implement, and evaluate all online course offerings within the graduate school
of business, utilizing sound pedagogical principles as well as state-of-the-art technologies.
However, some faculty members have voiced concern that online courses offer fewer
opportunities for meaningful discourse than residential courses, thus potentially negatively
affecting student learning outcomes and even student retention rates. Others have indicated that
they feel overwhelmed trying to deliver complex subject matter using new teaching methods
within unfamiliar technological platforms.
The majority of online instructors are full-time tenured or clinical faculty, with several
years of teaching experience in traditional classrooms. However, most have little or no
experience teaching online. Their narratives and feedback suggest that additional training and/or
support is necessary to facilitate discourse, engage students with content, and, ultimately, to
positively affect learning outcomes. Thus, this dissertation proposes a research and practice-
based faculty development curriculum for instructional practices in the online environment.
Challenges for Online Programs
To provide context for the above problem and need for a faculty development curriculum,
it is necessary to provide a brief background of online programs over the past decade. The
number of online courses and programs within the United States has increased dramatically over
the past decade. Allen and Seaman (2013) report that 6.7 million students (32% of all students)
are now taking at least one online course during their college career. Evidence has shown that
these courses can be as effective, if not more effective, as face-to-face courses in terms of
achieving student learning outcomes (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia,
& Jones, 2010); however, nearly two-thirds of the professors—particularly those who had never
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 10

taught online—reported that they believe online courses are inferior to face-to-face courses
(Allen, Seaman, Lederman, & Jaschik, 2012). The majority of educators believe communications
within online classes, particularly student-to-student communications, to be somewhat inferior to
communications in face-to-face classes (Allen & Seaman, 2011).
Interaction is an integral part of online learning (Bernard et al., 2009; Holden & Westfall,
2010). Both student-to-student interaction and student-to-faculty interaction have motivational
and emotional components as well as cognitive components (Bernard et al., 2009). Social
learning theory suggests that education is a dialogical process, wherein learning is modeled
through “lecture, guided discussion, role-playing, case study, and other instructional strategies”
(Holden & Westfall, 2010, p. 9). This is just as true online as it is in a face-to-face environment,
where the quality of instruction is key to the dissemination of content as well as to the transfer of
knowledge (Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton, 2010; Holden & Westfall, 2010).
Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2003), suggest that traditional educational institutions
are drawn to online learning because it allows educators to “conduct collaborative learning
regardless of time and place…to provide interactive learning experiences characterized by
critical discourse” (p. 113). Drawing on the work of John Dewey, the authors discuss education
in terms of a transactional relationship between social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching
presence. Anderson (2003), expounding on the work of Michael G. Moore (1989), cites the
importance of six different types of interactions: student-student, student-teacher, student-
content, teacher-teacher, teacher-content, and content-content. Each of these interactions is
meaningful in its own right; without content, for example, interaction between individuals may
become “more typical of a pub chat than a high-quality educational experience” (Anderson,
2003, p. 131).
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 11

The Need for Faculty Training
Ultimately, the instructor is responsible for the interactions that take place within his or
her classes. Course design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction all fall
within the teaching presence (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The challenge is that most instructors
are subject matter experts who have little or no formal training in online pedagogy and thus who
have not learned the skills necessary to encourage their students to interact with one another
online (Paquette, 2016). The need for faculty development is reflected in the dramatic 59%
increase in number of institutions that offered internal training courses for online faculty from
2009 to 2011 (Allen & Seaman, 2011).
Lack of faculty training can lead to lower self-efficacy, which can negatively affect
faculty motivation, leading to a lack of persistence. There are several contributors to faculty
motivation, including self-efficacy beliefs as well as effort-based attributions and social
partnerships (Mayer, 2011). In this regard, then, having high self-efficacy is an important factor
in determining faculty persistence; in other words, those faculty members who (a) value being
able to teach online and (b) believe they are capable of teaching online are more likely to
persevere (Bandura, 2006). Faculty may initially value some of the external rewards of teaching
online such as flexible scheduling; however, they require more intrinsic rewards such as
professional growth and development, career advancement, and personal satisfaction to persist in
teaching online (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009; Johnson, Steward, & Bachman, 2013). In
addition, a faculty member’s belief that s/he is capable of teaching online can be improved
through: (1) mastery experience, (2) modeling, (3) social persuasion, and (4) reducing stress and
increasing strengths (Bandura, 2006).
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 12

In a study conducted from a sample of online instructors across the United States, the
majority of the faculty members reported that continuous training in distance education as well
as mentoring from veteran distance education instructors were factors that would encourage them
to continue teaching online (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). Key stakeholders within USC
Marshall School of Business believe it is important that training and support be provided for
faculty to facilitate effective and efficient engagement with one another, with their students, with
course content, and with program technologies, not just in online courses but in face-to-face
courses as well.
Learner Characteristics
The primary learners for this online curriculum include faculty members who are
currently teaching within USC Marshall. The secondary learners for this curriculum include
faculty members who use online tools such as asynchronous written discussion forums,
regardless of whether their classes are 100% online, blended, or face-to-face. USC Marshall
faculty members are experts in their respective fields. The majority of online instructors are full-
time tenured or clinical faculty, with several years of teaching experience in face-to-face courses.
However, most have little or no experience teaching online.
Faculty members are adult learners with full-time jobs, families, and other
responsibilities (Cercone, 2008). One of the key assumptions that can be made about adult
learners is that they are motivated to learn when they perceive the learning will benefit their
professional or personal lives (Cercone, 2008; Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2014). While
external rewards such as flexible scheduling may be a strong motivator initially for instructors to
teach online, faculty members require intrinsic rewards such as professional growth and
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 13

development, career advancement, and personal satisfaction to persist in teaching online
(Johnson, Steward, & Bachman, 2013; Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009).
Adult learners tend to be self-directed, with a greater need for facilitated learning than
lecturing and for life-centered rather than subject-based content (Cercone, 2008: Knowles,
Holton, & Swanson, 2014). Another key assertion about adult learners is that they utilize their
prior experiences in new situations and when processing new content (Cercone, 2008; Knowles,
Holton, & Swanson, 2014). In other words, when faced with a new or complex task—such as
designing, developing, and delivering an online course—adult learners will utilize prior
knowledge—such as face-to-face teaching strategies—to transmit course content in the online
space (Cercone, 2008: Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2014).
Some faculty members are resistant to changing their teaching methods or pedagogical
strategies, either because they see no value in learning to teach online or because they do not
believe they are capable. Others have a high sense of self-efficacy in terms of navigating online
platforms and are motivated to learn new strategies for teaching within the online space. The
purpose of the faculty development program is to improve faculty self-efficacy and thereby
positively affect motivation so that they will persist in improving their online presence and in
facilitating discourse amongst their students.
Causes
The number of universities that have begun offering online courses and programs has
increased dramatically since the late 1990’s. Initially, the focus was on designing and developing
online content for students; however, it soon became clear that teaching online requires a
different skill set for instructors. In order to effectively convey their subject matter content to
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 14

students, online faculty members need to learn new methods of teaching, create new formats for
their class materials, and navigate new technologies and platforms (Pathak & Sharma, 2014).
In 2009, almost 20% of all institutions reported they had no faculty training programs for
their online faculty. By 2011, that number dropped to 6% (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Allen and
Seaman (2011) identified five distinct types of higher education faculty training including
externally run training courses, internally run training courses, formal and informal mentoring,
and even certification programs, with almost three-quarters of all institutions offering internally
run training courses and over half offering formal mentoring. However, it is unclear whether or
not these training programs include design and development components only or whether they
also include best practices for teaching in the online space. The other unknown is whether these
programs are mandatory or voluntary and, if voluntary, whether or not faculty members choose
to take them or opt out.
Although beyond the scope of this work, instructor motivation and persistence in online
teaching may be negatively affected by a lack of—or even perceived lack of—organizational
support. Faculty concerns about teaching online include the increased amount of time it takes to
prepare an online course compared to a face-to-face course, the lack of institutional and
technological support, the lack of recognition in terms of promotion and tenure, and retention of
intellectual property rights (Herman, 2012; Seaman, 2009; Zhen, Garthwaite, & Pratt, 2008).
Other concerns include the lack of monetary incentives for online course design and training
(Berge & Muilenburg, 2004; Herman, 2012; Seaman, 2009).
Although the majority of institutions offer some type of financial remuneration for
designing online courses, amounts vary widely from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand
(Herman, 2012). This hardly compares to faculty reports that online courses require over twice as
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 15

much time to prepare and teach as face-to-face courses. These concerns, as well as an overall
perception that online learning is inferior to face-to-face learning in terms of achieving learning
outcomes, are potential causes for a lack of faculty motivation and persistence at an
organizational level. However, they are not the only causes. Zhen, Garthwaite, and Pratt (2008)
findings indicate that the most important factor in determining faculty decision to utilize Online
Course Management Applications was self-efficacy.
Course design and development. Faculty who do not have adequate support in the
initial design and development of their online courses are likely to experience low self-efficacy
and may not persist in teaching online. Preparing an online course requires significantly more
time than a face-to-face course (Bacow, Bowen, Guthrie, Lack, & Long, 2012; Cavanaugh,
2005; Seaman, 2009). Creating an online course is a complex process that includes articulating
course learning objectives, presenting content, engaging students in activities and assessing their
achievement of learning outcomes (Puzziferro & Shelton, 2014). Online courses differ
significantly from face-to-face courses in several ways, not the least of which is the fact that
online courses require more planning and preparation prior to the start of the course (Rovai &
Downey, 2010). Most online courses are designed and developed weeks or even months ahead
of their delivery. This requires faculty members to have a thorough understanding of the learning
outcomes they expect their students to achieve in order to create the activities and assessments
that will facilitate those outcomes long before the online course actually begins. A well-designed
course provides the foundation from which students may be actively engaged in the learning
process and is one of the most important predictors of successful instructor transition from face-
to-face to online (Rovai & Downey, 2010; Wisneski, Ozogul, & Bichelmeyer, 2015).
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 16

Without adequate training or support, faculty members often attempt to apply their prior
knowledge to the new situation by simply transferring their teaching strategies directly from the
face-to-face classroom to the online platform (Gold, 2001). However, this routine application of
prior knowledge from one environment to another fails to address the complexity of the online
design and development process (Wisneski, Ozogul, & Bichelmeyer, 2015). Successful transfer
of content and teaching strategies requires adapting and revising within the context of the
platforms being used. Yet many faculty members are unclear about how to make such a
transition, and this lack of knowledge can lead to resistance to online teaching (Herman, 2012;
Shepherd, Alpert, & Koeller, 2008).
Course delivery. Even those faculty members who are willing to make the transition
from face-to-face to online curricula may fail to persist without adequate training or support in
the delivery of their content. Online faculty members assume a variety of roles, not just the role
of lecturer or “sage on the stage” (ION, 2015; Paquette, 2016; Pathak & Sharma, 2014). These
roles include professional, pedagogical, social, evaluator, administrator, technologist,
advisor/counselor, and researcher (Bawane & Spector, 2009, p 390; Horvitz, Beach, Anderson,
& Zia, 2015). Online faculty members must be able to engage their students to achieve the
learning outcomes (Vaill & Testori, 2014). This student-centered approach requires faculty not
only to transmit knowledge but also to facilitate students to interact with those topics that are
meaningful to them (Rodgers & Christie, 2014; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006). This shift from
teacher-centered to student-centered learning is the foundation of good online teaching, yet one
for which many faculty members are ill-prepared (Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006).
Learners feel more connected to the learning community when they perceive a strong
teaching presence within the course (Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006). A strong teaching presence can
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 17

be created by giving students clear instructions, presenting content and eliciting questions,
reinforcing contributions, correcting misperceptions, and keeping students on track throughout
the process (Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006). However, faculty who do not have a firm grasp of how
to deliver their content in an online environment are ill-equipped to create a strong teaching
presence. Even faculty who are able to facilitate robust learning environments in their face-to-
face courses may not be able to transfer that knowledge into the online space. As a result, online
faculty are more inclined than face-to-face faculty to suffer from burnout, including increased
feelings of depersonalization and a loss of personal self-efficacy, which may be mitigated by
social support and professional development activities such as mentoring and advanced training
in online technology (Hogan & McKnight, 2007; Kyriacou, 2001; Wood & McCarthy, 2002).
Online technologies. Training is one of the key factors that motivate faculty members;
and, without sufficient technical training, faculty may fail to persist in teaching online (Green,
Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). In order to be successful in the online environment, faculty
members must not only have content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, they must have
technological knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg,
2013). In addition to designing and developing learning outcomes, activities, and assessments for
the online environment, faculty members must also successfully transfer their course content into
a learning management system (LMS) to deliver their content online. An individual’s working
memory can only process a limited amount of new information at a given time; and complex
tasks—such as designing, developing, and delivering online course content—may impose
cognitive load on faculty if they exceed the amount of information elements that their working
memory is able to process (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006; van Merrienboer & Sweller,
2005). Cognitive overload can have a negative effect on motivation as well as self-efficacy.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 18

Effective training and support may not be able to reduce the cognitive load that is intrinsic to the
task at hand; however, it can reduce extraneous cognitive load and increase germane cognitive
load, thereby reducing overall cognitive load and thus improving faculty motivation and self-
efficacy (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006; van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005).
In summary, efficacious individuals believe they have the knowledge and skills to
execute the behavior necessary to produce a desired outcome, and they believe that behavior will
actually succeed in achieving the desired outcome (Rodgers, R. Christie, J., & Wideman, M.,
2014; Bandura, 1977). High teacher self-efficacy has consistently been linked to positive
teaching behaviors such as persistence, risk-taking, and the use of innovations (Bumen, 2009;
Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Rodgers, Christie, & Wideman, 2014). In addition, teachers with high
levels of self-efficacy utilize better instructional strategies and experience lower levels of stress
than teachers with low levels of self-efficacy (Akbari, Kiany, Naeemi, & Allvar 2008; Gibson &
Dembo, 1984; Rodgers, Christie, & Wideman, 2014; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
General Approaches to the Problem of Practice
The majority of institutions now offer some type of training and/or mentoring programs
for their faculty to help them design, develop, and deliver their online courses (Allen & Seaman,
2011). According to a survey of 4,523 institutions in the United States, over 70 percent of all
institutions with online course offerings currently provide internally run training, and over 50
percent offer informal mentoring. Approximately 20 percent offer externally run training, and
approximately 40 percent offer formal mentoring. Another 20 percent offer certification
programs for their online faculty (Allen & Seaman, 2011).
The type of training offered appears to be determined by several factors, including the
size of the institution as well as the type of online offerings offered by the institution. For
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 19

example, smaller institutions, presumably with fewer resources, are least likely to offer internal
training, while larger institutions are least likely to offer external training (Allen & Seaman,
2011). Likewise, higher education institutions with full online programs are almost 30 percent
more likely to offer internally run training for their faculty than institutions with only online
courses but no online programs (Allen & Seaman, 2011).
Although the need for an institutional commitment to train and develop online faculty has
been established within the USC Marshall School of Business, the type of training and
development that might be most effective is still being explored and is currently under
discussion. To some extent, the type of training depends upon the learners themselves. An
adjunct professor with little or no teaching experience may need formal guided instruction in
online pedagogy, for example, while a full-time clinical or tenured faculty member with decades
of teaching experience but with low self-efficacy in utilizing online technology may need more
hands-on mentoring in the mechanics of running their course online. Another factor in
determining the type of training needed is the task to be performed. There are three distinct tasks
performed by USC Marshall’s online faculty: (1) Design and development of online course
content, (2) Delivery of online course content, and (3) Use of online technologies and platforms.
While some faculty perform all three tasks, others do not; for example, full-time “lead” faculty
might be involved in the design and development of online course content while adjunct faculty
may only be tasked with the delivery of that content.
Design and development training. Faculty who are supported in their online course
design and development process experience greater self-efficacy and higher levels of persistence
than those who are not. Instructional design is a systematic and iterative process in which course
developers create content and generate strategies for delivering materials online, utilizing
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 20

technology tools to foster communication, collaboration, and cognition (Beldarrain, 2008).
Good instructional design maximizes the effectiveness and efficiency of the student learning
experience (Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim, 2011; Bernard et. al., 2009). Since
teaching self-efficacy is related to instructors’ confidence in their ability to facilitate student
learning, it follows that teaching self-efficacy is also positively affected by sound instructional
design and development (Horvitz, Beach, Anderson, & Xia, 2015; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, &
Hoy, 1998).
One way to support faculty in the instructional design process is with the use of scaffolds.
Although they may be experts in subject matter content, faculty members are often novices when
it comes to online pedagogy and technology. Novices are likely to benefit from cognitive tools
that guide and direct their cognitive processes (Bogard, Liu, & Chiang, 2013; Mayer, 1989).
These tools provide scaffolds to facilitate organized knowledge construction and enable learners
to reach beyond their existing understanding to engage in higher-order cognitive tasks (Bogard,
Liu, & Chiang, 2013). Within the construct of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, the
term scaffolding refers to the process in which a teacher or more knowledgeable peer re-frames
learning tasks in a way that enables learners to accomplish those tasks more effectively than they
could have done on their own (Reiser, 2004). In terms of education, scaffolding has two
aspects—accomplishing the task and improving performance on future tasks—both of which
reduce extraneous cognitive load and increase germane cognitive load (Kirschner, Kirschner, &
Paas, 2006; Reiser, 2004).
Online course design and development is a complex task involving multiple components
and areas of expertise. Research has indicated that, while individual learning may be more
effective with low-complexity tasks, collaborative learning is more effective with tasks that are
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 21

highly complex (Kirschner, Ayres, & Chandler, 2011; Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2008;
Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2011). Not only can the cognitive load be distributed across the
group, learners’ sense of self-efficacy or “collaborative collective efficacy” is improved as they
realize they can rely on other group members to assist in accomplishing the task at hand
(Kirschner, Ayres, & Chandler, 2011, p. 100; Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2008; Kirschner,
Paas, & Kirschner, 2011).
Delivery training. Faculty who are supported in the delivery of their online course
content also experience self-efficacy, motivation, and persistence. Faculty members are not
intuitively aware of how to effectively deliver content online and need to be exposed to
successful online teaching techniques and methodologies (Keengwe & Kidd, 2010; Palloff &
Pratt, 2001). In addition to delivering instruction, online faculty must also interact with students
and facilitate discourse between students (Anderson et al, 2001; Coppola et al, 2002; Keengwe &
Kidd, 2010). These new skills may require online instructors to change their traditional teaching
styles and engage in new teaching processes that include “pedagogy, course management,
technology, and social dynamics” (Keengwe & Kidd, 2010, p. 6; Grant & Thornton, 2007;
McQuiggan, 2007).
Providing peer role models to mentor novice online instructors is one way to retain
faculty (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). Peer coaching is a “formative, collegial process” (p.
7) in which online instructors can voluntarily grow and improve their remote teaching strategies
and outcomes (Huston & Weaver, 2008). Peer coaching can either be reciprocal (i.e. from peer-
to-peer) or one-way (from expert-to-novice); either way, however, the coaching typically
involves three separate steps: (1) initial briefing to determine the focus issue to be observed and
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 22

addressed, (2) observation of teaching in the classroom, (3) debriefing to reflect on what the
observations indicated about the area of focus (Huston & Weaver, 2008).
In addition to peer coaching, peer modeling can also reduce cognitive load and foster
self-efficacy among learners (Hoogerheide, Loyens, & van Gog, 2014). Like worked examples,
modeling “best practices” is an example-based learning strategy that guides learners through the
process of solving a given problem and teaches them the skills they will need for future problem-
solving. While worked examples are primarily text-based, modeling requires a teacher or more
expert peer to demonstrate how a task is done, either face-to-face, via video, or even non-visibly
with voice-over-graphics. Worked examples are focused more on cognitive functions, while
modeling involves social as well as cognitive functions; however, both have been shown to
reduce cognitive load and increase perceived competence and motivation in learners
(Hoogerheide, Loyens, & van Gog, 2014; Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006).
Online technology training. Faculty who are given the training and support they need to
comfortably navigate online learning platforms exhibit self-efficacy, motivation, and persistence.
According to Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, and Tamim (2011), effective educational
software or “knowledge tools” (p. 87) must scaffold and support student learning and be based
upon good instructional design. However, faculty must be proficient in using those knowledge
tools before they can begin to develop pedagogical strategies to effectively teach their online
courses (Orr, Williams, & Pennington, 2009). Fear of technology is a major barrier for many
faculty members (Orr, Williams, & Pennington 2009), and one of the top disincentives for
teaching online is a lack of technical training (Green, Alejandro, & Brown, 2009).
Providing continuous training (i.e. workshops) is one way to retain online faculty,
especially if workshop attendees receive a stipend for their continuing education (Green,
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 23

Alejandro, & Brown, 2009). Generally speaking, instruction consists of: (1) providing learners
with content and (2) providing that content in such a way that knowledge transfer takes place
(Clark et. al., 2010). For novices, direct instruction, also known as guided instruction, is more
effective and efficient than unguided or partially guided instruction (Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller,
2012). Workshops can instill a sense of self-efficacy through mastery experience, social
modeling, and social persuasion (Bandura, 2006). For example, workshop leaders can provide
learners with direct instruction on how to use synchronous learning platforms and then allow
them to practice and reflect on what they have learned with their peers. When it comes to
technology, however, many faculty members prefer one-on-one training and support (Zhen,
Garthwait, & Pratt, 2008).
In summary, many faculty members are subject matter experts with limited knowledge or
experience in online pedagogy and web-based technologies. Without adequate training and
support, these faculty members may become frustrated in their efforts to transfer their course
content to the online space. For example, business faculty who rely on the case method to teach
core concepts in their face-to-face courses may be at a loss for how to effectively and efficiently
replicate that method online, using asynchronous discussion forums or multi-media case
materials. Furthermore, they may not engage in the “backward transfer” of successful teaching
practices from the online environment back to their face-to-face classrooms (Wisneski, Ozogul,
& Bichelmeyer, 2015, p 19). Not only can training and support give faculty the knowledge they
need to successfully teach online, it can also reduce their cognitive load in the design,
development, and delivery of their online content and give them the motivation and self-efficacy
to persist in teaching online.
Other Curricula
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 24

The following curricula and pilot curricula were selected to explore the multiple venues
for training online faculty, including workshops, training guides, one-on-one mentoring with an
instructional designer, and peer-to-peer coaching with a veteran online faculty member.
Ashford University and University of the Rockies. Ashford University offers both
graduate and undergraduate online degree program. University of the Rockies specializes in
masters and doctorate degrees in psychology. Both universities utilize Quality Matters (QM), an
externally-developed “faculty-centered peer course review quality assurance process for online
courses” (Parscal & Riemer, 2010, p. 1). Their process begins with screening of potential online
instructors during a three-week online training course. This training assesses their skills in online
communication, adult learning, pedagogy, discussion facilitation, and formative/summative
feedback to students. In addition, both universities use trained instructional specialists to provide
ongoing faculty support, and both utilize experienced online faculty mentors to share their
content area and pedagogical expertise with new instructors (Parscal & Riemer, 2010).
At Ashford University, faculty members are paired with instructional specialists, who
collaborate with them to design and develop their courses. The “course development team”—
which consists of course developer (faculty/subject matter expert), instructional designer,
curriculum coordinator, technology specialist, and assessment specialist—utilize course
development templates as tools to create their course. Once a course has been developed, it is
subjected to a QM review by an academic quality administrator who then works with the
instructional designer to make the necessary changes (Parscal & Riemer, 2010).
At the University of the Rockies, a curriculum coordinator selects and then provides the
course developer with the Course Development Guide, Course Development Guide Template,
and project schedule. The curriculum coordinator then works with the course developer to write
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 25

a first draft of his or her course, including a course outline, learning outcomes, topic maps, and
summative assessments. This draft is then reviewed and approved by the instructional designer
and the lead developer, who is a faculty member/subject matter expert. Course development is an
iterative process wherein the course developer submits deliverables to the curriculum coordinator
and lead developer for approval. Once the entire course has been approved, it is reviewed by
QM-certified reviewers utilizing the QM rubric for quality assurance (Parscal & Riemer, 2010).
Avondale College. Avondale College offers undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in
art, theology, education, nursing, business, and science in Australia (Northcote, Reynaud, &
Beamish, 2012). Their professional development program is based on constructivist theory and
includes technical as well as pedagogical training. The program includes face-to-face activities
such as practical workshops, informal conversations, and one-on-one consultations as well as
resources and tools such as online resources, examples, weekly emails, pedagogical guidelines,
and a self-evaluation rubric. Themes include “getting started,” “active and interactive learning,”
assessment and evaluation,” “rich media,” “resources,” and “management” (Northcote, Reynaud,
& Beamish, 2012, p. 389).
Bay Path College. Bay Path College began offering online graduate programs in 2007
(Vaill & Testori, 2012). With fewer than 2,500 students, Bay Path is considered a small
institution; yet it offers an internally-run online faculty development program that consists of
three tiers: (1) a required orientation course, (2) peer-to-peer mentoring, and (3) one-on-one
support. The initial “Faculty Orientation to Online Education” orientation course provides both
pedagogical and technical training in order to prepare faculty for teaching online. Faculty are
enrolled in this orientation in the semester prior to their first time teaching online.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 26

When it was initially developed in 2007, the faculty orientation was designed as a self-
paced course in which faculty worked one-on-one with a staff member; however, over time, the
orientation has evolved to include small groups of faculty in order to facilitate learner-to-learner
interactions and to give faculty a similar experience as their students will have. The orientation
utilizes a student-centered, constructivist approach to training in which instructional designers
and experienced faculty members model best practices for maintaining a teaching presence
within the virtual classroom (Vaill & Testori, 2012).
The first half of the orientation focuses on the basics of online education, including the
role of technology in the classroom, the importance of developing community as well as
discovering their own online teaching style and personality. It also addresses concepts such as
backward design and student-centered learning. Faculty are guided in developing their own
course plans and syllabi, which are reviewed by an instructional designer and subject matter
expert. Faculty are then guided through the process of using the learning management system
(LMS) and, finally, engage in metacognitive reflections of how they will utilize what they’ve
learned in their own virtual classrooms. During this time, faculty are developing their courses
within the LMS. The orientation ends at least four weeks before the first session in order to allow
time for review and modifications as needed (Vaill & Testori, 2012).
During the orientation, the new online instructor is paired with an experienced instructor
who will mentor them and share best practices in online teaching. Upon completion of the
orientation, ongoing support services are offered by instructional designers and other staff
members. These services are designed to provide additional technological and pedagogical
assistance on an as-needed basis in order to continue to evaluate and improve on courses.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 27

Finally, support services are also offered to students so that faculty can focus on content and
instruction (Vaill & Testori, 2012).
Kennesaw State University. The Kennesaw State University (KSU) College of
Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS) supports online faculty with a semester-long “Build a
Web Course Workshop” (Aust, Thomas, Powell, Randall, & Slinger-Friedman, 2015). The
workshop, which began in 2010, is delivered in a hybrid format and covers course design and
deliver as well as online pedagogy and instructional technology. Upon completion of the
workshop, faculty members who have built an online or hybrid course that meets Quality Matters
(QM) standards receive a $3,000 stipend.
While the “Build a Web Course Workshop” provides first-time faculty with an
introduction to online course development and delivery, it does not provide advanced
professional development for continuing online faculty. For that, KSU-CHSS developed “The
Project.” The Project was designed and developed by distance education staff as well as online
coordinators, who are faculty members within each academic department who acted as liaisons
between department faculty and the Office of Distance Education. A total of 11 modules were
initially created, covering topics such as online pedagogy, trends, technology, and lessons
learned. Module contents were selected by the online coordinates, each of whom developed his
or her own module. Every module consists of 30 minutes to an hour of content as well as an
interactive activity. Participants are expected to engage with the content on a weekly basis, and
timely feedback for each activity is given by the module designer (Aust, Thomas, Powell,
Randall, & Slinger-Friedman, 2015).
Seattle University. Seattle University began its peer coaching pilot project in 2005
(Huston & Weaver, 2008). Year 1 was devoted to research and planning. In Year 2, faculty
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 28

attended workshops wherein they were introduced to one another and to the core concepts of
peer coaching, including the difference between formative coaching and summative peer review.
During this year, faculty members were paired with faculty from other disciplines and instructed
in how to engage in reciprocal peer coaching. At the end of the year, a final workshop was
offered in which faculty coaches could reflect on their experiences and decide if they wanted to
continue. In Year 3, eight of the ten original coaches volunteered to take part in a one-way
coaching program, wherein they coached faculty members upon request.
Based upon this pilot program, Seattle University has developed six broad guidelines for
a successful peer coaching program: (1) Goals must be set by the colleague rather than the coach,
(2) coaching must be voluntary, (3) coaching must be confidential, (4) assessment of the
coaching process, whether it is one-way or reciprocal, should be an integral part of the training
process, (5) peer coaching should be used for formative purposes, not summative, in order to
develop faculty rather than evaluate their performance, and (6) effective peer coaching must be
supported by the institution itself in terms of funding and faculty recognition (Huston & Weaver,
2008).
Summary
As the USC Marshall School of Business continues to build its online programs and
courses, it is important to offer faculty the training and support they need to design, develop, and
deliver the same high-quality educational experience that students receive in their face-to-face
courses. Effective and efficient course design and development is only part of the process;
educators must also be motivated and feel capable of actually delivering their course content in a
way that engages students and helps them achieve learning outcomes.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 29

Online instructors must do more than just transmit knowledge; they must also facilitate
learning (Illinois Online Network, 2015). This facilitation requires instructors to establish a
strong teaching presence and to create an online environment in which their students can engage
with the content and interact with one another. Although one-on-one support and collaboration
between the online learning team and faculty is currently offered during the design and
development of the course, many faculty members have expressed the need for continuous
training and support from the School of Business as they deliver their courses. Beyond training
and support, there is also a need to model the same sense of community among faculty that they
will then be able to create for the students within their courses. To do this, the online learning
team will construct an environment where faculty-to-faculty interaction is facilitated (Anderson,
2003, p. 139).
CHAPTER TWO: CURRICULUM OVERVIEW

Curriculum Description
The focus of this curriculum is to train and support online faculty members in
establishing a teaching presence, facilitating discourse, and engaging students to achieve learning
outcomes. The two most common concerns voiced by Marshall faculty members is that online
courses offer fewer opportunities for meaningful discourse than face-to-face courses and that the
design, development, and delivery of online courses is overwhelming in terms of having to
reconceptualize course content into a new platform, then teach that content using unfamiliar
methodologies while trying to learn innovative technical tool sets. More specifically, the problem
of practice is how to support faculty in establishing a teaching presence and facilitating discourse
within their online classes.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 30

Current online faculty development at USC Marshall focuses primarily on course design
and development. Faculty members are initially introduced to the instructional design team at an
“open house” tour of the online learning production studio. Here, they have a chance to either
observe another faculty member as he or she is being recorded in front of a video camera or to
practice on-camera recording themselves. Next, they are introduced to the content creation
process which the instructional design team uses to produce asynchronous learning activities.
Faculty members then meet one-on-one with an instructional designer to identify course
objectives and learning outcomes and to begin mapping out the structure of their course activities
and assessments. Faculty continue to meet on a regular basis with members of the instructional
design team over the course of several months as they finalize their asynchronous course content
and prepare for both asynchronous and synchronous course delivery. While this faculty
development process is quite successful in terms of creating an effective and efficient course
design, it does not address the pedagogical and technical components of online course delivery.
The proposed curriculum is designed for interested faculty to access information just in
time via a series of asynchronous, informational mini-lectures, podcasts, presentations, and
demonstrations. In addition, faculty may participate in written discussion forums as well as video
discussion forums designed to facilitate peer-to-peer engagement and encourage practice
utilizing the same platforms and tools that their students will be using. The curriculum also
provides the opportunity for faculty to participate in synchronous face-to-face and video
discussion workshops, one-on-one tutorial sessions, and peer-to-peer mentoring. Initially, this
curriculum will support faculty in utilizing an asynchronous written discussion forum, an
asynchronous video discussion forum, and a synchronous video discussion forum. Future
iterations of this curriculum may also include the use of social media to facilitate faculty
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 31

discourse and to establish a learning community in which online instructors engage with and
support one another.
Learner Description and Context
The targeted learner for this curriculum will initially be any faculty member who is
currently teaching online within USC Marshall School of Business. In future iterations, the
curriculum may also be open to any faculty member within USC Marshall who uses online tools,
regardless of whether their classes are online, face-to-face, or hybrid. All of Marshall’s online
faculty members are subject matter experts in their respective fields. The majority are full-time
clinical or tenured faculty; however, some adjunct faculty members also teach online as well.
Most of the online faculty members have several years of teaching experience in face-to-face
courses but have little or no online teaching experience. Online faculty typically exhibit a strong
sense of self-efficacy in their respective subject areas. In addition, many have won awards for
teaching in their face-to-face courses. However, it is not uncommon for new online instructors to
express concern about in their ability to adapt their teaching methodologies to the online space or
to navigate the technologies required to effectively and efficiently teach online.
All online programs at Marshall are voluntary. Faculty members are not compelled to
teach online, and those who choose to are highly motivated to succeed. Although a stipend is
offered for the initial course design and development of an online course, the time commitment
involved is large enough that most faculty appear to be motivated less by money and more by
other factors, including professional growth and development, career advancement and job
security, and a personal interest in experimenting with “new digital technologies and new
educational paradigms” (M. Nikias, memorandum, August 27, 2012). For those faculty members
who travel, online teaching offers a flexibility that is unavailable in face-to-face courses;
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 32

however, while this may be a motivating factor for a few online instructors, it does not appear to
be a primary motivator for the majority. Likewise, although faculty members may receive
varying degrees of recognition within their departments for participating in online education, it
does not appear that recognition is a significant motivating factor for faculty members either.
As adult learners, online faculty members tend to be self-directed and to prefer facilitated
learning that relates directly to their personal and professional life goals (Knowles, Holton, &
Swanson, 2014). These instructors are busy people, with families, full-time careers, and other
commitments that demand their time and attention. They do not have time for hours-long
lectures or theoretical learning that does not pertain to the specific task at hand, which is how to
effectively and efficiently design, develop, and deliver their online course content. Most have
significant prior knowledge and experience, not only in terms of the subject matter but also in
terms of how to effectively and efficiently engage their students in a face-to-face environment.
Ironically, sometimes this prior knowledge contradicts best practices in the online space, which
can make it more difficult for veteran on-ground faculty members to adapt to unfamiliar online
pedagogies and technologies (Grant & Thornton, 2007).
Instructors who are familiar with the specific content to be offered in their online course
may experience less cognitive load than their colleagues who are not as familiar with the course
content. Similarly, faculty members who understand core pedagogical principles may experience
less cognitive load than those who do not. Lastly, faculty who are familiar with online
technologies may experience less cognitive load than faculty who are unfamiliar with new
technologies. In short, faculty who have prior knowledge in the specific content, pedagogies, and
technologies they will be using in the online space will be less likely to become overloaded by
the design, development, and delivery process than those faculty who do not.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 33

Theoretical Frameworks
This faculty development curriculum is draws upon the community of inquiry (CoI)
framework, cognitive load theory, self-efficacy theory, and metacognitive theory.
Community of inquiry. Founded upon the work of John Dewey (1938), the CoI
theoretical framework is based upon constructivist theory and includes three distinct presences
within online learning environments: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence
(Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Shea, Li, & Pickett,
2006; Swan, Garrison, & Richardson, 2009). Social presence includes three categories: open
communication, group cohesion, and affective expression. Cognitive presence includes four
categories: triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution. Teaching presence includes
three categories: design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction (Garrison
& Arbaugh, 2007). Although the online learning team considers each of these presences to be
important, our focus for this curriculum is how to facilitate a strong teaching presence.
During the design and development phase of course production, an instructional designer
works one-on-one with faculty to organize their content in such a way that they are able to
establish and maintain a strong online teaching presence throughout their course. The proposed
training program will focus more on facilitating discourse within the online space. Facilitating
discourse requires instructors to move discussions forward by regularly reviewing and
commenting upon student posts in such a way as to support active conversations between
students, drawing in those who are not likely to speak up and curbing those who might be too
likely to dominate the discussion (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 164). The instructional design
team will provide best practices for faculty who are interested in facilitating student discourse
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 34

and will create a community of online faculty who can support one another in facilitating
discourse within their respective courses.
In addition to facilitating discourse, faculty must also be able to share their subject matter
expertise with their students through direct instruction. Most faculty equate direct instruction
with lecturing; however, direct instruction also involves guiding students in self-discovery by
directing discussions, diagnosing student comments, injecting new information when
appropriate, and making links with existing ideas outside of the classroom (Garrison & Arbaugh,
2007). The instructional design team will model ways in which online instructors can present
their material effectively and efficiently in such a way that knowledge is transferred.
Cognitive load. One way to reduce cognitive load is to provide a scaffold for learning
(Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006). Knowledge mapping, sometimes referred to as concept
mapping, is a type of scaffold that enables learners to acquire knowledge, process information,
organize ideas, and retrieve facts (Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2001; O’Donnell, Dansereau, & Hall,
2002). A knowledge or concept map can be designed “construct-by-self” so that individual
learners are prompted to construct the map themselves; concept maps can also be created
“construct-on-scaffold” so that portions of the map are filled in and portions left blank for
learners to fill in (Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2001, p. 23). In addition to providing a scaffold for
individual learners to recall and to reflect on key concepts and ideas, knowledge maps are also
useful in cooperative learning environments, where peers interact with one another (Chang,
Sung, & Chen, 2001; O’Donnell, Dansereau, & Hall, 2002).
The Marshall instructional design team utilizes course mapping when working one-on-
one with faculty in the design and development of their courses. During delivery training, the
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 35

team will utilize other scaffolds, including rubrics, to support faculty in their efforts to engage
students with the content and to encourage them to interact with one another.
Self-efficacy. If individuals do not believe they can succeed in a given task or
assignment, they have little incentive to persist (Bandura, 2006; Pajares, 2010). Although the
dissemination of relevant information is important, improving faculty self-efficacy is one of the
major goals of this faculty development curriculum. Currently, most of the faculty members at
USC Marshall have little or no online teaching experience. Those who have experienced
teaching online have learned to do so largely by trial and error, relying on student input to gauge
the effectiveness of their teaching methods. Bandura (2006) mentions four ways in which
people’s sense of efficacy is developed: through mastery experience, through modeling, and
through social persuasion, and stress reduction.
In addition to providing scaffolds for learning in order to facilitate mastery experience,
the Marshall faculty development curriculum will incorporate modeling best practices for online
course delivery and social persuasion as a means to encourage novice faculty. First, the
instructional design team will model best practices in delivering asynchronous and synchronous
content to participants of the faculty development program. Second, the program will allow
participants to observe more experienced faculty in order to see for themselves what online
instruction looks like and also how to handle problems as they come up in the delivery process.
Finally, experienced faculty mentors will be available on either an informal or a formal basis to
engage with and encourage new instructors and to answer their questions in real time.
Metacognition. The learning outcomes for this curriculum are based upon the revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et. al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2002), which includes a metacognitive
knowledge component as well as factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge components.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 36

Metacognitive knowledge includes overall strategic knowledge as well as knowledge about
specific cognitive tasks; furthermore, metacognitive knowledge includes self-knowledge
(Anderson et. al., 2001). Citing a 2000 National Research Council committee exploration of
metacognition led by Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, Linda Baker (2010) noted that students
who are allowed to reflect upon their learning experience are better able to apply the knowledge
they acquire in one situation to other situations. One of the key strategies of the faculty
development program, therefore, is to encourage participants to assess their performance and
strategies for online teaching on a regular basis throughout the course design, development, and
delivery process. In addition, the curriculum encourages participants to assess their sense of self-
efficacy and their motivation to persist with online teaching.
Design Justifications and Designer Bias
The faculty development curriculum utilizes multiple strategies, based upon community
of inquiry, cognitive load, self-efficacy, and metacognition frameworks, to facilitate student
discourse, reduce extraneous cognitive load, increase germane cognitive load, improve
participant self-efficacy, and allow faculty members to reflect upon their learning experiences. It
is designed, developed, and delivered by members of the USC Marshall instructional design
team as well as experienced online faculty.
Design justifications. The first task is to reduce the cognitive load that faculty members
experience by providing basic factual and conceptual information as well as step-by-step
procedural instructions. For example, the curriculum uses both auditory and visual channels in its
guided instruction in order to increase effective working memory and reduce mental workload.
In addition, activities include worked examples to reduce extraneous cognitive load (Kirschner,
Kirschner, & Paas, 2006). Secondly, utilizing social influences and social-psychological
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 37

interventions, the curriculum is designed to model effective collaboration (Kirschner, Paas, &
Kirschner, 2009). For example, basic factual knowledge may be acquired by watching the pre-
taped mini-lessons followed by a relevant discussion forum. Then, the more complex task of
creating an engaging discussion forum prompt is actually performed within an online or hybrid
faculty workshop, where prompts can be discussed and improved upon by all members of the
group. This may be followed up with individual one-on-one coaching sessions with members of
our instructional design team and/or mentoring by an experienced faculty member.
Although this curriculum relies upon the use of technology as the main mode of
instructional delivery, the content and instructional methods involved are the “active ingredients”
for the transfer of knowledge (Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton, 2010). The revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy (Anderson et. al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2002)—which measures across both the
knowledge and the cognitive process dimensions—forms the basis for the curriculum learning
outcomes, activities, and assessments. For example, the pre-taped mini-lessons and “best
practices” tips by experienced online faculty are important in providing a basic understanding of
factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge. The discussion forums give participants an
opportunity to formatively assess their understanding of that knowledge as well as an
opportunity for participants to improve their metacognitive understanding by reflecting upon
their learning. Finally workshops and individual one-on-one coaching sessions provide
additional opportunities to apply, analyze, evaluate, create, and reflect upon learning as
participants develop their own discussion forum prompts over the course of the curriculum.
Faculty members are a rare mix of experts (within their respective subject matter) and
novices (in terms of online pedagogy and technologies), and any faculty development curriculum
must address this fact. In addition, faculty members are adult learners who rely on prior
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 38

knowledge and experience in terms of face-to-face teaching and little extra time for online
training. The faculty development curriculum is appropriate for this audience, which is
comprised of adult learners. First and foremost, the faculty development curriculum is designed
to be of immediate benefit to online instructors and to answer specific questions about the online
pedagogy and technologies that they are using. The curriculum encourages participants to utilize
their prior knowledge and to reflect upon how their previous teaching experience can be utilized
in the online space. The curriculum provides job aids and models for best practices among online
faculty members.
Designer bias. Although this faculty development curriculum is based on sound
theoretical frameworks, it would be naïve to think that there are no biases to the approach being
proposed. First, as instructional designers, there is a tendency to assume that everyone is as
interested in studying online pedagogy and new technologies as we are. As subject matter
experts in the field of online curriculum design, development, and delivery, it is important to
remind ourselves that others may be more interested in how to teach online than in what are the
relevant theoretical frameworks or even why they should (or shouldn’t) adopt certain online
methodologies. Tangential to this, online faculty members are busy people, with professional and
personal lives that do not revolve around instructional design. Most simply don’t have the time
or the interest in exploring potential online teaching scenarios via extensive workshops and
lecture series; often times, they just want to know specifically what they need to do in a given
situation and nothing more.
Everyone learns differently, in his or her own way and at his or her own pace. Some
participants may prefer simple guided instruction via mini-lesson or fact sheets; others may learn
better through modeling; and still others want face-to-face interaction. It is important for us, as
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 39

members of the instructional design team, not to assume any one approach to learning based on
how we might learn best. Lastly, as experts in the field of instructional design who have been an
integral part of the course development process from inception to implementation, it is often easy
to forget that novices do not have the prior knowledge or experience to grasp some of the online
pedagogical thinking in which instructional designers are engaged. We must therefore be diligent
in our cognitive task analyses and be sure to include each and every step that an online instructor
will need to take to accomplish a given task, rather than assuming they intuitively understand
what to do next.
Curriculum Learning Outcomes
Faculty members who complete all components of this program will be able to demonstrate the
following outcomes:
 Define what is meant by establishing a "teaching" presence.
 Describe key components of written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and
synchronous video conference forums.
 Discuss how written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video
conference forums might be used to effectively and efficiently present course content and
facilitate student learning in the online space.
 Assess the strengths and weaknesses of written discussion forums, asynchronous video
forums, and synchronous video conference forums in terms of appropriateness for their
course or subject matter.
 Develop activities utilizing a written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and
synchronous video conference forums for their course or subject matter.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 40

 Deliver written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video
conference forums in an online classroom.
 Evaluate the level of student discourse and engagement achieved as a result of the written
discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video conference forums.
 Reflect upon their sense of self-efficacy in using written discussion forums, asynchronous
video forums, and synchronous video conference forums.
The above learning outcomes are based upon the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, which consists of
both a knowledge dimension and a cognitive process dimension (Anderson et. al., 2001;
Krathwohl, 2002). These outcomes reflect understanding of factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge and progress from remembering and understanding key concepts to
applying those concepts; analyzing and evaluating content; and, ultimately, to creating content.
Curriculum assessments. While it is strongly recommended that faculty take advantage
of the online training and support that is offered, their participation is voluntary and all
assessments are formative in nature.
This curriculum consists of two distinct types of assessments. First, the faculty
development curriculum includes discussion forums within the actual platforms that faculty will
be using when they are teaching online. Participants are invited to respond to the prompts given
and to review one another’s responses in both of the asynchronous written and video discussion
forums that mirror the platforms they will use within their online courses. These discussion
forums fulfill several important purposes: (1) to allow participants to become comfortable
navigating the technical platforms; (2) to give participants a deeper understanding of how their
students will experience these platforms; (3) to encourage participants to analyze and evaluate
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 41

key concepts on a deeper level; (4) to exchange thoughts and ideas with their peers; and (5) to
reflect upon their own learning processes in a meaningful way.
As faculty experience mastery in navigating the technical platforms they will be using in
their online courses, their sense of self-efficacy will improve. In addition, by participating in
peer-to-peer reviews, they will have the opportunity to learn from one another. Best practices
will be modeled by members of the instructional design team and by experienced online faculty
members, which may also improve participant efficacy and motivate them to persist in learning.
Second, working one-on-one with a member of the instructional design team and/or with
an experienced faculty mentor, participants are given individualized assignments which guide
them in creating their own course content and then in delivering that content in the online space.
Faculty can then apply feedback from those assignments to refine their own online content or
delivery. In addition, participants will be given numerous job aids to assist them with their
learning, including CTA-based checklists for developing strong discussion forum prompts and
rubrics for effective and efficient prompts.
These job aids should help reduce cognitive load by scaffolding faculty learning, and the
one-on-one feedback will be tailored to their specific learning needs in such a way that novices
and experts alike will benefit. In addition, the modeling that they receive from both experts on
the instructional design team as well as experienced faculty mentors will be helpful to them in
gaining a sense of their own mastery.
Curriculum activities. Activities are multi-tiered and designed to be taken in sequence or as
needed by faculty members. One component of the curriculum is a 60-minute hybrid “working
lunch” workshop and discussion session to be offered to faculty early each semester. These
workshops focus on a problem of practice related to online learning and are hosted by a member
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 42

of the instructional design team and presented by two or three experienced online faculty
members.
Workshops include topics that apply to online faculty in particular and more broadly to
all faculty members who use technology in the classroom. First year topics include how to
effectively and efficiently manage discussion forums to facilitate student discourse, how to
facilitate student-to-student discourse through the use of (YouSeeU) asynchronous video forums,
and how to actively engage and encourage student discourse within (Zoom) synchronous video
conference sessions.
Workshops are open to all faculty members, including novice online instructors as well as
face-to-face instructors who are curious about online course presentation. Faculty can attend in
person or via video conference according to their schedules and comfort levels with online
platforms. These workshops are especially helpful for new faculty and/or faculty who are not yet
comfortable with navigating online platforms by themselves. They also provide a space for
faculty members to get to know one another informally, which helps establish a community of
learners.
Another component of the curriculum is a series of learning modules that include pre-
taped video presentations by a member of the instructional design team, faculty and student
interviews, and additional resources and/or job aids. These modules will cover a variety of topics
related to the design, development, and delivery of online course and will be made available
online so that interested faculty can access them just in time, whenever they have a question
relating to a particular topic.
Initial topics include achieving learning outcomes and creating a Community of Inquiry
(Dewey, 1938). Other topics include more specific instruction as to how to use written discussion
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 43

forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video conference forums. Additionally,
faculty will be introduced to the fundamentals of e-assessments and student feedback utilizing
rubrics and exemplars in the online space.
In addition to the workshops and learning modules, faculty may opt to attend a one-on-
one coaching session with a member of the instructional design team to learn pedagogical best
practices such as how to establish a teaching presence, how to create learner-centered activities,
and how to facilitate student discourse in written discussion forums/video discussion
forums/synchronous sessions. Novice faculty will also have an opportunity to observe their
peers’ online synchronous sessions and be observed by their peers and to form mentoring
relationships with more experienced faculty members. Checklists and rubrics will be provided
for faculty to gauge their own levels of mastery and to assess their own progress as they improve
their online pedagogical skills and abilities.
Throughout all of these activities and assessments, participants are encouraged to engage
in robust discourse with the content and with one another. By actively engaging in a faculty-level
Community of Inquiry (Dewey, 1938), it is hoped that faculty will persist in engaging in active
discourse past the initial training program and will support one another on an on-going basis as
they continue to teach their own courses online. In addition, having experienced the benefits of
student-centered learning first-hand, it is expected that faculty will be better able to emulate that
learning within their own online courses.
Formative and Summative Assessments
Evaluation of the Faculty Development Program will be based upon the Kirkpatrick Evaluation
Framework (Kirkpatrick Partners, 2017). This framework includes four levels of evaluation:
Reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Of the four, the Instructional Design (ID) team will
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 44

focus primarily on the first three. Since the Faculty Development Program is designed to be
taken piecemeal, measurements will focus on four distinct groups: (1) Faculty who attend a
workshop, (2) Faculty who complete three or more asynchronous units within the program, (3)
Faculty who request one-on-one ID coaching, and (4) Faculty who request peer mentoring.
Using the first group as an example, below are the evaluative assessments that will be conducted.
Level 1: Reaction. All participants will be given the opportunity to answer a series of
evaluative questions via an online survey immediately following the training to measure their
affective reactions and utility judgments. Modeled upon USC’s Center for Excellence in
Teaching workshop survey (Dana Coyle, email correspondence, April 04, 2017), Level 1
questions will include prompts for written responses as well as Likert scale responses, such as:
 What did you hope to learn from today’s event?
 Were your expectations fulfilled? Yes/Somewhat/No (Please explain)
 Was this event helpful in addressing your online teaching questions/concerns? Very
helpful/Helpful/Not at all helpful (Please explain)
 How likely is it that you will change some aspect of your online teaching as a result of
attending this event? Very likely/Likely/Not at all likely (Please explain)
 How do you feel about your ability to teach online? Very confident/Confident/Not at all
confident (Please explain)
 Do you think the content presented in this event has had any effect on your confidence
level in regards to online teaching? Yes/Maybe/No (Please explain)
 What aspect of today’s event did you find most useful?
 How could this event be improved?
 What other online learning topics are you interested in exploring in future events?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 45

Level 2: Learning. In addition to measuring learner reactions, it is important to assess
whether or not the learning outcomes were achieved. To this end, a member of the ID team will
observe workshop attendees or 1:1 coaching clients to assess their learning. Observation and
evaluation criteria may include the following:
 Is this learner able to define what is meant by establishing a teaching presence?
 Is this learner able to describe key components of written discussion forums, asynchronous
video forums, and/or synchronous video conference forums?
 Is this learner able to discuss how written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums,
and/or synchronous video conference forums might be used to effectively and efficiently
present course content and facilitate student learning in the online space?
 Is this learner able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of written discussion forums,
asynchronous video forums, and/or synchronous video conference forums in terms of
appropriateness for their course or subject matter?
Level 3: Behavior. In order to see the degree to which participants have actually changed
their teaching behaviors as the result of training, a member of the ID team will follow up with
each workshop attendee or 1:1 coaching client within three months of training to assess what
s/he is doing differently. This meeting will consist of an informal interview and observation in
which the ID team member prompts the faculty member to describe his or her teaching
methodologies as they relate to the learning outcomes of the workshop that they attended; if
possible, the ID team member will also observe teaching to see which principles are being
applied. Informal interview questions may include the following:
 Have you developed an activity utilizing a written discussion forums, asynchronous video
forums, and/or synchronous video conference forums for an online course?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 46

 Have you delivered (or developed a plan for delivering) a written discussion forum,
asynchronous video forum, and/or synchronous video conference forum activity in an online
course?
 Have you evaluated (or developed a plan for evaluating) the level of student discourse and
engagement achieved as a result of the written discussion forum, asynchronous video forum,
and/or synchronous video conference forum?
 Upon reflection, do you feel more confident in your ability to facilitate written discussion
forums, asynchronous video forums, and/or synchronous video conference forums?
Level 4: Results. Results over time must look not only at the performance of individual
faculty members who attend our workshops or who receive 1:1 coaching but at the data from
their online classes as well. Are faculty members who complete the faculty development
program more likely to report a greater sense of self-efficacy in teaching online? Do they get
better student evaluations? Are they more likely to win awards for innovative teaching? Are they
more likely to mentor new online faculty? Though much more difficult to assess, the ID team
will informally interview and observe data (i.e. awards, evaluations, etc.) offered by workshop
attendees on an annual basis to determine whether or not they have achieved any measurable
indication of improvement in their teaching as a result of taking part in this training.
CHAPTER THREE: CURRICULUM CONTENT

Scope & Sequence

Curriculum Outcomes (COs)
I = Introduced
R = Reinforced
M = Mastered

Module
1

Module
2

Module
3

Module
4

Module
5
One-on-
One
Coaching
Define what is meant by
establishing a "teaching
presence."
I R R R R M
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 47

Describe key components of
Written Discussion Forums
(WDFs), Asynchronous Video
Forums (AVFs), and
Synchronous Video
Conference Forums (SVCFs).
I R R R R M
Discuss how WDFs, AVFs,
and SVCFs can be used to
effectively and efficiently
facilitate student engagement
with course content and with
one another in the online
space.

I

R

R

R

R

M
Assess the strengths and
weaknesses of WDFs, AVFs,
and SVCFs in terms of
appropriateness for course or
subject matter.

I

R

R

R

R

M
Develop an activity utilizing
WDFs, AVFs, or SVCFs for a
given course or subject matter.

I

R

R

R

R

M
Deliver an activity utilizing
WDFs, AVFs, or SVCFs in an
online classroom.
I R R R R M
Evaluate the level of student
discourse and engagement
achieved as a result of the
activity utilizing WDFs,
AVFs, or SVCFs

I

R

R

R

R

M
Reflect upon faculty self-
efficacy in using online
platforms to facilitate student
discourse and learning
outcomes.

I

R

R

R

R

M

Module Overview
The USC Marshall Faculty Development Program consists of multiple modules, each of which is
based upon an overarching theme. Each module consists of a hybrid faculty workshop as well as
three to four asynchronous units, which delve deeper into specific topics within those themes.
Every asynchronous unit consists of a pre-recorded mini-lesson, faculty or student interviews,
reading summaries, and a discussion prompt. Novice faculty may also engage in one-on-one
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 48

coaching with members of the USC Marshall Instructional Design team as well as in informal
mentoring with an experienced online faculty member at any time.
Module 1 includes an introduction to key concepts in online learning and should be
viewed as a pre-requisite to the remaining modules. Modules 2, 3, and 4 explore design and
development components of written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and
synchronous video conference forums respectively. The content within each of these modules
may be taken in any order and is not required to be taken consecutively. Additionally, faculty
members may complete all of the material and activities or may just complete those that are
relevant to them at a given time. Module 5 provides an overview of course delivery strategies to
enhance the online student experience.
All program content will be made available to faculty members through the Marshall
Teaching with Technology organization site in Bb and in Canvas. This site will house all pre-
taped material, readings, recorded workshops, guides, and handouts. In addition, the site will
provide a link to the Faculty Development Companion, Marshall’s online teaching resource
library for faculty.

Running head: FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 49
Module Outlines
Module 1: Introduction to Online Learning (OL) Platforms
Learning Outcomes:
 Define what is meant by establishing a “teaching presence”
 Describe key components of written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video conference
forums
 Assess the strengths and weaknesses of written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video
conference forums in terms of appropriateness for course or subject matter
 Reflect upon faculty self-efficacy in using OL platforms
Topics Activities Self-Assessments
 M1:Unit 1
When to use Online
Learning (OL) platforms
in the online classroom
 Instructional design overview (3 min. video)
 Faculty perspectives (5 min. video).
References:
o Culatta (2015)
o Garrison & Arbaugh (2007)
o Iowa State University, CELT (2012)
o Krathwohl (2002)
o Mezirow (1997)
Prompt: What top 3 teaching strategies do
you use to engage students in your brick and
mortar classes? Which of these—if any—
would work in the online community? If
none, what teaching strategies do you
believe would work best online to engage
students and facilitate discourse? (Canvas
Discussion Board)
 M1:Unit 2
When to use Written
Discussion Forums
(WDFs)

 Instructional design overview (3 min. video)
 Student perspectives on WDFs (5 min. video)
References:
o Black (2005)
o Cho & Tobias (2016)
o Thomas (2002)
Prompt: Share a situation in which you
have successfully utilized a written
discussion forum to engage your students?
If you’ve never used this tool, then share a
situation in which you believe such a forum
would be successful. How would you
structure the prompt? How would you guide
students in their responses? What would be
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 50

your desired outcome from such an activity?
(Canvas Discussion Board)
 M1:Unit 3
When to use
Asynchronous Video
Conference Forums
(AVFs)
 Instructional design overview (3 min. video)
 Student perspectives on AVFs (5 min. video)
References:
o Borup, West, & Graham (2013)
o Mabrito (2006)
Prompt: Share a situation in which you
have successfully utilized an asynchronous
video forum to engage your students? If
you’ve never used this tool, then share a
situation in which you believe such a forum
would be successful. How would you
structure the assignment? How would you
guide students in their engagement? What
would be your desired outcome from such
an activity? (Canvas Discussion Board)
 M1:Unit 4
When to use Synchronous
Video Conference Forums
(SVCFs)
 Instructional design overview (3 min. video)
 Student perspectives on SVCFs (5 min. video)
References:
o Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, and Kenney
(2015)
o Clark, Strudler, & Grove (2015)
o Warden, Stanworth, Ren, and Warden (2012)
Prompt: Share a situation in which you
have successfully utilized a synchronous
video conferencing forum to engage your
students? If you’ve never used this tool,
then share a situation in which you believe
such a forum would be successful. How
would you structure this activity? How
would you guide students in their
engagement? What would be your desired
outcome? (Canvas Discussion Board)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 51

 M1 Workshop: OL
faculty panel

 Brief introduction to faculty and topic (5 min.)
 Faculty perspectives on the tools they have
used to establish a teaching presence and
engage students in their online courses with
audience Q & A (30 min.)
 Group discussion prompt (20 min.)
 Summary of learning & Feedback (5 min.)
Handouts:
o USC Marshall Online Learning Platforms
o The 10 Biggest Myths About Synchronous
Online Teaching

Sign up:
o Peer-to-peer mentoring
o Instructional Design (ID) coaching
Group Discussion Prompt: What teaching
strategies have you used to engage your
students? What online tools or platforms
have you used? What worked best for you
and why? What worked worst for you and
why? What tools/platforms are you most
interested in using?

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 52

Module 2: Written Discussion Forums
Learning Outcomes:
 Discuss how written discussion forums can be used to effectively and efficiently facilitate student engagement with course
content and with one another in the online space
 Develop an activity utilizing a written discussion forum for a given course or subject matter
 Deliver a written discussion forum in an online classroom
 Evaluate the level of student discourse and engagement achieved as a result of the activity
 Reflect upon faculty sense of self-efficacy in utilizing written discussion forums in the online space
Topics Activities Self-Assessments
 M2:Unit 1
How to use Written
Discussion Forums
(WDFs) with individuals
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min.)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use WDFs for
individual and peer-to-peer engagement (5-7
min. video)
References:
o Black (2005)
o Hall (2016)
o Mazzolini & Maddison (2004)
o Rovai (2007)
Prompt: Based on your prior teaching
experiences, what 3 strategies would you
use to effectively engage your students in
both formal and informal discussion
forums? (Canvas Discussion Board)
 M2:Unit 2
How to use WDFs with
small groups

 Instructional design overview (1-2 min.)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use WDFs for
team-based discussions (5-7 min. video)
References
o Black (2005)
o Hall (2016)
o Mazzolini & Maddison (2004)
Prompt: Based on your prior teaching
experiences, what 3 strategies would you
use to effectively engage your students in
small group discussion forums? (Canvas
Discussion Board)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 53

o Rovai (2007)
 M2:Unit 3
Effective & efficient WDF
facilitation
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min.)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use WDFs
effectively and efficiently (5-7 min. video)

References
o Black (2005)
o Hall (2016)
o Mazzolini & Maddison (2004)
o Rovai (2007)
Prompt: Based on your prior teaching
experiences, what 3 strategies would you
use to effectively and efficiently create a
teaching presence and engage your students
in critical thinking? (Canvas Discussion
Board)
 M2:Tips to use WDFs  Step-by-step guide to using WDFs in Canvas
(pdf handout)
One-on-one review with member of ID
team
 M2 Workshop: WDF
faculty panel

 Brief introduction to faculty and topic (5 min.)
 Faculty perspectives on strategies they have
used to effectively and efficiently engage
student discussions in asynchronous written
discussion forums with audience Q & A (30
min.)
 Group discussion prompt (20 min.)
 Summary of learning & Feedback (5 min.)
Handouts:
o Written Discussion Forum Checklist
o The 10 Biggest Myths About Synchronous
Online Teaching

Group Discussion Prompt: What teaching
strategies have you used to engage student
discussions in on ground classes? How
might those strategies transfer to online
written discussion forums? Utilizing the
WDF Checklist, develop a sample prompt
that you might use in your class. Share and
critique with a peer.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 54

Sign up:
o Peer-to-peer mentoring
o ID coaching
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 55

Module 3: Asynchronous Video Forums (YouSeeU)
Learning Outcomes:
 Discuss how asynchronous video forums can be used to effectively and efficiently facilitate student engagement
 Develop an activity utilizing asynchronous video forums for an online course
 Deliver an asynchronous video forum activity in an online course
 Evaluate the level of student engagement within asynchronous video forums
 Reflect upon faculty self-efficacy in utilizing asynchronous video forums
Topics Activities Self-Assessments
 M3:Unit 1
How to use
Asynchronous Video
Forums (AVFs) with
individuals
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min. video)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use AVFs with
individuals (5-7 min. video)

References:
o Borup, West, & Graham (2013)
o Mabrito (2006)

Prompt: Based on your prior teaching
experiences, which of the 3 YouSeeU
activities for individuals would be most
useful to you within your online classroom?
Why? (YouSeeU)
 M3:Unit 2
How to use AVFs with
small groups
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min. video)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use AVFs with
small groups(5-7 min. video)

References:
o Borup, West, & Graham (2013)
o Mabrito (2006)

Prompt: Based on your prior teaching
experiences, which of the YouSeeU activities
for small groups would be most useful to you
within your online classroom? Why?
(YouSeeU)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 56

 M3:Unit 3
Effective and efficient
AVFs
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min. video)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use AVFs
effectively and efficiently (5-7 min. video)

References:
o Borup, West, & Graham (2013)
o Mabrito (2006)

Prompt: Many instructors complain that
trying to maintain a teaching presence in the
online space is a time drain. How might
AVFs mitigate that time drain? (YouSeeU)
 M3: Tips to use AVFs  Step-by-step guide to using AVFs in Canvas
(pdf handout)
One-on-one review with member of ID team
 M3 Workshop: AVF
faculty panel
 Brief introduction to faculty and topic (5 min.)
 Faculty perspectives on strategies they have
used to effectively and efficiently engage
student discussions in asynchronous written
discussion forums with audience Q & A (30
min.)
 Group discussion prompt (20 min.)
 Summary of learning & Feedback (5 min.)
Handouts:
o YouSeeU Overview
o The 10 Biggest Myths About Synchronous
Online Teaching

Sign up:
o Peer-to-peer mentoring
o ID coaching
Group Discussion Prompt: Which of the
AVFs listed in the Toolkit would be most
useful for you to achieve a teaching presence
and facilitate student discourse within your
course?

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 57

Module 4: Synchronous Video Conference Forums (MarshallTALK)
Learning Outcomes:
 Discuss how synchronous video conference forums can be used to effectively and efficiently facilitate student engagement
 Develop an activity utilizing synchronous video conference forums for an online course
 Deliver a synchronous video conference forum activity in an online course
 Evaluate the level of student engagement within synchronous video conference forums
 Reflect upon faculty self-efficacy in utilizing synchronous video conference forums
Topics Activities Self-Assessments
 M4:Unit 1
Flipping the classroom
with Synchronous Video
Conference Forums
(SVCFs)
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min. video)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use SVCFs for
individual and peer-to-peer engagement (5-7
min. video)

References:
o Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, and Kenney
(2015)
o Clark, Strudler, & Grove (2015)
o Warden, Stanworth, Ren, and Warden (2012)
Prompt: Share a situation in which you
have successfully engaged your students in
an on ground class? What strategies did you
use? How could you use those strategies in a
“flipped” classroom with Synchronous Video
Conference Forums? (Zoom)
 M4:Unit 2
Breakout rooms in
SVCFs

 Instructional design overview (1-2 min. video)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use SVCFs for
individual and peer-to-peer engagement (5-7
min. video)

References:
Prompt: Share a situation in which you
have successfully engaged your students in
breaking out into small groups in an on
ground class? What strategies did you use?
How could you use those strategies in
designing breakout rooms within
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 58

o Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, and Kenney
(2015)
o Clark, Strudler, & Grove (2015)
o Warden, Stanworth, Ren, and Warden (2012)
Synchronous Video Conference Forums?
(Zoom)
 M4:Unit 3
Effective and efficient
SVCFs
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min. video)
 Faculty perspectives on how to use SVCFs for
individual and peer-to-peer engagement (5-7
min. video)

References:
o Bower, Dalgarno, Kennedy, Lee, and Kenney
(2015)
o Clark, Strudler, & Grove (2015)
o Warden, Stanworth, Ren, and Warden (2012)
Prompt: Based on your prior teaching
experiences, what strategies would you use
to effectively and efficiently facilitate a
synchronous video conferencing forum that
engaged students and achieved learning
outcomes? (Zoom)
 M4: Tips to use SVCFs  Step-by-step guide to using SVCFs in Canvas
(pdf handout)
One-on-one review with member of ID team
 M4 Workshop: SVCF
faculty panel

 Brief introduction to faculty and topic (5 min.)
 Faculty perspectives on strategies they have
used to effectively and efficiently engage
student discussions in asynchronous written
discussion forums with audience Q & A (30
min.)
 Group discussion prompt (20 min.)
 Summary of learning & Feedback (5 min.)
Handouts:
o MarshallTALK Participation Rubric
Group Discussion Prompt: What teaching
strategies have you used to engage students
in on ground classes? How might those
strategies transfer to synchronous video
conference forums? Utilizing the Sample
Rubric, develop a rubric that you could use
to track student participation in your class.
Share and critique with a peer.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 59

o The 10 Biggest Myths About Synchronous
Online Teaching
Sign up:
o Peer-to-peer mentoring
o ID coaching

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 60

Module 5: Online Course Delivery Strategies
Learning Outcomes:
 Discuss how the LMS grade book can be used to effectively and efficiently facilitate student engagement
 Assess the strengths and weaknesses of grading online versus offline
 Evaluate the level of student engagement utilizing the LMS grade book
 Reflect upon their self-efficacy in utilizing OL Platforms to facilitate student discourse and learning outcomes
Topics Activities Self-Assessments
 M5:Unit 1
Feedback Fundamentals
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min. video)
 Faculty perspectives on grading online versus
offline (5-7 min. video)

References:
o Dixon, D. D. and Worrell, F. C. (2016)
o Draper, S. W. (2009)
o Evans, C. (2013)
Prompt: Based upon your prior teaching
experience, how often do you give feedback
to your students? What type of feedback do
you give them? How might teaching online
change the type or frequency of feedback
you give your students? (Canvas Discussion
Board)

 M5:Unit 2
E-Assessment Feedback
 Instructional design overview (1-2 min. video)
 Student perspectives on feedback and
engagement (5-7 min. video)
References:
o Dixon, D. D. and Worrell, F. C. (2016)
o Draper, S. W. (2009)
o Evans, C. (2013)
Prompt: Based on your prior teaching
experience, what are the strengths and
weaknesses of grading online versus offline?
(Canvas Discussion Board)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 61

 M5:Unit 3
Utilizing Rubrics and
Exemplars as part of the
Feedback Process
 Instructional Designer perspectives on using
the rubrics and e-assessment feedback (1-2
min. video)
 Faculty and student perspectives on rubrics
and exemplars (5-7 min. video)
References:
o deLeeuw, J. (2016)
o Lipnevich, A. A. et. al. (2013)
Prompt: What do you perceive as the
strengths and weaknesses of utilizing rubrics
and/or exemplars within your particular
discipline or classroom? (Canvas Discussion
Board)
 M5: Student Feedback  Brief introduction to faculty and topic (5 min.)
 Faculty perspectives on the pedagogical
strategies they have used to establish a
teaching presence and engage students in their
online courses with audience Q & A (30 min.)
 Group discussion prompt (20 min.)
 Summary of learning & Feedback (5 min.)
Handouts:
o How do I use SpeedGrader
o The 10 Biggest Myths About Synchronous
Online Teaching
Sign up:
o Peer-to-peer mentoring
o ID coaching
Group Discussion Prompt: What types of
feedback do you give to your students? How
often do you give feedback? How does the
feedback you give align with your course
learning outcomes? How effective and
efficient do you feel your current feedback
strategy is? How might you make it more
effective or efficient?

Running head: FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
CURRICULUM 62
Module 1: Introduction to Online Learning (OL)
Module 1, Unit 1 script. When to use online learning (OL) tools in the online classroom
[See M1U1 storyboard in Appendix B]:
Welcome to Module 1, “When to use Online Learning Tools.” In this module, we are
going to touch on some of the overarching principles for online learning in general and for using
the some of the platforms that we have within our online courses in particular.
Before we talk about when to use online learning tools in the online classroom, it’s
important to gain some perspective about teaching in the online classroom in general and, more
to the point, how teaching in the online classroom is similar to and different from teaching in a
brick and mortar classroom.
Many of the faculty with whom our instructional design team works have years of
experience teaching on ground. Most of them earn consistently high evaluations from their
students, and some have even won awards for their teaching. Some lecture, some use case
studies, some rely on the Socratic Method. Still others combine methodologies to engage their
students, depending upon their area of discipline. But which of these is most effective in the
online space?
Let’s take a look at what we mean when we say we want to teach our students. According
to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of teaching is, “to cause or help (someone)
to learn about a subject by giving lessons.” Now, let’s look at what we mean when we say
we want our students to learn. Again, looking at the Merriam-Webster dictionary, we see the
definition of learning is, “to gain knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught,
or experiencing something.”
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 63

As you can see, there is a nuanced difference between teaching and learning. Namely,
when we talk about teaching, we talk about it from the teacher’s perspective. But when we talk
about learning, the framework shifts to the student’s perspective.
Transformative Learning theory refers to two types of learning: Instrumental and
communicative. Instrumental learning is task-oriented and involves problem solving or
determining cause-and-effect relationships. Communicative learning explores students’ feelings
and perceptions. Learning, in this case, is the process of transforming a student’s frame of
reference through critical reflection and discourse.
Students learn by critically reflecting on their core assumptions, validating or changing
their beliefs through discourse, and taking action based on their insights and assessments – in
essence broadening their perspectives to include new beliefs as well as elaborations on their
initial beliefs.
In an on ground, face-to-face classroom, it is relatively easy for an instructor to intuit the
degree to which his students are engaged and even to some extent the degree to which they are
learning in real time. Are they paying attention? Are they asking questions? Are they making eye
contact? Do they look puzzled? Do they look bored? Instructors can get immediate feedback as
to whether or not what they are teaching is actually being absorbed and applied by their students.
However, in an online class, this may not be possible. Online students may engage with
their instructor, with their peers, and with their course content asynchronously (at any time) or
synchronously (at the same time).
In other words, they may watch pre-recorded lectures or engage in discussion forums at
any time and in any place (asynchronously). They may also meet with their instructor or with
their peers at the same time and place (synchronously) through a video conference forum.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 64

The instructor has no way of gauging student body language or fielding real-time
questions in an asynchronous learning environment because he is not present when his students
are engaging with the course materials. And, although instructors have a slightly better
opportunity for gauging student engagement in a synchronous learning environment, the
interaction is not as fluid nor as intuitive as it might be on ground.
This does not mean that instructors cannot teach or that students cannot learn online. On
the contrary, there is ample evidence now that students can and do learn online, sometimes more
effectively and efficiently than they can on ground. However, instructors may need to adapt their
teaching strategies to accommodate and to take advantage of the benefits inherent in the online
space.
If the act of learning involves broadening students’ perspectives, then it could be argued
that the online space is the perfect venue for teaching. Student learning is no longer limited to a
given locale; the “classroom” is essentially every site on the Internet, and peers may be located
anywhere from next door to around the world, providing unique viewpoints that would not
otherwise be attainable in a brick and mortar classroom. Although the instructor is still an
integral part of the learning process, she is not the focal point of the process. In other words, the
online classroom is student-centric rather than teacher-centric.
In this environment, students may gain knowledge from the instructor, from other sources
within the virtual classroom, and from their peers. The instructor facilitates learning as much as
or even more so than she teaches student; her primary job is to create a community in which
students can learn, whether or not she is actually present to teach.
One way to do this is to create a community of inquiry. Within the Community of Inquiry
framework, there are three main presences: The social presence, the cognitive presence, and the
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 65

teaching presence. Online faculty can create an environment where students are able to project
themselves socially and emotionally and to build meaning from content through discourse and
reflection. But to do this, faculty must first design and develop their course content in such a way
as to facilitate discourse and direct instruction. As instructional designers, we call this “working
backwards.”
When our instructional design team initially meets with a faculty member to help them
create an online course, one of the first questions we ask is, “What are your learning outcomes?”
Notice this is different from asking, “What are your teaching objectives?” Teaching objectives
are revolved around what the instructor intends to teach, not necessarily what the students will
actually learn. Learning outcomes address what the students will actually learn. They are definite
and measurable.
In order to effectively and efficiently direct instruction so that students will learn, we
must first look at what we expect those students to be able to demonstrate once they’ve
completed the course. According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, learning outcomes might include
recalling a particular fact or comparing different theories. They might include executing a plan
or analyzing a case or critiquing an article. Lastly they might include generating a new concept
based upon existing literature. The point is that each one of these outcomes is action-based and
measurable, from recalling to comparing to executing to analyzing to critiquing to generating.
Once instructors have established their learning outcomes, they can then address what
types of assessments and activities they will use to achieve those learning outcomes. These may
require student-teacher engagement, student-student engagement, or student-content
engagement. They may involve active discourse or quiet reflection. They may be offered either
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 66

asynchronously or synchronously. Nonetheless, each activity is linked directly to a learning
outcome in such a way that students are continuously directed forward in the learning process.
Regardless of whether they are teaching on ground or online, most instructors agree that
their primary objective is to teach their subject matter in such a way that their students will learn
it and be able to apply it in their day-to-day lives. The challenge is how to enable this
transformational process. In the online space, instructors can create a community of inquiry by
facilitating discourse and directing instruction. Working backwards, they can create learning
outcomes to inform which assessments and activities are most appropriate in their courses.
I hope you’ve found the ideas presented here to be helpful in laying the groundwork for
your online courses. In the next unit, Unit 2, we examine when faculty might use written
discussion forums as an activity for their students. Written discussion forums are just one of the
asynchronous tools that instructors can use to facilitate discourse and help students achieve their
learning outcomes. In Unit 3, we explore when faculty might use synchronous video forums to
facilitate discourse and help students achieve their learning outcomes. In Unit 4, we look at when
faculty might use synchronous video conference forums to facilitate real-time discourse and help
students achieve their learning outcomes.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on when to use online learning tools
in the online classroom
Module 1, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 67

 What techniques do you use to teach in an on ground class?
 Do you use the same teaching techniques online that you do on ground? Why or why not?
 What strategies do you use to engage your students on ground?
 What strategies do you use to engage your students online?
 How are these teaching strategies similar in these two platforms? Why?
 How are these teaching strategies different in these two platforms? Why?
 What online tools do you use to engage your students and direct instruction?
 Which tools or techniques do you think are most effective in engaging students online? Why?
 What are some of the biggest challenges to effectively and efficiently teaching online?
 Other comments?
Module 1, Unit 1 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 1, Unit 1 by reading the following five article summaries.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
1. Culatta, R. (2015). Transformative learning (Jack Mezirow). Retrieved from
www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/transformative-learning.html

Core principles of Transformative learning are:
a) Adult exhibit two kinds of learning: instrumental (e.g., cause/effect) and
communicative (e.g., feelings)
b) Learning involves change to meaning structures (perspectives and schemes).
c) Change to meaning structures occurs through reflection about content, process or
premises.
d) Learning can involve: refining/elaborating meaning schemes, learning new schemes,
transforming schemes, or transforming perspectives.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 68

2. Garrison, D. R. and Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry
framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157-
172.

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework consists of the social presence, the cognitive
presence, and the teaching presence. Categories of social presence include affective expression,
open communication, and group cohesion. In a study of the process in which online communities
are formed, three stages were found, including (1) online acquaintance, (2) feeling a part of the
community, and (3) finally camaraderie. Social presence cannot be measured strictly in terms of
quantity of interaction; quality interaction that achieves worthwhile educational goals must also
be considered.
Cognitive presence is operationalized in terms of a practical inquiry model resulting in a
four-phase process: (1) students experience a triggering event, (2) students engage in exploration,
both individually and within groups, (3) students integrate concepts, constructing meaning from
ideas, and (4) students experience resolution, wherein they apply their newly gained knowledge.
Although both social and content-related interactions are necessary for the transfer of knowledge
to take place, they are not sufficient by themselves to ensure effective learning. A strong
teaching presence, which includes initial course design, facilitation of student discourse, and
direct instruction, is also necessary.
Clear and consistent course structure is especially important in online courses because of
the absence of traditional social cues. In addition, facilitation and direction (sometimes placed
together in one category) are important. Facilitation refers to the instructor’s ability to manage
discourse or discussion in a constructive and collaborative manner towards a stated goal or
direction. The difference between dialogue and discourse, here, is that dialogue involves minimal
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 69

shaping of the discussion while discourse requires a knowledgeable teacher to manage
disciplined inquiry into the subject matter.
Direct instruction refers to the instructor’s ability to present content, including feedback
and assessments, in such a way that students are able to gain insights and information. It also
refers to the ability to create an environment in which students gain metacognitive awareness of
their own learning processes.
Social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence are unique and separate
aspects of the CoI framework; however, they are not mutually exclusive and in fact must be
taken into account with one another for effective learning to take place.
3. Iowa State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. (2012). A model of
learning objectives. Retrieved from www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html

The Knowledge dimension classifies four types of knowledge, ranging from concrete
(factual) to abstract (metacognitive) while the Cognitive Process dimension classifies six types of
processes from lower order thinking (remember) to higher order thinking (create). A learning
objective contains an action (verb) and an object (noun). The action describes the cognitive
process that students engage in, and the object describes the type of knowledge they must
acquire. Students typically progress from concrete to abstract knowledge and from lower order
thinking to higher order thinking.
4. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.

The original Bloom’s Taxonomy was published in 1956. The taxonomy was designed to
be more than a measurement tool, it was also designed to provide a common definition for
learning goals and to provide a basis for determining whether or not the assessments and
activities within a given curriculum were in alignment with stated learning goals. The original
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 70

categories of measurement included: (1) Knowledge, (2) Comprehension, (3) Application, (4)
Analysis, (5) Synthesis, (6) Evaluation.
Using Bloom’s Taxonomy, learning goals or objectives are stated in terms of the subject
(noun) and what the student is able to demonstrate (verb). In other words: “Upon completion of
this course, students will be able to recall (verb) the 4 P’s and the 5 C’s (noun) of Marketing.”
In 2001, Bloom’s Taxonomy was revised to include a new, two-dimensional Taxonomy
Table that consists of the Knowledge dimension and the Cognitive Process dimension. The
Knowledge dimension forms the vertical axis of the table, and the Cognitive Process dimension
forms the horizontal axis. In this case, outcomes correspond with the intersection of cells
between the Knowledge dimension (noun) and the Cognitive Process dimension (verb).
Utilizing the Taxonomy Table, educators are better able to measure the different types of
knowledge as they relate to the cognitive processes involved in acquisition. For example, using
“Upon completion of this course, students will be able to recall (verb) the 4 P’s and the 5 C’s
(noun) of Marketing,” recall would fall under the cognitive process “to remember” and 4 P’s and
5 C’s would fall under conceptual knowledge since they deal with key marketing concepts.
COGNITIVE PROCESS
KNOWLEDGE 1.
Remember
2.
Understand
3.
Apply
4.
Analyze
5.
Evaluate
6. Create
A. Factual
B. Conceptual X
C. Procedural
D.
Metacognitive

A given course would have a wide breadth of learning outcomes, with students able to master
both simple outcomes as well as more complex outcomes over the semester.
5. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 71

An individual’s frame of reference is composed of habits of mind and points of view.
Habits of mind are broad and abstract and are often articulated in a particular point of view. For
example, an ethnocentric habit of mind might be articulated in negative beliefs about members of
another race.
Transformative learning is the process of affecting change in an individual’s frame of
reference. One way for this transformation to occur is through critical reflection and discourse.
Discourse, in this context, is “a dialogue devoted to assessing reasons presented in support of
competing interpretations, by critically examining evidence, arguments, and alternative points of
view” (p. 6).
Transformative learning is at the core of adult education, in which learners not only
acquire new information but also assimilate that information into their frames of reference
through critical reflection, discourse, assessment and action.
Useful methods for facilitating transformative learning include “critical incidents,
metaphor analysis, concept mapping, consciousness raising, life histories, repertory grids, and
participation in social action” (p. 10).
Module 1, Unit 1 discussion prompt. What top 3 teaching strategies do you use to
engage students in your brick and mortar classes? Which of these—if any—would work in the
online community? If none, what teaching strategies do you believe would work best online to
engage students and facilitate discourse?
Module 1, Unit 2 script. When to use written discussion forums (WDFs):
Welcome to Module 1, Unit 2, “When to use Written Discussion Forums. In the last unit,
Unit 1, we talked about the importance of identifying learning outcomes and then working
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 72

backwards to develop assessments and activities. Written discussion forums are one of the most
commonly used tools for engaging students in online activities and assessments.
Written discussion forums are asynchronous learning tools, which means students can
engage with them at any time and at any place. Typically, assignments consist of a prompt or a
question which students answer individually or in small groups. In addition to posting a response
to a prompt, students are usually also required to respond to the posts of one or more of their
peers.
Ideally, written discussion forums facilitate student reflection, which requires critical
thinking and leads to a deeper understanding of the issues. In responding to a well-written
prompt, students are encouraged to engage in higher-level thinking and to construct new
meaning.
Written discussion forums allow multiple voices to be heard, not just the voice of the
professor and a few outspoken students. Evidence indicates that multiple-threaded discussions
may erase power structures that might otherwise be found in the classroom and allow students
who would be reluctant to speak out in a face-to-face environment the opportunity to express
themselves. This could be especially useful for non-native English speakers.
Because they are asynchronous, students have time not only to reflect but also to write
and rewrite their responses until they are polished. Students can learn from one another, not just
with regards to the topic or task at hand but also in terms of their written skills. The written
discussion forum provides a scaffold as well as a record of their progress.
Although students can engage in casual conversations within a written discussion forum,
the literature would suggest that this is not the most optimal venue for informal team building.
Written discussion forums do not allow for personal contact or for immediate feedback. In
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 73

addition, conversations may be difficult to follow as discussion threads branch out in multiple
directions from the initial prompt.
Reading and responding to posts can require significant time and effort on the part of
students and faculty alike. As a result, students may resort to perfunctory posts in an effort to
quickly complete an assignment rather than thoroughly engaging in the construction of
knowledge with a robust exchange of ideas between peers. Likewise, faculty may resort to
mechanical prompts that have little or no value in terms of achieving learning outcomes.
As with any online tool, how or even whether or not to use written discussion forums is
dependent upon the desired learning outcomes. Faculty may use written discussion forums for
many reasons or not at all. For example, they may wish to establish a community of inquiry, to
facilitate a venue in which students can collaborate, to engage students in critical thinking, to
encourage students to reflect upon their learning, or even to provide a platform for students to
practice their writing skills.
Furthermore, faculty involvement within the written discussion forums can vary widely
from heavy-to-no-involvement. Some faculty choose to make a comment to each and every
student post, while others do not respond to any student posts. There are several guidelines for
how to facilitate successful written discussion forums which we will explore further in Module 2;
however, the key point here is that it is up to the faculty to structure these discussions in such a
way that they align with the student learning outcomes for the course.
In addition, it is up to the instructor to set clear and concise guidelines and to establish the
acceptable quantity and quality of posts in such a way that students understand what are the
expectations and the purpose of each activity.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 74

Lastly, written discussion forums are only one tool that can be used in online learning.
Online courses are not designed to be one size fits all; each is unique and distinct in its own way.
When deciding which tools to use, faculty should first consider the nature of their course as well
as their own personal comfort levels before making a choice.
To recap, then, in Unit 1 we examined online learning (OL) platforms in the online
classroom. In this unit, we began to drill down more to look specifically at when to use written
discussion forums (WDFs).
In Unit 3, we will explore when faculty might use asynchronous video forums to
facilitate discourse and help students achieve their learning outcomes.
In Unit 4, we will look at when faculty might use synchronous video conference forums
to facilitate real-time discourse and help students achieve their learning outcomes.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some student perspectives on written discussion forums.
Module 1, Unit 2 interview questions for student perspectives video.
 What was one positive take-away from your experiences using a written discussion forum?
What was one negative take-away from your experiences using a written discussion forum?
 Did you feel the written discussion forum enhanced your sense of community with your
fellow students within the online course?
 Did you find yourself engaging with the content in a meaningful way in a written discussion
forum (versus simply making perfunctory remarks)?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 75

 Did you feel the written discussion forum enhanced your understanding of the course
content?
 How did your instructor facilitate the discussion forum? Was s/he heavily involved? Did s/he
respond at all?
 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your sense of engagement with
your fellow students?
 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your sense of engagement with
the material?
 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your understanding of the
course content?
 If you took a class where the written discussion forum was voluntary, would you use it? If
yes, under what circumstances? If no, what other forum would be more useful to you?
 Other comments?
Module 1, Unit 2 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 1, Unit 2 by reading the following three article summaries.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
1. Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-24.

Asynchronous discussion allows students to reflect upon their responses, which involves
critical thinking and leads to a deeper understanding of the issues. Discussion forums allow for
informal “talk” as well as formal reflection. Both are important for learning. Informal “talk”
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 76

allows peers to share their experiences as they relate to the discussion. Formal reflection requires
students to engage in higher order thinking and social construction of meaning.
Asynchronous discussion forums allow multiple voices to be heard, not just those of the
professor and a few of the more vocal students. Multiple-threaded discussions erase power
structures that may be present in oral discussions. In addition, these forums give students time to
create thoughtful responses and to provide insightful reactions to their peers. They can do this in
their own time and in an environment of their choosing, which may provide a buffer for those
who might be unable or unwilling to engage in face-to-face discussion. While oral talk may be
more focused on abstract, global ideas, computer mediated communication (CMC) has been
found to be more focused on concrete writing issues and group management.
Asynchronous discussions also allow students who are less confident writers (including
non-native English speakers) a chance to review and rewrite their content before posting. These
forums may be viewed as both a process and a product in that they involve both discussion and a
document that may be assessed. Students may be motivated to demonstrate good writing, both in
terms of mechanics and content, because they understand their writing will be read and
responded to by their peers. The discussion forum, itself, provides documentation of scaffolding
and of students’ reflections.
Disadvantages of asynchronous discussion forums include: the initial adjustment to
online discussion, difficulty in coming to closure within a discussion, lack of the nuances
available in face-to-face contact, and a heavier workload for both students and faculty. In
addition, asynchronous discussion forums do not allow for immediate feedback or for personal
contact. Students may resort to trivial, shallow, or repetitive “talk” rather than a thorough
construction and deconstruction of knowledge as they think critically about the topic at hand. In
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 77

spite of the “multivocal” capacity of asynchronous discussions, some students may still “lurk”
and others may resent the lack of peer feedback to their posts.
It falls upon the instructor to build a community online, to set clear and concise
expectations and to establish the acceptable quantity and quality of posts in such a way that
students understand what are the expectations and the purpose of each activity. The instructor’s
role in this cannot be overestimated here.
“Good discussion should engage students in collaborative meaning making” (p. 25).
Instructor tips for creating good discussion include providing:
 specific guidelines
 modeling
 well-designed open-ended questions
 requirement of specific connections to readings
 private notes to students who are off-topic
 summary or wrap up
 accountability (grading)
To reduce instructor burden, shift responsibility to students. Monitor discussion by:
 Ensuring student prompts/questions are answered appropriately
 Noting which ideas/concerns have arisen from the discussion
 Assessing each student according to guidelines/rubric
2. Cho, M-H and Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses?
Effects of online discussion on Community of Inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and
achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2),
123-140.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 78

Many studies indicate that online classes enhance student learning and create
opportunities for collaboration; likewise, many researchers assert that students are able to reflect,
think critically, and understand concepts better with online discussion forums than they would if
they were alone. As a result of these studies, online instructors believe they must include
discussions as part of their online courses.
However, these authors argue that, based on their data, student interaction through
discussion did not contribute to their perception about CoI, nor did it contribute to overall student
satisfaction or to their achievements within the class. The implication being that instructors could
reduce their teaching time by minimizing their involvement in discussion boards or even choose
not to offer a discussion board at all. If the course: (a) is well-designed, (b) provides for “timely
feedback” from the instructor, and (c) includes concept-oriented objectives that do not require
students to interact with others, then written discussion forums may not be necessary.
Bottom line: “We suggest that online instructors thoroughly consider the nature of their
course before requiring discussion instead of mechanically including it as a mandatory student
activity” (p. 136).
3. Thomas, M. J.W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online
discussion forums. Journal of Assisted Learning 18, 351-366.

Although online discussion forums may promote high levels of cognitive engagement
and critical thinking, they do not promote conversational modes of learning. First, online
discussion forums are asynchronous and isolated in terms of participation. Second, discussion is
inhibited by the ways in which threaded messages branch out from the initial prompt; this is in
contrast to the cohesion that occurs in normal face-to-face discussions. Third, written discourse
does not have the same form or function that the spoken language has, and many students feel
that they cannot communicate effectively within a text-based medium.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 79

In face-to-face group discussions, members of the group share a common topic. A shift or
change in topic is undertaken by the group as a whole. This is not the case in online discussion
forums, where the branching structure of threads produces an incoherent development of ideas
amongst the group due to the fact that individual students are making isolated contributions to
other individual students rather than to the group as a whole.
It is especially important for the moderator to guide the discussion in such a way that
coherence can be increased. One way to do this is with the “starter-wrapper” (p. 363) technique,
in which individual participants are assigned specific roles in the discussion, including a “starter”
who begins the discussion and the “wrapper” who reads all subsequent posts and then
summarizes common themes for the group. Another way to do this is by constructing a “concept
map” (p. 364) which provides opportunities for students to see a graphic representation of all
contributions to the discussion. Still another way to increase coherence in the discussion forum
would be to improve the technology of the platform itself in such a way that collaborate
engagement can be attained.
Module 1, Unit 2 discussion prompt. Share a situation in which you have successfully
utilized a written discussion forum to engage your students? If you’ve never used this tool, then
share a situation in which you believe such a discussion forum would be successful. How would
you structure the prompt? How would you guide students in their responses? What would be
your desired outcome from such an activity?
Module 1, Unit 3 script. When to use asynchronous video forums (AVFs):
Welcome to Module 1, Unit 3, “When to use Asynchronous Video Forums.” In Unit 1,
we talked about the importance of identifying learning outcomes and then working backwards to
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 80

develop assessments and activities. In Unit 2, we discussed written discussion forums, one of the
most commonly used tools in online learning.
Like written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums are learning tools that
students can use at any time and at any place. Also, like written discussion forums, assignments
typically consist of a prompt or a question which students answer individually or in small groups.
Often, in addition to creating a video post of their own, students respond to one or more of their
peers’ video posts.
Literature suggests one of the primary objections to online learning has been the
perceived lack of social presence in the classroom. This social presence can be established to
some extent with written discussion forums; however, the lack of visual and vocal cues makes it
more difficult for instructors and students alike to feel connected. As technologies are evolving,
instructors are choosing to use asynchronous video forums in order to establish social presence.
Because they allow students the flexibility to record themselves at any time and at any
place, these asynchronous video forums offer many of the same benefits that written discussion
forums offer while still facilitating a sense of having face-to-face engagement within the
classroom.
Asynchronous video forums allow all students the chance to speak up in class; therefore,
a few outspoken students do not dominate the conversation. Students have the flexibility and the
time not only to reflect but also, in most cases, to record and re-record their responses until they
are polished. In addition, students can learn from one another, not just with regards to the topic
or task at hand but also in terms of their presentation skills. The forum itself provides a scaffold
as well as a video record of their progress.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 81

Although there is some evidence that asynchronous video forums do not encourage the
same depth of critical thinking that written discussion forums provide, they can enable students
to feel more of a personal connection with their faculty and their peers. Creating and responding
to video posts is more natural to many people and therefore may be more effective in terms of
building rapport, which can in turn positively affect student engagement and retention.
As with any online tool, how or even whether or not to use asynchronous video forums is
dependent upon the desired learning outcomes. Faculty may use asynchronous video forums for
many reasons or not at all. For example, they may wish to establish a strong teaching presence
within the virtual classroom, to facilitate a venue in which students can bond with one another
“face-to-face” as they explore the topic or task at hand, to encourage students to reflect upon
their learning in a more conversational environment, or even to provide a platform for students to
practice their presentation skills.
Furthermore, faculty involvement within the asynchronous video forums can vary widely.
Some faculty might choose to make minute-by-minute commentary on student video posts, while
others might not make any commentary at all. There are several guidelines for how to facilitate
successful written discussion forums which we will explore further in Module 3; however, the
key point here is that it is up to the faculty to structure these forums in such a way that they align
with the student learning outcomes for the course. In addition, it is up to the instructor to set clear
and concise guidelines in such a way that students understand what are the expectations and the
purpose of each activity.
Lastly, asynchronous video forums are only one tool that can be used in online learning.
When deciding which tools to use, faculty should first consider the nature of their course as well
as their own personal comfort levels before making a choice. If possible, they should also take
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 82

their students’ temperaments into consideration. For example, English language learners might
respond differently to one type of tool than native English speakers.
To recap, then, in Unit 1 we examined online learning (OL) platforms in the online
classroom. In Unit 2, we began to drill down more to look specifically at when to use written
discussion forums (WDFs). In this unit, we explored asynchronous video forums as a venue to
facilitate discourse within the online classroom.
In Unit 4, we will look at when faculty might use synchronous video conference forums
to facilitate real-time discourse and help students achieve their learning outcomes.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some student perspectives on asynchronous video forums.
Module 1, Unit 3 interview questions for student perspectives video.
 What was one positive take-away from your experiences using an asynchronous video
forum? What was one negative take-away from your experiences using an asynchronous
video forum?
 Did you feel the asynchronous video forum enhanced your sense of community with your
fellow students within the online course?
 Did you find yourself engaging with the content in a meaningful way in an asynchronous
video forum (versus simply engaging in informal “talk”)?
 Did you feel the asynchronous video forum enhanced your understanding of the course
content?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 83

 How did your instructor facilitate the video forum? Was s/he heavily involved? Did s/he
respond at all?
 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your sense of engagement with
your fellow students?
 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your sense of engagement with
the material?
 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your understanding of the
course content?
 If you took a class where the asynchronous video forum was voluntary, would you use it? If
yes, under what circumstances? If no, what other forum would be more useful to you?
 Other comments?
Module 1, Unit 3 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 1, Unit 3 by reading the following two article summaries.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
1. Borup, J., West, R. E., and Graham, C. R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video
communication on learner social presence: a narrative analysis of four cases. Distance
Education, 34 (1), 48-63.

Although social presence can be established with asynchronous written discussion
forums, the lack of visual and vocal cues makes it more difficult. For example, studies indicate
that students with low self-regulation find it difficult to participate in asynchronous online
discussions. Likewise, students who are proficient at spontaneous face-to-face communication
may not be as good at reflective writing. On the other hand, introverts and English language
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 84

learners (ELLs) may be more assertive in asynchronous online discussions than they would be in
a face-to-face environment.
Some instructors are using asynchronous video discussion in order to increase
communication and social presence in a flexible format. Survey results have consistently shown
that video communication can have a positive effect on social presence, both from the students’
as well as from the instructor’s perspective. Some students have reported that video feedback
provided the same connection as one-to-one feedback with the added benefit of being able to
reply more than one time.
While initial research indicates the use of video enhances social presence overall, the
effects on individual students (i.e. introvert, extrovert, ELL, low self-regulated) depends largely
on their perspective. In this case, the extravert gained value from creating her own video
discussion posts but not in viewing others’ posts. Conversely, the ELL student gained value from
viewing her peer’s videos but did not have the communication skills to fully participate in the
discussion on her own, most notability because of her perceived inability to communicate
fluently and her fear of being put down due to her accent. The introvert gained value from having
the flexibility to create video discussion posts at her own pace and in her own space; however,
there is the possibility that she spent too much time re-recording her comments. Meanwhile, the
low self-regulated student gained value from the immediacy of the video feedback from the
instructor because it seemed more real to her and kept her moving forward in class; however, she
did not feel she learned from her peers.
In conclusion, the authors found that asynchronous video communication may provide
positive learning experiences depending upon student needs and that teaching presence
influences student social presence in the online classroom.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 85

2. Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online
business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education 20(2), 93-107.

Within social constructivism, there is ideological (talk-based) pedagogy and task-
centered (collaborative) pedagogy. Collaboration may not only increase student satisfaction,
motivation, and success, it may also be more in line with the types of skills business seek.
Synchronous communication via text or chat occurs in real time and is similar to traditional
classroom discussion but without the body language or social cues. Asynchronous
communication is more formal.
In this study, students spent more time interacting with one another via synchronous chat
communication and indicated that they preferred to work in a synchronous environment if given
a choice. However, their synchronous sessions were not as focused on the task at hand; students
tended to focus more on the group in synchronous sessions. Asynchronous sessions provided a
more effective place for collaborating on the writing task; however, there was less focus on
informal team building or for informal writing.
In the end, it was speculated that students might benefit from both synchronous chat
communication and from asynchronous communication in that one would provide a venue for
“group talk” and the other would provide a venue for completion of task.
Module 1, Unit 3 discussion prompt. Share a situation in which you have successfully
utilized an asynchronous video forum to engage your students? If you’ve never used this tool,
then share a situation in which you believe such a forum would be successful. How would you
structure the assignment? How would you guide students in their engagement? What would be
your desired outcome from such an activity?
Module 1, Unit 4 script. When to use synchronous video conference forums (SVCFs).
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 86

Welcome to Module 1, Unit 4, “When to use synchronous video conference forums.” In
Unit 1, we talked about the importance of identifying learning outcomes and then working
backwards to develop assessments and activities. In Units 2 and 3, we discussed when to use
written discussion forums and asynchronous video forums respectively.
Like written discussion forums and asynchronous video forums, synchronous video
conference forums are also tools for online learning. They are becoming more commonly used as
technologies improve and evolve because they enable students to remotely engage with the
instructor, with one another, and with course content synchronously or at the same time.
Synchronous video conference forums require participants to gather at the same time via
an online platform such as WebEx, Adobe Connect, or Zoom. Instructors may utilize this time to
provide content for their students and to answer questions. In addition, students may utilize this
time to work together and in groups.
Research has shown that synchronous video conference forums are useful both for
sharing information and for creating an immediate sense of social presence. While similar to
asynchronous video forums in the sense that participants are able to view non-verbal
communication, synchronous video conference forums are even more immediate and allow for
more real-time bonding between individuals.
In so-called “blended” synchronous class sessions, students have the option of attending
class in a physical classroom or remotely via a synchronous video conference platform. Studies
suggest synchronous video conference forums can add depth and breadth to these face-to-face
classes. Students who would otherwise not be able to attend an on ground class are able to
participate remotely, and these students may have different life and career experiences than those
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 87

who attend in person thus providing unique perspectives that might otherwise not be included in
the class.
In online courses that have no on ground component, synchronous video conference
forums provide a place where students and faculty can connect with one another as part of a
regular part of the learning process. In this case, they also add depth and breadth to an
asynchronous course in that they provide instructors and learners alike a real-time platform for
group cohesion and collaboration. Study participants have reported feeling a higher degree of
sociability, social presence, and social space within these video enhanced discussions. In
addition, both students and instructors have reported a greater sense of connection with one
another in these forums.
As synchronous video conference forums evolve, the potential for connection and
engagement is also evolving. There are currently video conference platforms which allow up to
25 participants to be seen on the screen at the same time—much like the Brady Bunch wall—in
such a way that individual participants are visible at all times to one another. This is a powerful
experience for students and teachers alike in that everyone has a virtual front row seat in class.
In addition, most video conference platforms also have a text chat window that
participants can use to shout out questions to one another—something they could not do in a
traditional classroom. This provides students with the ability to learn from one another as well as
from the instructor via a real-time, text-based discussion thread that is visible to everyone
throughout the class. For those students who are reluctant to speak up in class, text chats can be
another way for them to engage with the content, the instructor, and their peers.
However, synchronous video conference tools may not be for everyone. For example,
participants who have lower Internet bandwidth have reported technical issues, especially with
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 88

audio and video reception. Some have been “kicked out” of the virtual classroom and have had
to rejoin in the middle of a session.
In addition, it takes time to learn how to effectively use synchronous video discussion
forums. Research indicates that even Millennials who are familiar with virtual worlds and video
gaming are not necessarily experienced in virtual learning. And, while they may enjoy the
stimulation provided by multiple streams of information, they may experience cognitive
overload.
By the same token, instructors can also become overloaded and stressed, having to
facilitate both video and text-based learning while presenting course material. As one faculty
member described it, “I feel like the Wizard of Oz, standing behind the green curtain and
frantically pulling levers in order to keep everything functioning.”
As a result, studies indicate that utilizing fewer tools and sticking with the basics is often
the best strategy for successfully managing synchronous video conference forums, especially in
larger classes of 25 or more students. There are several additional strategies that can be used to
reduce cognitive load in these forums, which we will discuss in Module 4.
As with the asynchronous tools that we discussed earlier in this module, how or even
whether or not to use synchronous video conference forums is dependent upon the desired
learning outcomes. However, research suggests that a blend of both asynchronous and
synchronous video discussions may be more effective in terms of increasing outcomes than
either alone.
To recap, then, in Unit 1 we examined online learning platforms in the online classroom.
In Unit 2, we began to drill down more to look specifically at when to use written discussion
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 89

forums. In Unit 3, we explored asynchronous video forums as a venue to facilitate discourse
within the online classroom.
In this unit, we looked at when faculty might use synchronous video conference forums
to facilitate real-time discourse and help students achieve their learning outcomes.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some student perspectives on asynchronous video forums.
Module 1, Unit 4 interview questions for student perspectives video.
 What was one positive take-away from your experiences using a synchronous video
conference forum? What was one negative take-away from your experiences using a
synchronous video conference forum?
 Did you feel the synchronous video conference forum enhanced your sense of community
with your fellow students within the online course?
 Did you find yourself engaging with the content in a meaningful way in a synchronous
video conference forum (versus passively watching an online lecture)?
 Did you feel the synchronous video conference forum enhanced your understanding of the
course content?
 How did your instructor facilitate the synchronous forum? Did s/he facilitate discourse
among students? Did s/he lecture throughout the session?
 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your sense of engagement with
your fellow students?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 90

 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your sense of engagement with
the material?
 How did the instructor’s involvement (or lack thereof) affect your understanding of the
course content?
 If you took a class where the synchronous video conference forum was voluntary, would
you use it? If yes, under what circumstances? If no, what other forum would be more useful
to you?
 Other comments?
Module 1, Unit 4 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 1, Unit 4 by reading the following three article summaries.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
1. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., Kenney, J. (2015). Design and
implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a
cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.

In this article, “blended” was a term used to describe a classroom environment wherein
remote students could participate in face-to-face class sessions using synchronous technologies.
Using various video and web conference tools, remote students were able to listen to instructor’s
lectures and ask/answer questions as part of the in-class environment.
The underlying principle for this study was that of “multi-access learning” in which students
have autonomy in how they access the learning environment; in this case whether they attend
class face-to-face or join virtually. Survey responses indicated that the majority of students
perceived this learning as superior or equal in quality to traditional learning.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 91

The authors suggest the larger cohort size as well as unique perspectives that remote
students bring to a F2F class can enhance the sense of community within blended classrooms.
Their study suggests that blended learning designs promote active learning. However, that
learning should be balanced against the increase in cognitive load (CL) both for teachers who
have to address both a F2F and remote audience at the same time as well as for students who
have to navigate multiple channels of information.
Strategies for managing CL included directing communication to one mode (i.e. either
audio or text) or having a student facilitator monitor the synchronous chat session while the
instructor focuses on verbal communication with the class. The authors also suggested
institutional support, including providing faculty with technical and teaching assistance,
professional development, and preparation time.
2. Clark, C., Strudler, N., and Grove, K. (2015). Comparing Asynchronous and Synchronous
Video versus Text Based Discussions in an Online Teacher Education Course. Online
Learning Journal, 19(3), 1-22.

While text-based discussion forums have been shown to create social and teaching
presences, they lack non-verbal social cues that may be important in facilitating social space and
sociability. Text-based discussion forums allow for reflective thinking. However, video
discussions facilitate group cohesion and connectedness. In addition, teaching presence is
increased.
In the study, students were required to create video posts each week and to respond two
at least three of their classmates’ posts via text. Students were also instructed to engage in text
based discussion forums on a weekly basis within their subgroups. Finally, students engaged in
synchronous video discussions with their classmates and their instructor.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 92

Participants reported feeling a higher degree of sociability, social presence, and social
space within the video enhanced discussions. Participants also reported feeling more connected
with their instructor using video enhanced discussion forums. However, not all students felt
comfortable using video enhanced discussion forum; and some preferred text-based discussions.
The results suggest that video enhanced discussion forums are more effective than text-
based discussions in terms of creating greater teaching and social presence. They also suggest
that a blend of both asynchronous and synchronous video discussions may be more effective in
terms of increasing outcomes than either alone.
3. Warden, C. A., Stanworth, J. O., Ren, J. B., and Warden, A. R. (2012). Synchronous learning
best practices: An action research study. Computers & Education, 63, 197-207.

The authors applied iterative cycles of action research to determine how video conference
and immersive virtual environments might be successfully used to emulate the physical
classroom. While technology is sometimes the source of problems in the virtual classroom, it is
believed that a greater problem lies in human behaviors and interactions with technological
systems. Their focus, therefore, was on aspects of classroom management when executing
Synchronous Learning in Distributed Environments (SLIDE).
Video conference allows participants to convey and observe body language and also
encourages students to create their own learning environment. Similarly, immersive virtual
environments which allow students to role play can facilitate improved achievement.
Looking at class sizes of more than 25 students, the authors found that computer
bandwidth on the server-side was an issue, especially with regards to audio quality. They also
found audio feedback (i.e. screeching) with multiple users to be an issue. Their initial conclusion
was that having a channel for texting was important as an alternative avenue of communication.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 93

In addition, the ability to synchronize the visual slide presentation with the audio presentation
was also important.
Although appealing, the use of multiple technological tools during synchronous classes
was discouraged due to instructor—and to a lesser extent to student—overload. The more tasks
instructors are asked to handle, the more likely they are to experience overload and stress.
Therefore, the authors recommended using basic audio and text features for large class sizes in
order to minimize overload.
The authors concluded that video conference does provide a means for enabling social
interaction and reinforcing a group presence, “making VC more than the sum of multiple video
streams” (p. 204).
Module 1, Unit 4 discussion prompt. Share a situation in which you have successfully
utilized a synchronous video conference forum to engage your students? If you’ve never used
this tool, then share a situation in which you believe such a forum would be successful. How
would you structure this activity? How would you guide students in their engagement? What
would be your desired outcome?
Module 1 workshop outline. Introduction to online learning platforms – live workshop
[see handout in Appendix C]:
I. Welcome (ID Leader: introduction to topic and panel)

A. Purpose: To gain faculty perspectives on the online learning platforms they have
found most useful in establishing a teaching presence and to engage students in their
online courses
B. Participants: Introduce (3) faculty panel backgrounds and experience in online
learning
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 94

C. Process:
1. Faculty will spend approximately 30 minutes (10 minutes each) talking about
online platforms used and “best practices” they have used to engage students and
to encourage discourse within their classes
2. Group Discussion (20 minutes): What teaching strategies have you used to
engage your students? What online tools or platforms have you used? What was
most effective for you and why? What was least effective for you and why? What
tools/platforms are you most interested in using?
II. Background (ID Leader: give brief overview of main theories)

A. Community of Inquiry
B. Bloom’s Taxonomy
III. Faculty Panel (ID Leader: prompt panelists to discuss their platforms and practices—what
has worked and what hasn’t worked)
IV. Group Discussion (ID Leader: hand out USC Marshall Online Learning Platforms and
prompt participants to discuss their platforms and practices—what has worked and what hasn’t
worked):
V. Instructional Design Services (ID Leader: summary)

A. Units 1-4
1. Unit 1 - learning outcomes, assessments, and activities. Overview of OL
platforms
2. Unit 2 - asynchronous written discussion forums
3. Unit 3 – asynchronous video forums (YouSeeU)
4. Unit 4 – synchronous video conferencing forums (Zoom)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 95

B. One-on-One course design & development support
C. Peer-to-Peer/Mentor sign up
1. Informal networking
2. Formal mentoring

VI. Feedback (ID Leader: ask for feedback from participants re: what worked for them and what
can be improved with the next iteration of the workshop)
Module 2: Written Discussion Forums (WDFs)

Module 2, Unit 1 script. How to use written discussion forums with individuals:
Welcome to Module 2, “How to use written discussion forums with individuals.” In
Module 1 we explored when faculty members might want to use various online learning
platforms. We began with an overview of how learning outcomes affect the online learning
platforms one might choose to use. We also looked at how different online learning platforms
can be used to establish a teaching presence and create a community of inquiry.
Although there are many online learning platforms available, we focused specifically on
when one might use written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous
video conference forums to engage students within the online classroom.
In this module, we’re going to focus specifically on how to use written discussion forums.
Written discussion forums are excellent tools to engage students in reflection and in critical
thinking. In addition, written discussion forums can provide a venue for creating an online
community where students can interact with faculty, with peers, and with course content in a
meaningful way.
Experts agree that one of the key components to engaging students in written discussion
forums is robust design. Research indicates that instructors can positively affect student
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 96

participation in discussion forums by designing their course so that student posts account for 10-
20% of the overall course grade. In addition, instructors can provide students with a checklist for
completion or a rubric that clearly defines the criteria for exceptional performance. In some
cases, modeling or exemplars may be used to give students a concrete example of what is the
expectation.
Another step in designing a robust discussion forum is to set clear expectations for
professionalism, especially in terms of voicing disagreements. Specific guidelines such as “avoid
using all caps because it could be interpreted as shouting” or “avoid slang terms that might not
be clearly understood by non-native English speakers” may be helpful for students. Other useful
etiquette guidelines include “proofread your post carefully before you submit” and “beware of
cutting and pasting from other sources, which could lead to inadvertent plagiarism.”
Finally, some experts suggest designing two distinct types of discussion forum prompts:
One that is informal in nature and facilitates community formation and the other that is formal or
task-oriented in nature and facilitates critical thinking and reflection. Other experts suggest
designing only one type of discussion forum prompt but directing students to provide a specific
number of “talk” responses, using first-hand experience or anecdotal evidence to support their
views, and a specific number of “reflective” responses, using readings-based or research-based
evidence to support their views.
Regardless which approach you use, it is important that the prompt itself be clearly
written and unambiguous with specific guidelines for students to understand what is expected.
Questions should be open-ended and should tie back into the readings and other course content
in such a way that they help students achieve the learning outcomes.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 97

Instructors can facilitate discourse in written discussion forums by routinely reviewing
student responses, raising questions and making brief comments that move the discussion
towards the desired outcomes, and drawing out inactive students while at the same time limiting
dominant students.
Although there is no “one size fits all” way to facilitate discourse, experts and
practitioners agree that avoiding faculty-centric discussions and emphasizing student-to-student
engagement is important. In addition, addressing issues of social equity with regards to culture
and gender-based communications as well as increasing the status of low status students is also
important. Some tips for facilitating discussion forums include:
 First and foremost, remember that this is a student discussion forum. Give students the
opportunity to respond to one another before engaging in the conversation. Avoid giving
answers. And, if you do give answers, follow up with a task or a question for students to
reflect upon.
 Create a variety of discussion forums that recognize different communication patterns and
allow opportunities for students with diverse communication patterns to actively engage.
o Evidence suggests there are two different communication patterns in adult learning: The
independent voice, which is typically associated with men, and the connected voice, which
is typically associated with women. Assignments that encourage connection and
collaboration versus competition and comparisons have been found to generate productive
discussion and close engagement across genders.
o Another example involves the concept of communication across cultures. Anthropological
studies have indicated that the white majority culture in the US tends to be direct and
assertive, relying more on explicit verbal cues than on non-verbal cues. On the other hand,
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 98

many minority cultures in the US tend to be indirect and non-assertive, relying more on
non-verbal cues than explicit information. Assignments that allow students to become
familiar with each other’s backgrounds and learning goals may help them contextualize
discussions in a way that facilitates engagement across cultures.
 Publically recognize specific, individual student contributions, especially in terms of
recognizing students who might otherwise be inclined not to participate or to participate less
in inquiry-based discussions.
 Deal privately with students who dominate discussions or communicate aggressively with
others.
 Provide closure to discussion threads. Once everyone has had a chance to engage in the
discussion, provide some sort of summary of what has been learned and relate that to the
learning outcomes for that class.
So, to recap, in this unit we explored how to use written discussion forums with
individuals. In Unit 2, we’re going to look at how to use written discussion forums with small
groups. Then, in Unit 3, we’re going to gain some insights into how to effectively and efficiently
facilitate written discussion forums.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on how to use written discussion
forums with individuals.
Module 2, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 99

 What strategies do you use to engage your students within the discussion forums? Do you
assign points or a letter grade? Do you provide a rubric or checklist?
 How do you design effective prompts to engage students in critical thinking and discussion?
 For the most part, are your students actively engaged in discussions or are there more
“lurkers” than participators?
 How do you engage those students who are reluctant to post?
 How often do you participate in the discussion forums? Why?
 What are one of the benefits you have found in using discussion forums? How have you
capitalized on this?
 What are one of the pitfalls you have found in using discussion forums? How have you dealt
with this?
 In your experience, are discussion forums effective in terms of helping students engage in
critical thinking and reflection? Why or why not?
 In your experience, are discussion forums effective in terms of establishing a sense of
community? Why or why not?
 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who was new to discussion
forums?
Module 2, Unit 1 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 2, Unit 1 by reading the following four article summaries.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
1. Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-24.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 100

Asynchronous discussion allows students to reflect upon their responses, which involves
critical thinking and leads to a deeper understanding of the issues. Discussion forums allow for
informal “talk” as well as formal reflection. Both are important for learning. Informal “talk”
allows peers to share their experiences as they relate to the discussion. Formal reflection requires
students to engage in higher order thinking and social construction of meaning.
It falls upon the instructor to build a community online, to set clear and concise expectations and
to establish the acceptable quantity and quality of posts in such a way that students understand
what are the expectations and the purpose of each activity. The instructor’s role in this cannot be
overestimated here.
Specific strategies recommended by this author included creating a “checklist” for
students to follow and requiring students to respond at least 5 times (within a 6-day period)—
including 3 informal “talk” responses and 2 reflective responses. The author’s discussions were
written around specific questions, including student-generated questions that were edited by the
instructor. The author utilized discussion forums not only as a process for learning but as a
product by which to assess student learning outcomes.
“Good discussion should engage students in collaborative meaning making” (p. 25).
Instructor tips for creating good discussion include providing:
 specific guidelines
 modeling
 well-designed open-ended questions
 requirement of specific connections to readings
 private notes to students who are off-topic
 summary or wrap up
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 101

 accountability (grading)
To reduce instructor burden, shift responsibility to students. Monitor discussion by:
 Ensuring student prompts/questions are answered appropriately
 Noting which ideas/concerns have arisen from the discussion
 Assessing each student according to guidelines/rubric
2. Hall, S. W. (January/February 2016). Online learning: Discussion board tips. Nursing Made
Incredibly Easy, 8-9.
Among other things, this handout discussed the importance of online etiquette guidelines for
students. For example:
 Proofread your posts carefully before you submit
 Avoid using all caps because they can be construed as shouting
 If you disagree, respond professionally
 Beware of cutting and pasting, which could lead to inadvertent plagiarism
3. Mazzolini, M. and Maddison, S. (2004). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online
discussion forums. Computers & Education 49, 193-213.
Study found that the more instructors posted, the less students posted and the shorter their
discussion threads on average. However, students are more likely to give instructors higher
ratings for enthusiasm and expertise when instructors post often.
Instructors may “guide” discussion forums, by posting during the forum, or may “wrap
up” the forum at the end. Students tended to rate instructors more highly for enthusiasm and
expertise when they posted towards the end; however, it is not clear whether that’s due to the
timing of the instructor posts or due to the fact that these were the instructors who tended to post
more overall anyway.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 102

Whether instructors posted questions, answers, or a mix appeared to have little effect on
student ratings, though students tended to give instructors who answered questions higher ratings
for enthusiasm. At the same time, students did not appreciate instructors who posted primarily
“housekeeping” type posts. One student summarized the ideal DF instructor participation as
follows (p. 211-212):
 When responding to student questions, post a related follow-up question that
introduces a related concept or a different perspective that is thought-provoking
 Reply to all unanswered questions by the end of 2 weeks
 Give your opinion/answer to the topic under discussion by the end of 2 weeks
4. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher
Education 10, 77-88.
While computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be a valuable tool for creating a
sense of community within the online classroom and for providing a platform for robust
discussion of course content, it also has several potential weaknesses including: a large number
of discussion posts to be read/responded to; potential for domination of discussion forums by a
small number of students; chance for misunderstandings, especially due to cultural or gender
differences; and reduced student motivation to interact. It is incumbent upon the instructor to
facilitate discussions that emphasize student-student interactions and allow for different
communication patterns.
First, the instructor must DESIGN a discussion forum that: (1) generates motivation for
students (i.e. by making discussions worth10-20% of overall course grade), (2) clearly defines
the basic ground rules (i.e. with rubrics – see sample below), (3) provides opportunities for
socio-emotional discussions (i.e. with informal “Water Cooler” discussion forums), and (4)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 103

provides opportunities for authentic task-oriented discussions (i.e. with formal content-based
discussion forums).
In addition, the instructor must FACILITATE the discussion forum in a way that: (1)
develops a social presence, (2) avoids faculty-centric discussions and emphasizes student-student
engagement, (3) addresses issues of social equity with regards to culture and gender-based
communications, and (4) increases status of low status students. Principles for online instructors
include:
 Give students the opportunity to respond to WDF first.
 Avoid giving answers and ask questions instead.
 Provide closure to discussion threads
 Deal privately with students who dominate discussions or communicate aggressively with
others
 Encourage students to get to know each other’s backgrounds and learning goals
 Create a variety of WDFs that recognize different communication patterns and allow
opportunities for students with diverse communication patterns to actively engage
 Encourage all students to participate through “connected voice and teamwork” (p. 85) and
discourage competition
 Intervene indirectly as necessary to equalize students’ status (i.e. assign significant roles to
low status students in group projects)
 Publically recognize specific, individual student contributions
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 104

Module 2, Unit 1 discussion prompt. Based on your prior teaching experiences, what
three strategies would you use to effectively engage your students in both formal and informal
discussion forums?
Module 2, Unit 2 script. How to use written discussion forums in a small group setting:
Welcome Module 2, Unit 2, “How to use written discussion forums in a small group
setting.” In the last unit, Unit 1, we focused specifically on how to use written discussion forums
with individuals. In this unit, we’re going to look at how to use written discussion forums with
small groups.
As we mentioned in Unit 1, written discussion forums are excellent tools to engage
students in reflection and in critical thinking. In addition, written discussion forums can provide
a venue for creating an online community where students can interact with faculty, with peers,
and with course content in a meaningful way.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 105

Discussion forums that require individual posts with peer-to-peer responses can be highly
effective; however, individual students can sometimes become overwhelmed by the number of
peer responses—also known as “discussion threads”—that they have to read, especially in larger
classes. This can lead to a lack of student engagement and involvement in the online community,
with perfunctory comments or none at all.
One way to circumvent student disengagement is to create discussion forums in which
small groups of students interact with one another around a particular prompt. Although there is
no consensus for the number of students per group, experts agree that the group should be large
enough to include a variety of perspectives but not so large that individual students get lost in a
myriad of discussion threads. Within the USC Marshall Online MBA Program, most written
discussion forums consist of 3-5 students.
The structure of small group discussions can vary depending upon what are the expected
learning outcomes. For example, students can choose their own groups at the beginning of the
semester and stay together throughout the course, or faculty can assign random groups with each
assignment. Similarly, all groups can discuss the same prompt, or each group can discuss a
different prompt and then report their findings back to the class. Likewise, faculty may create
every prompt, or students may submit prompts for faculty review and posting. Finally, faculty
may facilitate each of the group discussion forums or select a group leader—perhaps one of the
low status students—to facilitate the group and summarize the discussion.
As you can see by the examples mentioned, there are a number of ways to engage
students in small group discussions. Some factors to consider are:
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 106

1. PURPOSE. What is your purpose for assigning this particular discussion forum? For
example, do you want to generate an informal talk-type of discussion to build a sense of
community or a formal task-oriented discussion to generate critical thinking?
2. PEOPLE. What kinds of students do you have in your class? Are they extroverts?
Introverts? Are they experienced adults? Are they relative novices?
3. PLAN. What is your overall plan for the course? How many different topics do you
intend to cover? If you have a lot, then you may want to have different groups take up
different topics and then report back to the class.
4. PREFERENCE. How much time do you want to spend facilitating discussion forums?
We’ll touch more on this in the next unit.
So to recap, in Unit 1 of this module, we focused specifically on how to use written
discussion forums with individuals. In this unit, we explored how to use written discussion
forums with small groups. In Unit 3, we’re going to gain some insights into how to effectively
and efficiently facilitate written discussion forums.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on how to use written discussion
forums in a small group setting.
Module 2, Unit 2 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 107

 What are the advantages of assigning group discussion forums vs. individual discussion
forums for the entire class? What are the disadvantages of assigning group discussion forums
vs. individual discussion forums for the entire class?
 When would you use one versus the other?
 In your experience, is there an optimal number of students per group?
 How do you design effective prompts to engage small groups in critical thinking and
discussion?
 How do you engage those students who are reluctant to post within a group?
 How often do you participate in the group discussion forums? Why?
 In your experience, are group discussion forums effective in terms of helping students engage
in critical thinking and reflection? Why or why not?
 In your experience, are group discussion forums effective in terms of establishing a sense of
community? Why or why not?
 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who is considering assigning group
discussion forums?
Module 2, Unit 2 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in this unit by reading the article summaries in Module 2, Unit 1.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
Module 2, Unit 2 discussion prompt. Based on your prior teaching experiences, what
three strategies would you use to effectively engage your students in small group discussion
forums?
Module 2, Unit 3 script. Effective and efficient written discussion forums:
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 108

Welcome Module 2, Unit 3, “Effective and efficient written discussion forums.” In the
first two units of this module, we explored how to use written discussion forums with individuals
and with small groups. In this unit, we’re going to focus on how to effectively and efficiently
facilitate written discussion forums.
The most effective discussion forum will be of little value if it is not also efficient;
instructors who are effective but not efficient may soon burn out. While it is important to stay in
regular contact with students, it is not necessary—nor is it even preferable—for instructors to
stay in constant contact with students. Just as the structure of the discussion forum can vary—
from individual to small group, from talk-based to task-based, or from faculty-facilitated to
student-facilitated—the amount of time instructors spend communicating with their students
depends on several factors.
1. WHO is your audience? An audience comprised of busy professionals may be more
interested in sharing their prior knowledge and experience with one another than would
an audience of novice students, who may need more faculty guidance or corrections.
2. WHAT are you trying to accomplish? An instructor who is trying to establish a strong
teaching presence might be much more active than one who is trying to encourage
students to build their own online community.
3. WHERE do you want to engage with your students? Some faculty prefer to engage with
their students via email, where the conversation may be kept private. Others prefer to
bring up individual questions, anonymously, before the entire class so that everyone can
benefit from the conversation.
4. WHEN—or perhaps more to the point—HOW OFTEN do you want to engage with your
students? Some online faculty have a 48-hour policy; meaning, they like to provide some
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 109

sort of guidance or insights to their students at least once every 48 hours. Others prefer to
wait until the end of the weekly discussion forum to wrap up the conversation for the
class. Neither approach is necessarily right or wrong.
All of which comes down to…
5. WHY have you chosen to teach this a particular lesson? How does it relate to your
overall course learning outcomes or objectives?
There is some evidence that the more instructors post within a discussion forum, the less
students post and the more superficial their comments become. Obviously, this is not the desired
outcome. However, if it is more important, especially in the beginning, to establish an online
community, an instructor may be more inclined to “guide” the discussion by actively responding
to some individual posts in a given forum. In later forums, he or she may simply summarize or
“wrap up” the discussion at the very end for all of the students. As part of that summarization,
the instructor may reply to any unanswered questions that have come up throughout the
discussion thread.
Although the length of the discussion forum may differ, most forums end within a week
or two. The exception to this is with general or open discussion forums, similar open chat rooms,
where students can post questions and comments throughout the semester. Some faculty
members use these general forums for common housekeeping and general interest posts, which
they do not want to confuse with specific task-oriented posts. Others use it as a place where they
can answer individual questions that might benefit everyone in the course. This serves two
purposes: (1) It helps assure that everyone is getting the same information and (2) It saves time
in that faculty members do not have to answer each and every individual email.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 110

Another strategy which has been successfully used in several of Marshall’s online
graduate courses is for instructors to make note of a couple of the particularly insightful
individual posts within the asynchronous discussion forum and then share those posts with the
entire class during the synchronous video conference. This strategy does a few things: (1) shows
students that the professor really is reading their material even if he or she does not have the time
to respond to everyone, (2) provides faculty with meaningful course content that they can share
with students in real time, and (3) creates an opportunity to showcase students who might
otherwise be silent or even marginalized in a traditional classroom setting.
So to recap, in Unit 1 of this module, we focused specifically on how to use written
discussion forums with individuals. In Unit 2, we explored how to use written discussion forums
with small groups. And in this unit, we gained some insights into how to effectively and
efficiently facilitate written discussion forums.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on how to effectively and efficiently
facilitate their written discussion forums.
Module 2, Unit 3 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 What has been your greatest challenge in effectively utilizing written discussion forums to
achieve course learning outcomes?
 What strategies have you used to be more effective in the use of written discussion forums?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 111

 What has been your greatest challenge in efficiently utilizing written discussion forums to
achieve course learning outcomes?
 What strategies have you used to be more efficient in the use of written discussion forums?
 Do you use written discussion forums more to create informal online communities or do you
use them more for engaging students in formal critical thinking exercises?
 How often do you, as the teacher, participate in the group discussion forums?
 What tips do you use to keep from “burning out”?
 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who is considering assigning group
discussion forums?
Module 2, Unit 3 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in this unit by reading the article summaries in Module 2, Unit 1.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
Module 2, Unit 3 discussion prompts. Based on your prior teaching experiences, what
three strategies would you use to effectively and efficiently create a teaching presence and
engage your students in critical thinking?
Module 2 guide to written discussion forums. [see guide in Appendix D]
Module 2 workshop outline. Written discussion forums live workshop [see handout in
Appendix E]:
I. Welcome (ID Leader: introduction to topic and panel)
A. Purpose: To gain faculty perspectives on strategies they have used to effectively and
efficiently engage student discussions using asynchronous written discussion forums.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 112

B. Participants: Introduce (3) faculty panel backgrounds and experience in online
learning
C. Process:
1. Faculty will spend approximately 30 minutes (10 minutes each) talking about
“best practices” they have used to effectively and efficiently engage student
discussions using asynchronous written discussion forums.
2. Group Discussion (20 minutes): What teaching strategies have you used to
engage student discussions in on ground classes? How might those strategies
transfer to online written discussion forums? Utilizing the WDF Checklist,
develop a sample prompt that you might use in your class. Share and critique with
a peer.
II. Background (ID Leader: give brief overview of main theories)
A. Purpose
i. Formal reflection and critical thinking
ii. Informal online community
B. People
i. Individual
ii. Groups
C. Plan (Design)
D. Preference (Facilitation)
III. Faculty Panel (ID Leader: prompt panelists to discuss their asynchronous written discussion
forums—what has worked and what hasn’t worked)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 113

IV. Group Discussion (ID Leader: hand out Written Discussion Forum Checklist and prompt
participants to discuss their strategies for engaging student discussions):
V. Instructional Design Services (ID Leader: summary)
A. Units 1-3
1. Unit 1 – How to use written discussion forums with individuals
2. Unit 2 – How to use written discussion forums in small group settings
3. Unit 3 – Effective and efficient written discussion forums
B. One-on-One course design & development support
C. Peer-to-Peer/Mentor sign up
1. Informal networking
2. Formal mentoring
VI. Feedback (ID Leader: ask for feedback from participants re: what worked for them and what
can be improved with the next iteration of the workshop)
Module 3: Asynchronous Video Forums (AVFs)
Module 3, Unit 1 script. How to use asynchronous video forums with individuals.
Welcome to Module 3, Unit 1, “How to use asynchronous video forums with
individuals.” In Module 1 we explored when faculty members might want to use written
discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video conference forums. We
began with an overview of how learning outcomes affect which online learning platforms one
might choose to use. We also looked at how different online learning platforms can be used to
establish a teaching presence and create a community of inquiry.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 114

In Module 2, we focused on how to effectively and efficiently use written discussion
forums in the online classroom. Now, in this module, we’re going to focus on how to effectively
and efficiently use asynchronous video forums.
Asynchronous video forums are excellent tools for engaging students in face-to-face
activities while at the same time allowing them to choose the time and the place where they want
to participate. This kind of flexibility is especially important to students who work full time or
who require a flexible school schedule. Asynchronous video tools such as YouSeeU have
multiple applications and address a variety of learning goals. In this unit, we will explore three
applications:
1. Individual Video Activity
2. Question & Answer Activity
3. Video Case Response
Individual video activities are similar to classroom presentations and are one way of
assessing whether or not students are able to demonstrate core competencies within the class. In
an asynchronous video forum, instructors typically assign a topic or prompt around which
students must prepare a presentation.
Students may view the assignment anytime – or asynchronously – and then upload their
video presentation when they are ready. They may rehearse offline and then upload one
presentation or they may record multiple presentation attempts and only upload the final version.
The benefit of this type of asynchronous video forum is that it allows students time to gather
information, to reflect upon its meaning, and then to respond. It also allows them to see how they
look and to correct presentation errors before turning in their final assignment. For those students
who are better at verbal than written communication, this can be a valuable tool.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 115

It also allows faculty a chance to gain verbal and visual cues from students that they
would not be able to get in a written assignment and to give minute-by-minute feedback to
students to help them develop their speaking skills. There is even an option to allow peers to
view and to give feedback to one another.
Question and answer activities are similar to a classroom question and answer situation in
which an instructor poses a question and a student answers it on the spot. This is another way of
assessing whether or not students have achieved mastery of the subject material. In addition, this
activity helps to create a teaching presence in the online classroom by allowing the teacher and
student have a face-to-face exchange, asynchronously.
The way the question and answer format works is this: First, the instructor creates a
question; this may be in text format or in video format or a combination of the two. The student
may open the question at any time; however, once he does open it, he will have a limited period
of time in which to respond and will only have one opportunity in which to answer. Once the
instructor reviews the student’s response, she may give video and/or text-based feedback
regarding both content and form.
This type of “high stakes” activity requires students to have a firm grasp of the subject
material and to identify important information or key points. It simulates cold calling within the
classroom and can also be used for oral quizzes.
Video case responses are very similar to question and answer activities in that they allow
for a back-and-forth exchange between students and faculty that mimics a real time face-to-face
encounter.
Video case responses are scenario-based and are designed to facilitate experiential
learning. The instructor uploads a video that requires each student to critically evaluate a case or
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 116

a problem and then articulate his or her own solution. The instructor then offers constructive
feedback regarding the approach the student used to solve the problem or to address the case.
This also gives faculty the opportunity to establish a strong teaching presence and to develop a
face-to-face relationship with their students in an asynchronous setting, which is one of the
potential shortcomings of written discussion forums.
Like written discussion forums, the type of asynchronous video forum that a faculty
member chooses to use will depend upon two key factors:
5. OUTCOMES. What learning outcome do you expect to achieve with this assignment?
Are you testing students’ knowledge of the content or are you encouraging them to
experiment more than once to achieve the results they want.
6. AUDIENCE. What kinds of students do you have in your class? Are they comfortable
enough with the core content that they are able to engage in higher-level experiential
learning? Do they still need some extra work on basic presentation skills?
So, to recap, in this unit we explored how to use three different asynchronous video
forums with individuals using YouSeeU. In the next unit, we’re going to look at how to use
asynchronous video forums with small groups. Then, in Unit 3, we’re going to gain some
insights into how to effectively and efficiently facilitate asynchronous video forums.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on how they have used YouSeeU for
individual assignments in their online classrooms.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 117

Module 3, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 What strategies do you use to engage your students within YouSeeU? Do you assign points
or a letter grade? Do you provide a rubric or checklist?
 How do you design effective prompts to engage students in critical thinking and discussion?
 What are one of the benefits you have found in using YouSeeU? How have you capitalized
on this?
 What are one of the pitfalls you have found in using YouSeeU? How have you dealt with
this?
 In your experience, is YouSeeU effective in terms of helping students engage in critical
thinking and reflection? Why or why not?
 In your experience, is YouSeeU effective in terms of establishing a sense of community?
Why or why not?
 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who was new to discussion
forums?
Module 3, Unit 1 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 3, Unit 1 by reading the following article summaries and
informational videos. Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty
Development Companion.
1. Borup, J., West, R. E., and Graham, C. R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video
communication on learner social presence: a narrative analysis of four cases. Distance
Education, 34 (1), 48-63.

Although social presence can be established with asynchronous written discussion
forums, the lack of visual and vocal cues makes it more difficult. For example, studies indicate
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 118

that students with low self-regulation find it difficult to participate in asynchronous online
discussions. Likewise, students who are proficient at spontaneous face-to-face communication
may not be as good at reflective writing. On the other hand, introverts and English language
learners (ELLs) may be more assertive in asynchronous online discussions than they would be in
a face-to-face environment.
Some instructors are using asynchronous video discussion in order to increase
communication and social presence in a flexible format. Survey results have consistently shown
that video communication can have a positive effect on social presence, both from the students’
as well as from the instructor’s perspective. Some students have reported that video feedback
provided the same connection as one-to-one feedback with the added benefit of being able to
reply more than one time.
While initial research indicates the use of video enhances social presence overall, the
effects on individual students (i.e. introvert, extrovert, ELL, low self-regulated) depends largely
on their perspective. In this case, the extravert gained value from creating her own video
discussion posts but not in viewing others’ posts. Conversely, the ELL student gained value from
viewing her peer’s videos but did not have the communication skills to fully participate in the
discussion on her own, most notability because of her perceived inability to communicate
fluently and her fear of being put down due to her accent. The introvert gained value from having
the flexibility to create video discussion posts at her own pace and in her own space; however,
there is the possibility that she spent too much time re-recording her comments. Meanwhile, the
low self-regulated student gained value from the immediacy of the video feedback from the
instructor because it seemed more real to her and kept her moving forward in class; however, she
did not feel she learned from her peers.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 119

In conclusion, the authors found that asynchronous video communication may provide
positive learning experiences depending upon student needs and that teaching presence
influences student social presence in the online classroom.
2. Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an
online business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education 20(2), 93-107.

Within social constructivism, there is ideological (talk-based) pedagogy and task-
centered (collaborative) pedagogy. Collaboration may not only increase student satisfaction,
motivation, and success, it may also be more in line with the types of skills business seek.
Synchronous communication via text or chat occurs in real time and is similar to traditional
classroom discussion but without the body language or social cues. Asynchronous
communication is more formal.
In this study, students spent more time interacting with one another via synchronous chat
communication and indicated that they preferred to work in a synchronous environment if given
a choice. However, their synchronous sessions were not as focused on the task at hand; students
tended to focus more on the group in synchronous sessions. Asynchronous sessions provided a
more effective place for collaborating on the writing task; however, there was less focus on
informal team building or for informal writing.
In the end, it was speculated that students might benefit from both synchronous chat
communication and from asynchronous communication in that one would provide a venue for
“group talk” and the other would provide a venue for completion of task.
3. YouSeeU (2016). YouSeeU 2016. Retrieved from
https://vimeopro.com/youseeu/youseeu-2016/video/174947778

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 120

Module 3, Unit 1 discussion prompt. Based on your prior teaching experiences, which
of the three YouSeeU activities for individuals would be most useful to you within your online
classroom? Why?
Module 3, Unit 2 script. How to use asynchronous video forums with small groups:
Welcome to Module 3, Unit 2, “How to use asynchronous video forums with small
groups.” In Module 1 we explored when faculty members might want to use various online
learning platforms. In Module 2, we focused on how to effectively and efficiently use written
discussion forums in the online classroom. In this module, we’re focusing on how to effectively
and efficiently use asynchronous video forums.
First, in Unit 1, we looked at how to use asynchronous video forums, using individual
video activities, question & answer activities, and video case responses. In this unit, we’re going
to look at some ways in which asynchronous video forums can be used with small groups. Using
YouSeeU as an example, we will explore three applications:
1. Conversation Activity
2. Group Projects
3. Sync Activity
In the conversation activity, the instructor divides students into groups of two or more.
Conversation is initiated when the first student uploads a video post. This may be based upon a
prompt that the instructor has created or upon a student-generated prompt. Then, the second
student responds to the first student post with a video post of his or her own. This back-and-forth
conversation will continue until the activity is concluded.
This activity may be occur over the course of several days, much like a written discussion
forum thread; however, unlike a written discussion forum, this asynchronous video forum allows
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 121

students to “talk” with one another, building a sense of community as well as discussing a
common topic. At the end of the activity, the videos are merged into one continuous video for
faculty review.
With group projects, faculty have the option of choosing the groups or allowing students
to self-select their own groups. In addition, the system can be programed to select groups based
upon similar schedules and availability. Students work together, asynchronously, to create
milestones for task completion. They each upload their own videos at their own place and time,
which can then be combined to form a team video.
Students can also communicate via a chat board and by scheduling synched meetings, in
which they meet at the same time; although not required, these synched meetings can also be
recorded and included with the final team submission, along with any links, documents, or other
uploads.
As part of a group project, faculty may ask group members to (privately) review each
other’s participation and performance; in this case, peer reviews would only be shared with the
instructor and would not count towards the final grade.
Sync activities require students to schedule synchronized meetings with one another and
are often used by groups as part of a larger group project. Although not technically
asynchronous, they do allow groups to meet virtually from the comfort of their own homes and
to engage with one another face-to-face in the online space.
Whether or not you choose to use asynchronous video forums on an individual or on a
small group basis will depend largely on the learning outcome you hope to achieve. Small group
asynchronous video forums can be an effective way to build a strong online community even
though students are unable to engage with one another in “real time”.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 122

So, to recap, in Unit 1 we examined how to use three different asynchronous video
forums with individuals. In this unit we explored how to use three different video forums with
small groups. In the next unit, we’re going to look at how to effectively and efficiently facilitate
asynchronous video forums using YouSeeU.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on how they have used YouSeeU for
group assignments in their online classrooms.
Module 3, Unit 2 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 What strategies do you use to engage your student groups within YouSeeU? Do you choose
the groups or do you allow students to self-select?
 How much guidance do you give small groups? Do you provide a rubric or checklist for them
to follow?
 What are one of the benefits you have found in using YouSeeU for small groups? How have
you capitalized on this?
 What are one of the pitfalls you have found in using YouSeeU for small groups? How have
you dealt with this?
 In your experience, is YouSeeU effective in terms of helping students engage in critical
thinking and reflection? Why or why not?
 In your experience, is YouSeeU effective in terms of establishing a sense of community?
Why or why not?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 123

 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who was new to discussion
forums?
Module 3, Unit 2 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in this unit by reading the article summaries and watching the
informational videos in Module 3, Unit 1. Additional articles of interest may be found in the
USC Marshall Faculty Development Companion.
Module 3, Unit 2 discussion prompt. Based on your prior teaching experiences, which
of the YouSeeU activities for small groups would be most useful to you within your online
classroom? Why?
Module 3, Unit 3 script. Effective and efficient asynchronous video forums.
Welcome to Module 3, Unit 3, “Effective and efficient asynchronous video forums.” In
Module 1 we explored when faculty members might want to use various online learning
platforms. In Module 2, we focused on how to effectively and efficiently use written discussion
forums in the online classroom. In this module, we’re focusing on how to effectively and
efficiently use asynchronous video forums.
First, in Unit 1, we looked at how to use asynchronous video forums, using individual
video activities, question & answer activities, and video case responses. In Unit 2, we explored
ways in which asynchronous video forums can be used with conversation activities, group
projects, and sync activities for small groups. In this unit, we’re going to focus on how to
effectively and efficiently facilitate asynchronous video forums.
Similar to written discussion forums, the most effective asynchronous video forum will
be of little value if it is not also efficient; instructors who are effective but not efficient may soon
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 124

burn out. It is, therefore, important to weigh the benefits of creating a sense of teacher presence
with the amount of energy and effort it takes to sustain that presence over time.
Asynchronous video forums are designed to promote face-to-face engagement between
faculty and students as well as between peers. Instructors can create scenarios in which students
see and interact with one another anytime—or asynchronously—in the online space. This gives
students the opportunity to experience more nuanced aspects of communication, including non-
verbal communication, in a way that written discussion forums do not.
Good design is still a key component, beginning with a careful consideration of the
learning outcomes as well as the audience. If the goal for the activity is to enable students to
communicate “on their feet” or to express themselves verbally, then an asynchronous video
forum would be appropriate.
This might be simpler for students who are comfortable expressing themselves in
English. It might also be easier for groups who can support one another in navigating the
platform rather than single students who need to acquire the technological tools to use the
platform on their own.
The prompts that the instructor chooses to use are also important. Similar to written
discussion forums, single-topic, open-ended prompts with clearly defined expectations—in the
form of a checklist or a rubric, for example—can elicit the best responses from students.
It is important for faculty to build in some time to explore the platform, especially in the
first assignment, and to give students step-by-step instructions, samples of “good” work, and
time to practice. That way, they are not trying to learn the platform at the same time they are
trying to learn the material.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 125

There are three ways in which instructors can give feedback within the asynchronous
video discussion forum. Each of them depends upon the desired learning outcome.
1. In-depth feedback
For example, if the assignment is designed specifically to develop public speaking
abilities, then it might be helpful for the instructor to make a verbal note at 1:32 and at 2:02 and
then again at 3:50 when the student said “and, um.”
2. General feedback
If the assignment is designed to ascertain the student’s ability to answer a question cold,
then such in-depth, minute-by-minute analysis would not be necessary and the instructor could
merely leave a general remark at the end of the video that the student did an excellent job of
addressing the subject in the time given.
3. Student feedback
Instructors may opt not to give any video response at all and may assign students to give
peer reviews of their video presentations, which can encourage student-student engagement and
build a sense of community.
Regardless of the type of feedback given to students, one of the benefits of using
asynchronous video forums is that students can see for themselves where their strengths and
weaknesses lie by reviewing their own video recordings. This is even more beneficial than
publically speaking in a classroom, where there is no ability to review.
So, to recap, in Unit 1 of this module, we focused specifically on how to use
asynchronous video forums with individuals. In Unit 2, we explored how to use asynchronous
video forums with small groups. And in this unit we explored how to effectively and efficiently
facilitate asynchronous video forums.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 126

We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on how they have used YouSeeU in
their online classrooms.
Module 3, Unit 3 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 What has been your greatest challenge in effectively utilizing asynchronous video forums to
achieve course learning outcomes?
 What strategies have you used to be more effective in the use of asynchronous video forums?
 What has been your greatest challenge in efficiently utilizing asynchronous video forums to
achieve course learning outcomes?
 What strategies have you used to be more efficient in the use of asynchronous video forums?
 Do you use asynchronous video forums more to create informal online communities or do
you use them more for engaging students in formal critical thinking exercises?
 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who is considering assigning
asynchronous video forum activities?
Module 3, Unit 3 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in this unit by reading the article summaries and watching the
informational videos in Module 3, Unit 1. Additional articles of interest may be found in the
USC Marshall Faculty Development Companion.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 127

Module 3, Unit 3 discussion prompt. Some instructors complain that trying to maintain
a teaching presence in the online space is a time drain. How might AVFs mitigate that time
drain?
Module 3 guide to asynchronous video forums. [See guide in Appendix F]
Module 3 workshop outline. Asynchronous video forums live workshop. [See handout
in Appendix G]:
I. Welcome (ID Leader: introduction to topic and panel)
A. Purpose: To gain faculty perspectives on strategies they have used to effectively and
efficiently engage student discussions using asynchronous video forums.
B. Participants: Introduce (3) faculty panel backgrounds and experience in online
learning
C. Process:
1. Faculty will spend approximately 30 minutes (10 minutes each) talking about
“best practices” they have used to effectively and efficiently engage student
discussions using asynchronous written discussion forums.
2. Group Discussion (20 minutes): What teaching strategies have you used to
engage student discussions in on ground classes? How might those strategies
transfer to asynchronous video forums? Utilizing the AVF Toolkit, develop a
sample prompt that you might use in your class. Share and critique with a peer.
II. Background (ID Leader: give brief overview of main theories)
A. Purpose
i. Formal reflection and critical thinking
ii. Informal online community
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 128

B. People
i. Individual
ii. Groups
C. Plan (Design)
D. Preference (Facilitation)
i. minute-by-minute feedback
ii. general feedback
iii. peer-to-peer feedback
III. Faculty Panel (ID Leader: prompt panelists to discuss their asynchronous video forums—
what has worked and what hasn’t worked)
IV. Group Discussion (ID Leader: hand out YouSeeU Overview and prompt participants to
discuss their strategies for engaging student discussions):
V. Instructional Design Services (ID Leader: summary)
A. Units 1-3
1. Unit 1 – How to use asynchronous video forums with individuals
2. Unit 2 – How to use written discussion forums with small groups
3. Unit 3 – Effective and efficient written discussion forums
B. One-on-One course design & development support
C. Peer-to-Peer/Mentor sign up
1. Informal networking
2. Formal mentoring
VI. Feedback (ID Leader: ask for feedback from participants re: what worked for them and what
can be improved with the next iteration of the workshop)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 129

Module 4: Synchronous Video Conference Forums (SVCFs)
Module 4, Unit 1 script. “Flipping” the classroom with synchronous video conference
forums:
Welcome to Module 4, Unit 1, “Flipping the classroom with synchronous video
conference forums.” In Module 1 we explored when faculty members might want to use various
online learning platforms, including written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and
synchronous video conference forums. In Modules 2 and 3, we focused on how to effectively
and efficiently use written discussion forums and asynchronous video forums. In this module, we
will focus on how to effectively and efficiently use synchronous video conference forums.
Synchronous video conferencing requires participants to gather at the same time via an
online platform such as WebEx, Adobe Connect, or Zoom. Research has shown that synchronous
video conferencing is a useful tool both for sharing information and for creating an immediate
sense of social presence.
In online courses, synchronous video conference forums provide a place where students
and faculty can meet with one another face-to-face, in real time. Study participants have reported
feeling a higher degree of sociability, social presence, and social space within these video
enhanced discussions. In addition, both students and instructors have reported a greater sense of
connection with one another in these forums.
For example, Zoom allows up to 25 participants to be seen on the screen at the same
time—like the Brady Bunch wall—in such a way that individual participants are visible at all
times to one another. This is a powerful experience for students and teachers alike in that
everyone has a virtual front row seat in class.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 130

In addition to using synchronous video conference sessions, many online faculty are inverting
the sequence of their course content, requiring their students to complete their homework first
and then attend the class session for further engagement with the content. Recent studies have
indicated that inverting or “flipping” the course in this manner can help reduce cognitive load
and increase deep learning for students.
In a “flipped” course, students view pre-recorded videos, complete weekly readings, and
engage in self-assessment activities or reflective assignments asynchronously—or at any time—
prior to attending the synchronous video conference forum. Then, during this synchronous video
session, they have an opportunity to interact with the faculty, with their classmates, and with the
course content in a more meaningful way. In other words, students have the opportunity to
acquire knowledge in the asynchronous portion of the course and then to apply what they have
learned in the synchronous portion of the course.
Faculty members do not lecture during their synchronous video conference forums in a
“flipped” model since their students have already engaged with the core course content in the
pre-recorded videos. Instead, the focus of the synchronous class sessions can become much more
robust and dynamic as faculty are able to challenge students to delve deeper into the course
content through interactive case studies, real-time question and answer sessions, and discussion
prompts based upon case studies or even upon student responses to the asynchronous activities
and assessments during the previous week.
Within the business school at USC, some faculty begin their synchronous video
conferencing forum—also known as their MarshallTALK sessions—with an informal poll or a
prompt that encourages students to engage in discussion. MarshallTALK sessions typically run
between an hour to two hours each week. During that time, faculty members can refer back to
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 131

written discussion forums or assignments that were completed in the previous week and call on
individual students to expound upon their answers. Faculty can also initiate a real-time question
and answer period, where students can gain clarity about the materials covered in the previous
week. In addition, they can break students out into small groups for case-based discussion.
To recap, then, in this unit we examined how faculty can engage in “flipping” the
classroom using synchronous video conference forums. In Unit 2, we will look at how faculty
use breakout sessions to engage students in case study. And then, in Unit 3, we will examine
effective and efficient ways to use synchronous video conference forums.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on flipping the online classroom using
synchronous video conference forums.
Module 4, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 What strategies do you use to engage your students in MarshallTALK?
 Do you assign points or a letter grade for participation? Do you provide a rubric or
checklist for students?
 How do you design effective prompts to engage students in critical thinking and
discussion?
 What are one of the benefits you have found in “flipping” the classroom with
synchronous video conference forums? How have you capitalized on this?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 132

 What are one of the pitfalls you have found in in “flipping” the classroom with
synchronous video conference forums? How have you dealt with this?
 In your experience, is MarshallTALK effective in terms of helping students engage in
critical thinking and reflection? Why or why not?
 In your experience, is MarshallTALK effective in terms of establishing a sense of
community? Why or why not?
 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who was new to synchronous
video conference forums?
Module 4, Unit 1 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 4, Unit 1 by reading the following five article summaries.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
1. Bishop, J. L. and Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the
research. 120
th
ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Paper ID#6219.

The flipped—or inverted—classroom is a new pedagogical strategy in which students to
watch lectures prior to coming to class and then practice problem solving in class. In other
words, those activities that they would traditionally do in class are done at home; and classroom
time is devoted to practice exercises in which students apply what they have learned in the
classroom setting. Anecdotal evidence suggests learning is improved in flipped classrooms.
Typically, students come to class much better prepared to engage with the subject matter (some
instructors give quizzes prior to class to test student knowledge).
2. Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., Kenney, J. (2015). Design and
implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a
cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 133

In this article, “blended” was a term used to describe a classroom environment wherein
remote students could participate in face-to-face class sessions using synchronous technologies.
Using various video and web conferencing tools, remote students were able to listen to
instructor’s lectures and ask/answer questions as part of the in-class environment.
The underlying principle for this study was that of “multi-access learning” in which
students have autonomy in how they access the learning environment; in this case whether they
attend class face-to-face or join virtually. Survey responses indicated that the majority of
students perceived this learning as superior or equal in quality to traditional learning.
The authors suggest the larger cohort size as well as unique perspectives that remote
students bring to a F2F class can enhance the sense of community within blended classrooms.
Their study suggests that blended learning designs promote active learning. However, that
learning should be balanced against the increase in cognitive load (CL) both for teachers who
have to address both a F2F and remote audience at the same time as well as for students who
have to navigate multiple channels of information.
Strategies for managing CL included directing communication to one mode (i.e. either
audio or text) or having a student facilitator monitor the synchronous chat session while the
instructor focuses on verbal communication with the class. The authors also suggested
institutional support, including providing faculty with technical and teaching assistance,
professional development, and preparation time.
3. Clark, C., Strudler, N., and Grove, K. (2015). Comparing Asynchronous and
Synchronous Video versus Text Based Discussions in an Online Teacher Education
Course. Online Learning Journal, 19(3), 1-22.

While text-based discussion forums have been shown to create social and teaching
presences, they lack non-verbal social cues that may be important in facilitating social space and
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 134

sociability. Text-based discussion forums allow for reflective thinking. However, video
discussions facilitate group cohesion and connectedness. In addition, teaching presence is
increased.
In the study, students were required to create video posts each week and to respond two
at least three of their classmates’ posts via text. Students were also instructed to engage in text
based discussion forums on a weekly basis within their subgroups. Finally, students engaged in
synchronous video discussions with their classmates and their instructor.
Participants reported feeling a higher degree of sociability, social presence, and social
space within the video enhanced discussions. Participants also reported feeling more connected
with their instructor using video enhanced discussion forums. However, not all students felt
comfortable using video enhanced discussion forum; and some preferred text-based discussions.
The results suggest that video enhanced discussion forums are more effective than text-
based discussions in terms of creating greater teaching and social presence. They also suggest
that a blend of both asynchronous and synchronous video discussions may be more effective in
terms of increasing outcomes than either alone.
4. Thai, N.T.T, De Wever, B., and Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom
design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of
lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126.

Blended learning combines face-to-face learning with e-Learning. In addition, “flipped”
learning combined with blended learning is growing in popularity. Research suggests students
are better prepared to engage in higher-order activities in class with flipped learning. Teachers
can give immediate feedback to students as they engage in these higher-level activities; thus,
deeper learning is achieved. The authors’ research indicates that not only do students experience
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 135

higher learning performance in flipped classrooms, they also experience greater levels of self-
efficacy.
5. Warden, C. A., Stanworth, J. O., Ren, J. B., and Warden, A. R. (2012). Synchronous
learning best practices: An action research study. Computers & Education, 63, 197-207.

The authors applied iterative cycles of action research to determine how video
conferencing and immersive virtual environments might be successfully used to emulate the
physical classroom. While technology is sometimes the source of problems in the virtual
classroom, it is believed that a greater problem lies in human behaviors and interactions with
technological systems. Their focus, therefore, was on aspects of classroom management when
executing Synchronous Learning in Distributed Environments (SLIDE).
Video conferencing allows participants to convey and observe body language and also
encourages students to create their own learning environment. Similarly, immersive virtual
environments which allow students to role play can facilitate improved achievement.
Looking at class sizes of more than 25 students, the authors found that computer
bandwidth on the server-side was an issue, especially with regards to audio quality. They also
found audio feedback (i.e. screeching) with multiple users to be an issue. Their initial conclusion
was that having a channel for texting was important as an alternative avenue of communication.
In addition, the ability to synchronize the visual slide presentation with the audio presentation
was also important.
Although appealing, the use of multiple technological tools during synchronous classes
was discouraged due to instructor—and to a lesser extent to student—overload. The more tasks
instructors are asked to handle, the more likely they are to experience overload and stress.
Therefore, the authors recommended using basic audio and text features for large class sizes in
order to minimize overload.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 136

The authors concluded that video conferencing does provide a means for enabling social
interaction and reinforcing a group presence, “making VC more than the sum of multiple video
streams” (p. 204).
Module 4, Unit 1 discussion prompt. Share a situation in which you have successfully
engaged your students in an on ground class? What strategies did you use? How could you use
those strategies in a “flipped” classroom with synchronous video conference forums?
Module 4, Unit 2 script. Breakout rooms in synchronous video conference forums:
Welcome to Module 4, Unit 2, “Breakout rooms in synchronous video conference
forums.” In Module 1 we explored when faculty members might want to use various online
learning platforms, including written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and
synchronous video conference forums. In Modules 2 and 3, we focused on how to effectively
and efficiently use written discussion forums and asynchronous video forums. In this module, we
will focus on how to effectively and efficiently use synchronous video conference forums.
In Unit 1 we examined how faculty can engage in “flipping” the classroom using
synchronous video conference forums. Synchronous video conferencing requires participants to
gather at the same time via an online platform such as WebEx, Adobe Connect, or Zoom.
Research has shown that synchronous video conferencing is a useful tool both for sharing
information and for creating an immediate sense of social presence.
Faculty members can augment this even further by creating opportunities for students to
“break out” into small groups, in much the same way as they might “pair and share” in an on
ground classroom. At USC Marshall, instructors use the Zoom Breakout Room feature to divide
students into groups of three to five students per breakout room.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 137

Often, faculty will use this feature to facilitate case-based discussions. They may start
with a brief introduction to the case, followed by a prompt or a list of questions for students to
consider, after which they will electronically divide small groups of students into private
“rooms” where they can discuss the case and collaborate on recommendations or solutions to the
problem.
Evidence suggests that breakout rooms have several advantages: (1) They encourage
students to engage in peer-to-peer learning, (2) they enable students who might be reluctant to
speak out in front of the entire class to share their views and opinions in a smaller group, (3) they
create an active learning environment wherein the instructor guides student learning instead of
simply lecturing, and (4) they help generate a sense of community within the online class.
Breakout rooms can be especially effective with students who have a more advanced
understanding of the material as well as prior knowledge. Although instructors may “drop in” to
observe the interactions of the group, they typically do not guide the discussion in any way other
than to give the initial instructions and/or prompt. Therefore, students must have enough
maturity, experience, and understanding to stay on task and to actively engage with the content
and with one another.
Although breakout rooms can be set up automatically, they can still be somewhat time
consuming; therefore the benefits in terms of achieving learning outcomes will need to be
weighed against the amount of time it takes—typically a minimum of thirty minutes from start to
finish.
Instructors at USC Marshall hold synchronous video conference forums from one to two
hours every week throughout the semester. In a one-hour synchronous video conference forum—
also known as a MarshallTALK session—faculty may not have enough time to conduct a
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 138

breakout session in addition to other classroom activities. Therefore, careful thought must be
given in the initial design and development phase of the course as to how long your weekly
MarshallTALK sessions will be as well as what outcomes you expect to achieve in these
sessions.
To recap, then, in Unit 1 we examined how faculty can engage in “flipping” the
classroom in synchronous video conference forums. In this unit, we looked at how faculty use
breakout sessions to study cases. In Unit 3, we will examine effective and efficient ways to use
synchronous video conference forums.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on using breakout sessions within
synchronous video conference forums.
Module 4, Unit 2 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 How do you use breakout rooms for case studies? Do you provide prompts or questions for
them to answer?
 Do you assign points or a letter grade for participation? Do you provide a rubric or checklist
for students?
 What are one of the benefits you have found in using breakout rooms with synchronous
video conference forums? How have you capitalized on this?
 What are one of the pitfalls you have found in using breakout rooms with synchronous video
conference forums? How have you dealt with this?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 139

 In your experience, are breakout rooms effective in terms of helping students engage in
critical thinking and reflection? Why or why not?
 In your experience, are breakout rooms effective in terms of establishing a sense of
community? Why or why not?
 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who was new to synchronous video
conference forums?
Module 4, Unit 2 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in this unit by reading the article summaries in Module 4, Unit 1.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
Module 4, Unit 2 discussion prompt. Share a situation in which you have successfully
engaged your students in breaking out into small groups in an on ground class? What strategies
did you use? How could you use those strategies in designing breakout rooms within
synchronous video conference forums?
Module 4, Unit 3 script. Effective and efficient synchronous video conference tools:
Welcome to Module 4, Unit 3, “Effective and efficient synchronous video conference
forums.” In Module 1 we explored when faculty members might want to use various online
learning platforms, including written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and
synchronous video conference forums. In Modules 2 and 3, we focused on how to effectively
and efficiently use written discussion forums and asynchronous video forums. In this module, we
will focus on how to effectively and efficiently use synchronous video conference forums.
Synchronous video conferencing requires participants to gather at the same time via an
online platform such as WebEx, Adobe Connect, or Zoom. Research has shown that synchronous
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 140

video conferencing is a useful tool both for sharing information and for creating an immediate
sense of social presence.
Instructors at USC Marshall hold synchronous video conferencing forums—also known
as MarshallTALK sessions—from one to two hours every week throughout the semester; this
accounts for roughly one third of the total student contact hours. Therefore, it is crucial that these
forums are run as efficiently as possible in order to maximize their value for students.
To begin with, careful thought must be given in the initial design and development phase
of the course regarding the outcomes one expects to achieve in asynchronous and synchronous
sessions.
 WHO is your audience?
 WHAT content are you trying to convey?
 WHERE is that content best presented—asynchronously or synchronously?
 WHEN is that content best presented—during the week prior to the synchronous session or
during the synchronous session itself?
 WHY is this important?
Although the content may be the same, on ground courses and online courses are
different in terms of pedagogy. What works in an on ground course may not work online.
Similarly content that is delivered face-to-face in an on ground classroom may simply not be
necessary or even productive in synchronous video conference forums.
Because synchronous sessions are so limited in time, it is especially important for
instructors to ask themselves (a) whether the content is even relevant in terms of the learning
outcomes, and (b) whether it can better be presented elsewhere in the course.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 141

Next, instructors can address the issue of efficiency by revising their role in the
synchronous video conference forums. For example, since students have already viewed pre-
recorded lectures in the asynchronous portion of the class, instructors do not have to lecture
again on the same topics that students have already been exposed to. Instead of being the “sage
on the stage,” they can become the “guide on the side” and facilitate active learning for students.
Faculty may invite guest lectures to their synchronous sessions. They may also assign
individual students to present on any current events that have occurred during the previous week.
In addition, they may assign small groups of students to present on case studies that they
collaborated on either in the asynchronous portion of the class or in a previous breakout room
within the synchronous session.
Rubrics and/or checklists for grading participation provide another way to achieve
efficiency in grading student participation within the synchronous video conference forums.
Similarly, polling can function as a tool for engagement as well as for taking attendance and
measuring student understanding of the subject matter. These tools make it relatively easy for
instructors to make note of who has participated as well as the degree to which they have
participated, and they give much more robust feedback than simply noting who attended the
session.
Studies suggest that students in online courses require even more consistent feedback
over time in order to stay motivated. By utilizing rubrics, checklists, or polling results,
participation scores can be entered into the grade book immediately after class, thus giving
students the opportunity to see where they stand and how they can improve their participation in
a timely manner. This is another way to effectively and efficiently establish a teaching presence
within the course.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 142

To recap, then, in Unit 1 we examined how faculty can engage in “flipping” the
classroom in synchronous video conferencing forums. In Unit 2, we looked at how faculty use
breakout sessions to study cases. And, in this unit, we examined effective and efficient ways to
use synchronous video conferencing forums.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on effective and efficient synchronous
video conference forums.
Module 4, Unit 3 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 What has been your greatest challenge in effectively utilizing synchronous video conference
forums to achieve course learning outcomes?
 What strategies have you used to be more effective in the use of synchronous video
conference forums?
 What has been your greatest challenge in efficiently utilizing synchronous video conference
forums to achieve course learning outcomes?
 What strategies have you used to be more efficient in the use of synchronous video
conference forums?
 Do you use synchronous video conference forums more to create informal online
communities or do you use them more for engaging students in formal critical thinking
exercises?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 143

 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who was new to synchronous video
conference forums?
Module 4, Unit 3 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in this unit by reading the article summaries in Module 4, Unit 1.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
Module 4, Unit 3 discussion prompt. Based on your prior teaching experiences, what
strategies would you use to effectively and efficiently facilitate a synchronous video conference
forum that engaged students and achieved learning outcomes?
Module 4 guide to synchronous video conference forums. [See guide in Appendix H]
Module 4 workshop outline. Synchronous video conference forums live workshop [see
handout in Appendix I]:
I. Welcome (ID Leader: introduction to topic and panel)
A. Purpose: To gain faculty perspectives on strategies they have used to effectively and
efficiently engage student discussions using synchronous video conference forums.
B. Participants: Introduce (3) faculty panel backgrounds and experience in online
learning
C. Process:
1. Faculty will spend approximately 30 minutes (10 minutes each) talking about
“best practices” they have used to effectively and efficiently engage student
discussions using synchronous video conference forums (aka MarshallTALK
sessions).
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 144

2. Group Discussion (20 minutes): What teaching strategies have you used to
engage students in on ground classes? How might those strategies transfer to
synchronous video conference forums? Utilizing the Sample Rubric, develop a
rubric that you could use to track student participation in your class. Share and
critique with a peer.
II. Background (ID Leader: give brief overview of main theories)
 WHO is your audience?
 WHAT content are you trying to convey?
 WHERE is that content best presented—asynchronously or synchronously?
 WHEN is that content best presented—during the week prior to the synchronous session
or during the synchronous session itself?
 WHY is this important? Although the content may be the same, on ground courses and
online courses are different in terms of pedagogy. What works in an on ground course
may not work online. Similarly content that is delivered face-to-face in an on ground
classroom may simply not be necessary or even productive in synchronous video
conference forums.
III. Faculty Panel (ID Leader: prompt panelists to discuss their synchronous video conference
forums—what has worked and what hasn’t worked)
IV. Group Discussion (ID Leader: hand out Zoom Online Event Best Practices and
MarshallTALK Participation Rubric and prompt participants to discuss their strategies for
engaging student discussions)
V. Instructional Design Services (ID Leader: summary)
A. Units 1-3
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 145

1. Unit 1 – Flipping the classroom with synchronous video conference forums
2. Unit 2 – Case study breakout rooms in synchronous video conference forums
3. Unit 3 – Effective and efficient synchronous video conference forums
B. One-on-One course design & development support
C. Peer-to-Peer/Mentor sign up
1. Informal networking
2. Formal mentoring
VI. Feedback (ID Leader: ask for feedback from participants re: what worked for them and what
can be improved with the next iteration of the workshop)
Module 5: Online Course Delivery Strategies
Module 5, Unit 1 script. Feedback fundamentals:
Welcome to Module 5, Unit 1, “Feedback fundamentals.” In Module 1 we explored when
faculty members might want to use various online learning platforms to engage students and
achieve learning outcomes. In Modules 2, 3, and 4, we focused on how to effectively and
efficiently use those online learning platforms. Specifically, we explored how to create a variety
of activities using written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video
conferencing forums to promote student learning and efficacy.
But creating engaging activities for students is only part of the equation. Students need
meaningful feedback as well in order to persist in the learning process. This is true regardless of
the medium in which the course is taught. Feedback can motivate students to persist and can
reduce attrition in classrooms, especially online or virtual classrooms where students may be
more likely to feel isolated and detached from the instructor and from their peers. Feedback can
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 146

take many forms; in higher education, students typically receive both formative as well as
summative assessments.
Formative assessments are ongoing and iterative and are designed to help students bridge
the gap between their current level of knowledge and achievement and the level they can
potentially attain by the end of the course. Summative assessments are cumulative and are
designed to measure what students have learned at a given point in time. Examples of formative
assessments include faculty observations, homework assignments, and self-evaluations. These
are considered “low stakes” and informal assessments; they may take place spontaneously or be
part of an overall course plan. Examples of summative assessments include projects, portfolios,
and exams. These are considered “high stakes” and are formal assessments that typically have a
significant effect on the students’ final grades.
Studies show that, in higher education, feedback can be used to encourage students to
develop as independent, self-regulated learners. Action tips for providing meaningful feedback
for students include (1) making sure students receive feedback early and often throughout the
course, (2) clarifying how each assessment is relevant and valuable to the students, (3) clarifying
what, explicitly, is required of the students, (4) providing additional scaffolding or support to
help students develop self-assessment or peer assessment skills, and (5) giving clear and focused
feedback on how students can improve their work.
Effective feedback is task oriented and provides students with information about how to
improve their performance over time. Studies indicate that comparisons made between an
individual’s past and present performance are more effective than comparisons between two
individuals. Self-assessment and peer assessment are increasingly becoming more commonly
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 147

used, and with them another type of assessment called “catalytic assessment” leads students to
achieve deeper learning.
Catalytic assessment does not typically involve diagnostic or constructive feedback but
instead relies on peer interaction and metacognition to help students catalyze and internalize the
learning process. While formative assessment may lead students to learn specific skills or
procedures, catalytic assessment prompts students to make connections between core concepts.
This type of learning, allows students to transfer knowledge between a variety of tasks within
numerous contexts.
Most of our online courses at USC Marshall involve peer interaction or metacognition to
enable students to make deeper connections between the theories they are learning in class and
how they might apply to other situations. This, combined with formative assessments such as
discussion forums, homework assignments, and question and answer sessions and with
summative assessments including projects, papers, and exams, creates a robust learning
environment for our students that is driven by good pedagogy as well as cutting edge technology.
To recap, then, in this unit, we looked at some of the fundamentals of feedback. In Unit 2,
we will explore how faculty can use e-assessment feedback in general and the online Grade
Book in particular to engage their students and to facilitate learning. In Unit 3, we will examine
rubrics as part of the feedback process.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives on giving student feedback.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 148

Module 5, Unit 1 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 What strategies do you use to give your students feedback in your online classes?
 Are these strategies different from the feedback you give in your on ground classes? How are
they different? How are the similar?
 How often do you give feedback throughout your online course?
 Is your student feedback primarily formative in nature or is it primarily summative in nature?
 Do you ask students to assess their own progress? If so, what guidance do you give them for
this? Is their assessment factored into their final grade?
 Do you ask students to assess their peers? If so, what guidance do you give them for this? Is
their assessment factored into their final grade?
 What types of low-stakes feedback do you use?
 What types of high-stakes feedback do you use?
 Do you provide a rubric or checklist for students?
 What additional advice would you give a faculty member who was new to online grading and
assessments?
Module 5, Unit 1 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 5, Unit 1 by reading the following three article summaries.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
1. Dixon, D. D. and Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the
classroom. Theory Into Practice, 55, 153-159.

Formative assessments are designed primarily to improve student learning. Whether planned
or spontaneous, formative assessments help instructors and students determine where the gaps in
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 149

learning are so they can be bridged as part of an iterative process. Summative assessments are
cumulative and are designed primarily to capture what a student has learned at a specific point in
time, such as the end of the course, and to compare that performance against a standard. See
Table 1 from page 154 below:

2. Draper, S. W. (2009). Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can
foster deep learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 285-293.

Catalytic assessment usually occurs without external formative feedback. It is the product
of peer interaction or metacognition with leads to conceptual (versus procedural) learning. While
“shallow” learners are able to successfully acquire a skill, they are often unable to make deeper
connections or to transfer that skill to another domain. “Deep” learners are able to make those
connections and to transfer knowledge to a variety of tasks and contexts. The different
approaches to assessment are indicative to different types of learning: one external and the other
internal.
3. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of
Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 150

Feedback may be viewed as an end product or as part of a sequential process. From a
cognitivist perspective, feedback consists of an expert teacher “correcting” a passive student.
From a socio-constructivist perspective, feedback consists of a teacher “facilitating” students as
they as they actively work through a process of gaining new understandings.
Researchers have differentiated between four main types of feedback: task feedback, process
feedback, self-regulation feedback, and self-feedback. Building on these types, assessment
research can also be categorized into three broader meanings: motivational, reinforcement, and
informational.
In higher education, feedback is often seen as a way for instructors to facilitate students’
development as independent, self-regulated learners. The use of self-assessment and peer
assessment has become increasingly popular. However, more research is needed to determine
what specific type of feedback works best for students in a given context or situation.
Researchers found that student complaints about feedback tended to focus primarily on the
content, organization, timing, and lack of clarity of the feedback they were given. Faculty
complaints focused primarily on students failing to act on formative feedback.
There was general agreement around the concept that feedback should be holistic and
iterative, and 12 pragmatic actions were presented based upon this meta-analysis of 240 articles
(p. 79):
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 151

One of the key points presented was the idea that feedback should not threaten the ego of
the recipient. In addition, performance increases were more likely if recipients saw improvement
over time.
E-assessment feedback (EAF) includes both formative and summative feedback that is
delivered through digital technologies; this is not the same thing as computer-generated scoring
and includes both automated and personal feedback within different mediums. The authors found
that the main predicator of success with e-assessments was whether or not an improved teaching
method was introduced along with them. Another key factor in the efficacy of e-assessments was
the nature of interaction between students and teachers.
A thematic analysis of self-assessment revealed six key points: (1) “Focused
interventions” (p. 88) such as discussion groups, rubrics, and testing can lead to positive student
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 152

learning outcomes as long as students explicitly understand the value in the learning process. (2)
Students require adequate scaffolding to be successful at self-assessment (this is true for peer
assessment as well). At the same time, too much explicit guidance may actually hinder student
growth by increasing their dependence upon the teacher and limiting their thinking. (3) All
students need some support in self-regulation; however, some need more than others. (4) Student
perceptions of self-assessment are important to consider. (5) In some situations, working
independently may be more valuable than working within a group. (6) The key to success is for
students to take responsibility for their learning and to become actively involved in the feedback
process.
Peer assessment may be motivational and help in the development of metacognition.
However, there is some evidence that peer assessment can lead to “regressive collaboration” (p.
91). Some students are better able to give feedback than others, and some tasks may be better
suited for peer assessment than others.
Training students to asses themselves and others should include: (a) defining the
assessment criteria, (b) judging the performance, and (c) providing feedback for future learning.
Although it may be effective for formative feedback, the use of peer-assessments in summative
feedback is contentious.
The term “feedback exchange” (p. 97) shows the ongoing nature of feedback. One of the
fundamental requirements of higher education is to facilitate feedback; however, faculty must
have a thorough understanding of how individuals within their classes process information
within their community and within a given context.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 153

Module 5, Unit 1 discussion prompt. Based upon your prior teaching experience, how
often do you give feedback to your students? What type of feedback do you give them? How
might teaching online change the type or frequency of feedback you give your students?
Module 5, Unit 2 script. E-assessment feedback:
Welcome to Module 5, Unit 2, “E-assessment feedback.” In Module 1 we explored when
faculty members might want to use various online learning platforms to engage students and
achieve learning outcomes. In Modules 2, 3, and 4, we focused on how to effectively and
efficiently use those online learning platforms. Specifically, we explored how to create a variety
of activities using written discussion forums, asynchronous video forums, and synchronous video
conferencing forums to promote student learning and efficacy.
We began this module by examining some of the fundamentals of giving students
feedback. These fundamentals apply regardless of the medium in which the course is taught.
Feedback can motivate students to persist and can reduce attrition in classrooms, especially
online or virtual classrooms where students may be more likely to feel isolated and detached
from the instructor and from their peers.
E-assessment feedback has been shown to be an effective way to provide immediate
feedback for students through asynchronous or synchronous channels. E-assessment feedback
may be automated or it may involve personal feedback. It may be used across different mediums
to support both individual and group learning. As an added bonus, most online Learning
Management Systems also allow faculty to track student progress in mastering course learning
outcomes; in addition, these analytics flag at-risk students as well as provide evidence that
certain accreditation standards have been met.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 154

Practitioners have found that frequent formative feedback, beginning as early as week 3
in a semester-long course, can be a very important factor in student success and in the
achievement of student learning outcomes. At USC Marshall, faculty frequently use self-
assessments, embedded within pre-taped videos, to encourage students to actively engage with
the material being presented and to assess their own knowledge of the subject matter to
determine whether or not they feel ready to move on to the next level.
Other formative assessments include written and video discussion forums, where students
can get feedback from their peers as well as from faculty. Case studies, simulations, and iterative
team projects are also used to give feedback to students in order to help them achieve course-
level learning outcomes and to experience efficacy in engaging with the formal critical thinking
process that is a cornerstone of our graduate-level programs. Within each course, feedback is
designed not only to teach core business concepts but to catalyze learners to transfer those
concepts and thought processes to their own business situations.
In addition to “face-to-face” feedback given within the synchronous video conference
sessions and virtual office hours, instructors are also encouraged to give frequent feedback
within the online grade book so that students can track their progress in the course at any given
time. Any assignment, discussion forum, or quiz that is created is automatically populated within
the grade book. Instructors who choose to use this feature can do all of their grading online,
without the need to print out documents, write in comments, and then enter the grades manually.
This leads to greater efficiencies and frees up time for instructors to engage more with their
students.
All assignments can be linked to a rubric for more efficient and effective grading.
Rubrics allow faculty members to be more consistent in their grading. In addition, well-crafted
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 155

rubrics provide students with a scaffold with which they can learn how to create their own best
response to a given prompt or question.
To recap, then, in Unit 1, we looked at some of the fundamentals of feedback, whether it
is given on the ground or online. In this unit, we explored how faculty can use e-assessment
feedback in general and the online Grade Book in particular to engage their students and to
facilitate learning. In Unit 3, we will examine how rubrics and exemplars can be used as part of
the feedback process.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they
have used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-
on-one coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with
you on your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some student perspectives e-assessment feedback.
Module 5, Unit 2 interview questions for student perspectives video.
 What types of feedback have you received from instructors?
 Which types of feedback were most effective in your learning? Why were they effective?
 Do you feel there is any value in receiving peer feedback? Why or why not?
 Do you feel there is any value in reflecting on and evaluating your own work? Why or why
not?
 How frequently do you need feedback in order to feel engaged with the content of a course?
 Is there a course that you have taken in which you have actually used the knowledge you’ve
gained in your everyday life?
 If not, why?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 156

 If so, tell us something about the types of feedback you received in that course? Do you think
the feedback attributed to the transfer of knowledge in your case?
 What additional comments would you like to make regarding feedback and grading within
your courses?
Module 5, Unit 2 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in this unit by reading the article summaries in Module 5, Unit 1.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
Module 5, Unit 2 discussion prompt. Based on your experiences, what are the strengths
and weaknesses of grading online versus offline?
Module 5, Unit 3 script. Utilizing rubrics and exemplars as part of the feedback process:
Welcome to Module 5, Unit 3, “Utilizing rubrics and exemplars as part of the feedback
process.” In Module 1 we explored when faculty members might want to use various online
learning platforms to engage students and achieve learning outcomes. In Modules 2, 3, and 4, we
focused on how to effectively and efficiently use those online learning platforms. Specifically,
we explored how to create a variety of activities using written discussion forums, asynchronous
video forums, and synchronous video conferencing forums to promote student learning and
efficacy.
We began this module by examining some of the fundamentals of giving students
feedback. These fundamentals apply regardless of the medium in which the course is taught; they
hold just as true for the online classroom as they do for the on ground classroom. Feedback can
motivate students to persist and can reduce attrition in classrooms, especially online or virtual
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 157

classrooms where students may be more likely to feel isolated and detached from the instructor
and from their peers.
One of the benefits of grading online is that e-assignments can be easily linked to a rubric
for more efficient and effective grading. Rubrics provide students with explicit criteria for
content mastery as well as quality levels for each criterion.
At first glance, rubrics are valuable evaluation tools in that they enable instructors to
grade assignments easily and consistently by giving students non-individualized feedback.
However, rubrics are also used as instructional tools, providing students with the opportunity to
assess for themselves what level of performance they need to achieve in order to gain mastery of
a given task and to compare that level of desired performance with their current performance in
order to bridge the gap between the two.
In addition to rubrics, many educators also use exemplars to illustrate or model desired
performance. Like rubrics, exemplars allow students to assess their own progress (and to assess
their peers) in a formative process. However, while rubrics focus on explicit criteria, exemplars
focus more on the general standards for performance and enable students to draw their own
conclusions of how those standards might apply to their individual work performance.
Evidence suggests that for feedback to be effective, students must:
1. Have a sense of where they are currently in their performance
2. Understand where they ought to be in terms of performance
3. Be motivated to bridge the gap between the two states
Today, rubrics-based assessments are accepted as a standard of good practice. Furthermore,
studies have shown that non-individualized feedback is effective and efficient in delivering
significant student improvement.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 158

To recap, then, in Unit 1, we looked at some of the fundamentals of feedback, whether it is
given on the ground or online. In Unit 2, we explored how faculty can use e-assessment feedback
in general and the online grade book in particular to engage their students and to facilitate
learning. In this unit, we examined how rubrics and exemplars can be effectively and efficiently
used as part of the feedback process.
We also offer periodic meet ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when they have
used or when they might use these tools in their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-on-one
coaching and mentoring with an instructional design team member who will work with you on
your online or hybrid course.
Next, let’s take a look at some student perspectives on utilizing rubrics and exemplars as part
of the feedback process.
Module 5, Unit 3 interview questions for faculty perspectives video.
 Do you utilize rubrics within your class? Are they helpful in narrowing the “gap” between
existing student knowledge and desired student knowledge? Why or why not?
 Do you use exemplars within your class? Are they helpful? Why or why not?
 Are rubrics shared with students prior to grading?
 Once grades are given, are students allowed to revise their work? Is that helpful? Why or
why not?
 How do you think using rubrics is beneficial in terms of narrowing the knowledge “gap”?
 How do you think using exemplars is beneficial?
 How do you think using rubrics might not be beneficial?
 How do you think using exemplars might not be beneficial?
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 159

 Do you think rubrics and exemplars encourage students to assess their own level of learning
and improve, or do you think they just focus on “making the grade”?
 What additional comments would you like to make regarding feedback and grading within
your courses?
Module 5, Unit 3 reading summaries. Interested faculty may learn more about the
information presented in Module 5, Unit 3 by reading the following two article summaries.
Additional articles of interest may be found in the USC Marshall Faculty Development
Companion.
1. De Leeuw, J. (2016). Chapter 4: Rubrics and exemplars in writing assessment. In S. Scott
et al. (Eds.), Leadership of Assessment, Inclusion, and Learning (pp. 89-110).
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

In this literature review on rubrics and writing exemplars, the author posited that rubrics are
generally recognized as effectively and efficiently providing reliable scores as well as
instructional feedback to students and sound curriculum planning for instructors.
The author discussed the shift from a behaviorist approach to a more constructivist approach to
learning and examined the differences between “holistic grading,” which focuses on the
assignment as a whole, and “analytic grading,” which focuses on the various components within
a given assignment (p. 91).
Today’s rubrics are more than mere evaluative tools but are also instructional tools for
students, giving them not only the criteria for evaluation but the quality levels for each criterion.
Rubrics allow instructors to modify instruction to meet individual students’ needs. They also
allow students to assess their own progress.
While some argue that rubrics attempt to standardize self-expressive and individualistic
expression in such a way as to actually “jeopardize” authentic learning (by placing an emphasis
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 160

on high scores rather than actual learning), most agree that rubrics are a valid and reliable way
for faculty to conduct large scale assessments.
Rubrics have been shown to be very effective as a springboard for further learning—a
formative tool for students to assess themselves and their peers in ways that encourage them to
improve their performance over time. Rubrics are also valuable in the “backward design
process,” providing faculty with explicit criteria for curriculum development; however, the
questions remains: “What happens when criteria emerge that do not fit in the pre-set model” (p.
100)?
In addition to rubrics, many educators also use exemplars that illustrate in concrete terms
what is expected in a given assignment. This form of modeling can be especially effective when
illustrated with annotations that further describe the text. Exemplars set standards for
performance without the “standardization of performances and responses.” (p. 102). In summary,
exemplars can: help students understand marking criteria and standards, help students achieve
higher-quality outcomes, form the basis for formative feedback, and scaffold students for
assessing themselves and their peers.
Today, rubrics-based assessment are seen as a standard of good practice. At the same time,
rubrics have evolved to be more than just a guideline for summative assessment; they are now
seen as a tool for formative assessment, wherein students can self-evaluate and self-monitor their
own progress.

2. Lipnevich, A. A., McCallen, L. N., Miles, K. P., and Smith, J. K. (2013). Mind the gap!
Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional
Science, 42, 539-559.

Formative assessments help bridge the gap between actual performance and desired
performance. In order to bridge that gap, students need to understand their current performance
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 161

level as well as the desired level and to process that they need to do to reduce the difference
between the two.
While individualized descriptive feedback can result in improvement in student writing, such
feedback is time-consuming and may be unrealistic when teaching large classes. Good feedback
is only part of the process; revising is also a fundamental component.
Instructional rubrics enable students to see what good work looks like and foster self-
assessment for improvement. Exemplars are also effective at promoting higher quality
performance by helping students understand what are the standards for good performance.
For feedback to be effective, students must:
1. Have a sense of where they are currently in their performance
2. Understand where they ought to be in terms of performance
3. Be motivated to bridge the gap between the two states
In their study, the authors measured progress in three groups of students: those who received
rubrics, those who received exemplars, and those who received both rubrics and exemplars. They
found those students who received rubrics only experienced the most significant growth in the
quality of their work.
Of note is the fact that none of the feedback involved social comparison or evaluation against
a class norm, so no “grading” was associated with the feedback. By the same token, no negative
statements were made in the feedback. Lastly, neither the rubric nor exemplar contained any
individual feedback; only non-individual feedback was given, which means that students were
required to process for themselves (i.e. at a deeper level of learning) how the feedback pertained
to their individual work.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 162

The authors postulated that presenting rubrics after students turned in their first drafts (but
before they revised) compared with sharing them before students started writing might make
them even more effective. Regardless, they concluded that non-individualized feedback is
effective and efficient in delivering significant student improvement.
Module 5, Unit 3 discussion prompt. What do you perceive as the strengths and
weaknesses of utilizing rubrics and/or exemplars within your particular discipline or classroom?
Module 5 workshop outline. Student feedback – live workshop [see handouts in
Appendix J & K]:
I. Welcome (ID Leader: introduction to topic and panel)
A. Purpose:
(1) To gain faculty perspectives on effective and efficient feedback strategies they have
used to achieve student learning outcomes in their online classes.
(2) To provide an overview of the instructional design process for online classes,
integrating people, pedagogies, and platforms.
B. Participants: Introduce (3) faculty panel backgrounds and experience in online
learning
C. Process:
1. Faculty will spend approximately 30 minutes (10 minutes each) talking about
“best practices” they have used to effectively and efficiently provide feedback to
their students in their online classes.
2. Group Discussion (20 minutes): What types of feedback do you give to your
students? How often do you give feedback? How does the feedback you give
align with your course learning outcomes? How effective and efficient do you feel
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 163

your current feedback strategy is? How might you make it more effective or
efficient?
II. Background (ID Leader: give brief overview of main theories)
 How feedback relates to the people who are taking your class (i.e. your student audience)
 How feedback relates to the overall design of your course (i.e. pedagogy)
 How feedback relates to the technical platforms you’ve chosen to use
 Formative vs. Summative vs. Catalytic Assessments
 Rubrics & Exemplars in the online class
 Online Gradebook (brief introduction to How do I use SpeedGrader handout)
III. Faculty Panel (ID Leader: prompt panelists to discuss their student feedback strategies—
what has worked and what hasn’t worked)
IV. Group Discussion (ID Leader: prompt participants to discuss their feedback strategies)
V. Instructional Design Services (ID Leader: summary)
A. Units 1-3
1. Unit 1 – Feedback fundamentals
2. Unit 2 – e-Assessment feedback
3. Unit 3 – Utilizing rubrics and exemplars as part of the feedback process
B. One-on-One course design & development support
C. Peer-to-Peer/Mentor sign up
1. Informal networking
2. Formal mentoring
VI. Feedback (ID Leader: ask for feedback from participants re: what worked for them and what
can be improved with the next iteration of the workshop)
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 164

CHAPTER FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Workshops

Online faculty workshops are scheduled to launch as early as fall 2017 and are intended to run
every fall (September/October) and spring (February) semester thereafter. These workshops are
designed for both experienced and novice faculty members to meet one another and to share their
thoughts regarding online design, development, and delivery issues. Each workshop includes a
specific theme or issue, such as “Five Ways to Engage Your Students in Synchronous Video
Conference Forums,” that will be addressed by experienced online faculty members. At the same
time, novice faculty will also be encouraged to share their experiences, to ask questions, and
perhaps even more importantly to network with one another.
Workshops will be held during the lunch hour and a “brown bag” lunch will be served;
handouts will be made available to faculty members during and after each workshop. Currently,
there are no plans for launching a workshop in the summer; however, the University Center for
Excellence in Teaching offers a Teaching with Technology conference every May that all faculty
are urged to attend. USC Marshall instructional design staff routinely present at this conference.
Modules
Video recording of Module 1-5 mini-lessons is scheduled to begin in late fall 2017, with the first
module open to faculty in spring 2018. Modules are designed to be taken asynchronously and
will be developed and deployed in Blackboard (Bb), which is the LMS platform used by most of
USC Marshall’s online faculty (online MBA faculty use Canvas LMS).
Module content will not be domain-specific and may be useful to any faculty member
who is interested in learning more about online pedagogies and online technologies, including
both Bb and Canvas platforms as well as third-party tools such as YouSeeU and Zoom. It is
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 165

estimated that each module will take approximately 10 minutes to complete the video content
and approximately 30-40 minutes to complete the reading summaries and contribute to the
discussion forums.
Current modules are designed primarily for incoming online faculty members who are
experienced instructors but new to online learning. However, modules can be developed to
address questions and concerns of new faculty who have never taught either on ground or online;
for example, how to develop course learning outcomes. Additionally, modules can be developed
to address questions and concerns of experienced online faculty who have more advanced
knowledge of online pedagogies and who are more comfortable with online technology tools; for
example, how to utilize online portfolios as part of a comprehensive assessment plan.
One-on-One Instructional Design Coaching
USC Marshall instructional designers currently coach online faculty members one-on-one in the
design, development, and delivery of their online course content. This has proven to be
invaluable for instructors who have specific and immediate course-related questions that are not
addressed in pre-taped mini lessons, handouts, or other resources. This has also proven to be a
highly effective way of reaching out to instructors who are unable to participate in one of the
hybrid workshops or who have follow-up questions that they would like to discuss with a
pedagogical or technical expert.
The USC Marshall instructional design team will continue to offer one-on-one coaching
to online faculty in tandem with online faculty workshops and asynchronous learning modules.
In addition, the ID team is currently considering ways to expand our one-on-one coaching
sessions to include any USC Marshall faculty member who is interested in utilizing technology
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 166

to facilitate student discourse within their courses, regardless whether those courses are taught in
an online, on ground, or hybrid format.
Peer Mentoring
Peer mentoring among online faculty currently takes place on a programmatic level; for example,
the academic director for the online Master of Business Taxation program may mentor new
faculty within that program. In addition, the instructional design team also facilitates peer-to-peer
engagement by bringing together faculty members who teach similar or complimentary topics for
two-on-one or even three-on-one sessions.
Beginning in September 2017, approximately one month after the start of the semester,
the USC Marshall instructional design team will facilitate an online “meet up” for new and
existing online faculty members to get together informally and express any questions or concerns
that they may have regarding teaching in the online space. Depending upon feedback received
from faculty during and after this “meet up,” additional informal sessions may be scheduled for
subsequent semesters.
Implementation of a more formalized peer mentoring program for all online faculty will
coincide with the first online faculty workshop in October or November of 2017. This program
will begin with voluntary sign-ups for peer observations, wherein new online faculty may
observe experienced online faculty during their synchronous (Zoom) sessions. In addition, new
faculty may opt to have their own synchronous sessions observed by a peer faculty member in
order to receive feedback and ideas for student engagement.
Furthermore, the instructional design team is considering piloting a program to establish
and maintain a database of online instructors who have expressed interest in peer-to-peer
mentoring. Ideally, this mentoring relationship will take place over an entire semester and
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 167

involve at least three (virtual) meetings between peers. Guidelines for mentoring will be
developed and offered by members of the instructional design team to both faculty members
prior to their first meeting. These guidelines will include establishing roles, setting goals, and
managing expectations. At the end of the semester, both faculty members will be informally
interviewed by a member of the instructional design team to determine how mentoring took
place and whether or not each of the faculty members felt their desired outcomes were met.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 168

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E. and Tamim, R. M. (2011).
Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to
improve practice. Journal of Computer in Higher Education 23(82), 82-103.
Akbari, R., Kiany, R. G., Naeemi, M. I., and Allvar, N. K. (2008). Teachers’ teaching styles,
sense of efficacy and reflectivity as correlates of students’ achievement outcomes. IJAL,
11(1), 1-28.
Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States,
2011. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education
in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., and Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and Online
Education, 2012. Inside Higher Ed, Babson Survey Research Group, and Quahog
Research Group, LLC.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintirch,
P. R., Raths, J., and Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Anderson, T. (2003). Ch. 9. Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments
and research questions. In M. G. Moore and W. G. Anderson Handbook of Distance
Education, 129-144. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., and Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence
in a computer conferencing context. JALN 5(2), 1-17.
Aust, P., Thomas, G., Powell, T., Randall, C. K., and Slinger-Friedman, V. (2015). Advanced
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 169

faculty professional development for online course building: An action research project.
Internet Learning 4(2), 103-118.
Bacow, L. S., Bowen, W. G., Guthrie, K. M., Lack, K. A., Long, M. P. (2012). Barriers to
Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education. ITHAKA S + R, 1-34.
Baker, L. (2010). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (2006). Going global with social cognitive theory: From prospect to paydirt. In S. I.
Donaldson, D. E. Berger, & K. Pezdek (Eds.). Applied Psychology: New Frontiers and
Rewarding Careers, 53-79. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bawane, J., and Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for
competency-based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383-397.
Beldarrain, Y. (2008). Integrating interaction in distance learning: A comparative analysis of five
design frameworks. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008(1), 1471-1477.
Berge, Z. L., and Muilenburg, L. Y. (2000). Barriers to distance education as perceived by
managers and administrators: Results of a survey. In Melanie Clay (Ed.), Distance
Learning Administration Annual 2000.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., and
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance
education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 170

Bishop, J. L. and Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 120
th

ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Paper ID#6219.
Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-24.
Bogard, T., Liu, M., and Chiang, Y-h. V. (2013). Thresholds of knowledge development in
complex problem solving: A multiple-case study of advanced learners’ cognitive
processes. Educational Technology Research and Development 61(3), 465-503.
Borup, J., West, R. E., and Graham, C. R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video
communication on learner social presence: a narrative analysis of four cases. Distance
Education, 34 (1), 48-63.
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J. W., Kenney, J. (2015). Design and
implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a
cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17.
Bumen, N. T. (2009). Possible effects of professional development on Turkish teachers’ self-
efficacy and classroom practice. Professional Development in Education, 35(2), 261-278.
Cavanaugh, J. (2005). Teaching online: A time comparison. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 8(1), 1-11.
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design.
AACE Journal 16(2), 137-159.
Chandler, K. (2016). Using breakout rooms in synchronous online tutorials. Journal of
Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4(3), 1-8.
Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., and Chen, S. F. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept
mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2001(17), 21-33.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 171

Cho, M-H and Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects
of online discussion on Community of Inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and
achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2),
123-140.
Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., and Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning:
The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 1-11.
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S. and Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic
media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided
training methods. In K. H. Silber, & R. Foshay, (Eds.), Handbook of training and
improving workplace performance, Volume I: Instructional design and training delivery
(pp. 263-297). New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.
Clark, C., Strudler, N., and Grove, K. (2015). Comparing Asynchronous and Synchronous Video
versus Text Based Discussions in an Online Teacher Education Course. Online Learning
Journal, 19(3), 1-22.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., and Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor:
Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18(4), 169-189.
Culatta, R. (2015). Transformative learning (Jack Mezirow). Retrieved from
www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/transformative-learning.html
De Leeuw, J. (2016). Chapter 4: Rubrics and exemplars in writing assessment. In S. Scott et al.
(Eds.), Leadership of Assessment, Inclusion, and Learning (pp. 89-110). Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York, NY: Hold, Rinehart and Winston.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 172

Dixon, D. D. and Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom.
Theory Into Practice, 55, 153-159.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2003). Ch. 8. A theory of critical inquiry in
online distance education. In M. G. Moore and W. G. Anderson Handbook of Distance
Education, 113-127. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Draper, S. W. (2009). Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 285-293.
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of
Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120.
Garrison, D. R., and Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework:
Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education 10, 157-172.
Gibson, S., and Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Grant, M. R., and Thornton, H. R. (2007). Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered online
learning: Mechanisms for course design and delivery. Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 3(4), 346-356.
Green, T., Alejandro, J., and Brown, A. H. (2009). The retention of experienced faculty in online
distance education programs: Understanding factors that impact their involvement.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-15.
Gold, S. (2001) A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers. JALN 5(1), 35-
57.
Hall, S. W. (January/February 2016). Online learning: Discussion board tips. Nursing Made
Incredibly Easy, 8-9.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 173

Herman, J. H. (2013). Faculty incentives for online course design, delivery, and professional
development. Innovative Higher Education, 38, 397-410.
Hogan, R. L., and McKnight, M. A. (2007). Exploring burnout among university online
instructors: An initial investigation. Internet and Higher Education, 10(2007), 117-124.
Holden, J. R., and Westfall, P. J.-L. (2010). An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance
Learning – Implications for Blended Learning, Featuring an Introduction to Virtual
Worlds, 2 Ed. United States Distance Learning Association.
Hoogerheide, V., Loyens, S. M. M., and van Gog, T. (2014). Comparing the effects of worked
examples and modeling examples on learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 80-91.
Horvitz, B. S., Beach, A. L., Anderson, M. L., Xia, J. (2015). Examination of faculty self-
efficacy related to online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 305-316.
Huston, T. and Weaver, C. L. (2008). Peer coaching: Professional development for experienced
faculty. Innovative Higher Education 2008(33), 5-20.
Illinois Online Network. (2015). Pedagogy & learning: What makes a successful online
facilitator? Retrieved from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/

pedagogy/instructorprofile.asp

Iowa State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. (2012). A model of
learning objectives. Retrieved from www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html
Johnson, R., Stewart, C., and Bachman, C. (2015). What drives students to complete online

courses? What drives faculty to teach online? Validating a measure of motivation

orientation in university students and faculty. Interactive Learning Environments,

23(4), 528-543.

Keengwe, J. and Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 174

higher education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2).
Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC. The Kirkpatrick Model. Retrieved from

http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Our-Philosophy/The-Kirkpatrick-Model

Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load- theory/
Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P., and Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory
research: The good, the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 99-105.

Kirschner, F. Paas, F., and Kirschner, P. (2008). Individual versus group learning as a function

of task complexity: An exploration into the measurement of group cognitive load, 21-28.

Springer Netherlands.

Kirschner, F., Paas, F., and Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Superiority of collaborative learning with

complex tasks: A research note on an alternative affective explanation. Computers in

Human Behavior, 27(1), 53-57.

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2014). The adult learner: The definitive

classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.

Koehler, M. J., and Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Akcaoglu, M., and Rosenberg, J. M. (2013). The Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework for teachers and teacher educators. New

Delhi, India: CEMCA.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review,

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 175

53(1), 27-35.

Lipnevich, A. A., McCallen, L. N., Miles, K. P., and Smith, J. K. (2013). Mind the gap!
Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional
Science, 42, 539-559.
Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online
business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education 20(2), 93-107.
Marshall School of Business Strategic Plan, 2011-2017. Retrieved from http://www.marshall.
usc.edu/about/plan
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). How motivation works. Applying the Science of Learning, pp. 40-41.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Mazzolini, M. and Maddison, S. (2004). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online
discussion forums. Computers & Education 49, 193-213.
McQuiggan, C. A. (2007). The role of faculty development in online teaching’s potential to
question teaching beliefs and assumptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration 10(2).
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., and Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-
based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-analysis and Review of Online Learning
Studies. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interactions. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-7.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 176

Northcote, M., Reynaud, D., and Beamish, P. (2012). Teaching the lecturers: Academic staff
learning about online teaching. Online Submission.
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., and Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for
cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review 14(1). 71-86.
Orr, R., Williams, M. R., and Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in
online teaching. Innovative Higher Education 34(257)
Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom. 17
th
Annual
Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, 2-5.
Paquette, P. (2016). Instructing the instructors: Training instructors to use social presence cues in
online courses. The Journal of Educators Online – JEO, 13(1), 80-108.
Parscal, T. and Riemer, D. (2010). Assuring quality in large-scale online course development.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(2).
Pathak, D. K. and Sharma, M. (2014). E-Learning: A Best Option for Faculty Training. E-
Learning: A Best Option for Faculty Training.
Pijares, F. (2010). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Praslova, L. (2010). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to
assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22, 215-225.
Puzziferro, M., & Shelton, K. (2014). A model for developing high-quality online courses:
Integrating a systems approach with learning theory. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 12(3-4), 119-136.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 177

problematizing student work. Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Rodgers, R., Christie, J., and Wideman, M. (2014). The Effects of a Required Faculty
Development Program on Novice Faculty Self-Efficacy and Teaching. Toronto: Higher
Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education
10, 77-88.
Rovai, A. P., and Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others
succeed in a global environment. Internet and Higher Education, 13(2010), 141-147.
Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The Paradox of Faculty
Voices: Views and Experiences with Online Learning. Washington, DC: Association of
Public and Land-grant Universities.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., and Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of
learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and
Higher Education, 9(2006), 175-190.
Shepherd, C., Alpert, M., and Koeller, M. (2008). Increasing the efficacy of educators teaching
online. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 173-179.
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., and Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online
learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. Information Technology and
Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks. Hershey, PA:
IGI Global, 43-57.
Thai, N.T.T, De Wever, B., and Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on
learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and
guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 178

Thomas, M. J.W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion
forums. Journal of Assisted Learning 18, 351-366.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., and Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research 68(2), 202-248.
USC Marshall Online MBA Program, 2001-2013. Retrieved from http://onlinemba.marshall.
usc.edu
U.S. News and World Report Education, 2016. University of Southern California (Marshall).
Retrieved http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-
business-schools/university-of-southern-california-marshall-01034
Vaill, A. L., and Testori, P. A. (2012). Orientation, mentoring and ongoing support: A three-
tiered approach to online faculty development. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks 16(2), 111-119.
Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., and Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning:
Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-
177.
Wall Street Journal (2016). College rankings. Retrieved from: www.wsj/graphics/college-
rankings-2016.
Warden, C. A., Stanworth, J. O., Ren, J. B., and Warden, A. R. (2012). Synchronous learning
best practices: An action research study. Computers & Education, 63, 197-207.
Wisneski, J. E., Ozogul, G., and Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2014). Does teaching presence transfer
between MBA teaching environments? A comparative investigation of instructional
design practices associated with teaching presence. Internet and Higher Education,
25(2015), 18-27.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 179

Wood, T., and McCarthy, C. (2002). Understanding and preventing teacher burnout (Report No.
EDO-SP-2002-03). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement
(ED).
YouSeeU (2016). YouSeeU 2016. Retrieved from https://vimeopro.com/youseeu/youseeu-
2016/video/174947778
Zhen, Y., Garthwait, A., and Pratt, P. (2008). Factors affecting faculty members’ decision to
teach or not to teach online in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 9(3), 1-17.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 180

Appendix A: Terms and Definitions

Content Knowledge (CK): The instructor’s understanding or knowledge of content or subject
matter that they are teaching.
Discourse: Active discussion focused around a subject or idea that takes place between students
and faculty within a community of inquiry.
Learner-centered: An environment or pedagogy that enables learners to actively engage with
topics that are of interest to them and thus to “own” their learning experience.
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK): The instructor’s understanding or knowledge of practices
involved in effective teaching and learning.
Technology Knowledge (TK): The instructor’s understanding or knowledge of the
technological tools used in teaching and learning.
Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPaCK): Knowledge that encompasses the
three “core” components of teaching (content, pedagogy, and technology) as a synergistic whole.
Teaching presence: The process by which instructors within a community of inquiry direct
social and cognitive processes in order for students to achieve learning outcomes that are
personally relevant and educationally meaningful
Teaching self-efficacy: Also known as “teaching efficacy,” this construct refers to an
instructor’s confidence, based upon prior experience and mastery, in his or her ability to teach
students and improve upon their knowledge.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 181

Appendix B: Module 1, Unit 1 Storyboard

Visual Cues Script
Title Screen: When to Use Online Learning (OL) Tools Welcome to Module 1, “When to use Online
Learning Tools.” In this module, we are going to
touch on some of the overarching principles for
online learning in general and for using the some of
the platforms that we have within our online courses
in particular.
Full Screen: Photos or videotape of student(s) at
computer transitioning to students in lecture hall and
classroom.
Before we talk about when to use online learning
tools in the online classroom, it’s important to gain
some perspective about teaching in the online
classroom in general and, more to the point, how
teaching in the online classroom is similar to and
different from teaching in a brick and mortar
classroom.
Full Screen: Photos or videotape of faculty engaging with
students in large lecture halls transitioning to small
classrooms transitioning to discussion groups.
Many of the faculty with whom our instructional
design team works have years of experience teaching
on ground. Most of them earn consistently high
evaluations from their students, and some have even
won awards for their teaching. Some lecture, some
use case studies, some rely on the Socratic Method.
Still others combine methodologies to engage their
students, depending upon their area of discipline.
But which of these is most effective in the online
space?
Lower Third Screen: Teaching: “to cause or help
(someone) to learn about a subject by giving lessons.”

Lower Third Screen: Learning: “to gain knowledge or
skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or
experiencing something.”
Let’s take a look at what we mean when we say we
want to teach our students. According to the
Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of
teaching is, “to cause or help (someone) to
learn about a subject by giving lessons.”
Now, let’s look at what we mean when we say we
want our students to learn. Again, looking at the
Merriam-Webster dictionary, we see the definition
of learning is, “to gain knowledge or skill by
studying, practicing, being taught, or
experiencing something.”
Full screen: Photos of teachers at lecturns transitioning to
students taking listening and/or taking notes.
As you can see, there is a nuanced difference
between teaching and learning. Namely, when we
talk about teaching, we talk about it from the
teacher’s perspective. But when we talk about
learning, the framework shifts to the student’s
perspective.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 182

Full screen animated graphic: Transformative Learning theory refers to two
types of learning: Instrumental and
communicative. Instrumental learning is task-
oriented and involves problem solving or
determining cause-and-effect relationships.
Communicative learning explores students’ feelings
and perceptions. Learning, in this case, is the
process of transforming a student’s frame of
reference through critical reflection and discourse.
Full screen: Photos or videotape of students actively
engaging with one another in small group discussions.
Students learn by critically reflecting on their core
assumptions, validating or changing their beliefs
through discourse, and taking action based on their
insights and assessments – in essence broadening
their perspectives to include new beliefs as well as
elaborations on their initial beliefs.
Full screen: Photos or videotape of various student
reactions in classroom.
In an on ground, face-to-face classroom, it is
relatively easy for an instructor to intuit the degree to
which his students are engaged and even to some
extent the degree to which they are learning in real
time. Are they paying attention? Are they asking
questions? Are they making eye contact? Do they
look puzzled? Do they look bored? Instructors can
get immediate feedback as to whether or not what
they are teaching is actually being absorbed and
applied by their students.
Full screen: Videotape of online student(s) engaging with
class content.
However, in an online class, this may not be
possible. Online students may engage with their
instructor, with their peers, and with their course
content asynchronously (at any time) or
synchronously (at the same time).
Full screen: Videotape of student(s) watching online
lecture transitioning to participating in written discussion
forum transitioning to synchronous session in Zoom.
In other words, they may watch pre-recorded
lectures or engage in discussion forums at any time
and in any place (asynchronously). They may also
meet with their instructor or with their peers at the
same time and place (synchronously) through a
video conference forum.
Full screen: Videotape of faculty member(s) teaching
synchronous session in their office. Start with shot of
faculty member and transition to shot of computer screen
from faculty perspective.
The instructor has no way of gauging student body
language or fielding real-time questions in an
asynchronous learning environment because he is
not present when his students are engaging with the
course materials. And, although instructors have a
slightly better opportunity for gauging student
engagement in a synchronous learning environment,
the interaction is not as fluid nor as intuitive as it
might be on ground.
Full screen: Photos or videotape of online students
engaging with one another in YouSeeU group meeting
and with faculty and guest speakers in Zoom video
conference.
This does not mean that instructors cannot teach or
that students cannot learn online. On the contrary,
there is ample evidence now that students can and
do learn online, sometimes more effectively and
efficiently than they can on ground. However,
instructors may need to adapt their teaching
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 183

strategies to accommodate and to take advantage of
the benefits inherent in the online space. [full
screen, stock photos with transition]
Full screen: Photos or videotape of online students and
instructor talking in synchronous session. Transition to
include location in shots to indicate students taking
classes in Los Angeles, Oklahoma, Washington D. C.,
marine base in Pensacola Florida, London, and Beijing.
If the act of learning involves broadening students’
perspectives, then it could be argued that the online
space is the perfect venue for teaching. Student
learning is no longer limited to a given locale; the
“classroom” is essentially every site on the Internet,
and peers may be located anywhere from next door
to around the world, providing unique viewpoints
that would not otherwise be attainable in a brick and
mortar classroom. Although the instructor is still an
integral part of the learning process, she is not the
focal point of the process. In other words, the online
classroom is student-centric rather than teacher-
centric.
Full screen: Videotape of faculty member (Kevin
Murphy), guest speaker (Lloyd Greif, Founder and CEO
of Greif & Co.), TED Talk (Dan Pink: The puzzle of
motivation), and YouTube (Simon Sinek: How great
leaders inspire action). Include name/title of instructor
and guest speaker and identify TED Talk and YouTube.
In this environment, students may gain knowledge
from the instructor, from other sources within the
virtual classroom, and from their peers. The
instructor facilitates learning as much as or even
more so than she teaches student; her primary job is
to create a community in which students can learn,
whether or not she is actually present to teach.
Full screen animated graphic:

One way to do this is to create a community of
inquiry. Within the Community of Inquiry
framework, there are three main presences: The
social presence, the cognitive presence, and the
teaching presence. Online faculty can create an
environment where students are able to project
themselves socially and emotionally and to build
meaning from content through discourse and
reflection. But to do this, faculty must first design
and develop their course content in such a way as to
facilitate discourse and direct instruction. As
instructional designers, we call this “working
backwards.”
Full screen: Photos of USC Marshall instructional
designers meeting with faculty.

Full screen: Learning outcomes = definite + measurable
When our instructional design team initially meets
with a faculty member to help them create an online
course, one of the first questions we ask is, “What
are your learning outcomes?” Notice this is different
from asking, “What are your teaching objectives?”
Teaching objectives are revolved around what the
instructor intends to teach, not necessarily what the
students will actually learn. Learning outcomes
address what the students will actually learn. They
are definite and measurable. [full screen, team
photos and key words with transition]
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 184

Full screen graphic with animation:

In order to effectively and efficiently direct
instruction so that students will learn, we must first
look at what we expect those students to be able to
demonstrate once they’ve completed the course.
According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, learning
outcomes might include recalling a particular fact or
comparing different theories. They might include
executing a plan or analyzing a case or critiquing an
article. Lastly they might include generating a new
concept based upon existing literature. The point is
that each one of these outcomes is action-based and
measurable, from recalling to comparing to
executing to analyzing to critiquing to generating.
Full screen: Photos or videotape of faculty and students
talking 1:1 transitioning to students talking 1:1
transitioning to student(s) contributing to online written
discussion forum transitioning to four students talking
and laughing in a YouSeeU group meeting transitioning
to a single student looking thoughtfully while doing
homework at the computer.
Once instructors have established their learning
outcomes, they can then address what types of
assessments and activities they will use to achieve
those learning outcomes. These may require
student-teacher engagement, student-student
engagement, or student-content engagement. They
may involve active discourse or quiet reflection.
They may be offered either asynchronously or
synchronously. Nonetheless, each activity is linked
directly to a learning outcome in such a way that
students are continuously directed forward in the
learning process.
Full screen animated graphic, using Wordle word cloud:

Regardless of whether they are teaching on ground
or online, most instructors agree that their primary
objective is to teach their subject matter in such a
way that their students will learn it and be able to
apply it in their day-to-day lives. The challenge is
how to enable this transformational process. In the
online space, instructors can create a community of
inquiry by facilitating discourse and directing
instruction. Working backwards, they can create
learning outcomes to inform which assessments and
activities are most appropriate in their courses.
Full screen: Scan screen shots of written discussion
forums in Canvas and Blackboard.
I hope you’ve found the ideas presented here to be
helpful in laying the groundwork for your online
course. In the next unit, Unit 2, we examine when
faculty might use written discussion forums as an
activity for their students. Written discussion forums
are just one of the asynchronous tools that
instructors can use to facilitate discourse and help
students achieve their learning outcomes.
Full screen: Videotape of four-student group in YouSeeU In Unit 3, we explore when faculty might use
asynchronous video forums to facilitate discourse
and help students achieve their learning outcomes.
[full screen, photos with transition]
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 185

Full screen: Videotape of synchronous class session. In Unit 4, we look at when faculty might use
synchronous video conference forums to facilitate
real-time discourse and help students achieve their
learning outcomes.
Full screen: Photos of faculty workshops transitioning to
faculty and instructional designer meeting 1:1.
Slide 23: We also offer periodic meet
ups/workshop for faculty members to discuss when
they have used or when they might use these tools in
their online courses. And, lastly, we offer one-on-
one coaching and mentoring with an instructional
design team member who will work with you on
your online or hybrid course.
Lower third screen: Coming up: Faculty Perspectives Next, let’s take a look at some faculty perspectives
on how teaching in the online classroom is similar to
and different from teaching in a brick and mortar
classroom.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 186

Appendix C: Module 1 Handout

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 187

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 188

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 189

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 190

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 191

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 192

Appendix D: Module 2 Guide

Step-by-Step Guide to Using Written Discussion Forums in Canvas

1. Select the HELP icon in the lower left-hand corner of your Canvas Dashboard:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 193

2. Select “Search the Canvas Guides” from the HELP Menu:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 194

3. Select the INSTRUCOR GUIDE box in the middle of the page:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 195

4. Choose “Discussions” from the list of options:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 196

5. Select “How do I create a discussion as an instructor?” (for new discussion forums)

OR

Select “How do I edit a discussion in a course?” (for an existing discussion forum that
has already been created by your instructional designer):

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 197

6. Follow the instructions to open and add a new discussion in Canvas:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 198

7. Follow the instructions to create a new discussion in Canvas:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 199

8. Follow the instructions to Add Discussion Options in Canvas:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 200

9. Follow the instructions to Save and Publish in Canvas:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 201

10. Follow the instructions to View Discussion in Canvas:

NOTE:

The USC Marshall Instructional Design team will build out all course content for team-taught
courses and is available to build out course content for any individual instructors who request
our services.

If, at any time, you have questions about the process for creating or editing Discussions within
Canvas, contact us at instructional.design@marshall.usc.edu; and an instructional designer
from our Online Learning department will respond to you within 1 business day.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 202

Appendix E: Module 2 Handout

USC Marshall
Written Discussion Forum Checklist
Before you start, answer the following:
 WHO is your target audience (i.e. experienced professionals vs. novice learners,
individuals vs. small groups)?
 WHAT is the purpose for this discussion (i.e. to build a sense of community vs. to
encourage critical thinking)?
 WHERE do you prefer to engage your students (i.e. via private chat vs. via public
discussion forum)?
 WHEN do you prefer to engage with your students (i.e. just in time vs. every 24-48
hours)?
 WHY is this discussion beneficial to your students (i.e. What’s in it for them?)
 HOW does this discussion relate to your course learning outcomes?

Written Discussion Forum Tips: *
 Familiarize yourself with the learning outcomes for the week, review the weekly readings
and assignments.
 Based on the learning outcome(s) you want to address, look for the topic that will be of
greatest interest to students. Current events or personal anecdotes can also be a good
source of topics, especially if they can be tied into the weekly readings.
 Break down the topic into questions that will require complex responses. Choose topics
that have no clear answer but that students can relate to and form an opinion on. For more
technical subjects, you may allow students to upload excel sheets or other documentation
that support their responses.
 Choose whether you want to post a single post for the entire class or whether you want to
post multiple prompts and allow students to choose which one is most interesting to
them. (Note: You can also break the class into groups and then post a different prompt for
each group.).
 Provide students with guidelines (i.e. In 250-300 words…) that will help them in their
thinking and writing process.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 203

 Assign points to the discussion forum. Provide students with a rubric or examples of what
constitutes a thorough response.
 If asking students to respond to their peers’ posts, then give them two separate due dates:
The first for them to post their own response and the second for them to respond to their
peer(s).
 Review the discussion forums frequently to make sure students are engaged and on track.
If they’re not, then throw in a short response or quick question to get the conversation
going again. Remember: Less is more here.
 At the end of the module, synthesize student posts within the discussion forum. You can
do this during the synchronous MarshallTALK session.
 Note: If you create your discussion forums in Word or Google Docs, you can use spell
check before cutting them and pasting them into the LMS. You can also save them and
use them in subsequent semesters.
 Note: You can efficiently and effectively facilitate your discussion forums by creating
several standard responses to student posts and then customizing them as needed.

*Synthesized from interviews and workshops with Dr. Marion Philadelphia, Dr. Patti Mills, and Dr. Pete Cardon.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 204

Appendix F: Module 3 Guide

Step-by-Step Guide to Using Asynchronous Video Forums with YouSeeU

START by creating the assignment within Canvas

2. Add an new ASSIGNMENT within Canvas:

2. Name your assignment:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 205

2. Select the External Tool option. Select “Enter or Find an External Tool URL” and
FIND YouSeeU in the drop down menu. Select “Load This Tool in a New Tab”:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 206

2. Assign Due Date and Save:

NEXT create the Activity within YouSeeU

YouSeeU consists of three levels: Class, Assignment, and Activity. The Instructional Design
team will create your class within YouSeeU to correspond with the appropriate Canvas course.
Within each class is a number of Assignments. Within each Assignment “folder,” there is a
number of Activities for your students.

5. Go into the assignment and select “Load (name of your assignment) in a new
window” to take you to the YouSeeU home page:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 207

6. Select SETUP and then Select the CLASS NAME:

7. Select “Create New Assignment”:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 208

8. Select “Create New Activity.” Be sure the Name matches the name you have
assigned in Canvas:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 209

2. Select “LMS Sync.” Select “grade entry.” Type in the name of the Assignment
exactly as it is title in Canvas:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 210

NOTE:

The USC Marshall Instructional Design team will build out all course content for team-
taught courses and is available to build out course content for any individual
instructors who request our services.

If, at any time, you have questions about the process for creating or editing YouSeeU
within Canvas, contact us at instructional.design@marshall.usc.edu; and an
instructional designer from our Online Learning department will respond to you within
1 business day.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 211

Appendix G: Module 3 Handout

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 212

*© YouSeeU. (Jessica Plummer, personal communication, February 14, 2017)

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 213

Appendix H: Module 4 Guide

Step-by-Step Guide to Using Synchronous Video Conference Forums with
Zoom

1. Go to https://zoom.us and select SIGN IN in the upper right-hand corner of the
Home screen:

2. Sign in with your USC Marshall email address and the password that was sent to you
when the Instructional Design team created your Zoom account:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 214

3. Download the Zoom App:

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362033-Getting-Started-on-PC-and-Mac

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 215

4. From the Home screen, you may select “Meetings” to join a pre-scheduled meeting:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 216

5. Select the Meeting ID for the meeting you wish to begin:

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362033-Getting-Started-on-PC-and-Mac
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 217

6. From the Home screen, you may also select “Join” to join a meeting that has already
been scheduled. You will then type in the 9- or 10-digit meeting ID number:

7. Lastly, from the Home screen, you may select “Schedule” to schedule a meeting:

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 218

NOTE:

Before you begin hosting a synchronous video conference forum, please go to:
https://support.zoom.us and review the GETTING STARTED materials.

The USC Marshall Instructional Design team will schedule all synchronous class
(MarshallTALK) sessions for team-taught courses and is available to schedule M/T
sessions for any individual instructors who request our services.

If, at any time, you have questions about the process for scheduling a Zoom meeting,
contact us at instructional.design@marshall.usc.edu; and an instructional designer
from our Online Learning department will respond to you within 1 business day.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 219

Appendix I: Module 4 Handout

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 220

Appendix J: Module 5 Handout

How do I use SpeedGrader?

 SpeedGrader makes it easy to evaluate individual student assignments and group
assignments quickly.
 SpeedGrader displays assignment submissions for active students in your course.
However,
 SpeedGrader displays assignment submissions according to the current Gradebook
settings for inactive enrollments and concluded enrollments. For instance, if the
Gradebook settings show inactive enrollments, inactive student submissions also appear
in SpeedGrader.
 You can access SpeedGrader through: Assignments, Quizzes, Graded Discussions, and
the Gradebook.

SpeedGrader Performance
When an assignment is opened in SpeedGrader, all values for that assignment are loaded
and saved in the browser, including student submission data, any grades (including original
grades for resubmitted assignments), rubrics, and comments. This behavior reduces load time
and allows instructors to grade all submissions quickly without continually refreshing the
browser. Advancing from one student to the next does not dynamically load any updated content.
When using SpeedGrader with large courses, users may experience decreased
performance depending on the amount of student data loaded for the assignment. Differentiated
assignments where individual sections, students, and/or groups have specific due dates may also
affect performance. Courses with more than 800 students may result in delayed SpeedGrader
loading times, and courses with more than 1500 students may fail to load in the browser
completely. If SpeedGrader does not load after 60 seconds, you may need to reload the page.
To improve SpeedGrader performance, large courses should be separated into sections.
You can view the student list by section, which only displays submissions for that section and
decreases the overall loading time for an assignment's data.
SpeedGrader Users
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 221

SpeedGrader is generally designed for one instructor role to grade submissions at a time.
Because of how SpeedGrader data is loaded and stored in the browser, multiple users should not
grade assignments at the same time since each grader cannot view the most recent information
for a submission. Updated grades also affect the Gradebook.
If your course includes multiple graders, graders added to a course can be limited to only
interact with users in a section and only grade submissions in the section where they were
enrolled. This enrollment option prevents assignment grading overlap so multiple instructor roles
cannot grade the same assignment.
An exception to multiple graders is an assignment set up for moderated grading, where an
instructor may act as a moderator and allow two additional graders to review a submission
independent of each other.

SpeedGrader includes several areas to help you locate and view student submissions,
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 222

grade submissions, and add comments to submissions.

The SpeedGrader menu includes several tools and resources to assist with grading
assignments. The left side of the menu includes general settings and options:
 Gradebook Icon: Return to the Gradebook [1].
 Mute Icon: Mutes or unmutes the assignment [2].
 Keyboard Icon: Opens a list of keyboard shortcuts for SpeedGrader [3].
 Help Icon: Opens the Canvas help menu [4]. The help menu icon matches the help icon
set by a Canvas admin, so icons may vary across accounts.
 Settings Icon: Opens the SpeedGrader Settings menu [5], which includes enabling
student list sorting options and anonymous grading.

The center of the menu bar includes assignment information and overall grading
information. Assignment information includes the name of the assignment [1], assignment due
date [2], and the name of the course [3].
To view the assignment details, click the name of the assignment. The assignment details
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 223

page also lets you download all student submissions for the assignment. To return to the Course
Home Page, click the name of the course.
Grading information includes assignment statistics, including the number of assignments
that have been graded out of the total number of submissions [4] and the average score and
percentage [5]. You can use this information to keep track of your grading progress.

The right side of the menu bar includes the student list for the assignment. SpeedGrader
opens the assignment for the first student listed in the student list, arranged alphabetically by last
name. The student list also displays the status of each student’s submission. Learn how to use the
student list to find student submissions. You can also enable anonymous grading to hide student
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 224

names in the SpeedGrader.

Once you have selected a student, the student's submission displays in the preview
window. Depending on the assignment and submission type, the SpeedGrader preview window
may vary. For example, a website URL submission type will appear in the main body of
SpeedGrader with the option to open the URL in a new tab. Some website URL submissions
cannot be viewed in Canvas and must be viewed in a new tab. Media submissions may display as
an embedded file in SpeedGrader or only display as a downloadable file.
To provide comments on document submissions, you can:
 Use Crocodoc to markup .pdf, .doc/.docx, and .ppt/.pptx assignments directly in
SpeedGrader. SpeedGrader may take up to ten minutes after an assignment is submitted
to display a document that supports Crocodoc.
 Download the submission, put feedback on the document, and re-upload the submission.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 225

SpeedGrader displays assignment submissions according to the current Gradebook
settings for inactive enrollments and concluded enrollments. If an assignment includes a
submission from an inactive or concluded student, a notice appears at the top of the SpeedGrader
window.
For group assignments where students are graded as a group, the group displays as long
as there is at least one active student in the group. If there are no active students in the group, the
group displays if one group member aligns with the enrollment settings in the Gradebook. For
group assignments where students are graded individually, individual student submissions
display according to the enrollment settings in the Gradebook.
Inactive student submissions can still be graded in SpeedGrader, but students do not
receive any notifications about their assignment and cannot view course grades.
Concluded student submissions are read-only; they cannot be graded or receive comments.
Note: If a student does not have a submission for the assignment, the student may have been
deactivated or concluded before being able to submit the assignment.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 226

If your course uses multiple grading periods, a notice appears at the top of the
SpeedGrader window if an assignment is in a closed grading period. Assignments in a closed
grading period cannot be edited.

The SpeedGrader sidebar provides all the details about the submission for the student
shown in the student list. View the submission details [1], including as the date and time of the
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 227

submission; if an assignment was resubmitted, you can view previous versions of the
submission. You can also download the submission file [2]. Complete the assessment of the
submission by entering a grade or using a rubric for grading, if available [3]. Leave assignment
feedback comments for the student in the comments section [4]. Assignment comments also
display as a new thread in Conversations.

Once you grade the submission, the student's assignment indicator changes to a check
mark, indicating the submission has been graded. You can view the next student's submission by
clicking the arrow button next to the student list.

When evaluating group assignments, the SpeedGrader drop-down menu displays the
name of each group, unless the group assignment is graded individually. Evaluating group
assignments is the same process as individual students. You can mark up documents directly or
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 228

download them for feedback, enter grades and view the rubric, and post and view comments.
Learn more about grading group assignments.

If a submission is unable to be graded, the submission may be part of a moderated
assignment that was not added to a moderation set and does not accept submissions from
multiple graders. Learn how to view moderated assignments in SpeedGrader.

© Document created by Canvas Doc Team on Apr 14, 2015•Last modified by Canvas Doc Team on Apr 10, 2017
Version 25. Retrieved from https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-10075-415255021

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 229

Appendix K: Modules 1-5 Handout

The 10 Biggest Myths about Synchronous Online Teaching
Key Takeaways
• Reaching agreement on the convenience of online classes is easy, but arguing in favor of a
synchronous learning experience in a virtual classroom is harder.
• Debunking the top 10 myths about synchronous online teaching helps refute the arguments
against it, while the transformational nature of online teaching can convert skeptics into
supporters.
• With adequate support for their online efforts, would-be online educators can embark on their
own synchronous online teaching adventures — and fly!
Come to the edge.
We might fall.
Come to the edge.
It’s too high!
COME TO THE EDGE.
And they came
And he pushed
And they flew.
-- Christopher Logue

Roseanna DeMaria: Despite the obvious convenience of synchronous online courses, why take
the live, on-site, face-to-face experience online? Until I met Ted, an educational technologist in
the NYU SCPS Office of Distance Learning, I expected my first online graduate course in
International Human Resources Management to be my first and last online teaching experience.
Ted's support through that experience transformed my view. Ted is now my thinking partner and
chief online learning strategist. Our learning journey took us to unexpected places, and we felt
compelled to write this article on the top 10 myths about online teaching to address objections to
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 230

synchronous online courses. Here we share our journey and will, we hope, convince you to fly
with us and become an online educator.
Ted Bongiovanni: We view our work at the NYU SCPS Office of Distance Learning as a
collaboration with faculty to transform courses for online teaching. Though we offer a series of
workshops to prepare faculty, much of the transformational work takes place in conversations
and working sessions. Roseanna and I distilled our thoughts on the process in the article text but
also by recording a parallel conversation where we discuss each of the myths. You can download
the individual audio files for each section.
Myth 1: Online learning delivers an impersonal learning experience.
Many educators feel that an online classroom provides an impersonal and limited
learning experience, but this viewpoint can apply equally to the in-person classroom experience
if the educator is functional, expedient, and antiseptic in delivery.
Nonetheless, virtual engagement sounds oxymoronic. Yet, the virtual learning experience
has an intensity that can channel a very personal reaction. Students regularly say they rarely
participate in their real-world classes the way they do in the online space. They are more
confident writing texts and speaking, more willing to take risks in the comfort of their home, and
more willing to share personal and professional learning in their blogs because of the venue's
familiarity. Even the technological snafus seem to facilitate a pioneering spirit of "we are all in
this together."
Similarly, the speed of learning via voice and text chat promotes engagement. Team
projects in the virtual classroom include virtual breakout rooms, where students share a
whiteboard, texting, audio, and video. Students' virtual breakout room experiences cultivate a
concentrated team effort to connect ideas and think harder precisely because they are virtual.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 231

They describe a "high definition" learning experience that brings them closer as a learning
community. In their blogs they use words like "intimate" and "personal" to describe the
experience. This feedback reinforces the notion that the virtual classroom can support a high-
impact, personal, and deep learning experience.
Myth 2: They're texting each other, Googling, and Lord knows what else. It's impossible to
learn in that environment.

In a physical classroom, the instructor doesn't make a habit of inviting students to chat
with their neighbors or pass notes. These attractive nuisances interfere with the learning
experience because the students become distracted. The virtual classroom has no notes per se,
but it does have texts, chats, and other capabilities, which seem distracting. The synchronous
online classroom can transform these distractions into learning tools — encouraging text chat
and using the instant feedback from students accelerates learning. Figure 1 shows a synchronous
online classroom with student activity in progress.

Figure 1. The Live Online Classroom in Action
Most faculty did not grow up texting through life's everyday tasks, unlike Next Gen
students, who text both professional and personal messages while multitasking. The experienced
educator finds it hard to believe that texting during class can do anything but distract everyone
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 232

involved. After all, the educator is engaged in teaching and navigating the technology. To expect
the instructor to read incoming texts and react to them seems to ask the impossible. Yet, these
texts provide clear data points of learning happening in real time, which is invaluable when the
instructor can't see the audience. Texting also empowers students who are too shy to participate
in oral discussions, providing a safer, more controllable form of communication that also allows
developing the reluctant participant in new ways. While students could never talk all at once in a
discussion, online they can text in response to those who are talking and add value to the
discussion that the speakers can respond to. Ideas develop faster and deeper when the educator
manages this learning interaction. Mastering this skill enables instructors to react faster and
provide immediate feedback, which results in better learning.
Myth 3: My course is unique. I create a special environment and could not possibly do
online what I do in a real classroom.

Online courses offer many tools to the virtual classroom: blogs, discussion forums, wikis,
drop boxes, surveys, chat, and workgroup tools, to name a few. Technological issues inevitably
accompany each of these tools upon first exposure. Faculty have to understand how they work,
how to set them up, how to manage them — and why they are needed.
Considered individually, these tools are nothing more than technological platforms to deliver
content in one form or another. In that sense they become tactical ends in themselves, and it is
hard to see how they enhance the online learning experience. When considered strategically,
however, these tools become compelling learning engines that can both power and support
virtual classroom learning. Using them concurrently to develop complementary learning
"muscles" enhances their impact for better learning performance across the class. They must be
carefully architected in both content and quantity to succeed. For example, a discussion forum
can develop skills in advocacy, influence, and analysis. The forum's content should be designed
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 233

to build on the classroom discussion and blog exchanges, but without becoming redundant. The
strategic use of these tools requires substantial planning, design, and tweaking — before the
virtual classroom opens — to ensure that students learn.

Myth 4: Blogs are for navel gazing and gossip; they are not credible learning tools.

Course evaluation surveys at the end of the course are useful tools to measure instructor
performance. They ask students to provide feedback on specific topics, as filtered by the survey
questions. These surveys do not provide real-time feedback on the quantity and caliber of
learning happening in class, however. Blogs, when used as learning journals, can serve this
function. A weekly blog entry where the student must apply the week's learning to an existing
situation, integrate his or her prior knowledge, and then integrate the learning and applications
from week to week during the course provides powerful, real-time insight into the depth and
breadth of the student's learning experience and growth. Blogs also facilitate the educator's
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 234

ability to tailor the following weeks' classes to address gaps or extend the learning further based
on the blog's contents.
Certainly this learning journal model could serve the same purpose in the traditional
classroom. Because they are online, however, blogs offer a comfortable venue for millennial
students. Like texting, the blog encourages creativity. It offers a safe haven that fosters a level of
self-introspection and freedom that the written paper journal does not. Consequently, both the
learning and the real-time feedback can be more powerful in the online course.
Myth 5: Discussion forums are just another exercise in pushing a string.

The discussion forum is arguably the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of
online learning. The typical problems are getting students to participate, making sure the
comments are substantive, and staying on top of the discussion. When done correctly, discussion
forums provide a unique opportunity to expand the classroom learning in two ways:
1. A well-constructed forum discussion can set the stage and engage the students prior
to class. It provides an opportunity to deliver the initial foundational learning on a
particular case or topics that can jump-start the class's exploration of the subject
matter.
2. The discussion forum can be used after the class session to extend learning.
The discussion forum is not about the number of posts but about idea momentum, where
students obsess on ideas and check the forum for posts as obsessively as they e-mail or text.
Discussion forums can fuel a level of learning engagement that delivers learning well beyond the
perimeters of the classroom experience.
Myth 6: Online group projects are impossible because the "group" is scattered across the
Internet and questionable because one or two students can carry the group.

Admittedly, virtual group projects sound problematic, but like most aspects of the virtual
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 235

experience, what looks like a problem is actually a tool the instructor can use to improve the
learning experience. Precisely because students are scattered, the virtual breakout room takes on
extraordinary immediacy. When students enter a breakout room with a specific assignment
requiring them to report back to the entire class in a defined period of time, a sense of learning
urgency emerges. They must complete the assignment while navigating their virtual
relationships. The assignment and the breakout room venue become a crucible for their
development. In a very real sense the students live the learning because their careers in the global
business world will demand the same skills — solving a problem with a virtual team while under
time pressure. Accountability takes on a new role in this framework. The breakout room group
sessions can be archived, providing a performance audit trail. The transparency is obvious in the
written contributions of discussion forum posts and wikis. Similarly, the group presentations
highlight both participation and silence because of their virtual nature. In the team presentation,
virtual teams usually explain who did what and who will be presenting and why. An augmented
need for accountability in the virtual venue seems to drive this practice. The "virtuality" can
become an enabler when handled adeptly by the educator.
Myth 7: Technological problems will derail my teaching and undermine the student
learning experience.

Self-paced, video-illustrated tutorials and live faculty training sessions, while helpful, do
not fully prepare educators for times when the online classroom implodes because of a
technological malfunction. The tech failure disrupts learning and takes precious time away from
the session. Fortunately, online tools provide avenues for repairing the situation. For example,
the instructor can add a post-class discussion forum or blog to facilitate teaching content missed
during the interrupted class. In one instance, an online classroom locked several students out, and
the help desk was stumped. The locked-out students called their teammates in the classroom for
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 236

help. Collectively, the students in class conference called their colleagues in on their mobile
phones, so they could hear the session and participate by conference call. This solution was one
that even the help desk could not provide, but a determined, creative virtual team could. That
kind of agility thrives in the virtual space. Technological problems offer teachable moments that
can drive innovation and teamwork. They can even become action-learning tools.
Myth 8: You cannot convey passion online.

Dedicated educators have all enjoyed the moments when students become so engaged
and passionate about learning that no one wants the class to end. These moments demand
thoughtful preparation and hard work to successfully execute. The hunger for learning is fierce,
and the session is infused with passion. It is hard to believe that these moments can happen in the
virtual classroom — but they can, as the following example shows.
DeMaria: My course-operating model is based on the premise that I am the CEO of a
consulting firm that specializes in our course subject. My students are my direct reports.
In an attempt to foster a passionate learning experience, I begin each of my virtual classes with a
"shock and awe" boardroom roundtable in which I take a topic from our prior class session and
ask a question about it that requires students to apply the learning to a new concept. They must
answer thoughtfully in no more than three sentences. I am ruthless in demanding a quick, clear
answer, and I provide immediate feedback. Any "um," "like," or "I think" is immediately cut off.
In my online International Human Resources Management course, the students' nervousness was
palpable. The intensity around this experience grew with each week, and by the final weeks they
were executing well. They wrote about their application of the "shock and awe" learning
experience in their blogs. They described their accelerating heart rates and their excitement as
they met the challenge successfully. This set the tone for each class. They felt that the virtual
environment exacerbated the intensity of the exercise because they could never tell who I would
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 237

call on next, since they could not see any physical movement or eye contact like they would in a
physical classroom. They described the intensity of online learning as both passionate and
energizing. They are living proof that the virtual classroom can increase heart rates, create
performance pressure, and deliver passion.

Myth 9: The virtual classroom can and should be a literal translation of the real-world
classroom.
NOT! The virtual classroom provides new avenues for learning that require a teaching
delivery for that venue. This can be confusing because the online venue provides all the
traditional classroom communication tools — voice, video, and its own version of whiteboards,
flip charts, overheads, or slides. Simply using these well-established classroom tools to deliver
learning online limits instructors' options and ability to engage students. In fact, educators risk
becoming disembodied online voices presenting "stuff" — they need to use these tools
differently and exploit the virtual qualities of the learning experience. The virtual classroom
becomes a safer place for creative risk taking.
The clearest example occurs with the person-to-person visual experience online. The
instructor, captured by camera, appears in the confines of a screen, and eye contact with students
is not possible. The camera can be a source of discovery, however, enabling a more intense
connection. Consider starting an online class focusing on a diversity case study while wearing a
mask to initiate a discussion on cultural differences — this can create a powerful connection that
frames the session’s discussion. Since students can only see part of the instructor in the virtual
venue, if what they see is not what they expect, the surprise ignites engagement.
Myth 10: Faculty training focuses on technology tools and educational best practices.
Training faculty for online teaching is challenging, especially given their concern about
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 238

losing their classroom "mojo," or confidence. The fear of technological malfunction exacerbates
this concern. Naturally, there is a great temptation to train faculty on general pedagogical
practices and the online environment's tools, which translates the conventional classroom
teaching experience to the online venue. That is why it fails. Although both areas are tactically
important for online delivery, they do not address the mojo challenge. Effective faculty training
for the online learning experience must be mojo-centric to foster student engagement and deep
learning. This requires using the virtual nature of the learning experience to innovate a new
brand of educator mojo by exploiting the characteristics of the online venue.
Discovering a new mojo requires faculty openness to living the learning journey. There is
no substitute for the actual online classroom experience. Developing technological expertise in
operating the virtual classroom helps build confidence in this new venue, but it is not the
destination. Educators must experience the online classroom as both learner and instructor in a
real-time teaching environment that is relevant and immediate to their needs. The creation of a
learning museum for faculty to explore an online course shell and investigate the structure of the
course with student work embedded is essential. The availability of archived course sessions that
allow faculty to experience the course's virtual classroom in a simulation context is also valuable.
In addition, it helps to have faculty "attend" an online class where they can guest lecture and
react to students. Similarly, consider a mentoring approach where an experienced online educator
audits several sessions and brainstorms improvements with the instructor. Even holding optional
pre-course sessions for students to ask questions can enable educators to test drive their online
classroom before the course formally begins. Engaged, open, and relentless educators will find
their mojo, and then the innovation journey can begin!

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CURRICULUM 239

Final Thoughts
Enough said. Are you ready to take flight? What do you think of online teaching and
learning? Are you flying? Afraid to get on the plane? An enthusiastic world traveler? Sound off
in the comments. We're eager to continue the conversation online.

© 2010 Roseanna DeMaria and Ted Bongiovanni. The text of this article is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license.
Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/9/the-10-biggest-myths-about-synchronous-online-teaching

For additional resources - http://dissertationedd.usc.edu/
DSC contact information – rsoedsc@rossier.usc.edu or (213)740-8099

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Online programs have proliferated over the last decade. Evidence has shown that online courses and programs can be as effective as traditional on ground courses and programs

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Academic beliefs and behaviors in on-campus and online general education biology classes

PDF

Beliefs and behaviors of online and face-to-face students: evaluating differences in collaboration, help‐seeking, and ethics

PDF

Ensuring faculty success in effective online instruction

PDF

Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration

PDF

Completion in online learning: graduate students' perspectives

PDF

Integrating technology in teaching: beliefs and behaviors of practicing teachers from traditional and online teaching programs

PDF

The strategic application of instructional design principles for law enforcement training and education

PDF

Digital portfolios for learning and professional development: a faculty development curriculum

PDF

An online strategic career planning and leadership development curriculum for women in upper-division undergraduate and graduate programs

PDF

Strategies for inclusion of students with autism: an online professional learning curriculum for general education teachers

PDF

Learners’ perceptions of the microlearning format for the delivery of technical training: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors that facilitate or hinder staff performance during management turnover

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

PDF

Leadership readiness: evaluating the effectiveness for developing managers as coaches

PDF

Will school-based online faculty development be an effective tool for their professional growth?

PDF

A curriculum for higher education faculty to reimagine learning in a postpandemic world

PDF

Recruiting and hiring online learning teachers for online high schools

PDF

Adjunct faculty engagement at the community college: an exploration of work engagement and perceived motivational factors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

Asset Metadata

Creator Brower, Kimberly June (author)

Core Title Faculty development curriculum to facilitate discourse in the online space

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/24/2017

Defense Date 05/10/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag curriculum,discourse,faculty development,OAI-PMH Harvest,online

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Philadelphia, Marion (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email kbrower@usc.edu,kimberlyjbrower@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-413435

Unique identifier UC11214374

Identifier etd-BrowerKimb-5619.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-413435 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BrowerKimb-5619.pdf

Dmrecord 413435

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Brower, Kimberly June

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA